OK, Ron Paul, You Say You're Not a Racist, Prove It

Ron Paul and his backers can sail through the ceiling, scream foul until their lungs burst, and say that it's all a big conspiracy by mainstream media hit artists, a Paul hating and fearful political establishment, and on the make Republican and Democrats to smear and slander their hero as a racist. But the one that has done more to fan charges that Paul is a closet bigot is Paul himself in writings and sentiments that express racist views that purportedly carried Paul's stamp on them.

Paul is, of course, outraged every time those embarrassing newsletters written in the 1990s with racially front loaded inflammatory quips about and bash of blacks, and now as it turns out gays, keep publicly cropping up. They cropped up again recently on CNN. The Paul-attributed digs and insults call blacks chronic welfare grifters, thugs, lousy parents, say they are inherently racist toward whites, and supposedly admonished whites to get their guns because the animals are coming. Paul vehemently denies that he said any of those things.

But there's a colossal problem with his denial. The quips appeared in his officially approved newsletters. There is no evidence that he wrote a correction, issued a clarification, or if, as some Paul groupies claim, they were written by someone else, that he publicly disavowed and fired that someone else. Since Paul did none of those things it begs the question whether those views truly represent his feelings or not. He didn't disown them at the time. He loudly protests them now because he has to. He has revved up a motley group of disaffected, disgruntled, naïve, wet-behind-the-ear teenie boppers, and political malcontents who crave for someone, anyone, to snub their nose at the political establishment. But their mix of blind adulation and desperation translates out into more media and public scrutiny than Paul has ever gotten. And that in turn has meant that his past, or alleged past words, are now wide open for public dissection and accountability. That riles up Paul backers who go nuts over any hint that he is anything less than the second coming of St. Paul and Mother Theresa.

Even if Paul, as he claims, didn't write or utter one of the offensive words, or hold the sentiments, that are attributed to him, his odd mish mash of ultra conservatism and libertarian spoutings marks him as suspect. The cornerstone of the jumble is his view of government and what it should or should not do about civil rights. Paul holds that government should have minimal or better still no role in civil rights laws and enforcement. The government passed and enforced civil rights laws, did nothing to solve the country's racial ills, and worse, fueled even more racial polarization, he says. That old, worn, and thoroughly discredited view warms the hearts of the packs of closet bigots that pine for the old days when racial and gender discrimination was the American norm and government did little to protect black and gay rights.

Paul piles even more suspicion on his denial of racial bias when he even more absurdly tries to claim that he is pounded as a racist because more and more blacks cheer him for blasting the drug laws as biased and harmful to blacks. The disparities in drug law enforcement are gaping, and demand reform, but urging that they be totally scrapped is a far different matter.

The drug plague and the crime, violence, and family wreckage that has come with it has torn poor black communities and has caused much pain and suffering among African-Americans. The last thing that the majority of African-Americans want to see is open and unchecked illicit drug selling bizarres operating in their communities. Blacks have been among those that have shouted the loudest for crackdowns on crime and drugs.

Despite what Paul says, there is absolutely no evidence that he has gotten, or will get any traction, with black voters on the drug issue. He is a fringe candidate with white voters, and that includes GOP voters, and he is a complete non-entity with black voters.

The Paul newsletters are damning enough, and if any of the racist stuff in them is true, that instantly disqualifies him as fit to run for any national office. And those that defend those views should be branded as what they are, bigots and crackpots.

So here's my challenge to Paul to prove that he didn't say or mean any of the racial jibes in the newsletters. Issue a clear and direct public statement, and that's not an off the cuff denial in a CNN interview, or on any other broadcast network, that says I fully support all civil rights laws, will work hard against racial and gender profiling, and will push government economic support initiatives to boost minorities and the poor. That's the challenge for Paul. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to accept it.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February, 2008).

Comments

[robotsworld]

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment.

1/13/08
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

[montestruc]

Texas NAACP President States has known Ron Paul 20 years and that he is no racist.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

[NYCexile]

I don't ever remember ever having read one of your articles that did *not* have to do with race.

Who really is the racist here?

[ArcBlatt]

I am from Puerto Rico and my family is mixed in color. We are all one race. The HUMAN race! Don"t you find it odd that the people doing the "research" are all white? It is time that the African American community stops serving as pawns for people that don"t have their best interest in mind. I am sick and tired of people not discussing the real issues affecting this country.

[ArcBlatt]

The author needs to do better research. The NAACP already weighed in on this issue. Please visit http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_08_29_linder.mp3 to listen and finally put this matter to rest. If this matter had any validity, why have we heard nothing from Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Every single person that has crossed the line with the African American community has been reprimanded by the black community. Here is Ron Paul"s perspective on racism: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Ron Paul's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, his speeches and his own published writings reveal the whole Ron Paul. He's the only transparent straight-shooter in this race.

Ron Paul is a triple-threat to our present government apparatus, not because of his purported views on race but because of what he'll do to to shut down the corporatist/globalist takeover of this country:

He'd kill NAFTA.
He'd kill "Deep Integration" and the SSP
He'd kill the NAU.
He'd kill the police state.
He'd kill the National ID.
He'd fire Blackwater.
He'd bring our troops home.
He'd kick the foreign troops out of our country (yes we know they're here).
He'd repurpose the US concentration camps to something a little more benign, like a clinic or something.
He'd restore Habeus Corpus and Posse Comitatus
He'd quit with the warmongering and empire-building
He'd de-fund the bogus War on Drugs

I don't believe Ron Paul is a racist, and you know what? Given the above list Ron Paul would be good for our minority populations. Consequently I COULDN'T GIVE A SH*T IF HE WROTE THOSE NEWSLETTERS.

NONE of the other candidates commit to any of the things on the above list. To me this means EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE, including the bought-and-paid-for Obama, is a part of the problem, not the solution.

We're in DEEP SH*T right now, and fussing about something that Ron Paul may or may not have written 15 years ago makes the fusser a part of the problem.

How? By distracting caring people from what's really going to harm minority populations: MORE wars. Our military is disproportionately culled from the poor and minority communities. The neocons are eyeing oil rich Africa. And what about the Muslims? They're minorities too, duh. And then there is the police state here at home, I'm sure our poor and minority communities are just LOVING our police state. NOT.

DO THE MATH. Minorities worldwide would be better off with Ron Paul as our President.

[robotsworld]

OK OK. I can't prove Ron Paul isn't a racist BUT HOW ABOUT THIS

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI

[Tankan]

An allegation is not proven proof!

It behoves Ron Paul's accuser to prove his allegations, or, withdraw them!

[WilliePilgrim]

This reminds me of the Ghandi quote "first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they attack you...then you win." We could see the first two phases have come and more or less gone (though the look on McCain's drooling and simpering face at the last GOP "debate" shows he's a little on the slow side. Let's hope we live to see him laugh out of the other side of his cake hole one day soon.)
So now the attach machine is coming into position as they lob duds and short fuses at Ron Paul, missing their mark and doing damage to themselves.
There is nothing that makes me like Ron Paul more nor gives me greater hope that his issues will become part of the national discussion, than considering the quality of the attacks against him.

[Coulro]

You wrote, that to prove he's not a racist, Paul must "push government economic support initiatives to boost minorities."
Opposing the use of public funds to support specific collectives doesn't make one a racist, any more than advocating such use proves one is not a racist.

[jsmithson]

To assume that to hold a set of political views exempts one from examination regarding racism or sexism is a sign of blind ideological thinking.

This is not the American way.

One always has to take responsiblity for one's own actions.

As feminists used to say - the personal is political.

Libertarianism appears to be an ideology about Individuals (with an upper-case "I"), not individuals.

[shedmyskin]

Instead of building straw men attacks on Ron Paul why don't you investigate why all the major candidates are part of the CFR, what the CFR is about. Explain how a number of "conservative" republicans are members of a group that has a large number of members who openly talk about a north american union and global world government. Why don't we hold the other candidates responsible for the anti american think tank groups they belong to.

[Talcott]

Earl you could learn a thing or two from this cat....http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=getonid

An honest educated intelligent blackman supports Ron Paul for President.

[Pyrum]

If we're going to complain about republicans being racist, why don't we pick on the ones who've uttered racist remarks directly from their mouths?:

John McCain: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

Mitt Romney: "The best thing for me to do politically is stay away from the Big Dig -- just get as far away from that tar baby as I possibly can." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/31/romney_apologizes_for_use_of_expression/

And let's not forget the democrats:

Hillary Clinton: Sen. Hillary Clinton drew criticism Tuesday for a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech in which she told a mostly black audience at a Harlem church that Republican leaders have run the House "like a plantation" and the Bush administration will go down as "one of the worst" in U.S. history.http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html
Also, speaking about Gandhi: "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis." http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2004_01/ind_002924.html

John Edwards is probably the worst of all: "We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating " pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America," he said. "They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58053

No direct quotes, but let's not forget...

Rudy Giuliani: Lowered crime in New York City by allowingpolice officers to oppress black and Latino New Yorkers with brute force: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/237371/rudy_giuliani_crime_and_racism.html

[LeoMarvin]

If an article appeared under Ron Paul's name arguing for higher taxes, confiscation of handguns and putting US soldiers under UN command, how many hours would it take for Paul to fire the author, kill off the newsletter, and issue a manifesto disposing of even the slightest doubt that he could have sympathized at all with such rogue views?

Now ask yourself why the response in this case was so different.