Republicans and Ron Paul
So what a crazy Presidential race. By far the more interesting of the two parties are the Repubs. And that's almost entirely due to context. Having lost the '06 congressional elections, they're on the defensive and have to go as far back as Reagan to find someone to emulate. Now that by itself is enlightening in a couple of ways. It says, A) they are unaware that many of the failures of their party are inherent in their ideology (i.e., their abandonment of traditional conservative values in order to appeal to their base's emotional side with issues that negative or no concrete repercussions (i.e. gay marriage, low taxes being the solution to every financial problem ever)) and B) many of these deficiencies started with Reagan (or at the very least were popularized with Reagan). So you have all these Republicans struggling to find the inherent good in their ideology that has been proved wrong in nearly every respect and has been almost universally rejected by the American public.
The only exception to the rule is Ron Paul, who, ever since his exchange with Giuliani in the second Republican Debate, is getting lots of love from the more libertarian of the conservative base. Now the more traditional and old-fashioned portion are getting all hot and bothered too. The only problem is many of these people (not all, mind you) only know about his foreign policy (and, quite frankly, the only reason his foreign policy looks great is by comparison to the rest of the Republican candidates, who are insanely blind to the realities of the Middle East). Visiting his website, show that many of his domestic policies are great too.
Then one starts to dig a little deeper and the cracks start to show. Here are some choice quotes. A few of these were taken from his newsletter during his 1996 congressional run, and, to be fair, he has denied writing these, but they were in his newsletter, for Pete's sake, so it's not like he didn't endorse them at the time. (EDIT: For clarification, it was the bit about Barbara Jordan he claimed not to write.) Instead, it looks like he is reneging to seem more palatable to non-Texans.
"University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."
Barbara Jordan's wikipedia page
From The Houston Chronicle
"Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of ‘Terrorist Update,’ for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ‘If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.’
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ‘current events and statistical reports of the time.’
... [I]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], ‘We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.’
Paul also asserted that ‘complex embezzling’ is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
‘What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?’ he wrote.
From a reposted version of The Ron Paul Political Report on Google Groups:
“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.”
And something more recent; this is him addressing the Don Imus scandal, in which he subtly links it with the FCC, which didn’t have anything to do with it, in order to support his fringe view of abolishing the federal government:
”It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, ‘Congress shall make NO law.’…
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”
And, finally, his view on market forces:
"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees - while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."
So, there are many of his domestic policy views. Still support him now?
(And just for clarification, I do think libertarianism is a viable mindset, just not his particular brand.)