An Open Letter to Michael Medved

Dear Mr. Medved:

You recently published a blog entry entitled "An Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul," in which you called upon Congressman Paul to "eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society."

I share your concern regarding these extreme groups, but feel you have handled the matter inappropriately on two important fronts.

First, your entry raises the issue of intellectual honesty, hypocrisy and fair treatment.

While I disagree with many of the implications of your piece, I appreciate that it is written in a civil tone that seems conducive to open discourse. You even went so far as to sign your piece,
"Respectfully."

But your recent actions and statements make that polite tone seem disingenuous.

Last week, you returned to your hometown (and mine) and spoke at Bala Cynwyd Middle School. Addressing members of a local Jewish congregation, you described Rep. Paul as "deeply anti-Israel."

As I'm sure you are aware, Rep. Paul is philosophically opposed to foreign aid, significant military intervention, and liberal internationalism in general. While he opposes aid to Israel, he also opposes aid to every other country on the planet.

Labeling someone as "anti-" a foreign country is a serious charge. It carries with it the implication that they are an active enemy of that nation. To level such an accusation merely on the basis of a person's opposition to financial and military assistance is intellectually dishonest.

As disappointed as I am that you would make such charge, I am even more concerned that you would do so in front of an audience that you characterized as viewing Israel as "very personal...for all of you." A man of your intelligence and prominence should strive to remain above this sort of sensationalist appeal to emotion.

As a Catholic, I have never contributed to a synagogue. As a Jew, I speculate that you have likely never contributed to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. I like to consider myself a person who respects those of all creeds, and my many Jewish friends and relatives would likely concur with my assessment.

But it would seem that, under your logic, I am an anti-Semite. Are you anti-Catholic? If you were to oppose massive taxpayer-funded aid to the Holy See, would I be justified in leveling that charge? Would it be appropriate for me to convene a large group of fellow Catholics and advise them to boycott your program on the basis of your being "anti-Catholic?"

My challenge to you, sir, is this: Will you concede that a person's categorical, principled opposition to foreign aid does not necessarily make them "anti-Israel?"

Will you promote fair, civil discourse by addressing the issues, and reject hateful and sensationalist labels designed to stir up intense feelings on the understandably sensitive issue of US-Israeli relations?

The second issue raised by your blog entry revolves around a political campaign's responsibility for the actions and ideas of its followers.

Rest assured, you are not alone in expressing concern about some of Rep. Paul's supporters. The lion's share of individuals backing Paul are normal Americans who believe in a smaller federal government at home and a less interventionist foreign policy abroad. Like you, we reject bizarre and discredited conspiracy theories. Like you, we too find racism and fascism completely repugnant.

The average Ron Paul supporter is excited about this campaign because it represents a dramatic shift from "politics as usual" -- not because they agree with every single one of Paul's positions. Conversely, one cannot expect that Paul universally endorses the ideas of his supporters and campaign donors.

You're an intelligent man. Certainly you understand, as many observers do, that Paul's small government ideology logically attracts those who distrust government -- or view it as their enemy. There are many reasons to prefer a smaller government and less foreign intervention, just as there are many reasons to prefer a larger government and increased militarism.

For his part, Rep. Paul has publicly commented -- repeatedly -- on the subject of 9/11 conspiracy theories. He has decisively stated that he rejects opposes such theories and that he believes al Qaida-backed terrorists were responsible for the attacks on our homeland. Paul has also repeatedly spoken out about racism and collectivism. Paul's small government ideology and defense of liberty are wholly incompatible with national socialism or neo-Nazism.

Are you unaware of these statements, or are they insufficient to meet your idealized standard?

If the latter is the case, where would you draw the line? Should candidates be forced to run background checks on their donors? Should campaigns expend finite resources actively policing grassroots activity? Should a candidate say "please don't vote for me" under certain conditions? If so, what should trigger such a rebuke?

Navigating these issues is no simple task for a campaign. Public relations points can be scored by rebuking controversial supporters, but ultimately a failure to speak out to your satisfaction should not be confused with an endorsement of unsavory ideas.

Your "request" is, in the end, built upon fallacies. You demand that the Paul campaign either "welcome- or repudiate - the support of these factions." This unfair false dichotomy suggests that a candidate's failure to "repudiate" by policing their donors to your satisfaction is tantamount to embracing their support and their views.

You also insist that Paul's campaign "eliminate all associations" with such distasteful groups. This subtly implies that there is an association -- one which operates in both directions.

You certainly have the right to advocate a political culture in which candidates actively distance themselves from donors. Many would prefer such a climate. Others may disagree, but would respect your vision.

But you are begging the question by not only arguing in favor of a new political order, but applying its proposed laws to the Paul campaign. Your high standard for the acceptance of campaign contributions is idealistic and noble, but ultimately wishful thinking.

The fact that the Paul campaign does not share your views regarding contributors, and has not handled the situation as you would, does not make Rep. Paul a Nazi, a conspiracy theorist, an anti-Semite, or anything else. It just makes him someone who disagrees with you on how to run a campaign.

I hope you will bear these facts in mind, and being to take the high ground. Sensationalism and mean-spirited accusations may attract attention, but they inevitably undermine honest and productive discourse.

Respectfully,

Mike Bergmaier
Pennsylvania