1) If I believed the pundits, than I guess the Clintons got all racist on Obama's ass today, too! But even Obama wasn't buying it.
Anyway, I'll go slow, so even a hatemonger liberal can understand. See, there are two schools of thought on why there are so many black men, especially young black men, behind bars. One school says that they're unfairly targeted by "the system," cannot afford good counsel and more often sent to prison than young white men. The other school believes that more young black men are in jail because they, in fact, commit more crime. Studies to this point have been split and inconclusive IMO. (I'm convinced that it's more a poverty than race issue.) Apparently Paul is of the latter school of thought. You have shown no data to the contrary.
Paul is no anti-Semite either. He simply questions the relationship that the U.S. has with Israel, just as anyone who finds out how much money we send them each and every year! There is actually a right-wing, religious, neo-con reason why we support them!!! Paul takes the Washingtonian / Jeffersonian view of our relationship with other countries: fair trade and friendly to all, entangling alliances with none. We're not funneling massive money to Iran and Syria, but that doesn't make us an anti-Muslim country either.
Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier
The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd ball racial views. It's not that he polls in single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to get the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound just as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he will wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip zingers even if ABC and Fox recants in a moment of compassion and dumps him back in a seat in their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire presidential debate.
The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head to defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true when it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics. That's not a small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race and ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo and court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections the linchpins of their campaigns.
Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They duck, dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their racial blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one better. In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to fan terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and religious stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any one in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist.
Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, he was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a war-- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave revolt there.
Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to spout his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and said stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights this as "Issue: Racism" on the site. "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.
Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. Whew!! The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the unreconstructed George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and Citizens Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They railed for decades against the federal government's lift of even the tiniest finger to protect black rights and lives. Their stock line was that race relations can only change when hearts change. If we waited for that to happen the "whites only" signs would still be dangling prominently from every toilet and school house door in the South.
Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. This marks him as a type A American political quirk.
Now there's the fourth reason not to laugh at Paul. And this is really what makes him scary. There are apparently millions that don't see a darn thing wrong with any of this and pillory anyone who does. They are even scarier than him. Maybe ABC and Fox should let Paul crash the New Hampshire debate. It's always good to see an extremist publicly confirm just how scary he and those that cheer him on really are.
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, 2007).
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
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
As a twenty-something white male, it is very sad to see someone living so completely in the past. It is exactly this never-ending obsession with race that continues to put African-Americans in a completely different category than the rest of America. It is this undying and completely false belief that our government actually helps blacks (by incarcerating them at hugely disproportional rates, making them dependent, etc.) that continues to hold them back.
Mr. Hutchinson, you are the sad relic of a time that has come and gone. Your reactionary views belong back in the 20th century (where they came from) and not our century. The world belongs to us now, and we will do far better than what you and your ilk have done.
Why would you want to join the legion of pundits piling on Ron Paul. Have you spent any time reading or listening to Paul's own words? Racism is a serious accusation in this country. Don't you think you should be careful where you apply it?
If Ron Paul opposes affirmative action does that make him a racist? If he criticizes Israel will you say he is anti-semitic?
Ron Paul is a Jeffersonian. Don't the Democrats claim Jefferson as their founder? Jefferson took pains to limit government so that citizens could enjoy the benefits of freedom. There is nothing scary about an American politician who believes in the rule of law and believes the constitution is the law of the land.
If you must criticize Paul please do so thoughtfuly. Just saying he is scary or racist is to easy.
Earl, you obviously support Bush's imperialistic policies as well as the war on Drugs. People like you mean death and destruction to black Americans. You don't impress me slandering Ron Paul. Go ahead and be the Uncle Tom creature that you are!!
Get your mind out of that small box and look at the big picture.
If Paul were racist,do you think he would survive very long - in this country just chock full of non-Whites? If he was so racist,this would come out in some fashion(I'm thinking reporter question or some FOX news report),and he would go down like the Hindenburg.All you fire-breathers who are posting that Paul's racist-relax.His views will be exposed,and he'll be out of the race.
What's REALLY scary is how the MSM has steadfastedly refused to explore the murky,sinister Bush Family History from George Jr. to Prescott and a little beyond-and how it appears that Bush will get away with his Crimes Against Humanity because most Democrats took impeachment "off the table".
I propose that Americans be allowed a "do-over" if they elect a President and then they suck-or lie to us to get us to go along with pre-existing plans for invasion.No more waiting four years...perp-walk that bum out of there...!
Earl,
Dr. Paul's election would be a net benefit for African Americans.
1) He is against the War on Drugs - an important factor from which many African American families are suffering due to needless incarceration for what is essentially a victimless crime.
2) He is against the death penalty on a federal level.
3) He will stop the war and get our soldiers out of harms way, many of whom are African American.
Ultimately, Dr. Paul will benefit the country by helping to rescue it from bankruptcy, which, when it happens, will disproportionately affect the poorer elements in our society, as does the hidden inflation that is being engendered by the Fed printing money to fund both Empire and Entitlements.
Guilt by association and contribution is really a shoddy and hopeless manner of arguing a case. With regard to arguments about whether the Civil War could have been avoided - let's leave that to the historians.
I do honestly believe that you're wrong on Dr. Paul. I believe you should listen more to his interviews, with Newsweek, with Stossel, and with the Nashua Telegraph editorial board to get a true sense of the man. After listening to perhaps 20 hours of various interview with him, I couldn't find evidence of a racist bone in his body.
Whats scary is how unhinged Hutchinson is about Ron Paul. Talk about projection...
Here's one other little piece of information all you Democratic "Progressives" might find disconcerting: Every Democrat running for President is pro-death penalty.
Ron Paul has a record of being adamantly AGAINST the death penalty.
I'm beginning to see why so many Democrats' panties/boxers are in a bunch over Ron Paul. Between wanting the U.S. to stop all its imperialistic war mongering (supported by Democrats), being against The War on Drugs (supported by Democrats), being for the states' voters deciding whether or not sick patients can use marijuana as medicine without federal interference (opposed by Democrats), and being against all the legislation that has done more to strip away our civil rights than any in history (supported by Democrats), I can see why.
It hurts to wake up and realize the best American running for POTUS who truly respects the Constitution and civil rights just happens to be a....gasp!!! Republican!!
This is, tragically and perversely, one difference between theocracy and democracy. Racist voters are real. You can't (in a democracy) just tell voters they're wrong; you have to enlighten them as to why racism is destructive, expensive, and retarded. Otherwise they will vote for a racist politician and unfortunately be technically within their rights to do so.
"Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. This marks him as a type A American political quirk."
He may be a political quirk in this day and age but that may be only because the left has done such a good job of brainwashing the populace into thinking that only government has the solutions to just about everything. I can spend hours listing government screwups and wastefulness.
Fact of the matter is, if you look at the history, race relations were already improving in the 40's and 50's before it was made a political issue in government. Also, such measures as black umemployement had dropped by half in the early 1960's as compared to the 1930's. No government meddling in that drop. Times were still tough for blacks but they were improving before government mandates took hold.
Hell, It was grass roots citizens such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, not government who raised awarness of racial issues in the 60's. Government really did nothing but react politically when the uproar became high enough.
I think Ron is spot on. We as a society need to rethink the role of government in light of how effective it has actually been. What Ron and many other libertarians are pointing out is that the common wisdom about the effectiveness of government is very qeustionable upon close inspection. Just because it is not considered status quo thinking does not make it wrong.
Newsflash Mr. Hutchinson: ABC has decided to include Ron Paul in their upcoming debate because he met their threshhold (unlike Giuliani who will be included anyway).
Now if we can just get FOX to include him we'll be on our way to a BIG win in New Hampshire with the only candidate running who is putting ALL the Democrats' votes and positions to SHAME!! Ron Paul!! Oh, BTW, I'm a Democrat of 40 years who just switched my registration so I can vote for Ron Paul in the Feb. 5th California primary.
Motto of New Hampshire? "LIVE FREE OR DIE"
Which SHOULD be the motto of EVERY state!!!
GO RON PAUL - 2008!
"Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. This marks him as a type A American political quirk."
He may be a political quirk in this day and age but that may be only because the left has done such a good job of brainwashing the populace into thinking that only government has the solutions to just about everything. I can spend hours listing government screwups and wastefulness.
Fact of the matter is, if you look at the history, race relations were already improving in the 40's and 50's before it was made a political issue in government. Also, such measures as black umemployement had dropped by half in the early 1960's as compared to the 1930's. No government meddling in that drop. Times were still tough for blacks but they were improving before government mandates took hold.
Hell, It was grass roots citizens such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, not government who raised awarness of racial issues. Government really did nothing but react politically when the uproar became high enough.
I think Ron is spot on. We as a society need to rethink the role of government in light of how effective it has actually been. What Ron and many other libertarians are pointing out is that the common wisdom about the effectiveness of government is very qeustionable upon close inspection. Just because it is not considered status quo thinking does not make it wrong.
Why This Black Man is Supporting Ron Paul
A perspective on why Ron Paul is good for Black people and all people in America, and deserves your vote in 2008.
by Adeeb Shabazz
(Libertarian)
I get the question all the time: "are you supporting Hillary or Obama?" Of course this question comes from people that don't really know this Black Libertarian who has never voted Democratic in his life. When I answer "neither" they usually look puzzled and then ask in wonderment, "well who are you going to vote for then?" When "Ron Paul" is my response, I get varied responses, but the most common is a blank stare, a "Ron Who?" response, or the big question: "Why?".
Remaining 9/10ths to be found at
http://www.nolanchart.com/article936.html
You want Scary? I just got forwarded (don't ask where from) a blast e-mail touting Ron Paul as a great American. The author? Neo-nazi Lew Rockwell, that's who.
If the Nazis are behind Ron Paul, and he does not repudiate them? He really is going senile... and that's being charitable.
Guess I'm a Whacko, but judging by today's standards, the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would be considered crazy also. As a Paul supporter I consider it an honor to be classified as such.
"Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." Well crap, if you read Lao Tzu you'll get a better understanding of why this makes sense. Education eases bigotry. Humans, being social animals means you cannot happily legislate bigotry away.
"The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." --Lao Tzu
I'm sure the fact that both Obama and Clinton have publicly stated that military options on "on the table" make them viable "Anti-War Candidates." So, how's the war against drugs and terror going? How effective have the Democrats been concerning Iraq? Does it not matter the personal wealth of Clinton, Edward's and Obama is 20 times more than the average American?
"There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist." Proven false and the story was retracted. You really should read more often. Let's look into Clintons history of accepting illegal campaign contributions. How about Obama using his office to campaign (google it).
Let's just keep business as usual as more U.S. soldiers and Iraqi's are slaughtered to appease a black man who uses racism to justify his position against Paul's "racism." I agree with Stanley comments "Framing every issue based on race and putting every candidate through a prism of only how they address issues from a racial view is racist by definition."
Apparently Obama's ambiguous platform and views is enough to satisfy the author.
As to affirmative action: If you saw a man holding another man's head under water, would you try to lift up the drowning man without first pulling his attacker off his back? Of course not, the attacker would only push his victim's head back under. If minorities weren't being held down, they could lift their own heads above water.
You either believe that all people are equally capable, or you do not. I believe that they are. The solution to discrimination, therefore, is not to give minorities an unneeded boost, but to punish those who discriminate. This is where the libertarian philosophy gets it right.
Affirmative action is a band-aid measure. It approaches the crime of discrimination from the wrong end and does nothing, ultimately, to stop it. You cannot legislate morality. What you can and should do is uphold the rights of any individual who is oppressed, by punishing his oppressor.
People are afraid to be responsible for themselves in America. We're so used to being looked after and being taken care of by big government. We can't go anywhere without our thumbs in our mouths and security blanket firmly in hand. Take care of me! It's my "right" to be taken care of! Thats what makes Candidates like Ron Paul so scary to people like Hutchinson. He's not a racist, so you can cut the total BS of that one. because we have a candidate thats asking people to do more for themselves,put their fate in their own hands and be RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF. Yes it's a scary concept if you've never done it before. Check your balls and welcome to the FREE world.
What it all boils down too is the FACT that he and all his little followers have their right to think what they want, say what they want and vote how they want. All other arguments are just flame spray opinions and half-truths meant to enflame and cause drama and/or controversy.
Once we learn to respect the rights of all to openly voice their opinion, then maybe we'll be able to have an intelligent debate on why or wny not we agree with Ron Paul.
My personal opinion is that although I don't care for Ron Paul and his WoW zerging spambot idiots, I would rather see him as Prez than Hillary or McCain...
Hey, something we both agree on!
Paulheads are mostly people who don't look past Paul's message. They're the same people that subconsciously think a politician is summed up by the pitch, and not the substance...they're looking for substance in the pitch, when in reality, the sales pitch is nothing more than a summation of the platform. In Paul's case, he pitches his great respect for the constitution. In debates, he stands out because he is the only Republican that is demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
The types of people who follow Ron Paul are the kinds that believe his pitch about his respect for the Constitution, and the folks that think the Democrats can't be trusted because they couldn't get Bush to agree to a troop withdrawal, so they think that Paul would do so.
But Ron Paul, behind the pitch, is about as nuts as it gets. He lectured at the John Birch Society, he's willingly and knowingly taken donations from white hate groups that advocate violence and "race war", and he's even on the record as having written extremely bigoted comments in his little periodical he put out back in the early 90's. On top of that, you don't like your job outsourced? Too bad. He's a libertarian/neoconservative, whom are all about no trade protection, which equals your job going overseas. You don't like the dollar being devalued? Too bad. Paul wants the country to get back on the gold standard. Which means, of course, we all go bankrupt unless we possess some element that someone at some point deemed "valuable". (If only oak leaves were "valuable"...) You enjoy walking your dog through the city park? Too bad. He wants those to be owned by business, which means if the business decides to tear it all up and put a strip mall there, then you've got to walk your dog along the street, or drive out of town. You like not having to pay for roads, firemen, police? Too bad. And there's plenty more where that came from.
I really don't see any of Paul's actions or words being racist (with the exception of the column written back in 92 which he disavows saying it was not written by him and does not represent his mindset). He opposed aspects of the civil rights movement on constitutional grounds because they created legal favoritism and divided entire groups of people by defining their race. I am aware (and he is aware) that these measures were well intentioned and inacted as a push back against real racial unfairness which was brought about by unfair racial tendencies of many people. The objection is not he things people should be treated unfairly, he thinks they should be treated fairly and equally. His disagreement is on how that fair treatment is best achieved. His arguement is that regulation by the federal government is not the way to go, partially because that violates the constitution creating different laws for different races, and partially because the underlying racial inclinations of the people will still be unchanged. Those people will still use the freedoms and rights that they have (and should have according to the constitution) to unfairly discriminate against other races if they choose to do so. It is one of the prices of freedom and self determination, sometimes people self determine a path that we do not agree with. The best hope is to educate people and have them learn why racism is simply wrong.
That is his arguement and thought process (i think...) for the actions you sited. They are not based on a belief he has that somehow blacks or other races are less worthy of equal rights as you allege.
I think it is the Libertarian in that Republican, or the Republican in that Libertarian. It just appeals to those Ayn Rand-y types 'cause they like to feel superior and need some kind of validation for that, like for parking. And they don't like welfare so they don't like the people that need welfare, and they got to have noticed that lots of those people are brown, so it all kinda gets synergistic with them. Look at it this way, they aren't hiding it like the rest of the Republican crowd does. Sneaky racists are probably gonna do more damage than obvious ones.
What scares me is the KIND of dedication the Paul followers have. One or two of them here talked about jumping in front of a bullet for him like they couldn't wait to do it.
Let me explain the appeal of Ron Paul. All of Republican candidates are totally delusional, superstitious, falling down nutso. Of these, Ron Paul is the least insane. So, when you put him in a lineup (an appropriate place, btw) with the rest of these whacked out, demented and brain dead panderers (did someone mention Romney?), he seems kind of sane.
"There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist". Fine journalism right there. I also heard a rumor about an unverified alleged hearsay conversation that Ron Paul does not like children...
1) There is no evidence that Ron Paul is racist. If you have the goods, educate me and I'll be glad to stand corrected.
2) Re: Lincoln, the president of the US does not have authority to kill (what we would be today) millions of Americans. He also does not have authority to jail editors, suspend Habeas Corpus, etc. That's why we have a Constitution: to limit the power of the government over its people. Nevermind that Lincoln was not clearly against slavery (in many speeches he seemed perfectly ok with it), he had simply no right to wage the civil war, even if one of the results (i.e. end of slavery) was good. So, Ron Paul is basically right; if Lincoln wanted to end slavery, he should have found another way. There were alternatives to mass-murder (although "buying the slaves" seem like a dumb idea, but I did not see the interview so I'll have to see what he really meant; I feel I can't take your word for it, with the "alleged" and all).
Ron Paul believes in the Constitution; that's good enough for me. That's the primary job of the president: to defend the Constitution. If he does that, then people of good will in this country will be free to fight bigotry, racism, and all other scourges. Right now we're so busy fighting a president who gave us the end of Habeas Corpus, torture, incompetence, deficit, war, corruption, cover-up, that we have little time and energy left to fight for racial equality or any other good fight.
Loading comments…
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
Major news organizations are drawing...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
John McCain's famously cozy relationship with the press is getting a bit testy. Taking questions in...
** Update below: Nas delivers Fox petition to Stephen...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
WASHINGTON — Rescue legislation sailed through the House on Wednesday aimed at...
I have a wait problem. I hate to wait. When...
Ashcroft Claims Waterboarding...
Posted January 3, 2008 | 10:57 AM (EST)