Thoughts on the Ron Paul Poltical Report and Racism

I took an Internet polls (supposedly, it identifies your ideal candidate). The answers to these poll questions never quite represent my own take on an issue, so I compromise or select none of the above.

For example, the following question relates to tort reform (or maybe it was capital punishment). You find yourself in a room with an enraged Jack the Ripper, a lustful Mack the Knife, and your lawyer with a six hundred page itemized bill. You hold a gun with two bullets. Whom do you shoot?

(a) Jack the Ripper;

(b) Mack the Knife;

(c) None of the above.

In any event, this particular test showed Barack Obama and Mitt Romney as tied, each supporting 54% of the positions held by my ideal candidate. Dissatisfied with the results, I thought about how we select candidates in this 'net connected age.

This brought me to Ron Paul, who is one of the hot topics on the Internet. I am not libertarian ("Not that there is anything wrong with that," as they used to say on Seinfeld). I may hack off a few limbs, but I have no desire to dismantle the federal government.

So why pay attention to this soft-spoken, almost grandfatherly doctor? Frankly, the vicious attacks drew my attention. It made me ask, "Who is Ron Paul?" To answer this question, I tried to look at Ron Paul as an individual, to get a handle on the man apart from his libertarian philosophy.

First, I examined his record on the issues. I visited his campaign web site. He has a consistent libertarian philosophy. He has a clearly articulated position on the Constitution. Yet, as I reviewed statements made or endorsed by Dr. Paul in the early 1990s, I grew uneasy.

He used to publish a weekly newsletter styled the Ron Paul Political Report (later renamed the Ron Paul Survival Report). The words and positions articulated in this report are his—or appeared under his name—so I consider them fair game.

As I understand it, the Ron Paul campaign has not released a set of these reports. Therefore, we must dig for them. I read some pieces on the 'net, but it is difficult to evaluate the accuracy of these bits and scraps. One source for regarding material contained in the report appeared in The Houston Chronicle, CAMPAIGN '96/U.S. HOUSE/Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent/GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime, May 23, 1996, byline Alan Bernstein (to read this article, you must register, it is free, please read the article as it contains additional relevant material):

"Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."

Selected writings by Paul were distributed Wednesday by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Austin lawyer Charles ""Lefty" Morris.

Morris said many of Paul's views are ""out there on the fringe" and that his commentaries will be judged by voters in the November general elections.

Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.

Morris and Paul are seeking the 14th Congressional District seat held by Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost the Republican primary to Paul, a former congressman and the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate.

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

""Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered ""as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

""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," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.""

Another source is Paul-itically Incorrect by Alex de Marban in the November 1, 1996 edition of the alt-weekly Austin Chronicle (give it the weight you care to). It states,

"…the plan took a back seat to the protestors, who carried signs denouncing Paul and requesting that he release his newsletters to the media. Morris had repeatedly made the same request; while he had already provided the media a smattering of articles received anonymously, there were years of back issues he wanted to see. For months, Paul had responded that it is impossible to dredge up all his old writings, but he told voters that they could request individual copies from his campaign headquarters. However, at the press conference-turned-protest, Paul conceded to pressure from reporters, promising to release all back copies.

But that promise has yet to come to pass. His concealment is easy to figure: The articles that have been leaked have been an embarrassment for Paul. In one 1992 article, Paul labeled the illustrious congresswoman Barbara Jordan, now deceased, a "moron" and "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex. Paul now explains that he's been wronged -- his "academic, tongue-in-cheek" opinions have been stripped of their context. But when the Victoria Advocate requested the entire copy of the newsletter, promising to publish its entirety, he refused that too."

Michael Krekel, a spokesperson for Congressman Paul's campaign, has responded to the allegations of racism (read the update that appears at the end) in the Congressman's writings. Krekel called the writings "unfortunate," but said that the writings referenced above were "not written by the congressman personally."

"It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then sent out with Dr. Paul's name attached to it, Krekel told The Daily Background. He also said that at the time, Paul was not directly involved in politics and that he had a staffer write the column in his place. Paul "has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has been dealing with the incident for 15 years," Krekel added.

"While the views expressed on African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul's views, he understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his weekly column."

Free-Market News Network, Corp. published a separate response to the allegations of racism on May 22, 2007 (see also Today's High Alert). It references an interview contained in Texas Monthly (I could not access the article, this is from an Internet quote), which read,

In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "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." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

From my review of the facts that I could access, it seems fair to conclude that the Ron Paul Political Report did publish racially derogatory statements in the 1990s (in Ron Paul's fifth decade of life). Dr. Paul eventually publicly disavowed those statements. Moreover, he has stated that he did not authorize them or write them.

I have also read that Ron Paul fired the individual responsible for those statements, but I could not track down a creditable source to prove or refute this fact. Ultimately, anyone who votes for Ron Paul must decide what weight to give these statements and what weight to give Dr. Paul's explanation.

Personally, I feel that if you publish a newsletter (or authorize its publication) with your name on it, you bear responsibility for its content. Second, when you accept money for subscriptions to a political report with your name on it, people will reasonably expect that even if you do not write every word, you stand behind your words.

Ron Paul is a bright, articulate adult. He has stated that he has accepted moral responsibility for the words that appeared in his political report. I appreciate his position. However, I will hold him to those words. And, I do not consider him the right candidate for the office of the presidency.

If we accept that he did not write those words and that he does not feel those sentiments, my position may seem harsh and even unfair. In my opinion, however, too much time passed before he publicly repudiated those statements after others raised the issue.

Ron Paul's message to us as Americans is a message of personal responsibility, individualism, and integrity. I respect that message. However, if he failed to monitor the words going out under his name, under his byline, if he let those words fester for years, I have to hold him accountable for those statements.

I have to judge people by their past words and their past actions. This is the information that I have to evaluate when I cast my vote. Moreover, character matters and, in the past, when I have forgotten this, the results have disappointed me.

I do not say that people cannot change. I do not look into Ron Paul's heart and judge him as a racist person. Nevertheless, with respect to the selection of a presidential candidate, I agree with his statement that he does bear moral responsibility for what appeared in the Ron Paul Political Report.

We all have to make our own decision. You know mine. If you disagree, I merely hope that you will base your decision on the best available facts.

In closing, I note that my decision is not intended as a critique of the libertarian philosophy. While I am not a libertarian—I see a more active role for government than that envisioned by libertarianism—I do find much to respect in this independent, freedom loving creed.

I read the following quote from Kent McManigal recently,

If you think something is wrong to do, don't do it or don't compel others to do it. The problem occurs when you think something is wrong, and you try to force people who do not share your opinion to go along with you. You hate guns? Fine; don't own one. Think abortion is wrong? Great, don't have one or don't force your pregnant girlfriend to have one.

We spend tremendous time and energy forcing others to live our way, to adopt our beliefs. The results can be ugly. So the thought struck me, as individuals, we might all do better if we spent more time adhering to our own personal codes and less time forcing those codes on others.

Back To Top

JournalStar.com - Lincoln, Nebraska - News - Politics

JournalStar.com

Tue Jul 31

0