One of the most understandable reasons for progressives as
well as people from across the political spectrum to hesitate about voting for
Ron Paul is the existence of racist rhetoric in some of his newsletters. Ron Paul has disavowed these statements and
for his most ardent followers, that ought to be the end of it.
He has also admitted that he followed bad advice when his
campaign staff told him to claim that these statements were taken out of
context. The one statement, about the swift footedness of young black men, that he tried to defend in that manner was embarrassingly incredulous.
Fortunately for Ron Paul, he has, until this campaign, been able to take a minimalist
approach to this problem in part due to the long accepted “southern strategy” of the Republican
Party.
Thankfully for America, the Republican Party can no longer
count on that strategy to gain them majorities in all southern states. I do not
think that Ron Paul ever liked the strategy as is evidenced by his standing against the racial bias of our judicial system, especially with regard to the death penalty and drug law enforcement and
sentencing.
Furthermore, in all the books, articles and public speeches that legitimately bear his name, Ron
Paul has never used bigoted language or advocated racism. In fact, he has
explicitly condemned racism as a violation of both his libertarian principles
and his Christian beliefs.
Ron Paul can certainly continue through this primary and not
make the speech I suggest. He might even win the nomination without such action.
While I doubt that most mainstream Republicans care a wits end whether Ron Paul
renounces the party's central political strategy of the last 40 years, he may need to satisfy
enough liberal voices that he is not a racist before he can get a big time
endorsement from anyone on the left.
Satisfying his critics, however, is just not Ron Paul’s way,
and certainly that’s a part of his character I hope he never gives up (as if he
could, if he tried). Deep down I think that what Ron Paul wants is to do the
right thing. So what I would suggest he
think about is how deeply the problem of racism has infected our American
system to its detriment.
I would not presume to know Ron Paul’s heart or anyone
else’s but my own, and that not very well. (I realize that last qualifier makes
me unfit to be a libertarian.) I do know
what I see and hear. I was born and raised a southerner but I have lived up
north and overseas. In the latter I have seen American imperialism at work. Our
supposedly enlightened and liberal entertainment industry has taught the world
that black men are to be feared as inherently violent and criminal.
Northerners are just as bigoted as southerners. White
liberals pride themselves on not being racists but are as much segregated from
African Americans as any other political segment of our population. White
conservatives have been thinking since 1865 that we live in a post racial
society. Black leaders, regardless of their position on the economic ladder or
political spectrum, continue to have to battle the impression that they somehow
do not deserve their status. African American youth continue to be told there
place is not in seats of power but in the sports arena or on the entertainment stage and sadly far too many of them embrace the stereotype.
The continued endemic presence of racism in our culture is
revealed in subtle and not so subtle comments. The other day I was standing in
line to purchase some books. Among them were 3 books on the life of Martin
Luther King. The cashier, a white woman, asked me, “What are these for?” I
simply told her, “They are for my 7 year old son.” Her silent and blushing
reaction to a white guy buying three different books on MLK for his son tells
us much about what is still expected in our culture. If I were a teacher
purchasing them for display prior to the King holiday, that would be
understandable but not simply so that my son could get to know a national hero
from 3 different perspectives.
People with liberal political leanings are rightly cognizant
of the continuing problem of racism in America but they should be careful not
to pride themselves on not being racists. Whenever, some begins a sentence, “I’m not
a racist…,” I am almost certain to hear evidence to the contrary. Culturally
sophisticated liberals would never use such a phrase but their inordinate shallow openness and high regard for the supposed supreme virtue of tolerance makes me wonder just why they protest so much.
Such skepticism is my reaction to liberals' reactions to the
obviously racist statements in some of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I think he
rightfully deserves criticism for how casually he has dealt and/or not dealt with
them. I like to imagine that when he found out about these statements, he was deeply embarrassed
and went quietly to Lew Rockwell and said to him, “I don’t want to know who
wrote this filth, but never let anything like it come anywhere near to anything
bearing my name ever again.”
That hope might very well be truly wishful thinking. Ron Paul
was raised in a racist culture. The thought of him never having a racist
thought or saying a racist word or participating in a racist activity is about
as ridiculous as expecting me to never think about eating blueberry cobbler. I don’t
dwell on it but it wouldn’t take much for me to start craving some. Our culture
is addicted to racism and if not for certain legal and cultural barriers, we
could easily slip back into its worst manifestations.
All this is not to say that we have not made significant
strides or that all white Americans are inherently racists. It is to say that
the media ought to expect to find some racism in politicians born before 1964.
(Not suspecting it in politicians born after the civil rights would be just as naïve.)
Ron Paul has shown his homophobia publically on film when he was baited. It’s
not a huge step to believe that such irrationality might show up in matters of
race.
I am not saying that the liberal sector of the media should
ignore Ron Paul’s racist associations or perhaps real racist sentiments. I do
however want to ask, how will such real or imagined racism likely guide his
policy agenda and enforcement of the law? My best guess is, if he is elected (and it
hardly bears repeating my often asserted belief that he will not be elected except
in coalition with progressives who would see to it that he not ignore the Civil Rights Act), he will do his best to prove, through how he governs, that racism is
not his motive.
Beyond the usual affirmative action in hiring staff, Ron Paul
would do something significant about our nation’s drug policy and penal sentencing by
ending the federal death penalty(at least under his watch) and commuting and/or
pardoning all non-violent drug offenders, thus releasing thousands of African
Americans from unjust imprisonment to be reunited with their families. He would
also greatly curtail the disproportionate number of minorities killed or
injured on battle fields by bringing them back home from ill advised missions. These
two measures alone would be of significantly more concrete benefit for African American
individuals and families than any implemented or proposed by the current
administration.
I would never pretend that Ron Paul is going to create a
post racial America, but the criticisms of him on the matter seem to be more motivated by partisan politics than actual concern for racial justice.
All this said, I reiterate my call for him to deliver the exhaustive speech which affirms his commitment to both the presumption and the goal of racial equality in America. This is a necessity not just for political purposes
but because it is the right thing for Ron Paul to do.
