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

[blackwell98]

Blog thats worth reading. The truth of all these allegations is going to come out eventually.

http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html
"Not only am I outspoken about my heritage, I don’t work for racists and I would never have worked on Ron Paul’s staff if I had any suspicion whatsoever that he was "racist." And I wasn't the only staff member of "mixed race." There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me? Was it some kind of elaborate, clever cover? No. The reason he did not care about our race is because he is a libertarian who sees people as individuals, not members of groups, racial or otherwise."

[HereticHulk]

Earl, you cannot prove a negative.

This is a 'breaking news' story that has been around for 15 years. He is a 10x elected congressman. Don't you think his district in Texas would have been aware of this?

This is yellow journalism and sad attempt as a Hit Piece.

[logicanada]

you say he is a racist.
Prove it.

[Objective1]

I admit he (RP) should take a harder stance on these letters and state his true beliefs. That being said, his #1 priority is individual liberty. Nothing could be less racist.

[Mutex]

Why would Ron Paul speak out about all kinds of unpopular things the mainstream media labels as crazy, and even dangerous, but lie about this???

You don't have to agree with everything Ron Paul says (I don't) but you have to admit this guy is honest...

perhaps too honest to get elected President in this country!

[WorkingClass]

OK Earl. Paul can deny that he is a racist but he cant prove it. That's all we need to know about him. There cant be any good in him. But Paul is small potatoes. The real question is, IS JOHN EDWARDS A RACIST? Lawrence O'Donnell has this to say right here on HuffPo.

"If John Edwards stays in the race, he might, in the end, become nothing other than the Southern white man who stood in the way of the black man. And for that, he would deserve a lifetime of liberal condemnation".

You are the expert on racism Earl. Can John Edwards prove he is not a racist? If not, does he deserve "a LIFETIME of liberal condemnation"? I have sent a copy of the O'Donnell piece to the Obama campaign asking if they perceive Edwards to be a racist. What do you think?

[LeoMarvin]

TO RON PAUL'S LIBERTARIAN SUPPORTERS:

Here are two dozen libertarian professors, theorists and bloggers expressing a range of criticism of Paul's racial history and the detrimental effect they think he's having on libertarianism:

http://sandefur.typepad.com/freespace/2008/01/the-libertarian.html

[frisconickel]

Dear Earl
Here's my challenge to you. Find 1 piece of legislation HE wrote, 1 speech in which HE spoke, 1 person who HE has besmurched in the way you claim, 1 bill HE supported that shows he's a bigot and/or racist. FIND 1.
If you do, I'll gladly thank you. If you don't, go away. You should have found 1 BEFORE you wrote such a rant.

[peskyliberal]

Earl, if you are calling at Paul; you have do the same for the Clinton Campaign.


only if you want to be fair.

[bzee]

"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."

So all Ron Paul has to do is be for the civil rights laws he is against for non racial reasons, and give as much welfare handouts as possible, which he is also against. So to make you happy he has to become like every other politician and be willing to sacrifice any shred of principles to please people like you? Find another candidate to support bud, cause it aint gonna happen.

All he can do is try to tell his side of the story, and apologize and if you dont accept it, then you dont accept it. Not to mention an economy run by Paul would be much more helpful to the poor than shoving more government handouts their way, but I'm sure democrats/socialism lite, promoters would disagree./ Or how helpful getting rid of the war on drugs would be.

[TTigerX2]

Which racist comments were you referring to? The one where Ron Paul said that the Civil War should not have been fought? Or that he refuses to join in the collectivist narrative that affirms black Americansafrican Americans are a single-minded group of people. Maybe we should ask Al Sharpton to decide the issue for some 35 million black Americans.

[timd93401]

There are two main absurdities in this article. First, in Logic 101 you cannot prove a negative. Anyone that has had a entry level class on logic knows this fact. Second, the criteria that you use for racism does not hold up against the dictionary definition of racism. So anyone does not believe that government is the solution is a racist? So being a libertarian I am racist?
On practical point, so which neo-con should I vote for instead of Dr. Paul who reflects my views? My views on foreign policy, my views on sound money, Dr. Paul represents. I can't see how this could influence ones opinion of Dr. Paul that has done much research. We have to keep in mind that it was a newsletter, not the New York Times, not the Wall Street Journal. Look at the issues that he is running on, not 15+ year old newsletter that there is no evidence that he has held those opinions!!!

[WideStanceMan]

"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."

Why make a challenge without following it up by saying that you're going to request an interview with Paul to clear these questions up?

Earl, you're a journalist, right? So why don't you simply request a one-on-one interview with Ron Paul and let him answer these questions directly to you? I'm sure he would have no problem explaining his positions on Civil Rights to you. I say go straight to the source.

[jsmithson]

As Mr. Hutchinson stated,"The disparities in drug law enforcement are gaping, and demand reform, but urging that they be totally scrapped is a far different matter." I couldn't agree more. In fact the "theoretical" side of the Ron Paul campaign are the ideas of Rothbard, who is for the privatization of the police. Please see the links below from Rockwell/Rothbard:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard146.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson25.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard160.html

Private police - sounds a lot like the KKK.

[kipload]

BREAKING: Proof Paul is a closet racist!

http://www.ronpaulwarroom.com/?p=1203