Thoughts on Ron Paul

I have over at Daily Kos a new diary with my thoughts on Congressman Ron Paul's run for the White House. So far it hasn't attracted the flames I have come to expect when I post about libertarianism there. In short, the decline of a libertarian element in the party makes his road a very difficult one. I draw some parallels to the new book by Anthony F. Lewis, "Middle America," in which a nanny-statist Democrat is running against a libertarian-leaning Republican for the Presidency. While noting how unlikely the latter is, I worry about the impact the former will have on younger libertarian voters who have been, so far, leaning toward the Democratic Party. In other words, please no Hillary Clinton in 2008.

In almost any discussion of Ron Paul (including your diary) someone inevitably brings up a handful of racist quotes that appeared in an article in a newsletter Paul was publishing at the time of the LA Riots.

It is telling that:

1) there are no other quotes like these at any other point in his career, despite the fact that he has been a prolific writer and certainly seems unafraid to hold an out-of-the-mainstream opinion
2) Paul did not write the article, a member of his staff did
3) After much discussion the quotes were removed from Paul's wikipedia bio, since they could not be attributed to him.

According to a Texas Monthly article (quoted on a wikipedia talk page, but alas only available by subscription):

When I ask him [Paul] why [the article was not strongly repudiated], he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

I have to agree with the journalist's assessment. It looks like he didn't want to hang his staff out to dry, and made the wrong call. Racism? No. Misplaced loyalty? Yes.

For clearing up the matter.

i was aware of the story behind the "racist" comments, i was just curious if the commenter was aware or just spoting second or third hand info - and whether they were worth entering into an actual dialog with.

Ron Paul is a states rights (I call it 'state powers' because states dont have rights) conservative. He thinks states should be able to make laws re civil liberties (censorship, abortion, sep of church/state, property rights/Kelo, etc...) and that the Constitution and BORs only applies to the the Federal govt. He's one of those federalist society types that think the Constitution is in exile etc... that there arent 'unenumerated rights' and that the 14th Amend doesnt apply the BORs to the states. At least thats the impression I get of him.

He actually thought Alito was too liberal, too deferential to precedent, thats how conservative he is. Thats not my idea of libertarianism. Liberatarian to me is being fiscally conservative: de-regulation, low taxes, free market, etc... and for an expansive view of the BORs, that the 14th amend makes that enforceable on all the states equally (and the Fed govt), and that thats the job of the courts and especially the supreme court.

I know he thinks abortion should be removed from federal level consideration (no surprise there, he is anti-abortion after all), but I've never heard of him advocating censorship, even on state level.

if its so-called "partial birth abortion", he voted for the federal ban on that. So he's a hypocrit too.

His philosophy is that the BORs applies to the Federal govt only, thats how I understand it. That explains him writing in favor of the Kelo decision, gun control laws (at the state level),... and I would have to assume then censorship laws as well. This is also what Scalia believes. He doesnt think the 14th Amend means the BORS should be enforced on all the states (I think Thomas believes this as well). He thinks each state can have censorship laws if thats what they want. I assume he'd vote against them though at the Federal level, probably only if he felt they went too far though (thats my guess).

There's room for argument as to dispersal of power at lower levels -- "laboratories of democracy" an' all that, plus the long term ideal of power broken down to ever smaller pieces (eventually stopping at the individual in the long run). But that never translated to "screw the 14th amendment" to me. Way I've seen it the entire point of the 14th was a check on majority absolutism.

There's a debate over the meaning and interpretation of the 14th Amendment, one holding a more limited interpretation and one holding a broad interpretation. I think that this link from James Leroy Wilson provides an overview of the more limited interpretation: http://independentcountry.blogspot.com/2005/06/meaning-of-14th-amendment.html

It's tough, I think both sides have solid arguments.

somebody's gotta be right and somebody's gotta be wrong. I dont see how you can have inalienable rights from nature and natures god etc... if it just depends on which state you live in. And like I said, I dont even think the 14th Amend changed what the Founders intended anyhow. Im pretty sure James Madison for one intended the constitution to be interpreted the way I think when it was ratified.

Randy Barnett has written about this in his book "Restoring the Lost Constitution", Id recommend that (or just reading the synopsis and some of the reviews on Amazon).

And this is something from my favorites I found a long time ago that sums up (better than I could) how I think the Constitution should be interpreted: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=730&h=53

Just because I believe that there is a case to be made that the 14th Amendment's intent was far more limited than enforcing basic civil liberties across all of the states doesn't mean I actually favor that system.

We're talking about the Constitution and its amendments, which historically has shown itself to be far from perfect. Not just treating some people as less than a whole person, but later amendments as well like the Prohibition Amendment were wrong. I can agree with an argument about the intent of an amendment without agreeing with the actual amendment.

I think the 14th Amend just sums up what the Founders (many of them) intended anyhow. Your Rights arent suppose to change depending on which state you live in. States can still have a lot of power, just not over civil liberties. They can experiment and be laboratories with schools for instance: vouchers, public school choice etc.. but they shouldnt be able to take away our natural, god given rights, like free speech, Right to keep and bear arms, .. and not our 'unenumerated rights' either like privacy/birth control (pre-Griswold), etc... Thats what I thought Libertarianism was, and thats alot different from what Ron Paul believes.