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

[Talcott]

"than the second coming of St. Paul and Mother Theresa.".­...lmao why don't you prove that is true ? Hyperbole and emotive rhetoric is a weak form of argumentation. What about a former employee's take.....

There is now underway a full-blown smear campaign to paint Ron Paul as a racist. First, there was the lame attempt at guilt by association, with a mere campaign contribution by some red neck racist being touted as “proof” that Ron Paul is racist. And then there were equally stupid Kevin Baconesque degrees of separation attempts to connect Ron with various so-called “hate groups.”

Now the muckrakers are dredging up ancient, obscure newsletters written by some equally obscure ghost writing employee(s) of Dr. Paul’s way back in the early 1990’s. This only tells me that Ron Paul is a real threat to the political establishment, and they are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the Ron Paul Revolution.

I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. I am of Hispanic decent, and quite proud of it. My family on my mother’s side were migrant farm workers and my Great-Grandfather even rode with Pancho Villa. I am also part American-Indian. That heritage not only makes it rather difficult for anyone to smear me as somehow being a white racist (which is good for me if I am ever foolish enough to run for office), but also cuts against Ron Paul's supposed "ties" with white supremacists and this latest smear campaign based on what some employee of his wrote fifteen years ago."
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

[Ryerson]

I'm a very progressive-minded guy & I think Ron Paul is good for the political process. He is truly conservative on fiscal policy matters. I may disagree with his views, but I wish this was as "crackpot" as the right wing got.

Why does the media continue to label Paul and/or his supporters as "crackpots"

This is the only man up there questioning the validity of status quo foreign policies, and we're suppose to believe that he is the crackpot - GIVE ME A BREAK! Ron Paul makes the most sense from a conservative point of view.

Like I said, I'm on the progressives side, would never lend support to a conservative. But I can respect this guy, at least. I can't say the same for Rudy, Mitt or Huckabee - or even Clinton and Obama (who are all dressing for the occasion ). Fake fake fake!

[revenant]

Mr. Hutchinson, this is truly sad...
"OK Ron Paul, you say you're not a racist- prove it"?

Guilty until proven innocent? The sad thing about smears and hearsay is that the damage to a person's name and/or reputation is done even if the victim is vindicated.

[huffnpuffn]

Issue a clear and direct public statement -

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

I fully support all civil rights laws -

I don't expect him to do this if it restricts liberty. In his Meet The Press interview he touched on this subject. Racists with lunch counters for whites only have a right to their property and their racist views. Forcing them to take all comers doesn't end racism. Letting the market drive these small minded people out of business may be a better solution. Thinking that government solutions to the problems of racism are not necessarily effective or ideal doesn't make him or anyone a racist.

will work hard against racial and gender profiling -

I think that devolves plainly from people having rights because they are individuals, not because they are a member of any particular collective. I expect Ron Paul would get behind that.

will push government economic support initiatives to boost minorities and the poor -

He won't do this because he doesn't believe the government should be targeting minorities for anything. Furthermore, the war on poverty has been about as successful as the war on drugs.

Repeat after me: Libertarian does not equal racist. You are setting up false dichotomies. If he fails to meet your challenge, it does not mean he is a racist. He isn't interested in pandering to different races or ethnic groups so much as sticking to his principles. The government does not have a solution to every facet of racial inequality, racial prejudice and racism.

[cognate]

Not automatically signing up for all so-called civil rights legislation does not make one a racist. There are legitimate arguments that some of this legislation is harmful to many, including those it purportedly helps.

Your asking Ron Paul to declare he supports ALL civil rights legislation to prove he is not a racist is blackmail.

[montestruc]

Ok Earl, put yourself in his shoes for a minute and make the assumption that he is telling the truth.

He was a congressman and a working doctor and some political associates wanted to run relatively low circulation newsletter using his name as part of a fund raising project for his political campaigns, which he apparently did not read much if at all. Note a working doctor delivering babies and seeing patients (and giving service for free to many rather than take Medicare or other Medicaid as he felt it immoral) and a congressman, a very BUSY man get it? Years later, someone drags up cherry picked comments out of years of these newsletters as part of a political campaign for congress against him.

What EXACTLY are you faulting him for?

A) Trusting people to know better than to write such trash under his name? (Have you never had a person you thought you knew and thought you could trust, turn out to have some pretty ugly opinions, and maybe betray you?)

B) Putting the lives of his patients, or perhaps having some semblance of a family life, over taking the time to proofread all the stuff put out by these low circulation newsletters?

What exactly?

What I think is possible is that Earl sees a way to do a character assassination of someone he politically disagrees with, and does not want to actually think about the ISSUES Dr. Paul raises. AKA an ad homonym argument, attack the man, not his ideas, since dare I say it your ideas and ideals are to weak to stand up to his.
What you do for a living is “political analyst and social issues commentator, and the author” a writer in other words. Perhaps you do not understand that some people actually are busy much of the time doing work that must be done in a timely manner. I tend to doubt that you have been called to work at 3AM unexpectedly where the consequence for not doing the work is that a mother and child might die. Point taken?

[oldpotsmuggler]

Sit in any modern American prison, or better, as many of them as I have, and you'll see that the majority of the residents are not anglo, that most of them have some drug connection to their offense of conviction, and that the vast majority would never have needed to do time, even the ones not on a traditional drug case, if drugs were legalized. Nothing would clean up all of our neighborhoods faster than this, and you can't come up with a single factually accurate argument that the net result of full legalization would be harm instead of benefit.

Addictive personality types and compulsives will harm themselves with alcohol, cough syrup, toluene, etc. if there were some way to get rid of all of the things that you think should not be openly made available through traditional outleting. (My wife has seen people walk into the Walmart she works out, take a bottle of scope into the bathrood, drink it, and have to be carried out.) And were these things made available some number of people will undoubtedly hurt themselves using.

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.

We're not stupid in doing what we do with The Drug War, we're insane.