James Kirchick of the New Republic has published a damning and extensive review of historical issues of Ron Paul’s past newsletters.
Since at least 1978, Ron Paul has attached his name to a series of newsletters–Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter
Kirchick’s review reinforces the information that had been brought up about Paul’s past and that I had considered in previous posts (here, here, and here).
Essentially these newsletters that were either written by Paul himself, or produced under Paul’s supervision, contain a broad swath of information including — among other things — outright bigoted and racist diatribes against African-Americans and Jews, extensive anti-Isreali/anti-Zionist rhetoric, open support of the militia movement (in the early ’90s), attacks on Martin Luther King Jr. (as a pedophile and philanderer), and verbal attacks on U.S. troops and accusations that they may have carried out war crimes and atrocities in during Desert Storm.
While one can reasonably question the veracity and biases of anything that is published in the New Republic, Kirchick supplies links to pdf copies of the newsletters with the offending sections highlighted.
Paul’s campaign people appear shocked by the writings and honestly perplexed by them as they do not fit with the Ron Paul they claim to know and support.
When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications–ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”
Noted Paul supporter Andrew Sullivan has also provided a reasonable defense for Paul, noting that none of the language in the pamphlets seems at all like the current Paul campaign or discussion.
Do these sound like Ron Paul to you? I’ve listened to him speak a great deal these past few months and either he has had a personality transplant or he didn’t write this. … there is a simple way to address this: Paul needs to say not only that he did not pen these excrescences, he needs to explain how his name was on them and disown them completely. I’ve supported Paul for what I believe are honorable reasons: his brave resistance to the enforced uniformity of opinion on the Iraq war, his defense of limited constitutional government, his libertarianism, his sincerity. If there is some other agenda lurking beneath all this, we deserve to know. It’s up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past.
Even if Paul does disown and disavow the publications, Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters has added a valid critique of Paul’s ability to serve as the country’s chief executive. He notes that if Paul was personally responsible for the content of the newsletters, as opposed to some unnamed radicals, no right thinking person could continue to support his candidacy. If, however, he was completely unaware of the fact that the bigoted, secessionist, incendiary, and conspiracy-laden passages were being printed in his publications over a period of several decades, no right thinking person could continue to support his candidacy.
But here’s the problem, which Andrew grasps as well. If this all had come from a single newsletter, then one could accept the “loose cannon among the staff” explanation, along with an apology. However, these went on for years, according to both the Chronicle and TNR. It stretches credulity to the breaking point that his staff produced these newsletters for that long without anyone in the office, including Ron Paul himself, noticing the objectionable material in them.
It seems that one of three things has to happen in this issue, 1) the newsletters will be proved to be fakes and Paul will emerge stronger than before, 2) Paul will have to admit that he was involved with and aware of the publication of the newsletters, or 3) Paul will have to admit that for several decades he was completely unaware of his staff’s activities but was still willing to sign his name to their work.
It’s unlikely that this many newsletters could all be proved fraudulent, so we’re left with the distasteful choice between Paul being a fringe lunatic, conspiracy theorist and a bigot; or an overly trusting but wholly incompetent manager. If someone out there can come up with another option, I’m all ears.
Clearly, however, it is time for Paul to openly and honestly address the issue. By ignoring it, he is heaping damage and derision onto the libertarian ideals that he claims to represent.
