Ron Paul on Racism
Lance on Nov 21 2007 at 5:27 pm | Filed under: Culture, Domestic Politics, Election 2008, History, Lance's Page, Race
I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, or rather I don’t claim to have any evidence he is, and that is enough to hold from suggesting he is. However, his view of racism and its history is rather bizarre and, dare I say it, wholly focused on “right wing” critiques of racial thinking in his recent statement. Of course some segments of the libertarian community have always focused on the federal governments role in racial thinking, and ignored or minimized the states and other entities role in our past and right up to the present. This is mixed in with a thick stew of southern delusion and fantasy about the Confederacy. Lincoln was the real devil in that old sorry tragedy.
Ron has never expressed his discomfort with that wing of libertarianism that I am aware of, and his recent statement on this gives one the impression he wishes to appear to condemn racism while expressing it purely as a problem of government action on behalf of the discriminated against. Certainly the issue of anti discrimination laws needs to be revisited as well as affirmative action, the racial identity politics of much of the left and more. However, focusing ones condemnation of racism almost solely on such policies, especially at the federal level; and acting as if that is the real issue not only now, but in the past; rather than centuries of discrimination, enslavement, brutal and dehumanizing violence and a host of other sins is disturbing to say the least.
Nor is condemning racial policies, whatever their intent, the same as condemning racism. If I were a racist I certainly wouldn’t find anything objectionable in his statement, and much to find comfort in. The problem isn’t me, it is the fault of those nasty collectivists who have subverted the rugged individualism of white people in favor of policies to protect minorities. If I were a racist that is just the kind of myth making and blaming I might find really attractive.
For a more detailed examination of the contradictions and blinkered thinking in this statement I suggest David Bernstein (who has several posts on Paul) and Dale Franks at QandO.
Sphere: Related Content
When a person claims moral superiority it fosters in that individual a sense of alienation. To comfort that sense of alienation the individual identifies with those who share the basis for the sense of moral superiority forming a collective. It’s the sense of the moral superiority within the collective that is often used to justify acts of alienation, oppression and violence. Racism is a “visible” owtgrowth in this phenomina, but the underpinnings of adhereing to moral superiority are sometimes apparent in those who spurn others for not condeming racism in a fashion appropriate to them.
The ugliness of an individual’s views is often most apparent when the idividual is confronted by those “same” views in an opposing collective. But herein also resides the beauty. For the boundaries of conflicting collectives may be overcome by the recognition of similarity. The message of peace, freedom and prosperity could be the ultimate unifier.
Ron Paul is a congressman and candidate for President of the United States. It is this author’s hope that he continue to focus on those issues that apply to governance at the federal level.
Really?
Hmm. Nothing objectionable except “ugly” and “problem of the heart”. As well as wishing for its demise. Yeah, nothing objectionable there.
Let me help you out…
If I were a
racistlibertarian, I certainly wouldn’t find anything objectionable in his statement, and much to find comfort in.There, that’s better.
You know, you and Dale need to give Venkman and Spengler back their ghost glasses and stop looking for things that aren’t there.
Cheers.
The point Pogue isn’t that, as badly thought out as it is, he is a racist or the statement is objectionable in and of itself. Elements of it are objectionable, though they don’t show any animus necessarily. The point is, that if one is putting out a statement to address the issue of racists and various other hateful groups supporting you, you condemn their racism. Not the racism, or attitudes of those they oppose. While he is welcome to see racism as an issue of collectivism, and I think he has poorly identified and described a real truth there, to define and describe it in such a manner, to spend all the time in a statement on such things, gives comfort to the very people he supposed to be disavowing.
That is how they define the issue of racism to a large degree. It may be a problem of the heart, but the racists who he was supposed to be addressing are now perfectly justified as seeing that as other peoples issues, not theirs. They aren’t the racists. I am sorry, that statement is the kind of thing I hear David Duke say. He isn’t a racist, others are. He is just standing up for his individual rights and opposing the racial ideas of the left with all their collectivist ideas. That Duke has a point hardly makes it an attack on racism generally. It is wholly an attack on certain ways race impacts our national polity, and defines it in a way that Don Black and David Duke can see themselves as the victims.
That doesn’t mean that I think Paul feels that way himself, just that his statement is not a disavowal of racism, but an attack on the lefts way of viewing the world through the prism of race. It is incomplete (and flawed, but I view them as flaws, not actual racial animus), and without the rest of the issue explored he has done nothing to address their racism, and plenty to give them a rationale for viewing the world as they do. He has told them racism is ugly, but done nothing to show that they are the ugly racists, but rather that their foes are. Imagine condemning evil, but defining evil in such a way as to allow evil people to not view themselves as evil. That is what Paul has done. He has condemned racism while describing it in terms that allows many racists off the hook. Granted, many do that the other way (blacks cannot by definition be racists for example) but that isn’t a defense.
Given the context for the release of the statement, that is pretty hard to figure, and I wouldn’t blame people for wondering whether he is just clueless about what to say (my opinion) or hiding an agenda.
Sorry if you went to the trouble to explain the point of your post to me. You see, I know what point you and Dale were trying to make. And it’s completely inflated and without merit.
This “read between the lines” subtext that you and Dale claim is there is complete bullshit. There is nothing in Paul’s statement to suggest what you and Dale are claiming.
Nothing.
Yet despite words describing racism like “ugly” and “problem”, you and Dale felt it wasn’t admonishing toward racism enough. That Paul is saying, I’m not a racist (wink, wink). Let me apologize on Paul’s behalf if he didn’t jump up on a soap box for a tirade ending in a hearty “Can I get a hallelujah?”
This “Paul must be a racist” meme that people like you and Dale are carrying on about is ridiculous on its face.
And you have no evidence, none whatsoever, that suggests Paul is a racist, or is even amicable towards racists. But that doesn’t stop you, Dale, and a host of others, from trotting out sewing circle rumors and innuendo.
Oh… and btw…
David Duke!?!
Nice touch.
Cheers.
Obviously you don’t get it. I have done no reading between any lines. I am not claiming anything about Paul (except he seems to have trouble putting a coherent point about race together) but I am claiming he hasn’t addressed racism, and what he is saying doesn’t address racists, which is what he was supposed to be doing. He has framed his answer in a way that gives comfort to racists, whatever his intention. You are the one reading between lines.
And yes, it is exactly the kind of rhetoric that allowed David Duke to squirm around claiming others were the real racists, not him. Paul would have done better to just not address the issue than to issue this muddle. Once again, I am not saying Paul is a racist, in fact, I don’t think he gives race much thought at all, but that is just an impression. I don’t know what he really thinks. But his attempt to shoehorn the entire issue into an problem of the state is not only silly and ahistorical, but means he focuses entirely on leftwing identity politics. Just like Duke did, claiming he wasn’t a racist all the way. Their views may in fact be different, but when all your attention is focused on certain aspects of a problem, not as a matter of policy, but on the general topic of racism, that is cluelessness of a pretty major sort, especially for someone who nobody has accused of identifying with leftwing identity politics, but rather Klan members and other rightwing hate groups. If you are trying to take that issue on, attacking affirmative action isn’t exactly going to quiet concerns, and frankly makes it look like who you are trying to distance yourself from isn’t Don Black. Pardon us for noting how unsatisfactory that is.
Why pick on Dale by the way, how about Bernstein?
Well, I don’t know Bernstein’s writings as well as I know Dale’s. I’ve known Dale’s analysis to be moronic and his predictions laughable for some time now, so I guess it’s easy and natural for me to pick on Dale.
I remember like it was yesterday reading his election night live blogging analysis claiming that he saw nothing to suggest that the Dems would have a big night. It was idiotic as there was everything to suggest that. Also, most recently, Dale claims that California is in play. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And now he claims, like you, that Paul is secretly addressing racists in a secret language that only racists can understand.
And you may not believe that it is what you are doing…
But it is what you are doing.
You’re not just claiming that Paul was inadequate in addressing the problem of racism, you’re claiming that he isn’t addressing it as a defense. You would’ve been fine with your criticism if only you’d left out the third paragraph where you seem to think that Paul puts forward a statement friendly to racists. That’s ridiculous.
And you don’t think that with this,
You’re not “reading between the lines”???
If you aren’t reading between the lines, show me where specifically Paul claims that racists aren’t racists but others are???
Show me.
So if I were to say that Christianity is “ugly” and a “problem”, I wouldn’t be attacking Christians?
If I were to say that homosexuality is “ugly” and a “problem”, I wouldn’t be attacking homosexuals?
And when Paul says that racism is “ugly” and a “problem”, he’s not attacking racists?
Lance, put your normal person hat on and think about that.
After reading all of this, I think I know what your problem is and I can help you.
You see Lance, Ron Paul is NOT David Duke.
Ron Paul does not start out his position on race and racism already in the hole. Paul was never a member of the Klan. Ron Paul was a pediatrician for fuck’s sake. He has delivered many differently colored babies. He is not in the position of being a racist trying to defend himself. This is all a trumped up charge from bullshit conservative bloggers. Nothing more.
Ron Paul is not in the position of having to defend himself to the likes of ASHC, Q&O, CQ, and the rest of you lot.
Was that what he was supposed to be doing? Again, you must be seeing things that aren’t there.
Paul doesn’t claim that this is meant to address racists, in general or specific. I know I certainly wouldn’t defend myself to the likes of you, Franks, Bernstein, or any of the rest of you by addressing this trumped up meme. This whole thing is a cooked up meme with the hopes of marginalizing Paul.
Every campaign has its kooks riding on its coat tails. EVERYONE does.
I see Giuliani happily accepting an endorsement from someone who believes that gays and atheists are to blame for 9/11.
Where’s your concern over that? Where’s your wantings for Giuliani’s defense on that? Where’s Franks? Where’s Bernstein?
Conservative bloggers don’t like Paul because of his foreign policy position. So instead of confronting that head on (because his position isn’t necessarily an unpopular one, even among Republicans), they dream up situations, feed on a narrative, and hope that other bloggers will foster the bunk idea.
If I were Paul, I wouldn’t legitimize the accusation by addressing it. Nor would I legitimize the bloggers that are making it, or the bloggers that foster it.
Cheers.