The most perplexing character in Congress, ideologically speaking, is Ron Paul. This is a guy who exists in the Republican Party as a staunch opponent of American empire and big finance. His ideas on the Federal Reserve have taken some hold recently, and he has taken powerful runs at the Presidency on the obscure topic of monetary policy. He doesn’t play by standard political rules, so while old newsletters bearing his name showcase obvious white supremacy, he is also the only prominent politician, let alone Presidential candidate, saying that the drug war has racist origins. You cannot honestly look at this figure without acknowledging both elements, as well as his opposition to war, the Federal government, and the Federal Reserve. And as I’ve drilled into Paul’s ideas, his ideas forced me to acknowledge some deep contradictions in American liberalism (pointed out years ago by Christopher Laesch) and what is a long-standing, disturbing, and unacknowledged affinity liberals have with centralized war financing. So while I have my views of Ron Paul, I believe that the anger he inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.
Go read it, tell me what you think.
susie-
Your headline says Rand. It should Ron.
Oops. Thanks, I was watching the Rand filibuster all afternoon…
A douchebag is a douchebag is a douchebag. The basic civil liberty is control of one’s own body and neither Paul thinks uteri Americans get a say.
I can’t wait to take a dump the size of my head on the entire Paul family when they die. Look for it on youtube. It will be MASSIVE and full of corn!
Charlie credits Crazy Uncle Liberty with 5 lucid minutes before things go off the rails. The clock in his head has some relativity speed up going on, I fear.
His newsletters were written over decades. Over a short period about 10 articles came out, which were nothing like any others before or since, and were completely unlike anything he has ever said in person — and contemporaneous youtubes of his speeches exist which you can compare. Those were published in DC during a period when he had left the House having self term limited and run for (and lost) a senate bid, and he had gone back to practicing medicine — in TEXAS. During that period and through out his medical career he gave free or discount medical service to those who couldn’t afford it, of all races, and never turned anyone away for inability to pay. He refused medicare and mediaid and considered this his personal contribution as a doctor.
He isn’t and never has been remotely ‘white supremicist.’ Here is a true story from then but it is only one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKSQ2np-SLw
Some libertarians, not he, thought they could appeal to some cultural conservatives with what they considered cultural outreach. Other periodicals of the time used the stuff in the 10 or so newsletters which are bad and totally unlike any others ever created for Ron Paul newsletters. Some idiot put those in, in DC while Ron was practicing in Texas, but they were never his.
It was political assassination, the way the media treated this issue, imho, since these newsletters had been debunked in 1996 when Karl Rove and Bush brought them up to try to defeat Ron from going back to the House, yet every time they came up the media started the same cycle as if they had never heard of them before.