04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Is Ron Paul a Racist?

If Ron Paul is not a racist, he is certainly terrible at picking employees and colleagues. Paul's excuse for the bigoted, homophobic comments in the much-discussed "Ron Paul Newsletter" of some years ago is that he didn't write them himself. Someone else did.

But who chose those others to work with him on the "Ron Paul Newsletter"? Who vetted the writers and editors of the very articles with those horrific statements? Well, one must assume, Ron Paul.

That inability to select even marginally acceptable (non-racist) employees and colleagues should, on the face of it, disqualify Paul as a candidate for president of the United States. Can you imagine such a myopic individual, such a poor judge of character, choosing justices for the Supreme Court, not to mention myriad other important positions?

But that's giving Paul the best of it. Occam's Razor tells us Paul knew perfectly well the kind of tripe his minions were writing (if he didn't write it himself), just as Barack Obama -- despite his protestations -- knew perfectly well the kind of bilge that Jeremiah Wright was spewing. In fact, they went along with it for much the same reason -- political expediency -- although Paul arguably believed the despicable remarks in his newsletters more than Obama ever believed Wright's excrescences. After all, Paul's writings (including solicitation letters) went out under his own name.

Still, the Paulites are saying, that was years ago. Give it a rest.

That's hard because the problem runs far deeper and has contemporary ramifications. Paul's racial bias is more complex and intense than what has already been alleged of his attitudes towards blacks and Jews. He thinks even less of Muslims. He treats the Islamic world as if they do not have views of their own, their own ideology. In essence, he does not take them seriously as people and claims their actions are largely a result of American (and presumably Western) imperialistic behavior.

In other words, Muslims are children who could not possibly have the beliefs they do of their own accord and choose to act on those beliefs. They only do what they do because of us.

Besides being ethnocentric in the extreme, this negates many centuries of history -- the majority of which took place before the U.S. even existed -- and an entire, highly evolved system of religious, philosophical, and social thought. Whether Paul does this out of ignorance or arrogance I am not sure, but his disregard of Islam as something to be taken seriously in and of itself is particularly stunning when that ideology is close to the most antithetical imaginable to Paul's self-proclaimed libertarianism.