The Economist names names. This doesn't let Dr. Paul off the hook; it just hangs Lew Rockwell out to dry with him. Not that this seems to have been exactly a stunning shock to any of the movement people I know.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
of course it was lew. i used to be a regular reader of lewrockwell.com from the late 90s to the early 2000s. he has published lots of race realists (that's how i found out about michael levin who wrote 'why race matters'). and i recall reading stuff on mises.org (book review section) where people write about how the antebellum dispensation was actually better for blacks than the era after the civil war (reconstruction and segregation later). not defending reconstruction & segregation, but were they worse than chattel slavery??? lew & co. aren't standard issue racists of course; he has published black writers and is a big fan of walter williams. but they're weird.
Paul is in a tough spot. I think the Economist is spot on in defending Paul's own person and his views. And I think the further search into who wrote those letters is interesting but really not that important.
It's sad. I can empathize with Paul in that he can't be choosy about his circle of supporters and advisers. I think in a larger movement with more help to choose from, he could distance himself publicly from those who may carry this baggage on him. But when you;re in a small movement, friends are harder to come by.
I think Paul is very regretful for the stunts that led to this problem. Too bad. He's seems like a sincerely good man. I thought his rebuttal on CNN was truly heart felt and excellent in its message.
btw, is anyone are REASON surprised by this? ;-) i mean seriously...reading lew's site over the years and you see him dipping in this direction. there are figures who active both in the paleolib movement who are racialists; e.g., joe sobran & michael levin (hans hermann hoppe has been profiled positively in the white nationalist journal 'american renaissance' because of his position on immigration and culture).
p.s. i have paleolib tendencies now and then myself. so this isn't coming from a hard-core hater, just an observation that the distribution of people in the movement dips into parts of the pool which most would find unpalatable.
ron paul is a mises institute libertarian. that is, he is a follower of rothbard just as lew is a follower of rothbard. whatever personal disagreements they might have, they're a brotherhood and i would be willing to bet money (or gold!) that paul will never 'out' who wrote those articles because of bonds of friendship.
"racialists...dips into parts of the pool which most would find unpalatable."
This, of course, from someone who expounds on Race: "In my previous post I contended that biology is an important causal factor to keep in mind when we model the behavioral ecology (a.k.a., history) of H. sapiens. A separate, but complementary, tack is to use genetic data to supplement what we know from other historical sciences (history, archeology, economic history, etc.) to obtain a better picture of the dynamics which were operative in the past and the sequence of events which result in the shape of the present." on his (linked to) own(?) site.
'razib', do us a favor, give us a link to anything, Racist, penned by either Ron Paul, or Lew Rockwell.
also, with this: "ron paul is a mises institute libertarian. that is, he is a follower of rothbard just as lew is a follower of rothbard."
why not explain your position on Rothbard? you seem to impute to him some great malevolence, why not spell it out?
lol. dude, seriously. i have nothing against rothbard, he's a minor economist who really just have applied his mathematical background (i tend to agree with bryan caplan re: austrian economics). and i didn't say that paul or rockwell are either racist as such; rather, there are racialists associated with the paleolib movement. similarly, neither are dominionists, and yet there are dominionists associated with the paleolib movement.
p.s. i don't expound on race, but not in that post.
if you want me to spell it out, i suspect in the mises institute your position on a priorism and praexology are much more emotionally charged issues than your position on racism. and that's how people like joe sobran can be both racialist-sympathic and anarcho-capitalist.
and just to please the paulites, i'm still voting for him in the primaries. like i said, this stuff doesn't surprise me, and it's a protest vote anyway. the republican party is rotten and needs to have a message sent. but that doesn't mean i'm going to not express my belief that a non-trivial proportion of right-libertarians are racialist.
razib, the point, dude, is that there's a grand gulf between racialists and Racism.
These people aren't being called 'racialists', they're being called 'Racists'.
you say, in your first post: "lew & co. aren't standard issue racists of course", please tell us then, What kind of Racists are they?
razib, the point, dude, is that there's a grand gulf between racialists and Racism.
hm. i don't know if it is a 'grand' gulf, but whatever. the point is that's a defensible position IMO, or at least discussable from where i stand. but like i said, i don't dismiss paleolibs out of hand, so i'd say that wouldn't i? but that's totally out of bounds of normal discourse in most arenas. it isn't among paleolibs. try and have a discussion where you make the case that white separatism is very different form white supremacism and most people will think you're from loony-land.
I'm no Ron Paul supporter, but I can't help feeling a little sympathy for his dilemma.
Rockwell is a big fish in the small pond of the paleo-libertarian right, so it is easy to see why Paul would feel the need to turn a blind eye to his more unsociable statements. This doesn't make him a bad person (much less any sort of racist) but it is a reminder that he, like many politicians, has made moral compromises in order to retain a key supporter.
All of the presidential candidates have skeletons of this sort hanging around (one, at least, has more than even Imelda Marcos' closet could hold), so it's not exactly disqualifying. That said, it does rather tarnish the Ron Paul halo.
razib,
lower the bar any further and I'll rent you a shovel..
"try and have a discussion where you make the case that white separatism is very different form white supremacism and most people will think you're from loony-land."
see: "...most people will think you're from loony-land.." are you kidding? you call people: "Racists", and then duck for cover in the, (your) imagined, ignorance of the anonymous many??
you're too cute, by half...IOW you're Really lame..
Rockwell is a big fish in the small pond of the paleo-libertarian right, so it is easy to see why Paul would feel the need to turn a blind eye to his more unsociable statements. This doesn't make him a bad person (much less any sort of racist) but it is a reminder that he, like many politicians, has made moral compromises in order to retain a key supporter.
i thought lew & ron were friends? like i said, if i thought this was just about a professional relationship i would not be surprised if paul cut ties to further his own politics. but i don't think it's that at all. the rothbardians are a family for all practical purposes. even the austrians at GMU triangulate by implying that they're the respectable ones with the mises institute is a crank factory.
This sounds like a job for Donald Foster.
From the Economist article, referring to Ron Paul:
I think reading that finally gelled the hazy ideas I've been having about the whole "Ron Paul thing" for the last few weeks. Every candidate I've ever seen in any Presidential primary or general election has a ton of beliefs and policy stances I disagree with. Every single one of them. I suspect this is the case for most people.
Some respond to this with "I'm not voting for anyone, they all suck". Others with "well, I disagree with Candidate Foo, but I like his character and leadership and experience and honesty". Others with "At least he's not not Candidate Bar, who I loathe!" Others, having decided that they agree with Candidate Floyd on issue X and disagree on issue Y, will find themselves less supportive at times when the media is loudly covering issue Y, and more supportive when everyone is talking about X.
Clinton is famous for his "the economy, stupid" slogan. It focused people on the notion that - even if you disagree with him on a lot of other issues, the economy is the most important one, and if you like his economics policies, you should vote for him. That's the feeling I got when I watched the video of Ron Paul being questioned about evolution. I'm not happy with his response about evolution itself, but he makes a statement like "if this was really the most important issue to people, I wouldn't even be running", and I agree with that.
I'm not thrilled about his stance on evolution, nor am I thrilled about this whole newsletter scandal. But put into perspective, it's really the economic stuff I care about much more. Now whether his economics policies are really the best is still up for debate, but I don't expect to actually see him elected, and I feel like the people watching the polls could use a little more libertarian-friendly data...
Gary North is a third name you hear. There is supposedly a surprising fourth name out there, but the people in the know aren't talking.
while you intellectuals are casting your protest votes for Ron Paul in the primaries the dems are licking their chops over the idea of a McCain or Huckabee as their opponent in the race. What a waste of intellect if you can't see the end result of all of your posturing lack of commitment to making the process really work.