Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic and Paranoia Filled Newsletters

The New Republic takes an excruciatingly close look at the archives of Ron Paul’s newsletters:

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

And that’s just scratching the surface. There’s much more:

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”

There’s a lot of things that you would expect to see in a newsletter for any white supremacist group such as kind words for David Duke, an outlash against Martin Luther King Day and anti-gay rhetoric.

Of course, the first question that pops into mind is did Ron Paul actually write these article and if not why did they appear in his newsletters?

When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications–ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”

In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it.

(via Metafilter)

Update:

Ron Paul’s response:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Honestly, if it had been one or two articles written in his newsletter by a misguided staff writer the “golly gee I didn’t know” defense would be more believable but clearly it was a trend. The ReVolution will no longer be televised.

Update 2

Several members of Reason Magazine’s blog seem to have been critically injured when the Ron Paul Bandwagon slammed into a white wall doing about 90.

Comments

7 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.
  1. ac,

    thank god. for a second i thought the interests of ordinary americans were actually going to be represented in the white house. close call, nice save

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Niel,

    the person above me in this comment section has completely confused me. Perhaps “ac” is using a new form of sarcasm which escapes my gentle faculties.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. DaveS,

    So, what you’re saying is, Paul is Dead?

    Number Nine!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. But…but…but… a staffer wrote those and that staffer was fired…and…and…and…

    Bwahahhaahaha. Where are you now FZappa, come to save your wittle white boy on these here comment threads?

    Gold Standard!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Comedy gold standard, that is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. AeC,

    For the record, ac =/= AeC. Get your own initials.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. ac,

    don’t sweat our unsustainable monetary system or the disingenuous leadership it facilitates. Some mainstream politician who appeals to your social priorities will definitely pick up the issue before it’s an obvious crisis.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0


Creative Commons License