After writing a column critical of Ron Paul’s presidential straw poll win at CPAC, I was smacked with barrage of colorful emails from his supporters. A few of those complaints turned up in the comments section of this blog (though I rarely use this space for politics) so I thought I’d bring it to a post.
This comment is typical of many:
David,
What kind of libertarian argues for a “robust and proactive” national defense?
That means perpetual war.
DrewJ
I’m no sort of libertarian, actually — especially if being libertarian means passing a purity test. I’m a conservative with strong libertarian impulses. I imagine I’m not alone. And though I often advocate for strong national defense (and God knows that can mean a million things), the column made no argument on the subject. Here’s what the piece stated:
Patrick Buchanan recently claimed that the GOP was showing signs of turning away from its recent foreign policy positions. The focus of policy may have changed, and perhaps more reluctance in nation-building, but polls pretty clearly illustrate Republicans still believe in a robust and pro-active national defense.
Pointing out that “polls illustrate” Republicans generally believe in a robust and pro-active national defense is a fact, not an argument.
Others have a problem with my calling out Ron Paul “unserious.” I probably should have used the word “irrelevant.” Paul is significantly irrelevant — or no more relevant than fellow conspiracy theorist Dennis Kucinich, even if I happen to be sympathetic to many of his views.
Here is another problem many readers had with my column — from the comments:
Calling someone an anti-Semite and racist without backing it up with a single quote or another shred of evidence is not something I would call well thought out or well supported. In fact I can imagine fewer things in poorer taste.
Upon further examination I could not find anything that indicated that Ron Paul was an anti-Semite or a racist. In fact he regularly quotes Jewish economists so I doubt he has much of a problem with them. I must say I expected more from someone writing for Reason Magazine.
The piece wasn’t written exclusively for Reason magazine — or libertarians — it was written for the general audience of the Denver Post (and my syndicated column) which allows only 600 words.
Furthermore, quoting Jewish economists doesn’t insulate you from hating Jews. Karl Marx was Jewish economist, and he asked: “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.…. Money is the jealous god of Israel …”
In the column, though, Ron Paul was never referred to as an anti-Semite or a racist. But the fact that Paul’s newsletters of the 80s and 90s were brimming with bigoted rants is substantiated. So substantiated, in fact, that Paul himself repudiated “everything that is written along those lines …”
Here’s my post in the Denver Post blog explaining the comment:
“Paul’s newsletters of the ’80s and ’90s were filled with anti-Semitic and racist rants, proving his slumming in the ugliest corners of conspiracyland today is no mistake.”
For those who interested in learning more, this investigation by New Republic’s James Kirchick is instructive – though, I will say, I don’t find every lifted quote to be as egregious as the author.
One newsletter, right after the 1992 LA riots, just to give you a taste, says “order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
Julian Sanchez and David Weigel furthered the story with this piece in Reason which offers plenty of background for those interested in the ideological underpinnings of the newsletters and Paul.
This stood out for me:
Cato Institute President Ed Crane told reason he recalls a conversation from some time in the late 1980s in which Paul claimed that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto until it folded in 2001.
Because that paragraph brings me to this piece from the American Thinker that explores some of Paul’s unsavory support from neo-Nazis and Klan members.
There are a number of people claiming that I called Paul a racist and anti-Semite, which I did not. In fact, when I first learned the content of his newsletter, I wrote this (no link available).
Many of the vile pull quotes here, no matter what context they may have been in originally, have nothing to do libertarianism or freedom or some principled Constitutional stand on secession. They’re just racist and homophobic. Two: even if Paul didn’t know of their existence, he should have made it his business to know. It’s exceedingly difficult for me to believable that Paul was unaware of the content in a newsletter bearing his name. Judging from what I’ve read and heard from the man, I do not believe he wrote these things. But I’m not sure it matters. If George Bush or Hillary Clinton or any mainstream politician were even remotely associated with the sort of rambling anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist and paranoid text, they would be finished as legitimate voices. Paul should be finished, as well.
When asked if he was a racist at the time by CNN, Paul responded: “Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea.” That is as inane as a socialist claiming that he can’t be greedy because greed is an individualist idea. What makes that statement even more curious is that so many Ron Paul fans heap cultish — collective — adoration on a politician.
It appears that Paul fans believe loving the Constitution and liberty is tethered to loving of Ron Paul — a professional self-aggrandizing politician — and his ugly brand of fringe paleo-libertarianism. The most curious aspect of this love is the belief that such inflexible ideology will win the day politically.
On my desk, I have two papers on public policy from the Cato Institute. One is called “Lawless Policy: TARP as Congressional Failure” by John Samples. The other is “Globalization: Curse or Cure? Policies to Harness Global Economic Integration to Solve Our Economic Challenges” by Jagadeesh Gokhale. In my other window, I have Megan McArdle’s blog up. All three offer far more useful and sensible libertarian arguments on existing public policy than a Ron Paul book.
31 comments ↓
David –
I think that Ron Paul supporters risk the danger of becoming intolerant to the point that they will quickly find themselves in the same closed box that many on the far-left inhabit. The tendency to believe that your way is the “only way” quiets real debate and makes patriots into zealots. It’s a fine line that I have never thought hard core Paul supporters walk effectively.
Harsanyi, your words :
“Paul isn’t a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades. ”
It seems rather clear to me that you reject Paul’s anti-war positions. And the issue is actually not Ron Paul but the fact that YOU are pro-war. Of course you are not a libertarian, you are not even a conservative – you are a typical neocon.
I do reject Ron Paul’s “anti-war” positions.
Ron Paul tends to oversimplify some issues, and doesn’t clearly distance himself from really fringe elements that unfortunately comprise part of his followers.
But… this might be just a part of why he has done more for proliferation of ideas of Liberty then a lot more refined and “intellectual” libertarian-leaning column writers.
Paul’s books that have plenty of weak points nevertheless were most likely read by more people that writings of all Cato and Reason (I regularly read contributed to both) writers combined.
It will not be exaggeration to say that without Ron Paul we would not have Tea Party movement. Many local Tea Party organizations started from Ron Paul 2008 meetups and his Campaign for Liberty.
Your critical column is angry and dismissive and doesn’t make a slightest attempt to understand results of the straw poll or give credit were the credit is (very much) due.
Using that logic, Simon, I suppose it would be equally true to say that Sarah Palin has had larger impact on the conservative movement than anyone else. Judging from book sales, of course. She can certainly pack ‘em in.
Here is the nice quote from today’s Cato article “Don’t Trust Anyone under 30?” by Gene Healy: “Meanwhile, the lesson here for the conservative movement is: Change or die. At the 9/12 Tea Party march, I couldn’t help noticing how heavily the crowd skewed toward middle age. But judging by the signs they carried, many of the young people who showed up were supporters of Rep. Ron Paul, energized by the libertarian Republican’s small-government, pro-Constitution message.”
I wonder how many were energized by certain libertarian-leaning conservative pundit…
Cheap! Do you really think people read “End the FED” for the same reason as Palin’s book?
I suspect very few people are energized by my columns. Thankfully, I don’t write columns to energize people and I certainly don’t write them to be part of any movement.
At the end of the day, “End the Fed” will have had the same real-world policy significance as “Going Rogue.”
Interesting… Why do you write your columns? (I assume making a living is not the only reason)
Why did Thomas Pain write his? Do you fault Founders for being part of a movement?
Really? No real world policy significance… Next time you descent from your ivory tower, and happen to run across unwashed masses holding “End The Fed” signs, don’t forget to thank them for not signing off a huge part of our economy to benevolent rule of government bureaucrats.
Or you really don’t think Tea parties have anything to do with it?
You are readily dismiss all the good work that Ron Paul has done to advance ideas of liberty, because you disagree with him on some points (only one point really), and consider some of of his positions naive and simplistic.
How different is that to reaction of your critics that dismiss all the great writing that you have done for years just because of a single angry and rushed comment?
How about this interpretation of Paul’s past murky affiliations: He managed to harvest the energy of some angry and misguided people and redirect it from blaming jews and blacks, and perpetuating conspiracy theories into resisting advances of big government tyranny. What’s wrong with this picture?
Sorry for too many posts. I will shut up now.
There is not much of a disagreement between you and Ron Paul over national defense. Ron Paul believes in strong National defense as well.
The difference between you and Ron Paul is that you seem to believe in international offense.(I might wrong but that is what I deduced) None of the wars after World War II where necessary and definitely not worth all those resources and what even more important, lives
Just wanted to throw it out there that Ron Paul is far from a self-aggrandizing politician. I met the man recently. He actually seems awkward and unknowing what to do with the attention he receives. Humility is rare among people in Washington.
As for being attacked for statements regarding him, it’s important to realize where many are coming from. Views regarding the economy, national defense, and the role of government that echo Paul’s are often marginalized and not-reported, with supporters dismissed as “fringe”. The sad thing is that if news outlets reported that his views are “popular” and “gaining a lot of traction”, then it’s highly likely people would start supporting them. Not saying that it’s right, but it’s why there’s such anger at dismissive comments. They create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
David Harsanyi,
Please respond to my blog post regarding your Ron Paul post, found here:
http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=1450
Thank you,
In Liberty,
Jonathan Raof
Jonathan, since you, like some others (see the above post), mis-characterized my views, I’m not certain how I can respond.
“Calling Paul stupid and his books silly is the most absurd thing I’ve read this year.”
Perhaps you’re not reading enough … but where did I call Ron Paul stupid? His books, in my view, are silly in contemporary political sense. No one is Ending the Fed. You might as well write a book called Back to the Horse Buggy.
“I liked what Bill Anderson on the LRC blog had to say about it:
“you will find that Ron Paul is a racist and anti-semite. (Funny, I have known him for nearly 30 years and had no idea he had this secret life as a closet Klansman. Guess that Harsanyi must really be wired into something that has slipped by Rep. Paul’s friends and constituents.)”
Never have I written that Ron Paul is an anti-Semite.
David Harsanyi,
I understand how you could have taken my comments about your post more harshly then intended, and perhaps I should be reading more, however, in a sense, you undermine Ron Paul to be seen as stupid. Additionally, if you were to warrant Ron Paul’s stupidity by siting his efforts as silly in trying to end the Fed, then think again. Ending the Fed has never been more of a reality for voters who are fighting for it. Their fight is getting larger, and things will change. I am as pessimistic as the next 3rd party member, but Ron Paul and his accomplishments really give us hope.
Finally, sure, “Never have I written that Ron Paul is an anti-Semite” – I guess you need to take that up with Mr. Anderson, but as of now, it seems believable enough.
citing his efforts***
[...] David Harsanyi wrote a vicious attack on Ron Paul. Although a self-styled conservative “with strong libertarian impulses”, he was gracious enough to show his true colors during his tirade directed towards Congressman [...]
[...] I noted earlier, the Ron Paul cultists have been out in full force. But I found this rant — which makes the [...]
I agree that Ron Paul is a wacko. Nuff said about him, but I’m claim I discovered this site.
Oops…for “claim,” please read “glad.”
I’m just curious as to why you classify yourself as “a conservative with strong libertarian impulses.” In what regards are you a conservative? From where do your “strong libertarian impulses” spring?
I too am in favor of a strong national defense, but coupled with a strict non-interventionist policy. Sweden and Switzerland have the 1st and 4th most competitive economies in the world, largely due to their foreign policy. Even though the U.S. sits at number 3, that is most likely due to the fact that we are a consumer society. If we matched our foreign policy to the aforementioned nations’, we could easily be atop the world, economically speaking.
As for your continued denial of accusations that you call Ron Paul a racist or anti-semite is a neat literary trick. While avoiding the actual phrase “Ron Paul is a racist and anti-semite,” you imply that very fact by attributing the newsletters containing racist and anti-semitic speech specifically to Ron Paul. Yes, Paul himself has come forward and said it was unfortunate these newsletters exist; even if all of the words were not his, he is responsible because his name is attached. But just because you don’t type the phrase “Paul is a racist,” and instead link to other articles making those claims, doesn’t excuse your responsibility to those claims, since your name is attached (via your byline).
Just saying, everyone has a slip of the tongue (or keyboard) now and then, but it doesn’t make their ideas any less viable.
“As for your continued denial of accusations that you call Ron Paul a racist or anti-semite is a neat literary trick. While avoiding the actual phrase “Ron Paul is a racist and anti-semite,” you imply that very fact by attributing the newsletters containing racist and anti-semitic speech specifically to Ron Paul. ”
I attribute the many newsletters (to say it was a “slip of the tongue (or keyboard)” is nonsense) to him because the newsletters were his. That is indisputable fact not a literary trick.
“But just because you don’t type the phrase “Paul is a racist,” and instead link to other articles making those claims, doesn’t excuse your responsibility to those claims, since your name is attached (via your byline).”
I link to investigations because others have done the heavy lifting on the issue. If I happen to mention Watergate in a column, I have no journalistic responsibility to re-open the case. Nor do I have any such responsibility when I mention Ron Paul’s newsletters.
TAKEN FROM: http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=1450&cpage=1#comments
Hmmm – you want a response to David Harsanyi – OK – Lets see what comes out of this and what our readers think of these responses.
Dear Mr. Harsanyi:
First, as a conservative, I must say, you really sound like a Democrat. What is the difference between the democrats and republicans today, I mean other then the democrats don’t want you richer then they are and the republicans don’t want you having any more fun than they do? Your article is lopsided and out of touch with reality – especially when being espoused from a self proclaimed conservative. Maybe looking up the word and understanding what it means is in order.
You wrote:
What are we to make of the Republican Party’s future when libertarian congressman, Ron Paul, wins the presidential straw poll at the well-attended Conservative Political Action Conference last week?
In Response:
You should make the facts stand out that people in this country are no longer willing to take the standard rhetoric from the so called conservatives in the Republican Party. People are not blind and now they are starting to see how disastrous the party has been all these years.
You wrote:
Is the GOP about to transform into the party of the gold standard?
In Response:
No, that would mean that people in the party actually understood things like Austrian Economics over the current governmental use of Keynes Economics. To claim that the republicans in power actually know anything about the real world economics and how it works instead of the dream they seem to live in, would be giving them too much credit.
You wrote:
Let’s for a moment forget Paul (and how I wish this could be a permanent condition, considering the congressman is neither a serious politician, nor — and I can’t stress this enough — a serious thinker.)
In response:
Now here is a perfect example of how you sound like a democrat. You try to elicit emotional responses from the reader that go against the true conservative message. Coming from a conservative I am rather surprised by this, coming from a neocon – it doesn’t surprise me at all. So which are you?
I find it hard to believe that you are saying Ron does not think or is not a serious thinker. Every time he presents something it is clear, concise, logical manner with measurable data from the governments own statistics. They are facts that can be looked up and easily verified. That type of research is coming from a non-thinker? You have to be kidding me.
Name calling, emotional spoon feeding etc are all gifts to human kind by people that desire handout instead of working for something. They are designed for the free loader in society who does not want to take responsibility for his actions and you are feeding right into their ploy. You aught to get your facts straight before going off the deep end like this, such actions will only hurt the conservative movement you proclaim to support.
You wrote:
Libertarianism offers conservatives — many of them new to political activism — an earnest ideological alternative to the process-heavy politics that dominates Washington.
In response:
Everyone is a Libertarian deep down inside, they just don’t recognize it. These ideologies you speak of are NOT new and are NOT an alternative. They were started by our forefathers and the government was created with them in mind. The problem is NOT with the Libertarian ideologies its with the bastardization of those ideologies over the years by the government slowly usurping power away from the people.
You wrote:
It allows Republicans to cleanse themselves of the GOP’s failure to deliver on promises of smaller government and fiscal restraint.
In response:
Republicans will never do this. Republicans are like democrats, they are centrists wanting the middle of the road solution to appease capitalists as well as the lazy. Republicans have done nothing but increase the size of government on a continual basis since Lincoln.
You wrote:
None of which is new. The 1964 Barry Goldwater would by many measures be considered a libertarian today. The National Review constructed a “fusionist” effort to bring the parties together. Ronald Reagan explained to Reason magazine back in 1975 that “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
In response:
Ronald Reagan was only smart enough to try to suck unsuspecting Libertarians into the Republican Party so that he could move forward with his big government agenda. Or, are you saying the government shrank under Reagan – HAH. Just because he espoused Libertarian rhetoric does not make him a Libertarian. He wanted to keep the two party system in tact so he used what Libertarians wanted to hear to suck them in.
You wrote:
Two sticking points preventing this fling from turning into something more serious have been social issues and war. Has anything changed to alter the dynamics of the relationship? Probably not.
In response:
The very thought that you think Ron Paul’s stance on war and social issues is NOT any change from what we have today indicates you do not understand anything he is saying. The idea that you think people waking up and seeing what is going on and doing something about it is not dynamic shows how little you pay attention to what is going on as you continue to live in your fantasy land..
You wrote:
Patrick Buchanan recently claimed that the GOP was showing signs of turning away from its recent foreign policy positions. The focus of policy may have changed, and perhaps more reluctance in nation-building, but polls pretty clearly illustrate Republicans still believe in a robust and pro-active national defense.
In response:
There is a big difference in national defense to protect our borders and nation building across the world. How you try to compare the two makes no sense here. Just what is the point of this paragraph in conjuncture with the rest of the article?
You wrote:
Social issues are far more complex — and they always have been, despite caricatures. But the reality is that most of the cultural issues that divide Americans have been mired in political stalemates. You can debate abortion all day long; policy won’t be changing.
In response:
The only reason that these are even issues is because the government gets involved with them by created some stupid law or regulation to try and control or manipulate the population. You cannot legislate morally. If government got out of the moral legislation business policy would change. Your support of such atrocities speaks volumes of where you stand as a “conservative”.
You wrote:
Economics, on the other hand, touches almost everything in a tangible way. That, and one of the most aggressive left-wing economic agendas in American history, makes the libertarian fiscal message seductive.
In response:
There is nothing seductive about common sense. Of course, being a centrist like your democrat friends, you wouldn’t admit to such a thing. You say their agendas are left wing and fight against them, but your agendas are just as much right wing. The only difference between the two is that the democrats don’t want you to be richer than they are and you don’t want anyone to have any more fun than you do.
You wrote:
Does that mean we need Paul?
In response:
Yes and no – if there is no other person like him then YES. If there are other people like him then NO – others who think and work like he does will suffice and do just as good a job as he can.
You wrote:
“Congressman Paul is committed to bringing the conservative movement back to its traditional platform of limited government, balanced budgets and a foreign policy of non-intervention,” claims Paul’s spokesman, Jesse Benton.
In response:
And what is wrong with this? By bring the size of government down and decreasing their interference within our daily lives only increases our freedoms. You find this to be a bad thing? What now that I question it you true colors are shining through and you are afraid to admit I might be right?
You wrote:
If only it stopped there. Paul isn’t a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades. Paul’s newsletters of the ’80s and ’90s were filled with anti-Semitic and racist rants, proving his slumming in the ugliest corners of conspiracy land today is no mistake.
In response:
You need to go back and read those letters again. You obviously didn’t read the same ones I did. Oh wait, I forgot, you have an agenda to control people just like the democrats. So much for you being a conservative and standing up for the individual’s rights. They were NOT filled with any sort of racist rants. They were about a person having the right to control what is his. If you think a person should not have control over what he owns, why do you even bother to consider yourself a conservative? Maybe I should come to your house and use it, and then when you throw me out I should get the government and media to say you are a racist for kicking me out.
You wrote:
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Paul is that thousands of intellectually curious young people will have read his silly books, including “End the Fed,” as serious manifestos. Though you wouldn’t know listening to Paul or reading his words, libertarians do have genuine ideas that conservatives might embrace.
In response:
Your lack of understanding in economics must lead you to criticize that which you cannot comprehend. Go back to school. Anyone who thinks you continue to fund something with nothing but credit needs an education in bankruptcy. If you believe that he is so wrong – why don’t you give me 20 billion dollars out of the goodness of your heart. Don’t worry about it – just take out a loan and have your family pay for it across the next few millennia.
You wrote:
A serious libertarian, David Boaz at the Cato Institute, found that 14 percent of American voters could be classified as libertarian. “Other surveys,” he points out, “find a larger number of people who hold views that are neither consistently liberal nor conservative but are best described as libertarian.”
In response:
This is good. Maybe now those people will actually vote their conscience like the people did at the straw pool and we will get someone like Ron Paul elected into office and save this country. At least they know what is right, unlike you who will continue to spew at the mouth that we should vote for big government people instead of holding them accountable for their actions.
You wrote:
Since the two top concerns at CPAC were “reducing size of federal government” (35 percent) followed by “reducing government spending,” it is obvious the message of individual freedom and small government has resonance. But accepting Ron Paul as the leader of this — or, actually, any — charge is a mistake for both parties.
In response:
Here you succinctly let your colors fly in the wind. You flat out say that no one should be in office that will bring us back to liberty and freedom for our citizenry. Explain to your readers how exactly letting government control their every move is a good thing. Maybe I am wrong, all this time I thought you believed you were a conservative but here, you prove you are a socialist.
Soma bestseller; Tramadol bestseller; Celebrex middot; Toradol middot; View all products.
Angry Birds
cams.com Direct persist grown up Entanglement Cams and lead on, you will-power be notified via email when we upload unexplored and astounding promotional material.
Facts About Prescription Drug Effects Buy Generic Tramadol Online.
outpersonals.com Garner disparaging connections between thousands of hand-picked men seeking men low-grade
outpersonals.com Outpersonals.com The largest Gay singles Network!
Angry Birds Online
Leave a Comment