The Ron Paul Responsibility Paradox

December 26, 2011 admin 11 comments

The info verse is all atwitter, and all afacebook, and all awhateveryouread, over one question; is Ron Paul a racist?

Let’s assume the answer is “no”, that the argument that he didn’t write any of the racist and homophobic articles, ads and letters released under his name is true. Let us assume that he honestly never read any of it until 10 years later and was horrified by what he saw because he cannot be a racist as it is a collectivist idea (his words – see note 1). A heartfelt Ron Paul supporter is left with one clear truism – he or she can no longer support Ron Paul.

Huh?

Paul’s rhetoric and writings (his books, which he admits to) constantly refer to “personal responsibility”. One could easily argue (as he has) that it is the cornerstone of both the Constitution and Libertarianism.Among the positions Ron Paul has taken:

SCHIP, Medicare, LIHEAP should all be drastically reduced and turned over to the states because people have become victims of a nanny state and no longer take personal responsibility.
Tort Reform? Absolutely – people should take personal responsibility for reading and understanding all of the legalese in their mortgages, credit card agreements and medical insurance. If that language is vague or abusive because of a lack of regulation well – tough. The market will point those out to you somehow and you can avoid those agreements.
If you cannot afford health care then have a bake sale or some other fundraiser for that expensive life-saving procedure you need. It is no one’s fault but your own that you cannot afford health insurance.
Should we just let you die if you lose your job and become gravely ill in between and your state offers no program to help you? Yes – whoever said you had a guaranteed right to care? (This last one he actually said – I believe it was in the 11th or 12th of the 14 televised primary debates).

Perhaps you find all of that to be reasonable. Welcome to the Ron Paul Responsibility Paradox. You believe that personal responsibility is key. Hell, perhaps you believe it is everything – the very core of a society that is free and successful. Unfortunately, the candidate who has given voice to your ideals does not practice it, not even for one second. What’s more he does not even try to.

From the mid 70s to mid 90s Ron Paul was the publisher of up to four different newsletters at a time. Starting in 1988 those newsletters started to take on a darker and darker racist and homophobic tone, peaking rhetorically from 1992 – 1995. These newsletters included Dr. Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, The Ron Paul Investment Newsletter and The Ron Paul Political Report. This is not contested by anyone, including Paul himself.

In a 1995 interview with C-SPAN he described the newsletters as one of the ways he remained politically active while out of office:

The following quotes from his newsletters are also uncontested:

On race and crime: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
On the Rodney King riots: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
On black males: “As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to ‘fight the power,’ to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.”
On carjacking: “[the] hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos.”
On race relations: “in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”
On a reporter for a gay magazine: “[he] certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.”
On ‘out’ homosexuals: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
On San Franciscans and AIDS: “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

And the following excerpt from a subscription offer letter signed by Ron Paul is also uncontested:

Subscription letter excerpt

Naturally Ron Paul is responsible for all of this, right? After all he is the publisher. That does not mean he wrote it. All he did was allow it to be published under his name and under his nose. All he need do is accept responsibility and respond appropriately. Taking responsibility for something is not the same as supporting it.

Yet Ron Paul refuses to take true responsibility for any of it.

He has said he “disavows” the newsletter content, yet he refuses to answer any specific questions about any of the actual articles. When asked if he believes that AIDS victims “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick” he wont come out and say “no.” Instead he says “I have already said that I had nothing to do with what was in those newsletters.” Ask him if he believes that black males are “trained to hate whites” and he will tell you that “this was all dealt with years ago.” Ask him if he believes that 95% of black males in DC “are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and he takes off his mic and walks out of the interview.

He even goes so far as to slap down those who try to help him take responsibility. Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, said that Paul took responsibility for the content of the letter above, even though he likely didn’t agree with the views. A spokesman for Paul responded that Ivers doesn’t speak for the Congressman (see note 2).

The line about DC black males is most important in that it came up in mass media earlier than the rest, before Paul had a chance to hone his story. In 1996 The Dallas Morning News interviewed Ron Paul and asked him about that quote. He did not deny knowing about it, and he did not disavow it. Instead, he defended it as a “fair interpretation” of a study he had read (see note 3). How does he deal with this contradiction to his current claim that he had no idea what was in the newsletters at that time? He just refuses to discuss it, calling it “old news”. He wised up and chose to take his own advice as quoted in a 2000 interview with Houston Monthly, in which he lamented that he really wished he had just “told [the Dallas Morning News] that I never read it.”

A 2008 Article in Reason asserted that “a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul” identified Lew Rockwell as the “chief ghostwriter.” Rockwell, a self described “anarcho-capitalist” (see note 4), denied responsibility for the disputed material and called the accusations “hysterical smears aimed at political enemies” (see note 5). On his own website he is quoted as saying “the state is unnecessary and destructive by its nature – that it cannot improve on, and indeed only destroys, the social and economic system that grows out of property rights, exchange, and natural social authority” (see note 6).

However, when Ron Paul is asked who wrote the pieces in question his only answer is “staff.” He either does not know or refuses to say who on staff. Furthermore Rockwell, who worked for Paul as Chief of Staff from 1978-1982, consultant to his 1988 Libertarian Presidential run, and vice chair of his 1992 Republican Presidential Exploratory Committee remains a close friend of Paul. Rockwell’s website includes a “Ron Paul file” with dozens of articles about and interviews with Paul, all pushing Ron Paul as the only man who can save the USA and claiming that anyone who doesn’t support Ron Paul is a liar, uninformed, a fascist, or a socialist (see note 7).

To recap and expand, which of the following responsible things has Ron Paul done?

Answered questions to a specific racist or homophobic excerpt from his newsletters with “no I do not believe that.”
Revealed who wrote such horrible things so they can be known for who and what they are.
Thanked the state chair who said that Paul does take responsibility.
Apologized to anyone who may have been directly or indirectly hurt by what was expressed under his name for so many years.
Addressed the Dallas Morning News interview head on.
Refused and returned money donated to his campaign by white supremacist groups that have publicly stated that they are donating to him because he shares their beliefs.

None of them. Not a one. The only one of these options he has even addressed is the last one, stating that he will not refuse money from anyone, and that it is not his problem if they mistakenly believe he supports their views.

So, if you believe in the bedrock Ron Paul principle that people must take more personal responsibility for their behavior, that the free market works best by rewarding responsible behavior and punishing irresponsible behavior, that people when left alone can be trusted to do the right thing and will be ostracized in the “marketplace of ideas” when they do not then you clearly have only one choice – to denounce Ron Paul. Your own belief system says you should not support those who cannot be trusted to take responsibility for their actions and refuses to discuss them in the “marketplace of ideas.” You cannot say we need someone new and different who trusts the American people and then support someone who will not come clean with the American people. Even if you accept all of his excuse making, how can you put national policy in the hands of someone who does not have the basic competency to control the content of his own newsletters? Clearly he does not know how to vet those he would hire, and does not hold them responsible when they fail. What kind of a cabinet would such a man have?

So there you have it – the only way to stay true to the philosophy envisioned by Ron Paul is to not vote for Ron Paul. Of course you could dismiss all of this as being unrelated to a Ron Paul presidency and vote for him anyway, after all it is a free country. But if you manage to get him elected, do not expect anyone to take his ideas for a system based on personal responsibility seriously. Therein lies the paradox.

Notes:

CNN Politics: Ron Paul Newsletters
TPM: Ron Paul Denies Writing Letter On Coming Race War
Dallas News: Paul Faces New Questions About Newsletters
About Lew Rockwell (lewrockwell.com)
Reason: Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters?
Doherty, Brian. “Libertarianism and the Old Right.” LewRockwell.com. 1999. Orig. published by SpintechMag.org. 12 May 1999.
Lew Rockwell: The Ron Paul File

American, Politics and Society anarcho-capitalism, CNN, CSPAN, Dallas Morning News, homophobia, Lew Rockwell, Libertarianism, newsletters, racism, Reason, Responsibility, Ron Paul, Talking Points Memo

#1 | Written by Lara Wechsler about 11 years ago. Reply

I am so not a Ron Paulian and things, so no argument here. I think he is like Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia. I do see ericf views and think that is what Ron Paul thinks and to give him the benefit of doubt, that he is basically a Nozickian type. But also as we evaluate all politicians, we do evaluate how they speak and present their views and if he stumbles in such a way that the audience gets it “wrong” then that is not a good value in a politician and that definitely needs to be evaluated in a politician.

In some ways Anarchy, State and Utopia seems like a beautiful way of thinking of human nature, a Utopia, but on the other hand I think it is the most philosophically inconsistent view of individual free will. All views of free will have inconsistencies but I think by far the his view on free will is by far the most inconsistent view there is and that is what the biggest problem is with that view.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nozick/
#2 | Written by DivaDeb about 11 years ago. Reply

Rachel Maddow & Melissa Harris-Perry had a great exchange on Rachel’s show about the racism, the lame cop outs, the lack of responsibility. I have had a lot of fun over the years discussing the aspects of libertarianism, usually with people who don’t vote, don’t want to say they are actually democrats & who would be starving on the streets under a libertarian regime. Often, they have a “bumper sticker” education of government. Ugh

Thanks for this, it’s more fuel & ammo for my little talks. 🙂
#3 | Written by Teacher of English as a first language about 11 years ago. Reply

It’s a sad paradox you’re laying bare; much of what Ron Paul espouses re: the overreach of (mostly conservative, until Obama’s sad turnabout) national policy in the last decade(s) is right on target. But the fact is that the extremes he takes it too are 1) not met by his own actions refusing to be accountable (which speaks obliquely to gov’t’s role regulating those who would con citizens), 2) are not as simple as he would have us believe (which speaks to the fact that we have tried just letting people die of their own “choice” in past societies and the results were an insult to humanity) and 3) an unearned nostalgia for the pre-income tax era (because the Gilded Age sounds so…pretty?) Keep posting.
#4 | Written by ericf about 11 years ago. Reply

FYI: I suspect the debate you were referring to in connection to health care policay was the one held on Sept 12th. If you google for “ron paul let them die” all the links i’ve tried point to video clips from that debate. Paul does not say “let them die” or anything of the kind. From the CNN transcipt:

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

Which part of “No” do you not understand?

Paul is saying that indgent care is a job for the church and private charity. I happen to disagree with him for a variety of reasons, but his position is very clearly NOT “let them die”. I find this kind of nonsense counter-productive. Odd as it sounds, elections can be decided by the undecided. Obvious misreprentation of fact for the amusement of those already in agreemet tends to undermine crediblity and alienate those who might yet be in agreement.
- #5 | Written by admin about 11 years ago. Reply
  
  Actually, what you are quoting is the follow up question where Blitzer, himself a Heritage Foundation Member, gave Paul an “out.” To the original question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated, Paul responded “What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself. That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”***
  
  How is that not a “yes”?
  
  Blitzer then followed up with the question you supplied above.
  
  “Society” is not defined by churches and private charities alone. Also, while it is nice to know that Santa Rosa never turned anyone away while he practiced there the reality is that hospitals DO turn away patients who are not in immediate danger – allowing illnesses to reach the point of criticality that may never have done so, and neccesary surgeries are often postponed or do not even occur because the individual cannot afford insurance. This is typical Ron Paul – a nice short “no” that sounds great yet is surrounded by a more detailed answer that says essentially the opposite. It allows Paul to later say “look at the record. I said ‘no'” without taking responsibility for the true implications of the position he has staked out.
  
  I stand by my characterization of his comment.
  
  ***Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/
  - #6 | Written by ericf about 11 years ago. Reply
    
    Just FYI: I have viewed this interaction several times including twice before posting here. I keep seeing positngs with titles that Like “Ron Paul says Let ’em die!” with links to clips of what might be a different debate in which he said something I hadn’t seen before, but no, it’s always the same clip. This has been repeated so often it’s become a meme, but saying something more often doesn’t make it more true. I have read summaries of this saying that the crowd applauded when he said yes, or that the crowd applauded when somebody in the audience shouted yes, neither of which happened. IMHO that exchange did illustrate that Paul was not adequitely prepared, which may tell us something else about him.
    
    What you wishfully mischaracterize as a “yes” was not a “yes” at all. It was an attempt to dodge the question. When pressed for an answer the answer was a quiet, but unambiguous “no.”
    
    It’s true that society does not consist exclusively by chuches and charities, but it is not defined entirely by government either. It consists of all of them and more. The appropriate roles for church, charity, and state in the delivery of social services has been debated for centuries. In a libertarian paradise, which presuambly is what Paul envisions, care for the poor, the sick, and elderly would be provided mainly by families, chuches, and charities. My own response to that is skepticism about the ability of those groups to manage all that, the fairness of such an arrangment as it could in effect become a tax on kindness, and about the potential for subtle coertion to adopt a faith in order to receive care. I’m sure that Ron Paul would assure me that in a USA with smaller government and lower taxes just plain folks would have enough left in their pockets to donate far more than they currently do to churches and secular charities alike and I would not need to worry about poor patients being turned away from clinics. I’m equally sure that I would not feel assured.
    
    What I mean to illustrate by the paragraph above is that while I disagree in this instance, in Ron Paul’s view not having a government do something, does not mean not having it done at all. it can simply mean that it should be done by somebody else.
    
    It would be very convenient for Paul’s critic’s if he had said “yes”. That would make him a heartless son of bitch who wants to see patients dying on the hospital steps. Unfortunately for them he said nothing of the kind. That means his critics need to take a hard look at what his views really are, understand them, and crticize those. That means understanding the problems involved with going back to the gold standard, the implications of complete withdrawl of US overseas troops, and other more complex issues. It’s a lot more work than chanting “let ’em die!”
    
    Sorry, but wish, infer, pretend all you like, your mischaracterization is simply wrong.
    
    No means no.
    - #7 | Written by admin about 11 years ago. Reply
      
      There really is no room for doubt when taken in the context of all Paul has said, written and campaigned under for 35 years that he meant “let him die”. However upon further review you are correct that one cannot glean his true meaning from just that one exchange, and as long as I was using that example I could have given a more detailed explanation as to why familiarity with Paul leads to that conclusion. Sometimes when writing a long piece it is easy to forget that every little detail of research in your head isn’t magically to be found between the lines on the page.
      
      That said, the purpose of this article was to contrast how his beliefs in personal responsibility are contradicted by his own behavior. My next piece – to be published next weekend – will be a detailed look at his views and policy suggestions as culled from his own website.
      - #8 | Written by ericf about 11 years ago.
        
        Not so incidently I think your observation of the Paul Responsibility Paradox is spot-on and well named. Paradox is just the right word. The concept is key to understanding the Ron Paul mentality. It involves double think. Visit his campaign web site and you’ll find other contraditions, but that’s part of the mindset.
        
        Regarding healthcare principles there are two ideas:
        
        — Reduced roll for the “Nanny State” will reduce moral hazard.
        
        — Reduced size of the “Nanny State” will provide an economic environment in which private philantropy can thrive.
        
        The problem with this pairing is that if thriving philanthropy provides the safety net no longer provided by the state then we haven’t really reduced moral hazard. We’ve just diplaced it. Paul might regard that displacement would be a good thing if he got that far, but he doesn’t need to.
        
        Paul’s plan for healthcare implementation relies heavily on income tax deductions and credits. However, his policy on taxation calls for eliminating the income tax entirely so what would we be deducting from? .
        
        Poke around a bit and you’ll probably find more of these.
        You don’t have look to far. An Anti-Abortion Liberterian?
        
        AFAICT the Ron Paul mindset requires either the ability to in effect hold two contradictory thoughts on one’s head at the same time, It’s a bit like quantum mechanics: The kind of answer you get on a particlar subject depends on the kind of quesion you ask.
        
        Ask how to get folks to buy healtcare plans without a mandate and you’;; probably get an anser involving fear of getting sick without coverage.
        
        Ask whether sick folks without coverage should be left to die you’ll probably get an answer about philantropies caring for the indigent.
        
        The answers may contradict each other, but they will both be completely sincere. It is THAT rather than cruelty or hypocricy that I see as the problem, and it may be a more serious problem.
      - #9 | Written by admin about 11 years ago.
        
        You see, I think that is intentional. Paul counts on his followers to prefer rhetoric to detail – a safe bet for most political candidates these days. He knows how to say the right thing to the right audience, even though he knows they contradict each other. It is just another example of his hypocrisy.
        
        It also goes a long way to possibly explaining his refusal to let the press see the scripts he has given to those pounding the pavement for him in Iowa. I am sure it is very tailored to Iowa and he doesn’t want anyone in New Hampshire to hear it.
#10 | Written by signsanssignified about 11 years ago. Reply

Nice job exposing one of the many contradictions of Ron Paul’s candidacy. For a broader take on libertarianism generally see this post: http://tinyurl.com/85v3nao
- #11 | Written by admin about 11 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks. I enjoyed your piece about libertarianism quite a bit – a very clear and concise summary of its “philosophical” underpinnings. Readers – Check out the link in signsanssignified’s comment – it is worth the read.

The Truth Machine

SUBSCRIBE

Categories

The Ron Paul Responsibility Paradox

Like this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

The Truth Machine

SUBSCRIBE

Categories

The Ron Paul Responsibility Paradox

Share, email or print:

Like this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply