The End of Ron Paul

Knowing that my friend Jamie Kirchick had a conversation-stopping TNR piece about the darker side of Ron Paul in the works, I commissioned Daniel Koffler to do some digging of his own on the Paul "newsletter." Dan's piece for Pajamas Media is here, Jamie's here. Both were linked on Drudge today and flooded the cite with the kind of hebephrenic idiots upon whom Paul's sliver of political legitimacy seems to rest.

For those new to story, the gist is this: Before he was a congressman, Paul had a leaflet that appeared under the multiple headings "Ron Paul's Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," "The Ron Paul Survival Report," all of which trafficked in some of the most recognizable and hideous tropes of racism, homophobia and anti-Semitism. Though the newsletter never had a byline, according to Jamie's article, Paul's campaign manager conceded that Paul did in fact write some of the material that appeared in it over the years (the manager then retracted this statement after Jamie read him some colorful excerpts).

Whatever the case, the candidate has formerly accepted "moral responsibility" for all his newsletter's contents. That makes him morally culpable for them, doesn't it? Furthermore, if, as Paul said today, he repudiates such claims that Martin Luther King was a gay pedophile or that all supporters of Israel take their marching orders from Norman Podhoretz, then why has it taken him so long to do so? The newsletter was published under his own name for years. Did he never bother to read it, or discover its true author, if this was not actually himself? If you or I had our names committed to such filth, would we not wish to uncover the source in order to end it?

A small but significant side note: I rang up the 800 number attached to the bottom of one Paul article -- a charming disquisition on the "barbarism" that drove the L.A. Riots -- and who answered by a Paul campaign representative. Question: Am I the first reader of the newsletter to use this number, and if not, why had no campaign staffer ever bother to inquire why so many rednecks and hicks kept asking about "Welfaria"?

A taste, from Jamie's diligent reporting:

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Needless to say, anyone attempting to defend Paul at this stage must resort to Stalinist standards of self-deception and falsification.

Andrew Sullivan, a mind-numbingly effusive Paul supporter, twists and groans to find a saving grace in all this. He doubts Paul wrote any of this awful stuff, yet applauds him for his swift denunciation of it. Andrew still says, however:

Taking moral responsibility is the right thing to do. But I should say I think less of Ron Paul after reading this article than I did before. Much less. I am not persuaded he is a bigot (like Jamie, apparently), and I remain impressed by the message and spirit of the campaign he has waged.

Why feel that Paul has dropped in stature if Andrew doubts he holds the very views Andrew thinks he doesn't?

The editors at Reason have been more honorable in their disgust.