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

[cynara]

Glad to see a column dedicated to something besides bashing people who do not support Hillary Clinton for president.

[Hollyse]

How come you now know or even utter the name Ron Paul?

[RossalGondamer]

Is Paul a closet racist? Could be. Was he associated with questionable comments and views, it seems so. Without clarification should he become President – IMO NO – and I am a supporter.

However are you seriously suggesting that America under Paul (or another future Constitutionalist) will revert to segregated lunch counters? Or that a modern practices which might excluded gays, peoples of any color, opposing faiths, or those seeking a medical procedure, would not be critically addressed by your fellow Americans? Have you so little faith that we will sit by motionless and in silence as your Rights are clearly being violated?

If it seems to you that Ron Paul’s statements and associations are in contradiction – then and now, then he’s at worst a political crap shoot.

If you feel that Ron Paul’s statements and association are consistent – then you may be either overly jaded or optimistic.

The issue here it seems is not so much the level’s of a man's heart - don’t like/trust Paul then don’t vote for him – but don’t ever associate those who do with racism, which is where it seems your articles about him may be treading!

[George Washington]

"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."

It is a far different matter.

All the other politicians say it's wrong to lock up a white man for ten years and a black man for twenty years both for possessing property.

Ron Paul says it is just plain wrong to lock up a man, regardless of race, for possessing property. He defends the rights and liberty, life, and property of all regardless of race.

The author and the politicians other than Paul all want to keep locking up Americans, including black men, for owning or selling or buying or transporting property. They want the police to shock, beat, arrest, and use military like tactics including SWAT teams to brutally attack people for owning property. They want this property to be stolen, and the owner locked up as though he was a criminal.

Ron Paul supports NOT treating people, including blacks, as criminals for owning property. Who really gives a damn about the black people in this country? The politicians who want to lock them up longer than white folks? The politicians who want to lock them up just as long as white folks? Or the one and only person who doesn't want to lock them up at all?

[TotalInformation]

So the only Dr Paul can prove he is not a racist is by voting to give a bunch of tax money to certain races?

That is a racist policy, Mr. Hutchinson. You have outed yourself as a racist.

[Pyrum]

Are you saying blacks in general are in favor of tough laws against non-violent drug offenders? There are currently violent criminals being let out of prison to make room for non-violent drug offenders! How does that help anyone's community?

[em8chel]

Ron Paul wrote in his press release:

"I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

Instead of blatant venom of racism and homophobia, those are just "small-minded thoughts"?

Hmm.

Perhaps Ron Paul is taking this a little bit too nonchalant? Saying "I didn't do it nobody saw me do it you can't prove anything" is asking the public to just have faith in him, and his friends, and his voters. Well I don't go to church and I don't just take anyone for their word.

Maybe he didn't write it. Maybe it was so long ago. Maybe he never read his own newsletters.

But if Christians could identify God as the author of a book written some thousands years ago, couldn't he try a little bit harder to find who penned those articles to clear his own name?

Instead of just calling racism and homophobia etc. "small-minded thoughts".

[S1m0n]

Pual has issued a non-denial denial. He confirms that the quotes, are genuine, and that he was not only writing for the publications, but his name was on the masthead at the time.

His denial consists of "I should have known better" and "I should have been more careful". Neither of these is in the slightest bit compelling. Not only is Ron Paul is exactly what he appears to be, but he also must take Americans for fools.

[1will]

So the only way Ron Paul can prove he's not racist is to pander to the black community in every possible?

[nihilon x]

I don't believe that supporting free speech inherently makes one a racist, but there is no excuse for allowing newsletters that advocate racism and homophobia to be published in your name. Even if Paul himself is not a racist, it was poor judgment on his part to allow these letters to be published, and it is only fair that he now deal with the consequences of these actions.

[runswithscissors]

"To offset that however is the fact that money is the glue that holds gangs together and there would be no substitute source for same if illegal drugs sales were to become a thing of the past. We would immediately and unarguably experience such a crime shortage that there would be a huge economic dislocation, taking a vast fortune out of a system that uses it only to harm ourselves.­"

No shortage of crime, just a different type. Most dealers push drugs just to get by; it's not the glamourous lifestyle that Hollywood tries to make it out to be. Take that income away and we get more armed robbery, theft, pickpocketing, etc. Despite this I agree with you that legalization would be beneficial in the long term, but a large number of jobs (that pay enough to support a family) would need to be created.

[Pdubya]

there were 8 newsletters going out in his name at the time between office when he was practicing medicine (to the poor and minorities for free, mind you).

i'm in 3 meetup groups that have plenty of minority members

and i'll be sure to save this news article for 20 years. thing is, did you write it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=7ji_Ft23­BDw&featur­e=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJ9ZITd2rs

[jazzman]

I'm withholding judgment about Ron Paul on these matters. Interestingly, I have heard many who knew him back in the 90's claim that these reports don't sound like him and never surfaced before even though Ron Paul has been a congressman from Texas for years. The report was uncovered by the New Republic; that alone makes me suspicious and we went through the Niger forgeries and the swift boating episodes so we know what covert political operatives can do if they get ahold of or create a replica of a newsletter heading.

I'm a Democrat, Obama is my man, but from what I can see here the dirty tricks squad from the Republican right might be out in full force attempting to get rid of the annoying libertarian who keeps showing up at their Republican hate fests (called the Republican debates) and interjecting a little sanity.

[Talcott]

Dr. Paul want's to end the drug war which dispraportionately imprison's minority's and the poor....yu­p sounds racist to me...lmao.

http://freeatlast2008.com/

[Malakkar]

Unfortunately, Earl Ofari Hutchinson makes the same mistaken assumptions that ONDCP, and overall drug prohibition strategies make:

If decriminalized and regulated, there will not be open-air markets, there will not be all of the crime, violence and family wreckage that are primarily the output of our POLICIES, not of the chemicals themselves.

Black markets create violence. Black markets create crime. Chemicals can lead to family wreckage, but prison is hardly a solution - prison creates family wreckage as well.

We need viable solutions, not just another humpty-dumpty call for more law enforcement, which has never shown success, and in my opinion, never will.