You Can’t Lose What You Never Had
Jason Kuznicki on Jan 9th 2008
On Monday, Bryan Caplan was asking whether a third-party or independent Ron Paul campaign could spoil the Republicans’ chances of winning the White House in 2008, as Nader did for the Democrats in 2000. What a difference a couple of days makes.
Even before yesterday’s revelations, I didn’t think Caplan’s scenario was all that likely. I didn’t think the Ron Paul voters would have settled for anyone else on the GOP side. And with these new revelations about anti-Semitism, racism, and homophobia in Ron Paul’s newsletters, I’m guessing most erstwhile Ron Paul voters won’t even settle for Ron Paul anymore. (Honestly, the accusations are a little hit and miss. Least convincing is the anti-Semitism — one can oppose Israel’s policies, or America’s policies toward Israel, yet think favorably of Jews and Judaism — but the rest of the stuff is pretty damning, if not of Paul, then certainly of his associates. And guess who’d be staffing his administration?)
I know that I certainly won’t even consider voting for him anymore. Before yesterday all I really knew about was a small number of apparently isolated items in his newsletter. And that’s one thing. Anyone can screw up once or twice, either by hiring the wrong person or by not paying close enough attention to a subordinate. There’s hardly a president who hasn’t done so, whether before or after taking office.
But this isn’t an oversight or an occasional lapse in judgment. It’s a definite pattern stretching over many, many years. Ron Paul just isn’t what he seemed to be. Benefit of the doubt? Consider it withdrawn.
At best, he’s shamefully negligent about his associations and how he allows his name to be used. At worst… well, read it for yourself. It’ll take a while to sort out, but it’s not going to matter all that much either.
Here are some reactions via Hit & Run. Weakest reaction: Lew Rockwell, who basically insinuates that The New Republic made it all up. Would be nice to think it, but please, show me the evidence first. A favorite reaction of mine, as usual, is Steven Horwitz. I agree with almost all of what Horwitz writes here, though I will say there’s a mighty fine line between using secession as an interesting riff in libertarian theory, and using secession as a dog whistle to draw out the neo-Confederates. On one foot: While the right to secession for a just cause is inalienable, there’s an… interesting… tendency to forget all about causes, and justice, when talking about secession in the American context.
Yet the Ron Paul phenomenon is (or was) real. The Ron Paul voters (at least, those who voted in spite of and not because of the rumors of racism) were never there for the Republicans to lose. They’d been lost already, thanks to the policies of the last seven years. So many of us were so desperate for some other alternative. And… well, in retrospect I guess it shows.
For me, the interest in Ron Paul was never even remotely about supporting racism, which I despise. It was about the Iraq war, civil liberties in the War on Terror, and cutting government spending. Any candidate who says the right things about these issues will automatically get my interest, and may very well get my vote. I didn’t see a single other Republican candidate taking even close to my positions on these issues, and I certainly don’t see much of that on the other side, either. I think most of Paul’s supporters and near-supporters felt likewise: Finally here’s a guy who understands us, who sides with us on the really important issues. How wrong we were.
My guess is that come general elections, the typical Ron Paul voter either 1) stays home, 2) holds his nose and votes Democratic, or 3) votes for Ron Paul whether he’s running or not. Yes, there will be some of those, alas.
Wake me if the Libertarian Party runs someone interesting, otherwise I’m done with 2008. Yech. What a disappointment.
Filed in The Bureau
Thanks Jason. If you want my two cents, one reason why the Rockwell crowd’s reaction is so weak is that I’d say it’s pretty likely that he, or his close associates, were the authors of the material in those newsletters. It also explains why Paul won’t name names - he’s not about to out his long-time friends and intellectual allies.
Yeah, pretty damning evidence, even if it is not his writing, he certainly endorsed it at one point (or why else would be his name on most of that stuff ^^). Clearly, it isn’t stuff he’d write today, but it still is a big hit.
The problem is that with him leaves the last classical liberal in the race for the white house. The remaining contenders are more or less the same branch (just more socialized military or more socialized domestic policy).
So with him being or having been a strange oddball and thus eliminating himself, we have the strange and more dangerous but socially somehow acceptable oddballs the media leaves… Who btw are just worse than him although more subtle in their damning views.
Yeah, me too. In the 10 years that I’ve been eligible to vote, November, 2008 may be the first time I just stay home.
Jason,
I have read your entire article. I find that it is laced with your own personal political agenda. Your information source is thenewrepublic.com, known for personal political agendas and smear campaigns. Dr. King is one of Dr. Paul’s personal hero’s. He speaks out against racism and collectivism in pursuit of individual liberty for all Americans. Instead of writing a biased article based on newsletters Dr. Paul is accused of writing, I invite you and others to read some of the articles Dr. Paul has actually published. You can find them here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
I also think it’s rather obvious why these attacks are now increasing.
Educated is repeating Lew Rockwell’s response from yesterday, which isn’t a response at all but an attempt to change the subject. The first attempt is “this was published in the New Republic and the New Republic is horrible.” Not a response. That does not change the substance of the article or make any of those vile quotes disappear. The second attempt is to point to things that Paul has written on one subject as though that magically makes all those vile quotes on all the other subjects disappear. The third attempt is to invoke the “these attacks are only increasing because They are afraid of Ron Paul and must stop him to preserve their tyrannical prerogatives.” Again, this does not even attempt to engage the substance of the criticism. This is the thinking of the True Believer.
On the Volokh threads they are saying that Rockwell is the one who ghostwrote those pieces.
[...] 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 have read your entire article. I find that it is laced with your own personal political agenda.
I didn’t come to this question with a personal political agenda. I came to it as an undecided voter.
If you think that I had a personal political agenda, then I would urge you to be more explicit about it. I might just learn something as well.
Before this, I had heard many good things and some very troubling things about Paul. I wasn’t by any means sure how I wanted to vote yet. He was, until now, the one candidate who strongly held my interest. The others all got an automatic “no:” Clinton and Obama for socialized health care, McCain for campaign finance, the other Republicans for being so hawkish on the war and so weak on civil liberties, et cetera et cetera. I disliked the whole field, except for one candidate I wasn’t sure about.
Now, I feel pretty sure about my decision, and I’m leaning strongly toward not voting at all. As I wrote above, if the Libertarian Party nominates an interesting or worthwhile candidate, I may vote Libertarian. Otherwise, I see very little that appeals to me in either mainstream party.
1st, I know that Jason isn’t coming at this with a “personal political agenda,” if that were the case he would unreservedly be supporting Ron Paul.
But Jason, knowing that Dr. Paul isn’t going to receive the nomination, isn’t it a stronger protest to vote for a candidate that is so obviously feared by the establishment candidates that you so easily, and rightly, dismissed?
Dr. Paul is the only one running for President that both CNN and Fox News fear, and that certainly makes me believe that a vote for Dr. Paul is a vote against the system. (Of course so would a vote for a LP nominee, but we still have to see who that will be, and it could very well end up being Paul.)
A negative form of protest, that is not voting, has certainly made some, albeit limited, impact in the past, but in the wake of the enormous turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don’t think that those who don’t vote will even be noticed.
Kuznicki: I agree with almost all of what Horwitz writes here, though I will say there’s a mighty fine line between using secession as an interesting riff in libertarian theory, and using secession as a dog whistle to draw out the neo-Confederates. On one foot: While the right to secession for a just cause is inalienable, there’s an… interesting… tendency to forget all about causes, and justice, when talking about secession in the American context.
There surely is, and where it happens, including or especially among professed radical libertarians, it should be called out in the name of historical truth. But I’m not sure whether I understand the connection between your last sentence and the previous one. Are you claiming that the right of secession is qualified or limited if the motives behind secession include the pursuit or perpetuation of “an unjust cause”? If so, why?
If A is governing B, and B is violating C’s rights, and B ends up seceding from A in order to perpetuate the violation of C’s rights, then there may be a libertarian case for A having a right to intervene, as a third party, to aid C against B. Not because B lacked the right to secede, but because A has a right to intervene even against independent rights-violators in order to rescue their victims. But if so, then the right to intervene that A enjoys is surely conditional on a number of factors (such as the availability of other means for rescuing C, whether the proposed intervention will or will not create a state of affairs that materially improves on the former situation for C, whether the proposed intervention will or will not involve sins of commission against innocent bystanders, etc.). And I can see no basis for saying that the injustice of the cause that motivates B’s secession provides any kind of basis for A to blast his way in, occupy the territory, and forcibly restore an open-ended, ongoing regime. If C’s human rights and A’s right to rescue jointly establish a right for A to intervene against B, then that right only goes as far as the actual task of rescuing C, and no further.
[...] RadGeek offers a secession scenario: If A is governing B, and B is violating C’s rights, and B ends up seceding from A in order to perpetuate the violation of C’s rights, then there may be a libertarian case for A having a right to intervene, as a third party, to aid C against B. Not because B lacked the right to secede, but because A has a right to intervene even against independent rights-violators in order to rescue their victims. But if so, then the right to intervene that A enjoys is surely conditional on a number of factors (such as the availability of other means for rescuing C, whether the proposed intervention will or will not create a state of affairs that materially improves on the former situation for C, whether the proposed intervention will or will not involve sins of commission against innocent bystanders, etc.). And I can see no basis for saying that the injustice of the cause that motivates B’s secession provides any kind of basis for A to blast his way in, occupy the territory, and forcibly restore an open-ended, ongoing regime. If C’s human rights and A’s right to rescue jointly establish a right for A to intervene against B, then that right only goes as far as the actual task of rescuing C, and no further. [...]