I know there are people out there, decent people, who really, really want to like the Texan OB Gyn because he made a name for himself championing libertarian economic ideas. They want to like him to the point of denying his racism. But come on.
Steve Horwitz who was around when Paul devised his “paleolibertarian” strategy in the 80s, thinks that Paul was pandering to the Neo-Nazis (via Dan Mitchell). You see, he didn’t want hippies in his movement, so he went for the white supremacist demographic. Which makes total sense, of course. I mean, Neo-Nazis are vastly more admirable, and the choice between the two is not a false dilemma. Certainly in the 80s when greed was good and Ronald Reagan was the President the American mainstream was not primed for Libertarian ideas. And in the 1980 the Libertarian Clark/Koch ticket didn’t get over 1% of the popular vote, best performance by Libertarians in a presidential race ever.
And in any case, if Paul didn’t like hippies then, he certainly likes them now, parsing #Occupy and pledging to unite them with the Tea Party.
Longtime Paul adviser Eric Dondredo contends that Paul is not anti-Semitic, merely anti-Israel. How do you figure? Consider that Paul invents all sorts of imaginable unimaginable excuses for Iranian nukes and HAMAS. And oh, he also claimed that Israel was behind the World Trade Center bombing. For an alleged not anti-Semite, Paul acts and sounds an awful lot like one.
Still, Paul tells Haaretz that he feels “a bit surpris[ed] and disappoint[ed]” at being left out of Republican Jewish coalition Presidential debate. The Congressman’s innocence is truly disarming. Or not.
As is usually the case with the “anti-Israel” types, Paul is anti-American. Take a look at his campaign commercial:
Yep. Terrorists shooting at our men are freedom fighters. US is the source of evil. That this kind of rhetoric is coming from a Texas Republican should give every Berkeley professor pause.
In September 19 issue of National Review, Kevin D. Williamson, who writes terrific libertarianish essays on economics and politics, did a delightful expose of Ron Paul. In it, Paul is quoted saying that there is no way a libertarian could possibly be a racist because libertarians just don’t have it in them. Williamson commented that somebody put racist crap in Ron Paul’s newsletter, and it was a libertarian.
What’s “paleolibertairan” anyway, and how does he forge an alliance with the Nazis? Libertarians are supposed to be live-and-let-live kind of people — small government, personal freedom and all. Nazis took “live and let live” literally and turned it on its head. They built a big government killing machine that successfully exterminated the Jewish population of Western and central Europe — along with Poles, Gypsies, Belorussians and others. Ron Paul is supposed to be the principled candidate but his pandering to the neo-Nazis doesn’t sound too awfully principled to me.
Neither does his asking for earmarks and then voting against the bill that contains them. The supposed principled libertarian got to bring the pork home and claim to be a principled libertarian on the national stage. His supporters don’t like hearing about it. Speaking of which, I fail to see how Paul’s personality cult positively reflects on libertarian movement.
Even if, as Horwitz suggests, Paul’s alliance with white supremacists was a matter of strategy, not conviction, Paul should recognize that he outlived his usefulness (granted, if libertarian ideas are currently popular, it is despite and not because of Ron Paul and his “paleolibertarian” strategy), step aside and allow a new generation of Libertarian Republicans (preferably not related to the Congressman by blood) rise to prominence. A decent libertarian-leaning Republican candidate should be able to gather momentum, if only Paul wasn’t sucking all the air out of the room.
So far the MSM has largely given Ron Paul a pass. A few weeks ago Rush Limbaugh explained that the Republican establishment wants a large group of non-Romneys to split the vote, so they left the OB alone (just realized, Barack Obama is BO, and Ron Paul is an OB, which is kind of amusing, admit it). Democrats for their part would love Ron Paul to prevail because he’s the only Republican in the race who can’t defeat Obama. The media that went berserk on the occasion of Sarah Palin’s target signs and turned stones on Rick Perry’s property is, curiously enough, not too terribly interested in Ron Paul’s racism. At least not yet. They know they have him by the balls, so they can ignore him for the time being.
I don’t believe the creep will get the nomination, but if he does well in Iowa, he will generate enough attention to damage the Republican party and libertarian ideas that he’s supposed to champion. We will be associated with his racism and put on the defensive on the subject of race:
“What do you mean the Tea Party is not racist? Isn’t Ron Paul a Tea party darling?”
“Libertarian economics? But you are Jewish!”
I can hear it in my ears.
Happy New Year and cheers!