Ron Paul Actually Thought Those Racist Newsletters Were OK, After All

Illustration for article titled Ron Paul Actually Thought Those Racist Newsletters Were OK, After All

Even though Ron Paul's racist newsletters were published with Ron Paul's name on them and written in the first person, and even though Ron Paul has been filmed discussing his newsletters (which were terribly racist, anti-Semitic, and weird) in an interview, the GOP Presidential hopeful has disavowed knowledge of the its contents. But now, former employees are claiming that he was perfectly fine with what the newsletters said... and not for the reasons you might think.

The Washington Post is reporting that people closely associated with Ron Paul & Associates, the organization that published the infamous newsletters, have said that not only was Paul totally aware of what was being written under his byline, he was far from ignorant to the newsletters' contents and would actually sign off on every article.

Oopsie-daisy.

His former associates were careful to point out that Paul himself didn't seem to personally espouse the racism expressed in the newsletters, but he noticed that racist, tin foil hat-y stuff tended to do better with the newsletter-by-mail subscribing set than more libertarian, economy-focused material. He signed off on what he thought would sell best. Attempts to flirt with motifs of white power or rant about a coming race war weren't done for the love of the game, then, but for profit. Even if Ron Paul does not have a racist bone in his body, he likes money more than he dislikes racism and intolerance, which is a pretty damning character flaw in an elected official. And if what his former associates say is true, not only is Ron Paul okay with signing off on racism, he's a blatant panderer to the worst base of voters in the country— white supremacists who think Martin Luther King Jr was a pedophile.

Advertisement

For those who haven't had the pleasure, you can find nice, bite sized hunks of Ron Paul newsletter whackadoodlery at the Ron Paul Newsletters Twitter account, which tweets direct quotes from the publication. The quotes range from innocuous, possibly, depending on the context — "I can now give up my medical practice and dedicate every fiber of my being to saving the country"— to "what about the whites-style racism— "I'm sick of anti-Germanism, which is not— needless to say— a 'hate crime'"— to full on cuckoo bananas— "MLK was a flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate" and "People say the government should do more to stop AIDS. Actually it should do less and thereby help more."

Despite the fact that Paul's newsletters spit some pretty racist sounding game, it seems a little hollow now that we know that it was all an act designed to get attention. Ron Paul's a racist poseur, a mercenary hateboy. The Katy Perry of paranoia. But that doesn't make the Ron Paul Survival Report, or his association with it, any less fucked up.

Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters, sources say [WaPo]

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

I think a lot of the commentary here is looking at "racism" as some abstract set of beliefs someone may have and only in an all-or-nothing "is s/he or isn't /she?" way and not as something that is perpetrated upon other people/society. The harm from racism isn't simply thinking disgusting thoughts without taking any sort of action; the danger is that those beliefs will lead to harmful behavior.

To me it is 100% immaterial whether Ron Paul believes personally deep down in his little gold brick of a heart whether, in fact, 95% of black people are criminals or MLK was a loser or whatever other wackadoo shit is in those newsletters. There's no way to read his mind and the man certainly is at least smart enough (if not tolerant enough) not to run around with a white hood setting crosses ablaze, which, apart from maybe using the n-word, is about the only way some people will accept it as fact that a person "is a racist". All we have are his actions, which most definitely include knowingly, deliberately pandering to white supremacists to get money/votes by saying horrible racist things.

Maybe this is harder to see because it's just words in a newsletter that probably was only originally seen by white wingnuts anyway, but let's say instead of just crapping out racist invective, if he'd had his staff go out and prove their bona fides by committing a few hate crimes? Would it matter then whether Paul really "believed" that black people are subhuman or would it be enough that he was directly causing shit to happen to a targeted group solely based on their race? I submit, dear Jezebelles, that it would not matter then. In my view, it doesn't matter in the case of the newsletters either; whether or not Paul is himself a racist (to the extent it's even productive to say someone "is" a racist) or harbors racist beliefs, because HE DID RACIST THINGS. The result is identical regardless of Paul's personal beliefs.

Furthermore, I'll point out that when called on said racist pandering, Paul couldn't even own up to it, but had to hide behind his staff and pretend he knew nothing about it when that is demonstrably not the case, which I'll say with certainty DOES make him a filthy liar.