What does Fred Astaire in blackface have to do with Ron Paul? Not much.
There are a lot of reasons to regard Rep. Ron Paul, currently facing what should be his last hurrah in the idiosyncratic Iowa Caucuses, as the model for politics and leadership as we wish it could be. He says what he means. He doesn’t pander. He isn’t afraid of uncomfortable truths. He has integrity. This explains why the supporters of the one true libertarian in the U.S. Congress seem ready to fight to the end to preserve his presidential candidacy, though its long-term prospects are about the same as those of Frosty being elected President of Hell. They are, as a result, providing the rest of us with a textbook example of how loyalty and dedication can spawn intellectual dishonesty, cause otherwise good and intelligent people to substitute rationalizations for reason, and lead to corruption. How did all those idealistic young lawyers end up in jail supporting the plots of Richard Nixon? Why did otherwise honest and ethical Democrats, elected officials and feminists twist their principles into pretzels to defend Bill Clinton’s using White House staff as a personal dating bar and lying about it under oath? This is how. When you believe that a leader is good, then affirmative proof of flaws that disqualify him for leadership must be justified and explained away. It often isn’t even a conscious decision: this is cognitive dissonance at its strongest. The results, however, are the same as intentional deception.
Over at The Daily Caller, Wesley Messamore, who is Editor in Chief of the HumbleLibertarian.com, has registered an impassioned and angry defense against Paul critics who, like me, regard the content of his newsletters from the Eighties and Nineties an automatic disqualification for Paul as a presidential nominee. I don’t mean to pick on Messamore: his arguments are typical of Paul defenders; he’s no worse than the rest. His article, however, neatly covers all the unethical tactics Paul’s followers have had to embrace to convince themselves that their hero hasn’t failed the leadership test.
Here they are:
- It’s a trumped up partisan attack. The headline says it all: “The Ron Paul newsletter controversy is a textbook liberal smear campaign.” This was a Nixon and Clinton favorite; it is was also trotted out more recently by Attorney General Holder and Herman Cain. The technique is to shift attention from damning facts to the people raising them, as if a legitimate charge leveled by an opponent is somehow no longer legitimate. Of course, plenty of non-liberals are as troubled by the newsletters’ content as liberals, just as I know many liberals who are horrified by Holder’s handling of Fast and Furious and his statements during the investigation of that deadly fiasco. There is only one question that matters when there are accusations of wrongdoing: is it true? The identity and beliefs of those making the charges are irrelevant.
- Racist smears are “a common and favorite tactic of big-government liberals and their collaborators in the mainstream media.” Yes, indeed they are. But calling attention to actual racist or racially offensive statements by a presidential candidate, his staff or those authorized to speak for him is not engaging in racist smears. This is a deceitful statement—true, but designed to mislead.
- Ron Paul’s not a bigot, so the racist (and homophobic) rhetoric in his newsletters don’t matter. I tried to make this distinction clear in my post on the issue, and others have as well. The problem is that newsletters bearing Paul’s name and presumed approval do in fact make statements and have a tone that at very least seem to be aimed at racial bigots. What does that tell us about Paul? Well, either he:
- Is a bigot, or
- Employs bigots, or
- Allows bigots to speak for him, or
- Doesn’t object to bigotry enough to disassociate himself from those who make bigoted statements, or
- Doesn’t recognize bigotry when he reads it, or
- Cynically was willing to employ bigotry to attract support from bigots, though not personally being one himself, or
- Is such a terrible and neglectful manager that he really never bothered to oversee publications bearing his name.
Do you know which of these is the least relevant to being President of the United States? Number 1! Most of our Presidents have been bigots of one sort or another; all have been biased; a majority have been racists. What a leader believes is unknowable in most cases; what matters is what he does. Lincoln hardly believed that black and whites were equals, but he did the right thing. Everyone has biases, but the measure of a human being is recognizing those biases, understanding that they distort judgment, and overcoming them. All right, I’ll take Messamore’s word for it: Paul’s not a bigot. #2-7 or any combination of them, however, still make him unfit to be President.
- Paul has employed many blacks and Hispanics on his staff. This is the old “Some of my best friends are Jews” defense mixed with The Ruddigore Fallacy. The ethical problem is that the newsletters have to be dealt with: they exist. Paul’s subsequent actions don’t change that at all. Pauls’ hiring practices don’t make the newsletters go away. It wouldn’t matter, in fact, if Paul’s black and Hispanic staff wrote the newsletters. In the Gilbert and Sullivan operetta “Ruddigore,” a man cursed to perform a crime a day tries to defeat the curse by doing a vaguely related good deed for every bad one. He’s an idiot. Ethics isn’t like a bank account. Misconduct is significant and needs to be evaluated on its own, not in comparison to supposedly mitigating good behavior. Paul is still accountable.
- The media is flogging the newsletters because ignoring Paul wasn’t working. No, the media is playing catch-up: it should have raised the newsletters months ago. Now, finally, the news media is doing its job by asking the right questions. Before, it was neglecting its ethical obligations.
- The news media let Barack Obama get away with his associations with America-hating, racist Rev. Wright and radical/terrorist/murderer William Ayres, so there is a double standard being applied to Paul. This argument is ridiculous:
- The mainstream media was too easy on Obama regarding Wright, especially since Obama’s claim that he was unaware of the clergyman’s anti-America and racist rhetoric was unbelievable. The mainstream media was actively campaigning to have Obama elected. What does that have to do with Ron Paul? Obama’s kid-gloves treatment was lousy, biased journalism; it should have gone after him exactly as it is going after Paul now. Because the media handled one situation abominably, Messamore thinks it has to handle all such situations equally badly?
- If Wright had been preaching his bile at The United Church of Obama, then the situation would be similar to Paul’s. Wright wasn’t speaking for Obama, he didn’t work for Obama, and Obama’s name wasn’t on the sermons. The issues for Obama was judgment and courage; the issues for Paul are accountability and competence.
- Had Obama been white, and had attended a church with a white minister who was as racist in his sermons as Wright, he could never have been nominated or elected. For better or worse, the public and the culture does not condemn black racism or association with it as vociferously and intolerantly as it condemns white racism. Those are the standards. They aren’t new. If the standards were fair, then both would be condemned equally…which still wouldn’t excuse Ron Paul.
- The late Sen. Robert Byrd was lionized in the Senate despite being a one-time Klan member. Yes, and Fred Astaire once appeared in black-face. Neither Byrd nor Astaire are running for President in 2012. If they were, the hood and the minstrel make-up would sink them, too. This argument is a variety of my least favorite of all the rationalizations for unethical behavior: “It’s not the worst thing.” Yup—belonging to the Klan is worse than sending out racist newsletters. So what?
And there you have it. Desperate, dishonest, rationalized, misleading and distracting arguments to avoid facing the truth. Ron Paul sent out racist commentary under his name, and nobody that does that can claim to be sufficiently trustworthy and responsible to be a major party nominee for President of a this divided, frightened, distrustful nation.
Ethics Alarms 
In before Paul fans.
1) “who are horrified by Holder’s handling of Fast and Furious and [i]hos[/i] statements” I think you mean ‘his’.
2) “The [i]issues for Obama was[/i] judgment and courage; the issues for Paul are accountability and competence.” You may want another “are” there.
I personally find the newsletters to be beside the real reason Paul would be a terrible president, which is that his politics are dangerously naive. Whenever I think of Libertarianism, I can’t help but think of the underwater utopia of Rapture from the game Bioshock. For you old folks who don’t play video games, Rapture was created as a Libertarian enclave free from religions or governments save for the philosopher-dictator Andrew Ryan, whose ideals prevented him from interfering with events at first. However, as with all utopias, Rapture fell apart. After a major scientific discovery was made in the form of an incredibly powerful, but dangerously addictive and unstable gene therapy referred to as “Adam”, the total lack of regulation allowed an unscrupulous businessman (and smuggler, underscoring the impossibility of a nation sealing itself off from the outside world) to addict major portions of the population and use this control to attempt a military coup, starting a civil war that destroyed the utopia and set the scene for events viewed by the player.
Jack, can you just put those tags to italics? Thanks, my html is a bit rusty.
1. I do mean “his”. Thanks.
2. Yup. I needed “were”, actually.
3. Oh, heck..I couldn’t agree more. There are a lot of reasons I would never vote for the guy; the newsletters are just a reason why I should never get the chance.
I’m still a fan. 4 years ago when these allegations emerged I was fine with his explanation. I’m still fine with the same explanation that he provides today. He’s not wavered from his truth and no one has been able to disprove his truth. Sure, he’s an idealist. For all of the socialism that embodies Obama, he hasn’t had too much of an impact. For all of the libertarianism that embodies Paul, he won’t have too much of an impact.
Dare to dream.
None of the article suggests that fans shouldn’t be fans, you know. Just that fans have to acknowledge that candidates with the newsletter kind of baggage can’t possibly run, no matter what else they have to offer.
I’m pretty sure that I’ve said some things on this blog that, by that same reasoning, would suggest that I can’t run for president.
…can’t possibly run
Huh… I guess the impossible just happened. It’s happened 4 years ago, and it’s happening now. I guess it’s okay that Congressmen have this kind of baggage, but it’s completely unacceptable if that congressman wants to be president.
Have you stopped to ask the question why he hasn’t been ridden out of town on rails with this kind of “baggage”? Why he keeps getting re-elected?
In one of your bullet points, you claim the media is playing “Catch-up”. I request that you delete that bullet point entirely. The media isn’t playing catch up. They’re playing re-hash. This is an old story and it’s being repackaged and resold for those (Jack) who never heard it before. If Ron Paul were a younger man, we could keep doing this in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Just like 2008, just like 2012.
If John Kerry ran for President in 2016, would you write about swift boats? If Hillary Clinton ran in 2016, would you write about Lewinsky?
The newsletters are circa 1992. Given that history, what choices has he made in his subsequent 20 year political career that can be traced back to that “warning sign”? Or to put it another way: You suggest that the newsletters show that he isn’t fit for public office…. so what has he done in the last 20 years to prove that point?
What you’ve got is a data point, but you don’t have a trend. Herman Cain had 1 incident….but that didn’t really take him off the campaign. But once we got to number 4 or 5, we had a trend and he was done.
I’d probably say something about coincidence with your 2nd data point, but there is no 2nd data point to coincide with. Articulate 3 points for a trend and we’ll talk.
Tim, I knew about the newsletters; I drafted an article about them for the Scoreboard four years ago that never made it to post. People forget; hell, I forgot the details myself. And also, like the media, I didn’t think Paul was worth my re-hashing…but then, that’s not my job. It is the media’s job. And yes—when Hillary runs, she should be held accountable for her role in the Monica cover-up and the lie to Matt Lauer. If Kerry ran again, God forbid, he should have to account for his slandering servicemen in the field. (I never believed that his medals should have been challenged.) He’s still a pompous, feckless dolt, and yes, that information is always relevant. Are you really saying that there’s a statute of limitations on the botches and disgraces of public figures in their public life? Why would you say that? Gingrich proved that he was an undisciplined egomaniac two decades ago, and people need to be reminded of that. And, by the way, the press did remind us, almost the second Newt entered the race.
Arguing that newsletters with racist content that were mailed out over about a 5 year period is “one data point” is like arguing that Cardinal Law made “one mistake” by protecting every pederast in Boston that he found out about. Paul’s allowing this to occur constitutes a long string of “mistakes”—a pattern of inattention, racism, pandering, poor management, irresponsibility or all of the above…take your pick, but it’s far from one mistake, and I would argue that it is far more damning than anything Herman Cain may have done with his female conquests. Cain’s campaign collapsed under his scandal because there was no substance to his campaign. Paul’s may survive somewhat because he does have substance, though much of it is wacky, but honestly, Tim…what American candidate can realistically, credibly and successfully run against a black incumbent President, with content like that having been published under his own name? You’re an extremely rational guy on every other issue—what is it about Paul that makes people abandon basic logic and perception? I don’t get it.
Ron Paul has integrity. I agree with that.
However, how hard is it to be a Libertarian? It seems to me to be a path of least resistance.
I’m reminded of the Marx Brothers where Groucho is singing ( from the movie Duck Soup ?? )
as a politician, “whatever it is, I’m against it!”
As a libertarian politician, you tap into the voters frustration with the existing process. All that is required of you is that you vote against any kind of government. How hard can it be?
With the world being as it is, Mr. Paul’s views on national affairs are naive and childish.
Like it or not, we police the world.
Thank you for your most excellent Blog Mr. Marshall. I am a fan already.
Good article, good comments, good food for thought… I’m still on track to vote for Ron Paul, however, simply because Barack Obama (whom I supported in 2008) has done nothing but advance the interests of our military-industrial complex and greatly advanced our conversion to a military-controlled police state, despite all the flowery prose and promises he made on the campaign trail… To someone who is paying attention to what is actually happening in the world, voting for Barack Obama again would be even more insane than voting for Ron Paul… And all the rest of the GOP candidates are total douchebags… Ron Paul, despite his faults, is clearly anti-war/pro-constitution, which is what we desperately need right now…
“Anti-war” in the sense that everyone should be ant-war is a desirable mindset. My Dad was anti-war, and he fought in and was decorated in one of them. “Anti-war” in Paul’s world, where he thinks the US should have let the Confederacy secede and Hitler take over Europe is pacifism, and unethical in the extreme. Also, I’m afraid, dangerous and idiotic.
I think it all comes down to this.
I am not going to vote for someone for the office of President who wasnt even capable of supervising a newsletter well enough to make sure that eveything that came out under his name represented his true views. Period.
Bingo.
Seriously, which is worse? Making racist comments in 1992, or assassinating American citizens without trial or charges and passing a bill that allows the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial or charges in 2011?
….well, obviously the former. I mean, what could possibly be worse than disavowing quasi racist comments since 1996 and responding to media interview after media interview, only to have the media hit the reset button and ask you to respond to more media interviews so you can relive your darkest day again in the present times, even though nothing has changed and the former interviews should be sufficient rather than rehashing it all over again?
“Oh, Ron Paul walked out of an interview because he didn’t want to answer questions about the scandal!” – It’s this kind of sensationalist journalism that leaves out the fact that Ron Paul already has discussed the scandal to great length.
I’m not really trying to defend Paul, but I’m trying to find my focus on the journalism, because that is what is bothering me. So, if anyone can help me out, that would be great.
What bothers me is that when this was raised before, and Ron Paul discussed it in television, radio, and print, he did so in order to give his statements and let that be the official record. Why is anyone wanting to waste his time and their own time to recreate what has already occurred? Answer: Because they didn’t like the result the first time and maybe this time they can get him to slip up and say something stupid off the cuff.
Because it’s the majority of the media’s job to waste people’s time with unimportant nonsense and distract from crucial events, like the Presidential-ordered assassination of American Citizens and the preperations of civil war by our own military against our own citizens…
What is it about Barack Obama that makes people abandon basic logic and perception? I don’t get it.
Roger: your upset about the killing of a citizen fighting for the enemy in a foreign country is misplaced. I wrote about this—it’s an unusual situation, it’s no slippery slope, the guy richly earned his demise, and you should forget it. As for “preperations of civil war by our own military against our own citizens…”—that sounds like paranoia to me. I don’t see it. Democrats thought Bush and Cheney were getting ready to throw citizens into concentration camps, too.
As for your last question: Obama as an abstract concept demands many people’s loyalty and admiration without any reference to reality, and he can, quite literally do no wrong. It’s a problem, but every president has this to some extent. Obama, because his appeal was always based on abstractions and packaging, has more of it, that’s all.
People thought Bush and Cheney were going to throw people in concentration camps because they acually, physically built them; 600 plus from coast to coast at my last count, although I’m hearing 800 plus these days… Google the term FEMA CAMP sometime… And it was Obama who approved, Senator Levin even says demanded, the legislation making it legal to do so… Brick and mortar, stone and steel resides firmly in the realm of reality, not paranoia… And as for “preparations of civil war by our own military against our own citizens”, that’s according to the soldiers who are actually recieving this training… Google Soldiers Preparing For Martial Law sometime… And don’t even tell me that’s normal because we sure as hell didn’t recieve any training like they are describing when I was in the National Guard and we didn’t have to fill out questionaires asking us if we would fire on American Citizens if ordered and recieve disclipinary action if we said we wouldn’t, which has been documented… Ron Paul never objected to the war in Afghanistan because it appeared to have been necessary at the time, although we now know it wasn’t… But it was obvious from the very beginning that the war in Iraq was completely unnecessary, and the propaganda campaign for the war in Iran is even more absurd than the obvious-even-at-the-time lies we were told about Iraq… I, for one, would prefer a president who is not easily manipulated into completely unnecessary and disasterous wars solely for the purpose of making money for the people who profit from them… You do some good work here Jack, but when it comes to Ron Paul vs Barack Obama I find your spin, rationalizations and denial a bit overwhelming… It’s not impossible to change my mind about what I believe based on the research I’ve done and the evidence I’ve found (I was once an Obama supporter) but it takes a lot harder evidence and much stronger ideas than anyone has presented here to do so… I do have concerns about Ron Paul, but I still feel he’s our best option for 2012… I’ll stop now… lol Best wishes for the New Year Jack…
Well, I agree with “LOL.”
1. You must have a definition of “concentration camps” that I’m unfamiliar with, and don’t want to be familiar with.
2. “Google” is neither evidence nor an argument. I suspect I could Google “Giant Killer Horseshoe Crabs” too. This is Jesse Ventura stuff. You gotta not let Jesse get in your head.
3. It is ALWAYS necessary to retaliate militarily against countries that kill 3000 of your citizens and attack a military installation on your home territory. The fact that Dennis Kucinich and Paul don’t comprehend that is remarkable, and firmly ensconces them in the dangerous category of pacifists, Of course Afghanistan was necessary.
4. Iraq wasn’t necessary as it turned out, and probably wasn’t worth the cost. Neither of these things were known when the decision had to be made whether or not to take out Saddam. We judge decisions based on what was known when they were made, not in hindsight. We had reason to believe Saddam had WMDs—after he was captured, he admitted that he was trying to make people believe that. Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire terms, and the UN should have enforced them—it didn’t, because it was taking bribes. Meanwhile, Saddam was letting his own people starve because of sanctions. I know Ron doesn’t believe that saving lives is a justification for military action—he thinks that the Holocaust was “none of our business”—but the credible threat of WMDs, PLUS the violation of the ceasefire conditions, PLUS the ongoing innocent deaths from the sanctions absolutely make the Iraq action defensible. The botching of it, the failure to make the US public pay for it, cutting taxes, the despicable and irresponsible failure of the UN to back its own resolutions by joining the US…those were subsequent failures that don’t reflect on the pure justification of the decision itself Saying it was defensible doesn’t mean it was a wise call, but the political criticism of it, especially from hypocrites like John Kerry, has been intellectually disgraceful.
Except from Paul: if we shouldn’t have fought Hitler, we certainly shouldn’t have fought Saddam.
But, of course, we SHOULD have fought Hitler.
The comparison between Obama and Paul is the comparison between a weak, inept, and feckless leader and a deluded, irresponsible and dangerous one. Yes, if a gun is at my head, I guess I’ll take weak over nuts.
Or I might just let the gun fire.
I can’t see why you are so obsessed with the media’s coverage. Whether Paul pandered to racists and didn’t bother to oversee his own operation yesterday or 20 years ago, it still tells us useful information about him, and it’s still not good. It’s as relevant now as ever. His explanations? The facts are the facts—there are no explanations that let him off the hook—and he has NOT been as consistent as you seem to think. He has variously justified some of the statements, said he disavowed them said he wrote some of them, and said he never read them—and that’s disturbing too.
You must have missed the post where I talked about CNN allowing the smear that he walked off the interview to take hold. That was unconscionable.
By the way, Tim: Slate just posted this.
Hmmm. Well, there goes the integrity part. Now what?
See, asking the same question again and again does justify itself when the questioned party changes his or her answer. Just like cross-examination in a trial!
What difference does it make which is worse? It’s not a competition, and the fact that something is worse doesn’t make something else bad any better. Why do I keep seeing this kind of argument? It’s illogical and a rationalization.
Ron Paul may have some good ideas, but he is NOT presidential. Ideas do not lead a country: hard-headedness, the appearance of strength, the ability to make hard decisions that may in part go against your ideology to save a nation… Ron Paul has none of these characteristics.
It’s just that this is an example of the “true believer” mentality. (Sometimes referred to now as the “rock star syndrome” after Obama’s campaign.) This sort of blind loyalty is not, unfortunately, as rare as we might like to think. But it’s always dangerous for the free political process.