105 votes

A black man's take on the Ron Paul letters (Open letter to the media)

A BLACK MANS TAKE ON THE RON PAUL LETTERS
an open letter to his various critics in the media

Unlike many Ron Paul supporters I don't duck from the allegations that Ron Paul is a racist based on his newsletters. I've examined them myself and find them repugnant. Given the writing style, I believe someone else wrote them. They don't match his prose and the contents are generally uncharacteristic of anything I find in his numerous books. I think that they show poor judgment on his part and he's apologized for their contents. I also feel that he knows the authors and out of allegiance, friendship or not wanting to ignite scandal he's decided to say very little about it.

Let's assume that Ron Paul's news letters were handwritten by him and that his denials are 100% false. Let's assume that if this is not the case that he read every newsletter sent in his name and is aware of exactly who the author is. What exactly is the concern? Will Ron Paul's inauguration consist of him personally handing out white hoods and crosses marinated in kerosene? Will he use military force to round up everyone from Oprah to "that black guy" you saw earlier today to send them to slave camps. Will a man who believes in a limited executive branch single-handedly call for re-instituting Jim Crow laws? If he did, would anybody listen?

Ron Paul's appeal doesn't come from the viewpoint expressed in those letters. His mandate, if elected would come from being the exact opposite of the ignorance and pettiness illustrated in those letters. Ron Paul's fans would be dumbstruck if the man they support condoned ANY of those ideas. Can we agree that a Ron Paul presidency consumed with eliminating $1 trillion of Federal spending, issuing a commodity backed competing currency and fully investigating the Federal Reserve would have its hands full? Pursuing his platform of limited government against a hostile bipartisan congress will be hard enough, why would he use his 4 year stint to bring back Jim Crow? Does anyone realistically think he would try to reshape America into some postcard of the antebellum south with black people working in cotton fields and white masters in palatial mansions? Really?

You see, the first flaw in the argument that Ron Paul is racist is that it doesn't matter. Society has shifted. Despite their unsavory nature the letters are actually irrelevant. Even if they are his personal views the popular culture has evolved. One man in the white house can't uproot the past 100 years of race relations progress . Despite anything Ron Paul could say or do in office he couldn't use his mandate to change who we are. I have more faith in the American people. How quickly we forget that a majority of white people in America chose an unknown largely untested black man over a seasoned, white war hero in 2008. Four years is not enough time to fundamentally change who we are as a society. Americas political structure wouldn't permit Ron to create a "Racist States of America". Not within a 4 year term, even if he were 100% in favor of it.

The second flaw in the Ron Paul critique is that his voting record doesn't support what is being implied. After 30 years in public office shouldn't we see a pattern in his voting record that is blatantly racist? Unfortunately for his detractors, we don't. Some votes were not in favor of issues sympathetic to poor blacks. Some votes were not in favor of issues sympathetic to rich whites. In the balance his voting record (which is how he actually MUST be judged) shows an uncanny bravery and consistency. Agree with him or not I can see a constitutional thread through every single vote he's cast. There doesn't appear to be a specific race bias but more a guiding principle of not permitting favors or handicaps based on belonging to a group. His voting records says that people should be free to make their own choices and governments cant legislate who you speak with, love or hate. If I disagree with him at least I know the foundation of my counter argument. The constitution. In an era where lobbyists determine congressional votes by bribery isn't it refreshing and a bit inspiring that no such bias exists with this man? Rather than demonize the man for newsletters why don't you in the media find a consistent strain in his record in public office against blacks, Jews, hispanics or any other ethnic group specifically.

In addition to this I looked for a speech or presentation that contained racist rhetoric. Where is his Sally Kern style "..blacks are lazy" moment? Where is the moment where like Joe Biden, he says that "..."You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."? Where is his outrageously racist quote similar to those we can find from Senator Byrd, Governor Wallace or even Hilary Clinton's now famous "Ghandi" quote? I can't even find a public Truman-esque "God does hate the Chinese and Japs" meltdown. With the way he's described I'd at least expect to hear something akin to the famous "...(God) created the white man. I know not who created the blacks" quote from Theodore Bilbo but I haven't found it. If Ron Paul is as racist as some in the media implies, I would think there would be a few Freudian slips from Mr. Paul. Yet there don't seem to be any that I can find.

--------------

There were many on the left who protested against accusations that Obama hated America due to his "spiritual mentor's" incendiary words. I think Barack's tolerance and support for Reverend Wright somewhat parallels Ron Paul's current situation. The views we support and our words do come back to haunt us. But should the possibility of his words alone disqualify Ron Paul? If we're going to judge Ron Paul in the history books as a racist, unfit to lead America in its darkest hour then is it fair for us to examine the words of others in the same light?

Ghandi is the icon of civil disobedience. He was the face that inspired millions of Indians seeking independence from the British. But if he were judged by his views on race as the press is doing with Dr Paul he would be excluded from the pages of history as a be-speckled, calm loving pacifist. Ghandi was a outspoken racist when he lived in South Africa. He had a newsletter called Indian Opinion where he regularly presented his anti black rhetoric such as ...

"...Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs (niggers) of the town, passes my comprehension. ...About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."

Beyond his anti-black rhetoric Ghandi was also rumored to have a slightly deviant perspective with regards to sex. So let me get this straight. If I'm Ghandi I can basically call people niggers (kaffirs), sleep with young girls and still end up being admired by Martin Luther King, become an icon to every peace activist in the world and even get a spot on the Apple "THINK DIFFERENT" commercial. Sounds good to me. If we judge Ron Paul by his newsletters is it safe to say we should judge Ghandi by his as well? Or does the Ron Paul Rule not apply?

We're taught that Winston Churchill was England's brave leader who kept the allied forces inspired with his words and deeds during WW2. Even though many Americans limited perspective of the British is gleaned from watching royal weddings, there are a good many that have learned that Churchill was a man to be admired. If we apply the Ron Paul rule to him however then he too must be disqualified from history as a racist deserving of scorn and not the leader we've been taught about. Churchill once said.

"...I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place"

Is it safe to say that Winston Churchill and Hitler agreed that there were superior and inferior races? It appears that what they disagreed on is who should lord over them.

Abraham Lincoln is portrayed as the central hero in the emancipation of black slaves. A hero worthy of his own monument and face on the five dollar bill. However if we use the Ron Paul Rule we should also be told that he felt blacks were a lesser species and unfit for equality with whites? Wasn't Abraham Lincoln the one that said

"... Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."

Do you in the media ask us to denounce or disregard the words of these men? No and for good reason. They were imperfect men who espoused perfect ideas. As racist as Churchill was I'm happy that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the allies against Hitler. For as racist as Abraham Lincoln was and despite his reluctance to end slavery, he did influence the ending of that institution. Despite his attitudes towards blacks I will always have great respect for Mahatma Ghandi's sacrifice and heroism.

Like these icons of our freedom and peace, Ron Paul's words deserve scrutiny. How one views the world will affect how they govern. Ultimately though, it is his voting record and public statements that are the criteria by which he should be judged. If we vilify Ron Paul we must by definition do the same with Ghandi, Lincoln and dozens of others who are imperfect individuals.

Regardless of the views in those newsletters Ron Paul deserves the same respect afforded to Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. He's denounced the controversial contents. Let's move on. The words attributed to Ron Paul are no worse than the blatant racism of our accepted icons of virtue. For Ron Paul supporters, civil liberties, ending militarism and fighting against crony capitalism of the Federal Reserve takes precedence over these newsletters for good reason. If we're collectively shackled by debt or perhaps indefinitely detained for speaking our minds in what used to be the freest nation on earth the content of those newsletters won't really matter. In the final analysis, Ron Paul is an imperfect man with a nearly perfect, and very simple message.

Freedom is popular.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

gotta name?

I understand that the author may not want to be known, but this article should be signed so the media and others don't say that this was probably written by some white kid with an agenda. Please? I'd like to spread this around and don't want to add to the now-too-oft-heard line "So, who wrote it?".

If it turns out that it was written by some white dude it will do more harm than good and prolong the media coverage of an unfair smear.

yes I am a black man :)

If the media is interested in coverage they can contact me directly through the DP site. I stand by the words in this article 100%.

Make a youtube, it would put

Make a youtube, it would put fear in neocons

NO it's unlikely he denies digging into this out of allegiance

pls do yourselves a favor and finally have a read of this thread to learn how the ghost-writing industry works.. http://www.dailypaul.com/194188/the-ron-paul-newsletters-a-g...
the identities are concealed by the commercial entity that published newsletters and writers are barred by contract law to reveal their identities to anyone.. that includes to paul

this is an extremely weak counter

He's not running for class president ...this is the real deal. He cant hide behind some arcane legal technicality on this one. Wont fly whatsoever. Lose that defense from your vocabulary because no one cares about contract law. If he said this shit then people want to know and if he didnt they want to know who did.

An excellent read. I look

An excellent read. I look forward to more like it. Thanks.

I am giving it an extra

Bump!!!

www.whyronpaul.com

Ron Paul 2012!

I want to give this

a bump for the night crowd.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Debbie's picture

Ron Paul on racism:

"By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . "

"We should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty". Congressman Ron Paul
April 18, 2007

I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact source of this quote, but he elaborates more on this in the chapter on "Racism" in his book Liberty Defined. You can also search by this subject in the Ron Paul Archives (a terrific resource that has "The complete collection of Ron Paul's writings, speeches and media appearances") at www.ronpaularchive.com . This has several Texas Straight Talk articles and a speech on the House floor dealing with this subject.

The whole idea that this great statesman is in any way racist is purely a smear tactic and nothing else.

Debbie

That was very good

maybe you need to email that out to Jerry Doyle so he can get it on the air, or maybe he can get you on the air. The divisions they have created are failing so they are trying to keep them alive with this racist nonsense. They don't want us to stand together. The very fact that they call Ron Paul a racist, makes the one's calling him that, the racists because they are trying to divide us once again. United we stand, divided we fall!!!! Keep up the great work!!!!

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

I learned some things in that

I learned some things in that post. Very well done!

Me too.

It was an extremely well written letter.

mickey45

Well done!

Well done!

AWESOME!

That was quite well said, brother. I appreciate the time and effort that you put into this.

Hey theredpill

have you sent this post to every paper you can think of?

I think we need to stop

I think we need to stop blindly accepting the premise that these newsletters were racist and actually look at them. If you read the whole thing in context they really are not. Everyone should read what Justin Raimondo has written on this.
http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_...

I don't think that's the way to go.

anything that requires a "defense" that lengthy qualifies, at least, as not worth saying... and is probably racist too. I've read them and I think the papers are racist.

Look, RP isn't racist, but those were rotten articles.

I say address it, strongly condemn them as absolute trash, acknowledge that it was a mistake, and move forward. "Disavowing" them, when you made money from them makes RP look like he's hiding something.

theredpill, this is a very

theredpill, this is a very good piece. I strongly suggest you shop this around and try to publish it elsewhere.

Most are in the dark over the background of this smear

The various publications that bore his name were published independent of his executive editorship. They used his name out of his name recognition in politics to attempt to form an alliance with paleoconservatives by invoking an urban race war credo.

See excerpts from the following article:

Indeed, the very publishers of many of the newsletters publicly admitted back in 2007 that Ron Paul had no influence over their content.

“Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them,” said one publisher.

(...)

Kirchick let slip in an email about the newsletters to Berin M. Szoka that he wrote the hit piece on Ron Paul not out of any moral outrage at Paul’s alleged “racism” but because he is “cynical” and enjoys “getting supporters of political candidates riled up.”

http://bit.ly/stwzDi

Wow, wow, wow

I had to login in just to bump this and say it was educational for me. I learned so much I didn't know. Thank you for sharing this with us.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Thank you for your candor.

As a long time Ron Paul supporter, I agree with you, that it is uncharacteristic of Dr. Paul to have authored those newsletters. And in the grand scheme of things, even if he did, it matters not.

But I know in my heart, that the person responsible, MUST stand up and admit what they did!

I only say this, because I feel 100% that Ron Paul did not write those things, and if I ever did something that got someone else in trouble, I would be compelled to clear the air.

Its only right.

Well stated. Has this been

Well stated. Has this been sent to the "media"? I will forward a link to our local neo-con radio talking head who has started squawking about this issue, saying that a Paul nomination will ensure a GOP defeat in the general election due to this one issue.

Your argument

is logical, scholarly referenced, and indisputable. Well done. Thank you for this fine essay.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Well said sir.

Well said sir.

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” -George Bernard Shaw

impressive

I really appreciate an article that makes me think.Thank you,theredpill.

Gandhi = Lincoln?

Not unlike Lincoln, Gandhi is remembered far more favorably then he deserves to be. Gandhi was a politician, first and foremost. He was inconsistent and often took the credit for the results produced by lesser known freedom fighters such as Bhagat Singh. Why we remember him so fondly is probably due to Britain's interpretation of history. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis respect him because he divided his own motherland, largely at the expense of Punjab and the Sikhs, to create Pakistan, which bore Bangladesh.His actions have lead to countless lives lost at these new borders. I believe it is a misguided interpretation of history by the British accepted by the Indian Hindu majority, not unlike MLK jr, whose image also rides on the work of lesser known activists such as Ella Baker.

Gandhi, Obama, MLK jr, and Lincoln, all misrepresent the icon status that our culture assigns to them.

Hello, my name is Andrew Ryan and I'm here to ask you a question: is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Read Thomas DiLorenzo,

Read Thomas DiLorenzo, Lincoln was a scumbag

reedr3v's picture

This excellent defense ties together

many important points. It would be strengthened if the author were able to take ownership, though I understand that it might harm him to be publicly identified.

I hope his good work enables us to reach an open, safe society where one's political views can be expressed without fear of reprisal.

would someone please post a link to these "newsletters"?

I have been a constituent of Dr. Paul for 30+ years, first in the 22nd district(Ft. Bend County) and now I live in the 14th district of Texas. I have never heard of or seen any "newsletter" from Dr.Paul other than his congressional update letter. I also have never heard any racist words from Dr. Paul at anytime.

It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people that pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell

Facebook share/like link here

Would be awesome. Hard to share this with anybody without cut/paste or direct link from outside.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant