Ron Paul & racism

Although I mentioned on 1/2/08 some of the Neo-Confederate nonsense that Paul spouted on MTP with Russert, I didn't think it would get this bad: newsletters dug up by TNR that are just plain disgusting that have Paul's name on them. Now, his campaign has of course denied association between itself and the newsletters that went out under his name (which itself raises a lot of questions -- how could he be unaware of these newsletters, given they went out for a decade under his name and contained some inflammatory stuff?), but the dissociation isn't as strong as it seems:

Some responses came from more conventional libertarians who found ways to justify Paul’s writings and the acceptance of contributions from people such as Don Black. By finding excuses for Paul’s acts, these so-called libertarians help blur the line which has separated such racism and anti-Semitism as attitudes which have been considered unacceptable in our society. A campaign which started with well-deserved opposition to the Iraq war has turned into one where the main freedom they are defending is the freedom to discriminate and oppress.

What is also remarkable is that upon closer examination Paul’s views are far better characterized as social conservativism with extreme support for states’ rights as opposed to libertarianism. Despite his reputation as a libertarian, Paul is actually hostile towards First Amendment rights where they conflict with his other views. As I’ve previously noted, Paul has incorrectly claimed that, “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” He has also supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. Paul has both criticized secularism and claimed that the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian America. Ron Paul’s version of the Constitution is contradicted in the writings of the founding fathers, many court decisions, and in the view of most historians.

Ron Paul was interviewed by Reason following the publication of the article in The New Republic. Dismissing this all as “old stuff” or “political stuff” is no more reassuring than the statements that the material in Paul’s newsletters was written by someone else. Jim Crow laws and the Holocaust are also “old stuff” but this doesn’t make them something which should just be ignored.

Libertarians have no excuse accepting this half-ass as their man; he is obviously a poor representation of libertarian philosophy, some call him a "doughface liberatarian." His version of morality is quite skewed.