Jeff Harding: Is Ron Paul a Bigot?

There's a lot to like and dislike about him, but such accusations are nothing but political smear

By Jeff Harding | Published on 12.28.2011

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Comments (4)
    • Share

The anti-Ron Paul rhetoric is getting shriller and contains a shade of hysteria. The offensive newsletters are objectionable and would disqualify him if they expressed his personal belief. They are also a valid issue in the campaign. As a public figure, Dr. Paul is subject to investigation and criticism, fair and unfair. But I don’t believe he is a bigot. If I thought he was a bigot, I wouldn’t support him.

Dr. Paul has a long record, public and private, and the only thing they can find to support these accusations are these newsletters. With most bigots, especially of the wink-wink-nudge-nudge variety, there is usually a pattern and history of bigotry. In Dr. Paul’s case, there have been a lot of people who have worked for him in his long career as a congressman and as a physician. If two people can verify that he is a bigot, they should come forward and tell the truth. So far, no one has.

The reason libertarians have to doubt that Dr. Paul is a bigot is that bigotry is quite anti-libertarian. I’ve known a lot of libertarians over the years, and I can’t remember any of them being bigoted. I am sure they exist, but I haven’t met them. On the other hand, I’ve known a lot of conservatives and those on the religious right who are bigots. A few Democrats as well. But to a firm believer in individual sovereignty, free markets and natural law, bigotry would be a negation of those ideas.

I read the accusatory New Republic article as well as several Reason articles and others on this subject. The New Republic article seems to assume these allegations are true and that Dr. Paul’s libertarian followers are willing to overlook these transgressions. Liberals would have a reason not to believe his denials since they believe anyone on the right is probably bigoted anyway and they don’t trust him or any “conservative” on this topic. The story in New Republic is largely innuendo. That is, since his name is on the newsletters, he must be a bigot. It only raises a question.

Reason says that he hasn’t handled these allegations well and there may be a conflicting record in Dr. Paul’s “denials.” Its articles also have a tendency to innuendo. It is clear that he has denied knowledge of these articles when they were written and he has disavowed what they say. It is easy to construct an argument of “inconsistency” against any public figure by going through the public record. For example, being a clever fellow and a lawyer, I could probably construct “inconsistencies” in any of Matt Welch’s or Nick Gillespie’s positions. My argument against them may or may not be true.

The non-libertarian criticisms of Dr. Paul tend to fall into the “See, I told you so. He is a wacko espousing a wacko philosophy” argument. Liberals are afraid of Dr. Paul because he would dismantle, or at least attempt to dismantle, the welfare state.

The conservatives and neo-cons fear Dr. Paul because he might win. Understand that conservatives are not classical liberal fountains of natural law and free markets either. They love the military and wish to perpetuate the glory of blood spilled on behalf of the American flag (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan II). They also love to regulate your personal behavior and, whether they admit it or not, contemporary conservatives love crony capitalism and protectionism as much as any Democrat. Their argument is, “We can’t let this guy into the White House because he’ll destroy America.” Conservatives believe he would let the Taliban march right in.

So the long knives come out.

There is a lot to like about Dr. Paul. There is also a lot to dislike. I have written about my dissatisfaction with his campaign. He has been on the defense for so many years, attacking the Establishment, finding support in any dark corner (Birchers, conspiracy theorists), that he seems to lack the ability to sway a majority by crafting a simple, positive message for the future of America. His libertarian base loves him, but can he sell his message to most Americans? He needs to act “presidential,” but he doesn’t. But we support him because we know he would make America prosperous, free and safe.

These accusations (that’s all they are) have not been backed up by one shred of evidence that Dr. Paul is a bigot. Until real evidence comes out, we may treat this shrillness as another political smear by the Establishment.

— Jeff Harding is a principal of Montecito Realty Investors LLC. A student of economics, he has a strong affinity for free-market economics. This commentary originally appeared on his blog, The Daily Capitalist.

Comments (4)

Post a Comment

(Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.)

Name:

» Rambler wrote on 12.28.11 @ 01:59 PM

Yeah, Jeff. Check this out:

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-new-world-order-conspiracy-theory-video/

Maybe they dubbed his voice?

» lou segal wrote on 12.28.11 @ 07:30 PM

There are a number of things I object to in this piece. First, it is tiresome to be told by his cult followers that anyone who opposes Ron Paul is a neo-conservative advocate who loves war and supports crony capitalism and a host of other unsavory policies. Second, he has espoused all kinds of conspiratorial theories, such as govt backing of 9/11 and the CIA attempting to overthrow our govt. He now is attempting to deny he had any knowledge of the vile racist and antisemitic remarks in his eponymous newsletter. This had been going on for many years and he claims he never read his own newsletter from which he made millions of dollars. At least the author acknowledges his associations with John Birchers and other conspiratorial kooks over the years. For anyone who thinks he is fit to be President has got to be smoking something pretty strong. The American people are never going to elect this fringe candidate who thinks Iran with a nuclear weapon is not a problem, or the US made a mistake fighting Hitler in WW11, or the Civil War was a hostile and aggressive action of the Northern states. I could cite many more instances of his eccentricities, but I think you got the basic idea.

» publius wrote on 12.30.11 @ 01:07 PM

Mr. Harding makes a reasonable case.

Paul has had a long, fairly consistent career in elective service in Texas.

Romney’s PAC dirt-diggers are grasping at individual newsletter phrases from ten or twenty years ago to try to discredit Paul.

Paul is a Texan. To be electable, he has to talk (to some ears) like a nut. Is his
banter that different from Karl Rove, Dick Armey, Tom De Lay, Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Henry Gonzales, GW Bush, whom many Texans consider to be
both normal and mainstream?

This kind of out-of-context phrases or words were what Ted Kennedy used to
trash Robert Bork, and what Mitch McConnell used to trash Goodwin Liu. It is
really pathetic. And just wait until Romney’s and Obama’s hired henchmen start
going at each other in mid-2012.

On the other hand, why is our resident defender of responsible free markets
wasting time and effort defending Ron Paul in Iowa, when everyone knows Ron
is going nowhere in his presidential campaign?

Why didn’t Harding offer an alternate opinion to Tom Donohue’s column? Why is
the American business establishment that Donohue represents fighting so hard
against the few, limited reforms passed after the excesses and crimes of the
2007-08 economic meltdown, and the gigantic tax-funded bailouts?

Why hasn’t Harding spoken about Donohue’s efforts on behalf of his Chamber
members to exempt American businesses from the Corrupt Practices Act, which
Donohue is doing with Boehner’s people almost non-stop since last fall?

Why hasn’t Harding spoken up in defense of Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires
business CEOs to personally certify that mandated financial reports and audit
information now released by publicly traded companies is honest and accurate?

These are the BIG issues that post-Rove/Greenspan/Cheney/Bush businesses
are trying to wriggle out of, as if the current Crash meant nothing to them.

Compared to this stuff, Ron Paul is what he’s always been, a brave Libertarian
Don Quixote, dueling with congressional windmills.

» lou segal wrote on 12.31.11 @ 11:50 PM

Publius,

I don’t want to speak for Jeff, but I would venture to say that the reason why he hasn’t spoken in favor of a number of the onerous job-killing regulations you like and have been mindlessly adopted by the Obama administration is because he opposes them. Although I usually agree with Jeff about most things, I differ with him regarding Paul. There is nothing courageous or brave regarding the inane things he has said over the years. I also think it is interesting how you can easily dismiss the ugly racist remarks in his newsletter because it happened a long time ago. I don’t think there is a statue of limitations on racist behavior the last time I looked. If you think this is some kind of smear campaign by Romney supporters, I urge you to start googling or youtubing to see for yourself some of the stuff this guy has said over the years.

By the way, I am a Romney supporter. Not because I think he is the ideal candidate, but because he is the best candidate in a flawed field. His policy postions on most issues are actually pretty good, and he has a demonstrated record of mangerial and executive competence unlike the clown we have now. Only children have a temper tantrum if they don’t get everything they want. As adults, we should be mature enough not to fall on one’s sword if we can’t have our way. So in the final analysis Romney is not perfect but he can win and he is a heck of a lot of better than Obama who has been an unmitigated disaster for our country.

 

More Local News »

Jeff Harding: Is Ron Paul a Bigot?

There's a lot to like and dislike about him, but such accusations are nothing but political smear

Jeff Harding: Conventional Wisdom and Our Stagnating Economy

Perhaps it's time for a 'new' approach, with policies proven to make economies grow and people prosper

Jeff Harding: Apple’s Steve Jobs Left His Mark on Technology — and Us

He was a visionary whose efforts changed the world for the better

Jeff Harding: The Hoax That Is the Infrastructure Bank

We don't need the BUILD Act, and it won't create a single new job

Jeff Harding: Obama Goes ‘Japanese’ — $447 Billion in New Infrastructure Spending

President's proposed American Jobs bill will add debt upon debt with no economic gain

Weather: Fair 59.0º


{bottom_leader

© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2012 | ISSN No. 1947-6086

Web Design & Development by PixelFive