The more I look at the surprising things found in all manner of newsletters, etc. published by Ron Paul and his companions, the less I care what he actually thinks, because he let this garbage go out under his name. Regardless of what he thinks, he didn't think that that sort of thing either would be associated with him (which is a sign that he was stupid and careless) or he didn't see the problem with it (in which case, that's some offensive stuff). Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him, and strikes me as disqualifying.
The contention that he didn't know what was being published under his name is already weakened by a 1995 interview where does discuss the content of the newsletters. Linkins points out something that undoes a part of the Paul defense on these--that the newsletters' more racist content can't be his because he doesn't talk that way in his current appearances. I think the internet age has made us a little lazy--we're used to a degree of total information awareness. But there was a plausible time when politicians could say stuff in front of one audience, or send stuff out to a select mailing list, and actually think it would never be disseminated to a wider public, so long as they didn't say anything really screwed up on camera or in front of the wrong reporter.
The bigger question of "Is Ron Paul a racist? (or a homophobe?)" is one I just don't see the point in--if someone thinks it's okay to use material that is racist or homophobic, regardless of their own professed beliefs, then they have totally sided with the racists and/or homophobes. It's like when someone you're speaking with says, "I'm not a racist, but...." You know something totally offensive is coming. I would say the person who professes not to be racist is even more culpable if he or she uses that kind of material--because he or she knows better. It's still ignorant, it's just a different kind of ignorance.
But going beyond the "fleet-footed African-American street thug" trope, or the "dangerous HIV-spreading gay male" trope, there is plenty of up-fuckedness just on policy grounds that should be flashing warning signs against taking this guy seriously. Goldbugging. IRS tax-denialism. And regardless of the way it's being packaged right now, his foreign policy is isolationism, not non-interventionism, and his economic bent is deregulation, not old-school anti-corporatism. The guy is just problematic every which way.
Also, I think Sullivan is probably click-baiting with his Paul endorsement. I'm just throwing that out there. I do not see how Ron Paul appeals to intelligent people.
No comments:
Post a Comment