As I noted earlier, the Ron Paul cultists have been out in full force. But I found this rant — which makes the typical unsubstantiated claims about my views — to have the most telling line I’ve yet read regarding criticism of Paul’s anti-Semitic and racist newsletters.
Even if he did (write them), it is clear that Harsanyi’s message is that the state should be allowed to intervene in social and private matters, but an individual does not have the right to state an opinion.
Huh? How is that clear? I wrote an entire book making the case that the state should not “be allowed to intervene in social and private matters” — though, I expect it isn’t radical enough for many.
But it appears many Paul’s fans are so blinded by their of devotion to a professional politician that they view any criticism of Paul’s writings or organization as tantamount to a state-sponsored intrusion into his right to say crazy things.
18 comments ↓
Mr. Harsanyi,
Please, just because I agree with a great deal of Ron Paul’s ideologies does not make me a Ron Paul “cultist”. Does the fact that Ron Paul borrows most of his economic positions from the likes of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard make these three past economists “Ron Paul cultists”?
The fact that you categorize and marginalize those who agree with Ron Paul in such a manner shows that you are unwilling to even open your mind to conflicting beliefs or ideologies. Your comments in the relevant column for Reason Magazine on his monetary policy and his drive to end the Fed show that you really have no intellectual opposition; rather, your criticism just stems from your marginalization of him and his beliefs as stemming form “conspiracyland”.
In your article you attack Ron Paul and tell your readers that he is not the leader they should choose for the Republican movement. In order to do this, you bring up and “criticize” (well, you really just dismiss everything as “crazy talk”) several of his beliefs. You write:
“Two sticking points preventing this fling from turning into something more serious have been social issues and war.”
Then you continue:
“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.”
If you meant to say, “the issues will not be won over in the conceivable future, and so maybe we should focus on things we can change, such as economic policy”, your point gets muddled when you immediately begin criticizing Ron Paul (this is especially true when the title of the article implies that it is a criticism of Ron Paul).
So, you go from making the point that most Republicans are not decided on social issues, to attacking Ron Paul for racist slander that he didn’t even write.
If we are to drop support for Ron Paul because racist slander he didn’t right proves “his slumming in the ugliest corners of conspiracyland”, then would be OK for me to extend that logic and suggest dropping support of the Republican Party because of their blatant slander against homosexuals?
Why don’t you just admit that your argument was not very strong?
Sorry, type: write*
No offense, but I don’t need any lessons from you. I believe my argument — made to Republicans, not rigid libertarians like yourself — is strong no matter how you try to distort and conflate what I wrote. I’ve already gone through all of your concerns in the post below.
(Does the Republican Party slander homosexuals? I don’t believe opposing gay marriage is slander, but if a politician had attached his name to a newsletter with comparable ugliness directed at gay Americans, that politician would be left with no political career. Paul is forgiven all, no matter what kind of crackpot conspiracy theories he’s mixed up in this week or what kind of people he associates with.)
Speaking of weak arguments: Why do you equate criticism of Paul’s racist newsletters with state intervention? Care to explain?
Mr. Harsanyi,
I’m not sure how you can call an argument which based itself on dismissing opposing ideas as “half-baked” (without caring to explain why) strong, but alas, there is no use in arguing over that.
The point of the comment on state interventionism and Ron Paul’s comment was to highlight a degree of hypocrisy when one rails another individual for “attaching his name” to slander (did Ron Paul look over every op-ed published in his newsletters?), but argues to drop the topic of pushing for social libertarian ideals within the Republican Party simply because a large group of conservatives are not open minded enough to stick their nose out of personal issues which don’t concern them.
Your comment on the intended audience the article was meant for proves my point. You seem more interested in appeasing your intended audience, conservatives, than to spread actual truth. In any case, I understand that you were limited in length, but perhaps instead of tackling so many different issues by blatantly dismissing them, you would have been better off providing an actual argument for just one of those issues.
Finally, regarding your comment enclosed within parenthesis; those who know Ron Paul and his beliefs know that he is neither a racist or an anti-Semite. Half of my family is Jewish, and I belong to a Jewish fraternity, and yet I fail to see any antisemitism within Paul’s campaign (in any case, I think the only accusation of antisemitism was from Ben Stein, who later apologized; the slander in his newsletters in the 1980s was specifically anti-black, if I remember correctly). Most of those who support Ron Paul do not do it out of blind faith, as you accuse them of doing.
There is no “degree of hypocrisy” in my statement. A person can advocate for personal liberty but, at the same time, criticize the citizen for his actions.
Again, you want to get into an ideological debate when I’m in a political one. Ending the Fed is “long-decided” issue. That is a fact. Polls show most Republicans do not favor “anti-interventionism” or, as I see it, isolationism. That is a fact. Paul’s brand of inflexible ideology (which most of his fans, I suspect, don’t fully understand) has almost no relevance in mainstream American politics. Nor does Paul have any chance of being president. Nor is he very popular outside his district. That is a fact.
Again, I’ve never called Paul an anti-Semite (though I find his conspiracy theories and habit of blaming America — usually in conjunction with her support for Israel — for every ill that befalls the world offensive), but the idea that a person with a Jewish family who names his child after Ayn Rand and follows the teaching of Rothbard can’t be anti-Semitic is ridiculous. Karl Marx was came from a great rabbinic family and he hated Jews.
You write: “Your comment on the intended audience the article was meant for proves my point. You seem more interested in appeasing your intended audience, conservatives, than to spread actual truth.”
The “actual truth” as you see it, perhaps. But that kind of statement has a ring of religious devotion to it. I write a syndicated column, my intended audience varies. Writing the “actual truth” about Ron Paul, as I see it, is no way to generate fan mail, or appease anyone, I assure you.
Mr. Harsanyi,
I am not criticizing you because you called Ron Paul on attaching his name to several op-eds which included racist slander. I am criticizing your decision to call Ron Paul on that, but at the same time bring up the fact that several Republicans simply do not agree with devolving social issues to the “free-market” (in the sense of withdrawing government from deciding on “social policy”). If you are going to criticize Ron Paul, why not criticize the Republicans? Why bring that up, at all?
You distinguish between ideological and political debates, yet you directly insult Ron Paul’s ideologies as “half-baked”. That word does not imply political irrelevance, it implies ignorance. In any case, regardless of whether some issues or not will gain consensus between both right-libertarians and conservatives doesn’t mean that the ones that don’t bring consensus shouldn’t be debated as well. Ron Paul was never trying to win over the Republican Party; he was using it as a base to spread his message.
You may have not directly called Ron Paul an anti-Semite, but you certainly imply it when you accuse him of being a conspiracy theories based on that racist slander. If you know him not to identify with anti-Semites then why bring it up? Why use that as evidence against him? Why continue to defend this notion that a Jew can be an anti-Semite? If Ron Paul is not antisemitic, then it shouldn’t be discussed at all. Intellectually, there is hardly a difference between directly accusing him and inferring it, except the latter might be intellectually dishonest.
Finally, you suggest that my writing has a “ring of religious devotion”, yet you have not been able to substantiate any of the points you put forth in your article published in Reason Magazine. If you want to have a dedicated academic debate on each of the points you brought forth, I am ready; rest assured that I can defend my ideology with logical theory.
David…I think we “cultists” would stop barraging you with comments if you simply stated what it is about Ron Paul’s policy that you find “irrelevant” or undesirable.
What is wrong with a smaller, balanced budget? auditing the Fed? bringing some troops home? expanding individual liberties? increasing government transparency? securing the border? ending government waste? trying to end the income tax? fixing/ending social security?
He’s not crazy. He would not want these policies to all be implemented in the same day. But the reason we love Paul is that, if history is any indication, he would turn these ideas into reality. Are the ideas simply too principled for you?
Sure, the big-namers like Romney, Palin, and McCain claim to stand for this, but they have no record of standing for these principles when in a position of power. We support Paul because his voting record is almost perfectly consistent. At least more so than the other “conservative” leaders. We have a hope that Paul might actually implement true conservative principles in Washington, where past Republicans have given in and failed.
I read the “Ron Paul Delusion” article. You said nothing substantive about why you are so opposed to his policies. You called him “silly” and his crusades “half-baked”, but other than that, you seemed to assume that your readers would all sympathize with you and understand your half-baked claims. And if your audience always and only agrees with you, what is the point of writing?
And you say “Paul is forgiven all” when it comes to his involvement with “conspiracy theories”. Please name a few. Don’t find the “conspiracy theories” from a pre-fabricated list. Decide for yourself, using what you already know about Paul, and whether or not YOU think his questions are “conspiracy theories”.
(You would do well to read the recent article “Everyone Who Knows What They’re Talking About Agrees with Me, And Everyone Who Doesn’t Wears a Tinfoil Hat” by Ronald Bailey.)
Jonathan — I’ve substantiated my points. You just don’t like my reasons.
Yes, I’ve criticized Republicans countless times. Using your logic, I would have to lay out all my concerns each time I say a negative word about Paul.
Yes, I blame Ron Paul for his ignorance (at best) of the ugly writings in his newsletters. Worse, I blame him for his continued association with the people who wrote them — and other fringe conspiracy theorists.
I never suggested that “your writing” has a “ring of religious devotion” to it – though it seems you have a habit of generalizing to help make your argument. What I wrote was, “that kind of statement has a ring of religious devotion to it.” Unlike you, I won’t make assumptions about all your positions from a single post.
I’m sure you are equipped to handle an ideological debate with logical theory. But you have yet to do so in defending this statement: “Even if he did (write them), it is clear that Harsanyi’s message is that the state should be allowed to intervene in social and private matters, but an individual does not have the right to state an opinion.”
Where is that clear? Where do I write that, “an individual does not have the right to state an opinion”? Or that, “the state should be allowed to intervene in social and private matters”?
If I understand you correctly, your explanation for making the statement is that I didn’t criticize Republicans in this particular column? Is that logical theory?
David, So what is your opinion of the Federal Reserve? Austrian economics?
So David, what should those of us who want less government and more liberty actually *do*? Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but the perfect is the often enemy of the good. He strikes me as the best combination of the right policies in the right place (he is, after all, a sitting member of Congress), and he’s given the limited government movement a bully platform.
But if you don’t like him, what practical advice can you offer for those of us who want lower taxes, lower spending, increased protection of personal freedoms, less regulation of business, and presumably all the things that you want as well? If not support Ron Paul, what should we *do*? I totally get what you are against. Can you help me understand, in terms of realistic political strategy, what you are for?
–BF
I know you are probably pretty busy, but I would like to see how you would respond to my questions.
I did respond.
No, you never responded to my post. You responded to the one before mine.
Looks like he bailed…
Yeah, he bailed.
David,
Checking out your site for the first time. Here’s a word of advice: Never engage the Paulites. They have way more time than you do and you cannot win. You see I’m one of RP’s constituents. In the bizarro world of the TX 14th CD to vote for the sane pro-Victory, non-Truther candidate means checking the Dem ballot. While I’m sympathic to RP’s small government message all the rest of his wacko baggage is a dealbreaker.
There is no reason to argue with fanatics any fanatics.
Or fanatics. And fanatics of any type. Especially *those* fanatics.
Leave a Comment