Hypocrisy on Ron Paul ‘racism’
January 2, 2012 § 1 Comment
LET’S IGNORE THE question of whether Paul personally read and signed off on all copy in every monthly issue of each of three ghost-written newsletter titles (and related direct-mail ads) that his company published as long as 26 years ago while he was in private practice as a physician.
Let’s lay aside the fact that Paul long ago said he ceased working with the writer(s) in question and has repeatedly disavowed, and apologized for, the several intemperate remarks that appeared in the newsletter during the ’80s and ’90s.
Let’s also ignore that Paul served many patients for free, including blacks or interracial couples in the early 70s when other physicians would not even see them for money.
Or that he has always opposed the “war on drugs” that disproportionately locks up black and Latino youth, and which has created a maelstrom of violence in Mexico as well as on American inner-city streets.
Or that he opposes the death penalty because the same poor minorities in the inner cities are more likely to be falsely prosecuted and convicted.
Liberals and neocons alike need to consider a few things before leaping on this ancient newsletter story as ominous evidence that Paul is a closet Nazi:
1) Liberals: Is racial insensitivity inherently a worse offense than classism and anti-Christianism as displayed by Barack Obama himself, in his own words?
Remember the 2008 San Francisco fund-raiser where he echoed Karl Marx, disparaging citizens of economically devastated small towns as “bitter” people who “cling to guns and religion” and act out of “antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment …”?
Although he weakly apologized for the wording of his comment, Obama stood fully behind the substance.
This was less than four years ago and it came from his own mouth — not that of a hired editor.
2) Liberals: Assuming the guilt-by-association notion is valid, then does this mean Obama is guilty by association to former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who said just four years ago that the government should have power to unilaterally declare American citizens terrorists and “not part of the American family” — and to strip them of the rights to travel and to own firearms without due process?
3) Both liberals and neocons: If it’s outrageous for Paul — who prominently advocates divesting the federal government of power to do actual harm to law-abiding people and their rights, at home or abroad — to let ghostwritten insensitivities slip through in 20-to-30-year-old newsletters, is it also outrageous for Bush, Obama, and their accessories in Congress to expand the government’s power to indefinitely incarcerate, torture and assassinate American citizens, again without due process?
4) If those ancient, repeatedly disavowed, ghostwritten articles containing a few impolite, impolitic words about black Americans are cause for alarm, what about a white or black presiding over illegal wars involving drone-bombing, ethnic cleansing, and other forms of murder and mayhem against brown and black children, women, and men all over central Asia and Africa?
Should the one be excoriated, while the other goes unpunished, even applauded?
Is symbolism more important than the actual murder of innocents and doing #2 on the Constitution?
Employing the double standard can be a lot of fun — until it backfires on you.
Of course this attack on the most mild-mannered, unreasonably nice person in politics is not personal — it’s all about business as usual. A Paul presidency threatens to destroy the cozy Wallshington Demopublican consensus in which the Big ‘n’ Rich make the decisions for us little people behind closed doors. It threatens an end to the maniacal global empire obsession and lucrative war racket of a few narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths and sycophants in high places.
A Paul presidency would be a victory for principle over power, right over might. Paul’s unswerving insistence on unchanging principle threatens the tyrants and demagogues who rely on slippery relativistic rationales to justify their private lust for power and their delusional belief they are qualified to arrange — or, if it suits them, to casually dispose of — the lives of other people.
Paul represents a resurgence of substance over style — a sign that a heretofore politically infantile America is growing up.
It’s natural that worshipers of power and privilege and moral exceptionalism would hate and fear a real human being who makes mistakes, yet is man enough to admit them and apologize — and then get back to the real subject: securing the blessings of liberty for all, putting an end to the drumbeat of empire, and enforcing the rule of law upon a dangerous and lawless fascist state.