Ron Paul: A Good, Flawed Man

Ron Paul is a good man; is not a racist; has introduced long-overdue, much-needed conversations into the mainstream of pop political dialogue; has initiated a push toward freedom that has the potential to turn serious, thoughtful libertarian candidates into viable, electable candidates; has boldly asserted, and rightly so, that he Republican party has betrayed its own platform; has made America’s abandonment of the principles of liberty look both absurd and tragic; and has one sad flaw: the failure to make wise judgments about his associates in his ascendency to his current political status.

That’s my summary assessment after a few days of research following TNR’s report about the old Ron Paul newsletters. We who just began learning about Ron Paul recently thought we might have found the voice of principled integrity much-lacking in American politics. Dr. Paul really did cure a lot of apathy. But we were wrong on one major part: the consistent, principled integrity.

And even that, in the realm of politics, is not as big a deal as it might sound. If Dr. Paul weren’t so incredibly intelligent and consistent on everything else, the fact that he botched this newsletter business wouldn’t be hardly as much of a surprise. Paul is an exception when compared to the carefully-polished “flip-flopping” of all the other candidates to make them look like the ideal NeoConservatives – and after last night’s Fox News debate, you’d have a hard time convincing me that any of the others are not neocons. Every single one of them – except Paul – talked about Pakistan as if the country belonged to us, and its future – as well as that of the whole Middle East, for that matter – was in our hands. The arrogance of statements which basically sound like this: “We shouldn’t get rid of Mussharaf, but if we do, we need to be mindful of who we put in his place,” is appalling.

But for Paul to have really pulled off a huge political turn – maybe not a win, but a significant enough showing to put libertarians permanently on the political map – he needed perfection. And perfection is not what we have with Paul. We don’t have that with anyone of the candidates, of course, and the standard is perhaps unfair, but there’s not really much “fair” about politics.

His response to the recent round of bringing up the newsletters was, in part, very gutsy. There is no other candidate willing to take on the institutional racism of the enforcement of drug laws. And it is racism, make no mistake here. Given the fact that Paul would be prepared to pardon a gigantic number of black men (and people of all races, of course) when he took office, one hardly sees how the man could be a racist. Sure, legalizing drugs is already a libertarian principle, so the pardons would be natural; but one would think a racist who believes these black men are criminals by nature would find a way around their release.

In fact, I’m quite convinced he’s not a racist, even if, on the whole, I’d disagree with the basic notion that libertarianism is the remedy for racism (another post for another time). Here’s what I think happened:

As Paul, the Classical Liberal-type Libertarian was on the political rise, some folks rallied around him and pledged support to him; some of these were not-so-good folks. Many were and are called “paleo-libertarians,” and some of these tend towards to the fringe, kook, and even racist type of thinking involved in these old newsletters. Libertarianism is simply bound to draw some loons, because an important principle of libertarianism is individual freedom; I’m not going to force you to think in a certain way. In some ways, it’s a refuge for conspiracy theorists. One can even imagine how Paul, surrounded by ardent supporters in a political atmosphere unfriendly to his own ideals, would begin to feel some manner of sympathy for the theories and begin entertaining them himself.

There should be no refuge for racism, of course, and this is the great error that will haunt the rest of Paul’s political career, as it has the last 10. Overall, I believe Paul when he says there were many issues of that newsletter that he never saw. I believe him when he says he doesn’t know who some of the authors were. But he had to have known who the editors were, and it seems that at least they should be outed and exposed. He refuses to do so; perhaps there’s even principled integrity behind that. Perhaps they’re people who have changed, and he doesn’t feel it would be right to expose a repentant person. I don’t know. It’s not, in my mind, a good enough reason for hiding the source of pain for many people of minority groups in America who have had to deal with this kind of bigotry for centuries.

In any case, Paul was not using the same tactic in responding to the newsletters in 1996. Then, he claimed many of the comments were taken out of context. Granted, there are quotes being reported today that were not being reported then; nevertheless, this is a marked difference in response. “Those are out of context” is a lot different than “I never wrote them, have no idea who did, and I’ve never even read some of them.” He claims that a few years ago, he wanted to just go public with the whole mess, but his advisors told him, “Bad idea.” He listened. Probably shouldn’t have.

But back to his bad-guy supporters. From digging around the Libertarian world the past few days, a few names get thrown around by folks who were there when the newsletters were being published; at least a small, core group of folks know who wrote them. There seems to be unanimity that it was not Ron Paul. There also seems to be a commonly held belief that Paul retained friendship and council from this person, and therefore is willing to take the bullet for him. Bad move. He should have disassociated himself with the person and the letters when he found out their content and was reportedly very angry about it. At the time, these sorts of newsletters were a common way to raise money for a candidate. They were supposed to be edgy, and given Paul’s libertarianism, there was no doubt they needed to appeal to an out-of-the-mainstream crowd. It’s not beyond the realm of possibility at all that some freelance writers, or an idiot editor himself wrote some of that garbage and pushed issues out while Paul was off lecturing in other areas of the country. Paul’s trust was misguided, and it will be his undoing.

That said, I return again to two things: Paul’s consistent beliefs, and the current state of politics. The newsletters are bad. Paul repudiates them. If he’s hiding anything, it seems to be another person’s reputation. Not only does Paul repudiate all their content (and as he says, his entire life has repudiated them, as anyone who has ever known him will testify), as I’ve already argued, he’d put some pretty bold anti-racist policies into practice.

There are some popular conservative Paul supporters who are sticking by him, and these are not unthoughtful people. Andrew Sullivan hits the nail on the head when it comes to these letters and Paul’s libertarianism. Responding to the Thursday night debate, he writes:

And, yes, thank God for Ron Paul.

No one else, except McCain, copped to the GOP’s rank betrayal of fiscal conservatism, limited government, prudent foreign policy and civil liberties. When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn’t in his nature to adopt other people’s views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn’t just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn’t have the instinct to police anyone else’s views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don’t think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better.

That about sums it up for me. It was a terrible, inexcusable error. And lest anyone think I’m going soft on Paul, let me be clear: I do think he’s lying when he says he doesn’t know the identity of the ghostwriter. I think he’s protecting someone (I don’t want to name names here, but this link will get you started if you want to do your own digging. If you’re really serious about looking into this, go to reason.com/blog and read through the Ron Paul posts and hundreds upon hundreds of comments there). I’m not about to abandon a candidate caught in a lie, however. All the other candidates get to stand on stage and lie every single time they speak, with immunity. It’s an absurd game. But Paul’s error in this is better understood in light of what Sullivan is saying above. John Derbeyshire underscores the point:

I had a most interesting email yesterday from a friend in Texas. My friend’s father was a slightly-cranky far-rightist who’d corresponded with Paul in the early 1980s. He’d send Paul one of his letters (my friend has preserved them) ranting about something or other. Paul would send a polite letter back, calmly agreeing with the bits he agreed with (limited government, Constitution) and pointedly ignoring the nuttier bits. Letters that were all nuttiness got no response from Paul.

Sadly, it’s possible that had Paul payed more attention to the newsletter instead of trusting his editors and writers, there would not have been “no response” from Ron Paul, but, “Don’t publish that.”

Larison remains a staunch Paul supporter, and he gets it right here:

I remain, as always, a Ron Paul supporter. Those who prefer the ethically challenged pardoner of murderers, the serially deceitful, the associate of mobbed-up indicted crooks, the Cheney crony or the warmonger are, of course, free to support whomever they like. Let’s just not pretend that it’s because they are somehow morally superior to the lone constitutionalist and opponent of the war.

For Libertarianism to gain viable ground in American politics – indeed, for it to even be moral – it must disavow racism and any and all links to previous support for racism within the fringes of Libertarianism. Paul is doing this, but too late. If he’d never let the newsletters be published in the 90s, or kept closer watch on them, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Ron Paul would be permanently putting Libertarianism into the mainstream, and he might still have an outside shot at this nomination.

I still think he’s the best candidate; I’ll be casting my vote for him on February 5th. I’m sorry – better to vote for a non-racist candidate who has publicly disavowed a sketchy past than the ones who will maintain the invisible, status quo of racism in American. Hell, I’d rather have a former racist who is now repentant than one who denies racism is still a problem or wants to let society just go on the way it is, while discrimination is still rampant. A convert from racism is better than a dysconscious racist. Paul is not a convert from racism in the first place; I’ll be sticking with him through this election, unless further, previously unveiled evidence comes into the light.

Ultimately, it looks to me as if Paul is going to represent an important historical moment for Libertarianism. As Libertarian ideals make their way into more popular discourse, so thoughtful Libertarians now have the opportunity to break permanently and in the popular public eye from any past and present kooks, loonies, and bigots, i.e., many in the paleo-libertarian crowd.

It could have been so much more, if Ron Paul had used wiser judgment in the 90s. He got himself involved with the wrong kind of people. He should have known better.

There’s so much more to say, but this essay is long enough. As I said, I’ll want to get back to theological blogging really soon…but it wouldn’t exactly be right of me to have spent all this time writing about Paul only to stick my head in the sand at this point. As I said before, if it becomes obvious that Paul really is a racist, I’ll be making public apology for supporting him. For now, I’ll be posting updates and analysis as the election process continues.

In the meantime, there are several other pieces you should read (both for and against Paul):

• Richard Spenser
• More Larison
• Richard Spenser again: Coming to Terms with Ron Paul’s Past
• John Derbeyshire: Paul the Peter
• Radley Balko: Paul on CNN
• A huge round-up post by Reason
• Wirkman: Ron Paul [does not] confront his ghosts