Let me preface my comments that follow by saying that I do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist.
Now, the bolded part of your post: Not sure what you are saying here. This was just a side business, to make money (?), so he did not really pay much attention to it? Had he been in public life he would have paid attention and put the kibosh on it?
I think we all know that those in public life, especially those in Congress or in the White House, pay careful attention to everything that could be attributed to them, lest they be caught up in some political fallout. That is political survival mode — also known as cover your ass. Better to present as vanilla than to risk the fallout. Look what happened to George Allen with the macaca statement. That episode almost single-handedly derailed him (he is coming back around just now, running for Senate in Virginia in next cycle). It leaves us wondering about their actual beliefs, which is why incidents like these have some traction. Is this the real candidate talking, or just some aberrational incident or comment?
I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, either. But if he's trusting his name and reputation to someone (as with this newsletter), he gets to take the responsibility for what they say and do. If I delegate something to someone on my team and they do it badly, I'm still responsible as the guy who signed off on them doing it. It doesn't speak well of his judgment.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 23, 2011 - 3:44pm
LordBaltimore wrote:
As a guy with large libertarian sympathies who was just a kid when this whole "redneck" strategy was in place, it is very puzzling. It seems like a very half-baked and poor idea on the part of Rothbard, who should have known a lot better. Murray Rothbard was a champion and friend of the anti-Vietnam New Left in the 60s and even admired Malcolm X, so his latter-day turn toward the mini-Southern strategy is both puzzling and very tragic.
Ron Paul has never been the kind of guy to endorse or speak the kind of remarks that appeared in the newsletters. As for its effect on his competency to be president, it's very important to keep in mind that Dr. Paul did not hold any kind of political office during the period these remarks were printed. He was solely concentrating on his medical practice, and it's very likely he wasn't planning to ever again run for election, and simply saw the newsletters as a side business that he probably didn't pay much attention to and assumed were doing just fine without reading them.
Had he been in Congress he would have paid much closer attention to these publications and of course would have never tolerated such talk. This was a guy who challenged Reagan a lot when he held office in the 80s and thought the Cold War threat was being blown out of proportion. He also was pretty sure the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. Based on his track record since re-entering the house in 96, Paul has been ALL OVER the important issues of the day and tirelessly working to stay current. I have no doubt that he would be very highly engaged as president.
Ron Paul is NOT the next Pat Buchanan. Buchanan — while pretty good on foreign policy — does make a lot of hay about racial and ethnic issues. Paul does not, and really never has. He seems to get very uncomfortable when minorities are demonized. Look at his passionate defense of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" or his very blunt comments on the "racism" of the death penalty and justice system. He also went against a lot of his pinciples to vote in favor of MLK day BEFORE it was cool — in the late 70s and early 80s.
Regarding Rockwell, he is still very active and still very blunt and very much a rabble rouser. My take on the guy is that he really has no filter between his brain and his mouth, and is quick to insult and spit out bile at anyone he disagrees with, including fellow libertarians from the "beltway" Reason magazine and Cato institute. However, Rockwell's blog has stood up for minorities when they are harassed by the state.
This whole situation seems like it has a lot of parallels to Obama's Jeremiah Wright issues. Rockwell is sort of a similar figure — I think both men are well meaning but have hot tempers and a lack of tact, and will easily say hurtful and incendiary things when they get riled up. Obama and Paul do have tact, and that's why they're both in politics and Wright and Rockwell are not.
Let me preface my comments that follow by saying that I do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist.
Now, the bolded part of your post: Not sure what you are saying here. This was just a side business, to make money (?), so he did not really pay much attention to it? Had he been in public life he would have paid attention and put the kibosh on it?
I think we all know that those in public life, especially those in Congress or in the White House, pay careful attention to everything that could be attributed to them, lest they be caught up in some political fallout. That is political survival mode — also known as cover your ass. Better to present as vanilla than to risk the fallout. Look what happened to George Allen with the macaca statement. That episode almost single-handedly derailed him (he is coming back around just now, running for Senate in Virginia in next cycle). It leaves us wondering about their actual beliefs, which is why incidents like these have some traction. Is this the real candidate talking, or just some aberrational incident or comment?
As the Atlantic article points out, the only valid conclusion you can draw from the story of these newsletters from a couple of decades ago is that the Libertarians who embraced this "Redneck strategy" were either very cynical or politically insane. So it's valid for you, and me, and any other potential voter, to ask whether such cynicism or craziness will be part of the advisers, and cabinet, that would make up a Ron Paul presidency. Where's Lew Rockwell these days? An article in Reason magazine in 2008 indicated that Rockwell was still a friend and advisor of Paul's, accompanying him to media appearances, promoting him politically on his website, etc.
The other valid question is, how much of a hands-on, cognizant president would Paul be? Would he be as disinterested in the running of the country as he claims he was in the running of the newsletter that bore his name and raised lots of dough for him?
Then those are the questions they should be asking. If he wins Iowa I hope they do, but I'd have to have a lot more confidence in our political media to think they would.
Even if they don't phrase questions in this way, when you're trying to clear up an issue like this with voters, you have to use whatever question they throw at you as an opportunity to reassure people on this issue (even if the question is "did you write any of those articles?" for the umpteenth time). Most politicians have the smarts to see when a question asked by a reporter/in front of an audience offers the opportunity to address a larger, underlying or related issue. Some will use it as an opening to hammer home talking points; if Mr. Paul wants to demonstrate that he's a different political candidate who is willing to be candid, he could use such questions as an opportunity to open up about the mistakes that were made in running the newsletter and trying to revive the Libertarian movement back then, or about what sort of president he wants to be, and what sort of people he would have working under him.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 23, 2011 - 11:23am
Lazy8 wrote:
steeler wrote:
I would not say that the media is engaged in a game of gotcha, if that is the implication, that it is a game.
Think of it this way: If the media did not question him about these newsletters, there would be a flood of accusations that the media was giving Mr. Paul a pass, trying to bury the "story.".
All he has to do is answer the questions. Not sure how that constitutes "gotcha."
To the extent it is an unfair game of "gotcha," the blame for that would fall on the public.
Edit: What is a more dangerous game is the willingness/eagerness of those running for office to cast the media as villains. Not saying Ron Paul has done that, but others certainly have — e.g., Gingrich, Palin.
It is for reporters. Get a politician to squirm in an interview? They live for that.
He has answered the questions. This isn't the first time it came up. It keeps coming up because the answers to the questions are embarrassing and because the questions themselves can be spun into inflammatory innuendo.
I think Dr. Paul has handled this poorly, but if you want want to make it into a campaign issue you need to finish the sentence: do these newsletters reflect what the candidate actually believes? Has he ever said anything like this? In short, what does this imply about the man running for president?
Are there reporters who live for making a candidate squirm? I'm sure. That, however, is not why most people go into journalism. A good journalist wants to be known as asking tough but fair questions (think Tim Russert).
Folk should be apprenhensive about this ever-escalating belief that the real villains in almost every scenario are those in the media. For politicians, it is an easy out — scapegoat the media. If it works — and there are those who lap up this kind of branding of the media by candidates — it diverts attention from the issue. A free and vigorous press is an essential part of the constitutional framework. We're walking a dangerous path when we believe that the role of journalists is just to seek to embarrass a candidate for his or her own personal gain or amusement.
It is up to the public to determine whether a particular issue is important for an upcoming election.
I'm not so much focused upon this particular issue with Ron Paul, and I don't know all of the details. However, it is not at all unusual for past issues to resurface when one is running for President (or other office; Robert Byrd had to answer questions about his affiliation with the KKK over and over). If he answered all the questions before, he just needs to repeat those answers. Are there those who are going to attempt to spin his answers? Sure; each of them employs folk who do that in his or her campaign.
As the Atlantic article points out, the only valid conclusion you can draw from the story of these newsletters from a couple of decades ago is that the Libertarians who embraced this "Redneck strategy" were either very cynical or politically insane. So it's valid for you, and me, and any other potential voter, to ask whether such cynicism or craziness will be part of the advisers, and cabinet, that would make up a Ron Paul presidency. Where's Lew Rockwell these days? An article in Reason magazine in 2008 indicated that Rockwell was still a friend and advisor of Paul's, accompanying him to media appearances, promoting him politically on his website, etc.
The other valid question is, how much of a hands-on, cognizant president would Paul be? Would he be as disinterested in the running of the country as he claims he was in the running of the newsletter that bore his name and raised lots of dough for him?
Then those are the questions they should be asking. If he wins Iowa I hope they do, but I'd have to have a lot more confidence in our political media to think they would.
I would not say that the media is engaged in a game of gotcha, if that is the implication, that it is a game.
Think of it this way: If the media did not question him about these newsletters, there would be a flood of accusations that the media was giving Mr. Paul a pass, trying to bury the "story.".
All he has to do is answer the questions. Not sure how that constitutes "gotcha."
To the extent it is an unfair game of "gotcha," the blame for that would fall on the public.
Edit: What is a more dangerous game is the willingness/eagerness of those running for office to cast the media as villains. Not saying Ron Paul has done that, but others certainly have — e.g., Gingrich, Palin.
It is for reporters. Get a politician to squirm in an interview? They live for that.
He has answered the questions. This isn't the first time it came up. It keeps coming up because the answers to the questions are embarrassing and because the questions themselves can be spun into inflammatory innuendo.
I think Dr. Paul has handled this poorly, but if you want want to make it into a campaign issue you need to finish the sentence: do these newsletters reflect what the candidate actually believes? Has he ever said anything like this? In short, what does this imply about the man running for president?
He is going to get pinned down at some point and will have to answer things like "Why weren't you even reading the newsletter that went out under your own name?" and "Well who did write them, and why did you place such trust in them?"
But the point of all this isn't to get answers to those questions. The point is to play gotcha, and that game just never gets old.
As the Atlantic article points out, the only valid conclusion you can draw from the story of these newsletters from a couple of decades ago is that the Libertarians who embraced this "Redneck strategy" were either very cynical or politically insane. So it's valid for you, and me, and any other potential voter, to ask whether such cynicism or craziness will be part of the advisers, and cabinet, that would make up a Ron Paul presidency. Where's Lew Rockwell these days? An article in Reason magazine in 2008 indicated that Rockwell was still a friend and advisor of Paul's, accompanying him to media appearances, promoting him politically on his website, etc.
The other valid question is, how much of a hands-on, cognizant president would Paul be? Would he be as disinterested in the running of the country as he claims he was in the running of the newsletter that bore his name and raised lots of dough for him?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Dec 23, 2011 - 10:52am
Lazy8 wrote:
hippiechick wrote:
I love the way these candidates think that •they can disavow their own words •make up bullshit excuses •think they can tell people they aren't going to talk about it, and expect them to listen. The more they tell journalists to stop, the more they will pursue, if they are doing their job right.
He is going to get pinned down at some point and will have to answer things like "Why weren't you even reading the newsletter that went out under your own name?" and "Well who did write them, and why did you place such trust in them?"
But the point of all this isn't to get answers to those questions. The point is to play gotcha, and that game just never gets old.
I would not say that the media is engaged in a game of gotcha, if that is the implication, that it is a game.
Think of it this way: If the media did not question him about these newsletters, there would be a flood of accusations that the media was giving Mr. Paul a pass, trying to bury the "story.".
All he has to do is answer the questions. Not sure how that constitutes "gotcha."
To the extent it is an unfair game of "gotcha," the blame for that would fall on the public.
Edit: What is a more dangerous game is the willingness/eagerness of those running for office to cast the media as villains. Not saying Ron Paul has done that, but others certainly have — e.g., Gingrich, Palin.
I love the way these candidates think that •they can disavow their own words •make up bullshit excuses •think they can tell people they aren't going to talk about it, and expect them to listen. The more they tell journalists to stop, the more they will pursue, if they are doing their job right.
He is going to get pinned down at some point and will have to answer things like "Why weren't you even reading the newsletter that went out under your own name?" and "Well who did write them, and why did you place such trust in them?"
But the point of all this isn't to get answers to those questions. The point is to play gotcha, and that game just never gets old.
Did you read what was in those newsletters? Pretty rude stuff. I don't think it's gotcha journalism, and he needs to take responsibility for.
I love the way these candidates think that •they can disavow their own words •make up bullshit excuses •think they can tell people they aren't going to talk about it, and expect them to listen. The more they tell journalists to stop, the more they will pursue, if they are doing their job right.
He is going to get pinned down at some point and will have to answer things like "Why weren't you even reading the newsletter that went out under your own name?" and "Well who did write them, and why did you place such trust in them?"
But the point of all this isn't to get answers to those questions. The point is to play gotcha, and that game just never gets old.
I'm pretty tired of it, but I think you're right. I bet it will continue for about 11 more months.
I love the way these candidates think that •they can disavow their own words •make up bullshit excuses •think they can tell people they aren't going to talk about it, and expect them to listen. The more they tell journalists to stop, the more they will pursue, if they are doing their job right.
He is going to get pinned down at some point and will have to answer things like "Why weren't you even reading the newsletter that went out under your own name?" and "Well who did write them, and why did you place such trust in them?"
But the point of all this isn't to get answers to those questions. The point is to play gotcha, and that game just never gets old.
Now that reporters are actually starting to pay attention to Paul, he's going to have to come up with a better strategy than snapping at reporters if he wants to be taken seriously as a national candidate.
I love the way these candidates think that
â¢they can disavow their own words
â¢make up bullshit excuses
â¢think they can tell people they aren't going to talk about it, and expect them to listen.
The more they tell journalists to stop, the more they will pursue, if they are doing their job right.
Now that reporters are actually starting to pay attention to Paul, he's going to have to come up with a better strategy than snapping at reporters if he wants to be taken seriously as a national candidate.
As Frederic Bastiat wrote in The Law in 1848, socialists always couched beliefs within a specific government action:
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
respectfully, regarding valid criticisms on this subject, your misunderstanding in the area is second to bruce levine's
first i'm not a randian, and i do have some issues with ayn rand and the pauls (less with ron than rand)
regarding his name "Randal Howard "Rand" Paul (born January 7, 1963) is the junior United States Senator for Kentucky."
and this
.................
point taken.
and i do realize that many have trouble differentiating writers from their body of work and/or personal actions and beliefs from some of their writing(s)
from the AR lexicon Selfishness
"The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
more....
Objectivist religion, more like. It is a bold claim that has no basis in reality and is permanently abused to sanctify sociopathic behaviour, legitimate land and power grabs and makes the greedy or merely lucky feel good about themselves by elevating them to heroes of capitalism. Randian rhetoric and her über-heroic aesthetics fit well into the '30s. If I had to chose a director to make a film of one of her books it would probably have to be Leni Riefenstahl. There are many parallels.
Unlike human bodies, however, external objects are not parts of one's identity, are not directly controlled by one's will, and - significantly - they are initially unowned.<18> Here, the libertarian realizes that the relevant objective link is appropriation - the transformation or embordering of a previously unowned resource, Lockean homesteading, the first use or possession of the thing.<19> Under this approach, the first (prior) user of a previously unowned thing has a prima facie better claim than a second (later) claimant, solely by virtue of his being earlier.
This is my explanation as to why this form of libertarianism is so popular in the US. It presents a convenient after the fact legitimation for the settlers' land grab and fits perfectly with wild west mythology. In Europe this urge to find meaning in the pasr tends to manifest itself as nationalism.
The biggest myth imo, which all forms of libertarianism (left and right) share with the many strands of economic theology, is the idea of some natural, and thus divinely justified, equilibrium that guides all humanity to a better future but which can only be attained, if government keeps its dirty hands out of our lives. Market failure (which is the only failure worth mentioning) can only be explained by an exogenous force that derails the economy from its virtuous path, also known as the invisible hand and formalized mathematically in general equilibrium models. It is a form of social darwinism. These films are an attempt at describing this phenomenon. And don't worry, they are no left wing propaganda films, in fact hippies get away pretty badly. This book seems to have a similar theme, although I haven't read it.
One fact that clouds the logical conclusions of libertarianism is that it is ostensibly non hierarchical. We talk about accountability in politics. In libertarianism there is none beyond the imperative to follow ones own self interest. So, taken to its logical conclusion, no one is responsible for what can only be seen as the complete abolition of civilized society. Pretty scary. My only comfort is that humans clearly are not such 'rational' creatures as Ms. Rand and her followers think they are or aught to be. But it does serve as a useful excuse for those who do behave in a simlar manner.
And as for that Hoppe dude mentioned in the Mises article, here's a six part series, arguably polemic (you have been warned), but still very good imo, based on his stated world views.
Not to be inpolite, but the guy named his son after Ayn Rand, which in my opinion is about as close to the devil incarnate as one can get. What passes as middle of the road and reasonable in the US, is considered way out on the right fringe here in Europe. For us, American politics (and certain parts of your culture) are sometimes very hard to digest. I posted this in the economx thread:
and i do realize that many have trouble differentiating writers from their body of work and/or personal actions and beliefs from some of their writing(s)
"The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value."
