POLITICS DECEMBER 22, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Nearly four years ago, on the eve of the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, The New Republic published my expose of newsletters published by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The contents of these newsletters can best be described as appalling. Blacks were referred to as “animals.” Gays were told to go “back” into the “closet.” The “X-Rated Martin Luther King” was a bisexual pedophile who “seduced underage girls and boys.” Three months before the Oklahoma City bombing, Paul praised right-wing, anti-government militia movements as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” The voluminous record of bigotry and conspiracy theories speaks for itself.
And yet, four years on, Ron Paul’s star is undimmed. Not only do the latest polls place him as the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses, but he still enjoys the support of a certain coterie of professional political commentators who, like Paul himself, identify as libertarians. Most prominent among them is Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan, who gave Paul his endorsement in the GOP primary last week, as he did in 2008. But he is not alone: Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner recently bemoaned the fact that “the principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media,” while Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic argues that Paul’s ideas cannot be ignored, and that, for Tea Party Republicans, “A vote against Paul requires either cognitive dissonance—never in short supply in politics—or a fundamental rethinking of the whole theory of politics that so recently drove the Tea Party movement.”
To be sure, these figures, like the broader group of Paul enthusiasts, don’t base their support on the Congressman’s years-long record of supporting racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and far-right militias. Quite the opposite: Like the candidate himself, they manage to mostly avoid making any mention of his unsavory record at all. It’s an impressive feat of repression, one that says volumes about the type of enthusiasm Paul inspires.
Ultimately, Paul’s following is closely linked with the peculiar attractions of the libertarian creed that he promotes. Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government—its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry—he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name—isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities: First principles of market economics gain credence over all considerations of social empathy and historical acuity. His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.
But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.
A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse. Over the years, Paul has added other potential catastrophes to his repertoire of dark premonitions. In the early 1990s, it was racial apocalypse, with Paul dispensing “survivalist” tips to the readers of his newsletter like the admonition to stock up on guns and construct fall-out shelters. More recently, he has argued that America’s foreign policy was a “major contributing factor” to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, an argument that has earned him admiration from some liberals. The 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s continuation of many Bush anti-terror policies (and the launching of the Libya War), and the formation of the Tea Party have all boosted Paul’s image as a prescient sage.
And so it’s not hard to see why Paul’s more ardent supporters stand by him: They too find it seductive to believe that the United States is on the verge of utter collapse. The benefit of indulging in such visions is that it sets the stage for the arrival of a savior: This is the role that Paul himself plays, of course. Fiercely independent, uncorrupted by the “establishment,” speaker of unpopular truths, only Paul is capable of saving the country. What are a handful of uncouth newsletters really worth when the stakes are so high?
What’s important to realize is that this sort of political myopia is endemic to libertarianism. The movement’s obsession with consistency is actually a mark of paranoia. If you’re already persuaded by Paul’s suggestions that fiat money is what ails our economy, that our country’s foreign policy is rotten to its very core, it’s tempting to take the next step and interpret his failure to be nominated as the result of political persecution. Sullivan, thus, complains of a deliberate media blackout against the Texas Congressman, blaming “liberals who cannot take domestic libertarianism seriously and from neocons desperate to keep the Military Industrial Complex humming at Cold War velocity.” There is a bitter irony of course in the fact that a movement so devoted to individual responsibility is so apt to be on the search for others to blame. Paul of course is the prime example: Here is an absolutist libertarian who advocates the ideals of individual rights and responsibility, yet cannot own up to the words that were published under his name, instead blaming it on a variety of as yet unnamed aides.
Some Paul supporters acknowledge the newsletters but dismiss them as “old news,” arguing that there is no trace of the racist and conspiratorial ideas he promoted for decades in his speeches today on the campaign trail. But while it’s true that Paul has not said anything explicitly racist in public, the same cannot be said for his promotion of conspiracy theories. He appears regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, perhaps the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (profiled by TNR in 2009), where he often indulges the host’s delusional ravings about the coming “New World Order.” He continues to associate with the John Birch Society, the extreme-right wing organization that William F. Buckley denounced in the early 1960’s after it alleged that none other than President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy.” Asked about the group in 2007, Paul told the New York Times, “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society! Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society.” Indeed, Paul delivered the keynote address at the organization’s 50th anniversary dinner in September. In May, Paul said President Obama’s order to execute Osama bin Laden “was absolutely not necessary.” This statement earned a rebuke from Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, a movement one would presume would be quite favorable to Paul. “If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House,” Phillips said, “he has just revealed it.”
If Paul is responsible for conjuring the apocalyptic atmosphere of a prophet, it’s his supporters who have to answer for submitting to it. Surely, those who agree with Paul would be able to find a better vessel for their ideas than a man who once entertained the notion that AIDS was invented in a government laboratory or who, just last January, alleged that there had been a “CIA coup” against the American government and that the Agency is “in drug businesses.” Why, for instance, do these self-styled libertarians not throw their support to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who, unlike Paul, can boast executive experience and doesn’t have the racist and conspiratorial baggage? At this late stage, that Ron Paul’s supporters haven’t found an alternative candidate says more about them, and the intellectual milieu they inhabit, than it does about the erstwhile publisher of racist newsletters.
James Kirchick is a contributing editor for The New Republic.
51 comments
Ron Paul is a crank. The vast majority of conservatives agree on that. When are liberals going to clean their house? The Right has Ron Paul. The Left has dozens of lunatics in prominent positions that think that Islamo-fascism is (kinda sorta) in the right and that Israel should be the target of a second holocaust. On the right Ron Paul is an aberration. On the left anti-Semitism and anti-democracy have become downright trendy.
- bulbman1066
December 22, 2011 at 2:00am
Two points. First, it's true Sullivan endorsed Paul in 2008, but he rescinded his endorsement after the racist newsletters were revealed and apologized to his readers for not digging deeper into Paul's past. I suppose Sullivan has dug deeper and has changed his mind once again, which is Sullivan's specialty, changing his mind about prior poor judgments. Let's name a few: Paul (twice), George W. Bush, the Iraq War, health care reform, the list is long and, indeed, includes just about every major issue of the past ten years. It's a wonder the poor boy doesn't suffer whiplash, he pivots so frequently and abruptly. I have expressed the view that Sullivan has no judgment, rather than poor judgment, although the distinction seems not to concern the many readers of his blog. My second point concerns "ideology", a term I understand was coined during the late 19th century, if the Jefferson-Adams letters are correct. Jefferson expressed approval of the term, Adams indifference, which also reflects Jefferson's "political myopia", for it was Jefferson who was the ideologue, seeing conspiracies all around, not just Hamilton but Washington, whose presidency Jefferson attempted to undermine, so convinced was Jefferson that Washington was a monarchist (along with Adams) and would return America to the British.
- rayward
December 22, 2011 at 6:58am
late 18th century (I need an editor but LW isn't available)
- rayward
December 22, 2011 at 7:13am
Paul an aberration? Look at all of the home grown terrorists who have killed or sought to kill American innocents. All are from the right. Look at actual anti-Semitism in America rather than disagreement with Israeli policy. Almost all comes from the right. Anyone who thinks that the right wing is a friend of the Jews is insane.
- bufatutu
December 22, 2011 at 7:24am
Paul on CNN said he never read the newsletters published under his name and was unawares of them until maybe 10 years afterwards. Maybe it was a stretch to believe that Mr. Obama was not at Reverend Wright's incendiary sermons. But not reading a newsletter published under your own name? Chutzpah.
- Nusholtz
December 22, 2011 at 8:21am
Bigotry is not on the front burner for libertarians. They believe that their ideological consistency is color-blind, even if they're not. Bulbman has a point. Conservatives like Mel Gibson get horsewhipped for their anti-semitism, but too many Leftists get a free pass.
- amidut
December 22, 2011 at 9:01am
Could Bulbman et all name some of the "dozens of lunatics in prominent positions that think that Islamo-fascism is (kinda sorta) in the right" ?
- mozier
December 22, 2011 at 9:23am
"The movement’s obsession with consistency is actually a mark of paranoia." Extrapolate. Ever wonder why conservatives think so differently from you? They have this bug in them about the consistency of simple rules, and The Market is nothing if not simple rules. So they worship The Market and greet any attempt to regulate it with -- you guessed it -- paranoia.
- Mikelawyr22
December 22, 2011 at 9:25am
bulbman, act like a knee-jerk troll all you want. But take caution before you accuse anyone on here of being kith and kin with those who would "want Israel to be the target of a second holocaust." (and who outside of hizbullah, hamas, and some dippy neonazis would that be, anyway?). We have readers and contributors here who endured and had family who endured the Shoah. Even your douchebagginess needs to have some limits, man.
- Tristan
December 22, 2011 at 9:46am
There was an interesting article from Jon Chait. The title was - forgive me if I'm off a bit - "Reports indicate Ron Paul is a huge racist". Anyway, it was all about Paul's newsletter and reiterates what James posted. What was REALLY interesting where the responses in the blog section. I'm guessing they were 9 to 1 in favor of Paul, repeating ad nauseum how "these newsletters had been debunked years ago". Not "old news" mind you, but completely divorced from Paul's own thinking. Either Paul has indeed made several public statements condemning the newsletters and providing some sort of proof he really had no connection to them - and I am aware of no such distancing - or this is testament to just how hard core his hard core followers really are. Anyway, I half agree with Judson Phillips (on this, anyway); there are manifest reasons why Paul should never be allowed near the Oval Office. But this really is just one of many.
- Tristan
December 22, 2011 at 9:55am
“Bigotry is not on the front burner for libertarians. They believe that their ideological consistency is color-blind, even if they're not. Bulbman has a point. Conservatives like Mel Gibson get horsewhipped for their anti-semitism, but too many Leftists get a free pass.” Are you and Bulbman saying that Ron Paul shouldn’t be exposed as an antisemite because liberals don’t horsewhip “liberal” antisemites?
- arnon
December 22, 2011 at 10:47am
Sullivan's unyielding support for Paul is embarrassing. This is a guy who spent months speculating about Trig Palin, because we the people deserved to know the truth. But when it comes to Ron Paul's racist newsletters, suddenly Sullivan is not interested in public figures coming clean to the media! He could barely bring himself to write one substantial post about the issue, which amounted to nothing more than a dismissive wave of the hand.
- josh_y
December 22, 2011 at 11:07am
Bulbman, Amidut, name some names. Let's see what actual examples you've got.
- Dausuul
December 22, 2011 at 11:35am
"impressive feat of repression" -- Exactly. Brilliant article. It's just these feats of "repression" among the Tea-Party and Libertarians that let them support people like Ron Paul. As long as he's saying what they want to believe -- that we're on the edge of disaster -- they'll ignore his less savory positions from the past. Just as the Tea-Party is ignoring a lot to be enamored of Newt Gingrich -- a twice divorced adulterer, who prosecuted the President for an affair while carrying on one himself, an ex-Southern Baptist turned Catholic, an ex-Speaker of the House who resigned -- these are not people of the "High moral fiber" you'd think the Tea-Party would be demanding.
- AllanL5
December 22, 2011 at 11:48am
Arnon, please don't put words in my mouth.
- amidut
December 22, 2011 at 11:49am
And why don't libertarians care about the fact that Ron Paul is anti-choice? He actually thinks that government should have the power to force women to give birth against their will. This issue concerns the rights of half the human race.
- heppner52
December 22, 2011 at 12:06pm
It's no accident that someone who named his kid after Ayn Rand should be in the grip of ideological consistency--rabid consistency. And, of course, the Great Lady, like Paul, never admitted to any wrongdoing. That's part of the consistency thing. Kirchick makes a good point about Objectivism's lack of real individualism. A supreme individualist is an existentialist--he or she takes responsibility for any and all mistakes they make, instead of blaming them on the conspiracies of others. Rand's philosophy should have been called Subjectivism, the Philosophy for Whiny Persecuted Wimps. Like Paul, she saw conspiracies everywhere. What's with this "kinda sorta" stuff, bulbman? "Dozens" of Leftists in "prominent positions" either agree with Hitler's Endlösung or they don't. Name one.
- magboy47.
December 22, 2011 at 12:34pm
It's Randall Paul. I don't believe that Ayn Rand's surname was once Randall. So without any evidence, you just make an assumption and it becomes a "fact. Just like so many commeters here on the left, and the few masochists that come here who are on the right, like bulbman, who is a piece of work.
- liberalref
December 22, 2011 at 12:55pm
I still can't tell if consevative posters on TNR's comment threads are real Republicans or liberals satirizing conservatives to make them look bad.
- Archon
December 22, 2011 at 1:01pm
'm not so sure of the "inviolable consistency" of Ron Paul's beliefs. But then, I've never understood, given his pro-depression policies, how depriving more Americans of the opportunity to make a living would be consistent with expanding their personal freedom. Paul does not seemed all that concerned with the actual freedom of existing individuals. What excites him is a fantastic vision of an obvious and simple system of "natural" liberty. That said, you're dead right about the "bitter irony" in "the fact that a movement so devoted to individual responsibility is so apt to be on the search for others to blame."
- STTaylor
December 22, 2011 at 1:06pm
Here's an odd twist: Sullivan's endorsement may well have the effect of sinking Paul's candidacy because it has brought so much attention to the racist issue. Read the blogs today. Sullivan will be faced with the dilemma of accepting credit or blame.
- rayward
December 22, 2011 at 1:15pm
This is an excellent article, I agree. Smart, factual and deep. I was looking for Kirchik to make the case for the connnection between Paul's fanatical libertarianism and his racism and anti Semitism and I found it as it gets set out: ...Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government—its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry—he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name—isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities... ...Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse... ...What’s important to realize is that this sort of political myopia is endemic to libertarianism. The movement’s obsession with consistency is actually a mark of paranoia... The depth of Kirchik's article shows in his exposure of what is at stake in endorsing Paul, which endorsement should be an embarrassment to the endorsers and to those giving Paul intellectual respect. Kirchik's last two paragraphs, at a minimum, should be read, reread and cited. Too, the discussion of ideology is to the point here. Ideology as opposed to philosophy. As opposed to the latter, ideology is a closed system of thought, immune to evidence and argument that feeds on and dsitorts the outside world simply to bolster its totalizing version of truth. Therefore, ideologically bent peole will take from Paul want they want to hear, privilege him accordingly and and turn a bilnd eye and a deaf ear to what is ugly and loudly egregious in him. Others, not ideologically bent, display their own short comings and perhaps meretriciousness in the attention pay him and the signficance they accord him. It's quite astonishing to me as a Canadian either the favour Paul gets or just the pass he gets from so many American quarters. As for his prominent parallel on the left. Not hardly. Paul is about to do very well in Iowa. Some, what passes for, political commentary is having it that Paul may have some a possible path to the nomination and hhe is considered widely a serious Republican contender. I see no equivalent to that on the Democrat/liberal side of things, save for the outliers who deficiently call Obama a socialist and say like crap.
- basman
December 22, 2011 at 1:40pm
The world is getting very strange and frightening. Today I watched a brilliant National Geographic documentary secretly filmed in North Korea. (It's available on their web site.) It's like watching Orwell's 1984 actually coming to life in front of me. In the discussion here about Ron Paul, it's like the crazed characters of ATLAS SHRUGGED coming to life in front of me. What's next week? Dr. Strangelove riding a bomber load with nuclear armed bombs flying toward us?
- skahn
December 22, 2011 at 2:05pm
liberalref, I suspect that Ron Paul was still thinking of Ayn Rand when he named his son "Randall." Read Anne C. Heller's magnificent biography of Ayn Rand, and you will discover that many extreme admirers of Rand named their children or even changed their own names to a VARIATION of "Rand." I guess we'd have to ask Ron Paul what he was thinking of when he named his son, but since he and Randall are both extreme Randists, I'm going to assume that my assumption is correct. I, do, indeed, have some evidence for my assumption. By the way, Heller's bio of Rand is one of the very best life stories I've ever read--and I've read thousands of them.
- magboy47.
December 22, 2011 at 2:08pm
I've gotta hand it to Ron Paul -- to my mind, the evidence is quite strong that he's a crank and an all-purpose racist (the Anti-Semitism is just a slice of the pie), but he knows how to channel the crankishness and bigotry into arguments that are appealing to those who are neither and have little of the overt rank odor of the racist sewer in which Paul has dwelled (and may still dwell). The rants against the Federal Reserve, in favor of the gold standard, against government social policy and in favor of isolationism may attract more than the usual share of bigots, but they don't only attract bigots -- and the non-bigots in the crowd don't like the smears by association. Compared to Pat Buchanan -- the last comparable right-wing candidate to make an impact on Republican politics -- Paul knows how to keep his mouth shut and his opinions on point.
- wildboy
December 22, 2011 at 2:18pm
P.S.: Randall Paul goes by the name "Rand." Why? Wouldn't "Randy" be a more recognizable diminutive of Randall?
- magboy47.
December 22, 2011 at 2:22pm
"Conservatives like Mel Gibson get horsewhipped for their anti-semitism, but too many Leftists get a free pass.” Amidut, if you make an assertion that like, you need to provide a few examples. I can't think of any prominent liberal artist or intellectual in the last 20 years who said the kind of stuff Gibson said, especially after producing a work of art that was denounced by many as anti-semitic. Similarly, I can't think of a prominent liberal politician in the US in the last 25 years or so who has a history of associations like Paul and his newsletters -- I guess Al Sharpton comes closest, and his support among Democratic voters when he ran for President in 2004 was a shadow of what Paul got in 2008, much less than what he is getting now.
- wildboy
December 22, 2011 at 2:28pm
I think amidut believes that anyone on the Left who is not an enthusiastic and uncritical supporter of Israel in each and every one of her policies must, therefore, be an anti-Semite. It's the "if you're not with us, you're against us" school of foreign policy.
- zardoz67
December 22, 2011 at 2:57pm
...P.S.: Randall Paul goes by the name "Rand." Why? Wouldn't "Randy" be a more recognizable diminutive of Randall?.. Why: because the guy didn't want to be always thought of as horny, just as nobody ever goes by the name Dick.
- basman
December 22, 2011 at 3:18pm
yes, basman, I thought of that, too. But I left it for someone else to say. Thank you.
- magboy47.
December 22, 2011 at 3:19pm
zardoz67 is putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my point of view. Perhaps there's a failure to comprehend.
- amidut
December 22, 2011 at 3:36pm
Perhaps you should give us examples of these "Leftist anti-Semites" so we can comprehend your thinking.
- zardoz67
December 22, 2011 at 3:40pm
Good lord, Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul? Andrew, what about women?
- Sophia
December 22, 2011 at 3:43pm
Apart from all the other stuff I mean. Natural liberty my tuchas. This means, I think, the liberty of the jungle. Right? In other words, bigger stronger faster meaner will prevail regardless. Aren't people supposed to be a higher evolution or are we in fact just chimps with airplanes?
- Sophia
December 22, 2011 at 3:45pm
Mozier writes: "Could Bulbman et all name some of the "dozens of lunatics in prominent positions that think that Islamo-fascism is (kinda sorta) in the right" ?" I suspect that anyone that will not condemn Hezbollah is in fact a believer is 'kinda-sorta' Islamo-fascism. Aren't they? A non-trivial number of dems and repubs alike will not condemn this organization.
- seattleeng
December 22, 2011 at 5:24pm
Who won't say Hezbollah is an organization using terror that also does significant social service in aim of gathering local support in utlimate aim of furthering its agenda?
- basman
December 22, 2011 at 6:08pm
zardoz67 "I think amidut believes that anyone on the Left who is not an enthusiastic and uncritical supporter of Israel in each and every one of her policies must, therefore, be an anti-Semite." I don't know what amidut believes but I believe that any one, on the right or the left, who is an enthusiastic supporter of the de legitimization of Israel is an antisemite.
- arnon
December 22, 2011 at 6:52pm
It's not that there aren't people on the left with dangerous and loopy positions, but they are generally either not in the Democratic Party or if they are, it's far from the mainstream. Ron Paul, however, is running as a candidate in the GOP primary and has a considerable wave of support behind him -- that suggests that many of his ideas are salonfähig as the Germans say (can be mentioned in polite company). Their relationship is not like, say, Code Pink and the DNC. The great thing is, though, that Paul's presence reveals how the Right's vicious hatred of government stops with a squeal of brakes at the edge of the military. 95% of the teabaggers don't have a problem with big government provided it's pushing foreigners around.
- ironyroad
December 22, 2011 at 7:02pm
I can sense one of those pivots coming, maybe not of the whiplash variety, but a pivot nonetheless, along with an explanation of the loss of a dear friend, not enough sleep, and exhaustion. Sullivan's latest defense is that Paul may be a bigot and a homophobe but not any bigger bigot or homophobe than the rest of the Republican field. And some of my best friends are . . . .
- rayward
December 22, 2011 at 7:16pm
"I don't know what amidut believes but I believe that any one, on the right or the left, who is an enthusiastic supporter of the de legitimization of Israel is an antisemite." Arnon: 1. Strawman: 0.
- Dausuul
December 22, 2011 at 7:27pm
ironyroad "Ron Paul, however, is running as a candidate in the GOP primary and has a considerable wave of support behind him -- that suggests that many of his ideas are salonfähig as the Germans say (can be mentioned in polite company)" This is the the main point. isn't it?
- arnon
December 22, 2011 at 7:27pm
Dausuul, Hey, the Mr. Strawman I beat happens to have changed his name a couple of times.
- arnon
December 22, 2011 at 7:28pm
"Sullivan's latest defense is that Paul may be a bigot and a homophobe but not any bigger bigot or homophobe than the rest of the Republican field. And some of my best friends are . . . ." Do people still read Sullivan?
- arnon
December 22, 2011 at 7:29pm
Why, for instance, do these self-styled libertarians not throw their support to former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who, unlike Paul, can boast executive experience and doesn’t have the racist and conspiratorial baggage? This is the question I ask myself. There is an element of cult of personality with Paul. In any event, Paul is not running for re-election next year in his district and his son lacks whatever charm Ron Paul has
- blackton
December 22, 2011 at 8:40pm
Irony--"Ron Paul, however, is running as a candidate in the GOP primary and has a considerable wave of support behind him -- that suggests that many of his ideas are salonfähig as the Germans say (can be mentioned in polite company). Their relationship is not like, say, Code Pink and the DNC." That's the point I tried to make above, but didn't, candidly, as directly as did you.
- basman
December 22, 2011 at 8:44pm
Keynes was a bi-sexual pedophile, yet widely admired by left. I understand how important it is for the left to keep the 'Republicans are racist" meme alive. Without that fear --- Democrats would be lost.
- mr_rationale
December 23, 2011 at 2:08pm
Evidence, mr_ratturd?
- zardoz67
December 23, 2011 at 3:04pm
Today a Massachusetts dude was convicted of burning down a black church three years ago because he was so upset about Obama getting elected. We have had black churches burned in at least a dozen states, all by angry white conservative men. Where oh where are the lefties burning down churches and setting bombs off? They don't exist. Where are the lefties putting swastikas on temples? Don't exist, except in the small minds of the idiots who watch Faux. But someone is doing it: The Right. The Conservatives. The Neo-Fascists--all registered Republicans no doubt.
- bufatutu
December 23, 2011 at 4:59pm
See http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/23/libertarians-ron-paul-hate/#more-778862
- basman
December 23, 2011 at 11:12pm
The Palestinian Arabs, and their allies in the Islamic world, i.e. most of the Islamic world, profess their admiration for Adolf Hitler and don't hide their desire to bring about a second holocaust in Israel. The American far left, say those who are to the left of Obama, support the Palestinian Arabs. (There are exceptions, but you could probably count them on the fingers of one hand.) This isn't guilt by association, it's guilt by alliance. The American radical left is in a defacto alliance with Palestinian Nazism. When are liberals going to learn what the history of the 20th Century should have taught them: that the totalitarianism of the left and that of the loony right are sisters under the skin?
- bulbman1066
December 25, 2011 at 12:12am
After giving it some thought, mr_ratturd, it doesn't matter whether or not John Maynard Keynes was a pedophile. Pedophilia is irrelevant to his economic theories. On the other hand, the viewpoints Ron Paul published in his newsletters directly inform his political beliefs and his governing philosophy, and are, therefore, quite relevant.
- zardoz67
December 27, 2011 at 10:33am