Chagrin — A Real Man Would Stand Up
Jim Babka on Jan 9th 2008
Regarding the Jamie Kirchick’s piece on Ron Paul’s newsletters. . .
Yes, the The New Republic is an anti-libertarian rag — as anti-libertarian as they come.
Yes, there were some simple facts misreported in the original version of the story.
Yes, it appears Kirchick is a Giuliani supporter.
Yes, the Left typically calls anyone who disagrees with them racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. That’s par for the course.
Yes, the article also had the tired, old charges of guilt-by-association that, by themselves, don’t amount to much of a case.
And you know what I say?
So what? Look at what’s left! There’s a lot. It’s all too damaging.
It’s a disaster.
Frankly, I had no idea how bad the newsletter scandal would be. I knew this story was out there. But I had been led to believe (and as had thousands of supporters) that it was confined to a couple of quotes in very tight time span; that the author was sacked once Ron Paul found out. As Jason Kuznicki pointed out, one or two mistakes were understandable.
I’ve watched this campaign as closely as anyone really could. I don’t believe Ron Paul is a racist. And I don’t believe he wrote those words.
And I know people who have known Ron for a long time. Every one of them is convinced that he didn’t write those words.
So what? Look at what appeared under his name and for how long. There’s a lot! It’s all too damaging.
It’s a disaster.
I wish this could be cleared up. And I have a method that would go a long way. But it requires courage.
Unfortunately, many of the quotes that I personally find the most offensive were the kinds of things an armchair bully would write from the safety of his keyboard. Bullies are, more often than not, devoid of courage.
But a story comes to mind. My friend, Larry Pratt, President of Gun Owners of America, was Pat Buchanan’s campaign chair in 1996. Buchanan won New Hampshire and was put on the defensive by charges that four years earlier (1992), Larry had attended a gathering paid for with White Supremacist funds and shared the stage with two Aryan Nation speakers. He didn’t leave the stage or register his dissent about their presence at the event.
A good candidate, like a good friend, is loyal. That’s courageous. Buchanan stood by Pratt.
Paul is practically ignoring the charges (yes, I read the official campaign statement and it’s insufficient — more on that in a moment). If Eric Dondero Rittberg, a disgruntled, fired, former Paul employee, who has made it his career to be the Congressman’s nemesis, had written these columns, we’d certainly have heard that news by now. I suspect the campaign would’ve come clean. But we haven’t been told who the offending author was. Who is Ron Paul covering for?
A courageous man would speak up. Whether you like him or not, Larry Pratt is a man of courage and conviction. With charges swirling, he spoke up. I couldn’t find his exact quote quickly, so I’ll rely on memory. He told the world that he didn’t want the campaign to be about what Larry Pratt thinks and Larry Pratt does. He wanted it to be about what Pat Buchanan thinks and Pat Buchanan does. He felt he was a distraction and no longer able to be helpful to the campaign in his capacity as chair. He resigned.
A real man would stand up, just like Larry Pratt did. Who is the mystery writer? Yes, I’ve read the speculation. Speculation is not evidence.
Who is it? You know who you are. And if you really care about Ron Paul …if you really care about the movement for smaller government, peace, a sound and free economy, property rights, and the rest of it, go public. Yes, it will hurt — perhaps badly. But a real man would stand up.
The campaign is hemorrhaging support. By that, I mean even endorsers are now dropping out. You can say, “Well, they were soft in the first place.” Well, expect financial support to go down too.
Please note: The Bill White charges of White Supremacist meetings with Paul at Tara Thai didn’t fly. The Don Black donation was petty news and ridiculous. Even the newsletter charges, as originally published, seemed minor — a management oversight. The guilt-by-association and “speaking in code” charges were the result of faulty logic and perhaps even wishful thinking.
I was willing to defend all of that. That was a matter of hardball politics. Charges fly around in every campaign.
And no one’s perfect.
But this is much, much worse. Does Ron Paul believe the stuff written under his name? Personally, I don’t think he does. But the statement issued by the campaign is insufficient in this case.
Is Ron Paul an absentee manager? Does he have poor staff selection/character analysis skills?
I’m chagrined by the news. I’m concerned about the long-term perspective this might leave long after this campaign is over. As Jason Kuznicki rightly pointed out (because I too have met many of these young-Paulites), Paul’s young supporters are well-over racism. They are attracted to the positive message of this campaign — Ron Paul’s real message.
And this campaign has energized lots of people. The response has been tremendous — far better than I expected. But I don’t want our message of peace, small government, individual liberty, free markets, and free minds to carry this baggage. Many of the quotes in the New Republic piece are the polar opposite of my beliefs — and possibly even those of Ron Paul.
Will the real writer please stand up?
One more point should be made about the insufficiency of the Paul campaign response. I run a public organization. I’ve worked in political campaigns. I’m a graduate of FU (home of the Flipped Bird). I know, all-too-well, that many charges deserve to be stonewalled. They come from non-supporters or even opponents. If you respond to them, they’ll only go after you harder — like an animal that smells weakness or fear.
Ron Paul was, for example, called upon to return Don Black’s donation. He didn’t. His answer (”Why should I donate money back to him when he might spend it on a racist cause when I can deploy it to spread my message of liberty?”) was spot on. (Take that Michael Medved!)
This is not the same thing. It’s not even close. Politically speaking, you can tell by the response on the web today. But even ethically, it’s different. Ron Paul isn’t responsible for what his supporters do. He’s not their dictator. But he is responsible for what goes out under his name and he is responsible for managing the staff that he hires.
The charges resulting from this New Republic piece require a much better response.
In this case, the person who is causing the distraction needs to be repudiated. And I repeat, if that ghostwriter was a real man — whoever he is — he’d come clean and demand that repudiation get heaped on him. Otherwise, Ron Paul, and perhaps libertarianism in general, will reap a bad harvest.
P.S. Before you ask, I’m still voting for Ron Paul. As a great commenter by the name of Gretchen put it on Ed Brayton’s big science blog, even if Ron’s a former racist, he’s still better than the rest. Obviously, Gretchen doesn’t believe Paul’s really a racist. But she’s got a point. Most of the other candidates are mass murderers who believe in perpetual war, first strikes, and so forth. All of them are socialists to one degree or another, with no respect for your right to keep what you earn or use it as you see appropriate. Most would continue the drug war — a very racist policy. Some advocate more torture and further restrictions on civil liberties.
Every one of them wants to run your life. Only Ron Paul offers something different.
And this campaign is (was) so unique. In my adult life there was no real libertarian, running in a major party, for President — until now. There won’t be anyone like him for some time to come either. I want to enjoy a candidate who is such a thorn in the side of the establishment.
Filed in The Bureau
This post needs a title!
This post needs a title!
First, I’ll echo the call to man-up, and I do hope and expect that there is a more extensive response to this hit piece forthcoming.
Perhaps I’ve overlooked something, but it seems to me that all the quotes that Kirchik could find were from December 1989-October 1992, just under 3 years, but everyone, including Brayton, seems to be parroting the number at 20 years. Is it really that unreasonable to imagine that Ron Paul, hard at work in his extensive medical practice, did not come across the most incendiary of comments (which we can only assume are the ones that Kirchik has drug up,) especially if the newsletter was characterized by such poor levels of scholarship as to not deserve the close attention of a man as scholarly as Paul. (He deserves blame for allowing his name to be attached to it, but that doesn’t come close to ranking up there with what Rudy Giuliani, or Mike Huckabee have attached their names to in the past.) I’ve expounded extensively on how the comments could be interpreted in a much less harsh light (1st step, put yourself in 1990 Texas GOP shoes, not 2008 politically correct shoes,) in response to Mr. Brayton’s post, so I won’t here, but I must say that particularly the October ‘92 “For the animals are coming quote” seems exceptionally out of context, as I have no problem whatsoever describing violent proponents of class warfare as animals regardless of the color of their skin… isn’t that what transcending racism really is? Isn’t it just as racist as to assume he must be talking only of blacks, and more racist to assert that blacks are unable of the same dispicable animalistic behavior that subhuman whites perpetrate. If you discount the Oct ‘92 quote the range then falls to 12/89-6/92, basically two and a half years, again far from the 20 that Brayton et al. use.
Lastly, you’re blatantly wrong about one thing (unless your definition of “some time to come” is vastly different than mine:) There will be someone like him, in fact it will be someone better than him, in both company and charisma. I have profound respect for Dr. Paul, despite his failings, and his campaign has brought the movement into the wider public eye for the first time, and for that my thanks will never be enough. We are here, we are growing, and we will never give up, not until Dr. King and Harvey Milk’s dreams are fulfilled, and not until liberty reigns and the last vestiges of fascism are expunged from this world.
The answer and the evidence you seek is now up at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
[...] I thought I’d lighten the mood among all of this serious talk over the Ron Paul controversy. [...]
[...] Jim Babka, a Ron Paul supporter, is chagrined: Yes, the The New Republic is an anti-libertarian rag — as anti-libertarian as they come. Yes, there were some simple facts misreported in the original version of the story. Yes, it appears Kirchick is a Giuliani supporter. Yes, the Left typically calls anyone who disagrees with them racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. That’s par for the course. Yes, the article also had the tired, old charges of guilt-by-association that, by themselves, don’t amount to much of a case. And you know what I say? So what? Look at what’s left! There’s a lot. It’s all too damaging. It’s a disaster. Please note: The Bill White charges of White Supremacist meetings with Paul at Tara Thai didn’t fly. The Don Black donation was petty news and ridiculous. Even the newsletter charges, as originally published, seemed minor — a management oversight. The guilt-by-association and “speaking in code” charges were the result of faulty logic and perhaps even wishful thinking. I was willing to defend all of that. That was a matter of hardball politics. Charges fly around in every campaign. And no one’s perfect. But this is much, much worse. Does Ron Paul believe the stuff written under his name? Personally, I don’t think he does. But the statement issued by the campaign is insufficient in this case. Is Ron Paul an absentee manager? Does he have poor staff selection/character analysis skills? I’m chagrined by the news. I’m concerned about the long-term perspective this might leave long after this campaign is over. [...]
Aw hell,
Jim, you and I were there together at the Liberty Forum this year, and we were there in the discussion in that back office. The feeling there from folks who had already worked so hard supporting Paul in NH was that the campaign would ultimately be unsuccessful in its run for the White House and sooner than that its run for the nomination.
This is why we were all so focused on the continuation of this “movement” of ours beyond the person of Paul, the perpetuation of the meetup groups, the enlistment for DownsizeDC, (and for at least one of us, a constant question about the allocation of monetary resources).
This post of yours just fills me with depression. It makes me feel like we really hadn’t begun to transcend the singular icon of Paul that the movement coalesced around. This doesn’t bode well for the possibility of our making a mass movement of what I suggested, a Ron Paul Liberty Alliance (after the NHLA).
Please tell me there’s something beyond this downer.
There is something beyond the campaign. IMHO, it’s called DownsizeDC.org. And I won’t stop working just because of this!
I don’t know if you saw what we wrote this week at DownsizeDC.org. We can strive for transcendence, and as you can see, we at Downsize DC are striving. But I don’t think many people are ready for that — supporter or critic, alike. We heard from a lot of people who said, we’re still devoting our efforts to the campaign.
Well, I’m still voting for Ron Paul. It’s interesting (at least to me) to note that his most vociferous libertarian critics aren’t riffing on things like McCain’s 100 year war. Increasingly, I don’t trust these folks either.
But this story has made the rounds and, has substantiation that previous charges lacked. And, like it or not, our movement is going to be effected by it. I don’t want us carrying this baggage.
I think calling for personal responsibility in this matter is correct and fair. We do believe in individual responsibility, right?
I don’t know who wrote the offending bits. Speculation has included a few different names, and it might not be any of them. Yet with each day that passes, I think I’m being proved right — that the writer was a bully, not a real man of courage.
But the work remains and progress — real progress — continues.
I agree that DownsizeDC is probably one of the best things that we, the Ron Paul movementarians, could transition to. I’ve been a supporter of DownsizeDC’s endeavors (not financially mind you) and even before I heard that you were doing something about it, Shadegg’s Enumerated Powers bill.
I read the Manifesto over at the DownsizeDC blog, it was moving, and it was just the thing I was looking for from the organization. I thank you for it. I believe that if it were exposed in the right places, and in the right way, to the right people, the Manifesto could itself be a springboard for transcending Paul’s person. Even if we only retain 15-30% of that big meetup number.
Like you, I’m still going to be voting for Paul (I personally don’t know what Jason Kuznicki is thinking), as he agrees with me more than any of the other current candidates do. In fact, he agrees with me more than any POTUS candidate ever has. The combination of disappointment from NH and then this sock to the gut from the newsletters revelation has brought me pretty far down on the “rah-rah Paul” scale. Even so, I still spoke to folks about Dr. Paul tonight, and made the case I always strive to make. I foresee myself continuing to do so for the known future, but I also foresee a hesitation where there was none before. I can’t stand that.
The LRC crew has been hilarious throughout this whole ordeal. They seem to be somewhere around stage one or two of the Kübler-Ross model. They might have my attention again when they get to the final stages. The rationalizations, dismissals, accusations of questioners, coming from them has been more disgusting than any (admitted) hyperfocus on the newsletters by other libertarian outlets. As long as certain people care more about themselves than Dr. Paul, Paul will stew and be tortured in public, like the loyal, decent man that he is. Perhaps certain people can live with that.
Sure I’d like to see the libertarian critics talk about McCain’s 100 years war (which he later expanded to 1000, and 1 Million years), but this is libertarian in-family bloodletting. There’s no older sport among us. Can anyone honestly say that this is a surprise, especially considering the glee this must be bringing some Cato partisans?
But yes, let’s focus now on the progress that has been made. Ron Paul has mounted the most significant challenge to the cult of the omnipotent state that we’ve seen in modern times, and win, lose, or draw, he must be commended. I’ve seen people go from being conservative leaning statists during this campaign to being left leaning anarcho-capitalists (even agorists). That will be a gift that stays with us always.