SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home "the Duke's" Campaign Advice

THE PLANK JANUARY 9, 2008

"the Duke's" Campaign Advice

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Judging by the over 1,200 comments on my article (and the hundreds of intemperate emails) about Ron Paul's heyday as a populist pamphleteer, there are many, many people angry that we decided to publish these newsletters online. But here's someone with the opposite reaction: David Duke -- whose 1990 Senate race, the Ron Paul Political Report said (PDF), "scared the blazes out of the Establishment" and whose platform, "to many voters...seems like just plain good sense." On his website, Duke is now offering advice for Paul:

What must Paul do to have any real chance of winning or making a bigger impact? I think he should do exactly what I did in Louisiana, and for Ron Paul to follow exactly the same advice Ron Paul gave in his newsletters for others, take up my campaign issues with passion and purpose.

Here, by Duke's own admission, is the suggestion that Paul ought to now "follow exactly the same advice Ron Paul gave in his newsletters for others."

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 34 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

34 comments

Q for CanWest: what ads do you serve up to these people? Somehow I don't think they're into "The Kite Runner", or "Mark Udall for US Senate."

TInfoil-hats.com? Guns 'n Ammo?

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ooooooooooh boy...let's see the Ron Paul crazies try and explain their way out of this.

- caaggies

January 9, 2008 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm staying away from your article, Jim--from the comments at least.

Isn't this further evidence still that comments should be open only to subscribers?  As if the nut-parade following the Shock Troops recantation wasn't enough.  

I have to think that you in the TNR rank and file are as sick of this website bullshit as are your loyal readers.  I've even seen hints of this from time to time since October.  If I'm right about how you feel, is there anything you can do about it?  Anyone in the CanWest bureaucracy to whom you can complain?

- aeromonas

January 9, 2008 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wasn't that just INSANE?  How did the word spread so quickly amongst the Paul devotees?  Those blisters are really really nuts....

- thejauntyboulevardier

January 9, 2008 at 5:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Niche internet is an amazing thing. You can see how the clown raised millions online in the flash of an eye.

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now I dislike Ron Paul's goons as much as the next rational person, but isn't citing David Duke hearsay at best, and the American version of reductio ad Hitlerum at worst?

- asistos

January 9, 2008 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not fool-proof, but it's pretty damning asistos. You think Duke would choose Paul's newsletters at random as guidance? More likely, there was a lot of stuff in there that he liked.

- rozenson

January 9, 2008 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I strongly suspect it isn't them en mass but the same person (or a small group of people) posting over and over and over again. The phoniness and similar style of the comments also leads me to believe that... Though its quite possible that they are really just that way.

- doubtofbuddha

January 9, 2008 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I doubt doubtofbuddha's contention. We know thanks to his online fund-raising that there are at least 100,000 Paul supporters who are web-savvy enough to donate online. They almost certainly found the story via Drudge, who probably gets a couple million visitors daily. So it's not inconceivable that there are on the order of 10,000-20,000 Paul nutcases who read Drudge, are fanatics and who have visited tnr.com to read the article.

A little scary, actually. It's not hard to develop a critical mass of nutjobs online, in short order.

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kirchick -- Last time I mention it; just don't if the word has gotten to you.

Could you correct your Ron Paul story to reflect that Louisiana is a "blanket" primary state, not an "open" primary state.  There is a difference between the two types of primaries, as evidenced by litigation in California and Washington State.

My apologies to those of you may have read this comment elsewhere.

- epackard-02

January 9, 2008 at 7:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rozenson, the argument is still logically flawed.  By that reasoning, I should not be a vegetarian, since Hitler was a vegetarian, and there was something in that dietary restriction that he liked.

Anyway, I believe James was citing Duke's comments as evidence that Ron Paul actually gave the advice to his followers, not as evidence of the despicable content of the newsletters.  With the exception of the radical Paulites, I think everyone agrees the content was deplorable.  Duke's comments are, in that respect, irrelevant.

- asistos

January 9, 2008 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not saying you can't support Ron Paul because David Duke does. I'm saying don't support Ron Paul because Duke's support reinforces this notion of his past racist writings.

- rozenson

January 9, 2008 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but that explanation just illustrates the logical fallacy.  Permit me some simple syllogisms:

David Duke likes Ron Paul.

David Duke is a racist.

Therefore, Ron Paul is a racist.

How is that different from

Hitler likes vegetarianism.

Hitler is evil.

Therefore, vegetarianism is evil.

?  If you like, you can change the final "is a" relation to "is more likely to be a."  The error is still there.

- asistos

January 9, 2008 at 8:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

asistos -- the argument that we're trying to make is that you are the company you keep. And the fact that Ron Paul refuses to distance himself from David Duke in any meaningful way shows what kind of person Paul actually is.

- caaggies

January 9, 2008 at 8:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ahh... so there's a symmetry to the "likes" relation.  In other words:

David Duke and Ron Paul like each other.

David Duke is a racist.

Therefore, Ron Paul is (or is more likely to be) a racist.

Yes, I can get behind that.  It seems that James has only posted support for one half of that argument, though (Duke likes Paul).  I fail to see any evidence of Paul likes Duke, other than his failure to disassociate himself from Duke's recent admiration.

- asistos

January 9, 2008 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

asistos -- glad you understand the point.

- caaggies

January 9, 2008 at 8:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...and now I'm re-reading the post and seeing Paul's (or his newsletter's, anyway) implicit endorsement of Duke's 1990 run.  OK, so the newsletter and Duke like each other, so the newsletter is more likely to be racist.  Completely agree, although I think we all arrived at that independently.

How does this address the contention that Paul didn't write the newsletter, as the Paulites claim?

- asistos

January 9, 2008 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How does this address the contention that Paul didn't write the newsletter, as the Paulites claim?"

You're kidding, right?

This newsletter went out under RP's name. Ergo, he has ownership over the message.

- caaggies

January 9, 2008 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This excellent chris hayes article published in TNR probably explains a nice piece of the Paul constituency:

www.chrishayes.org/.../decision-makers

Take note of the "A disturbing number of undecided voters are crypto-racist isolationists." section.. overall, the article isn't long.

These people probably largely stay home on election day (maybe Pat Buchanan got a few of 'em out) but Paul's combination with some run of the mill libertarianism and the Iraq debacle has really awoken this sleeping giant.

- mmathog

January 9, 2008 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, no.  I understand that the newsletter went out in Paul's name.  My question is this: how does Duke's endorsement prove that the newsletter was written by Paul?

That's the whole point of this post, right?  We know the newsletter is terrible.  We know Paul claims not to have written it.  So who's right?  And how are Duke's words relevant to *that* question-- the central point of contention?

- asistos

January 10, 2008 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Because Duke attributes it directly to Paul. He said: "I think he should do exactly what I did in Louisiana, and for Ron Paul to follow exactly the same advice Ron Paul gave in his newsletters for others."

He did not say, " . . . the same advice found in Paul's newsletters."

- rozenson

January 10, 2008 at 2:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

asistos -- are you trying to be deliberately obtuse here?

Or do you have an agenda we should know about?

- caaggies

January 10, 2008 at 2:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, this is going in circles.  Let me lay out my argument.  There are three points which the Duke comment could be addressing:

1)  The content of the letters-- in other words, "Duke likes the letters, therefore they're racist."  As I pointed out, this is a Duke version of reducio ad hitlerum.  In any event, we hardly need Duke's endorsement to determine the content of the letters-- they're obviously full of bigoted nonsense.  So Duke's comments are irrelevant here.

2)  The authorship of the letters, for which Duke's comment is hearsay.  After all, many other people think Paul authored the letters.  Unfortunately, facts are not the result of a show of hands.  There's no reason to believe that Duke has any special knowledge of who actually wrote the letters-- he could be attributing them to Paul just because Paul's name is on top.  Yes, the fact that his name is on top is evidence that Paul wrote (or at least approved) of the letters.  But Duke's quote *itself* is not evidence.  So again, Duke's comments are irrelevant here.

3)  Whether Paul is a bigot.  This is basically a combination of points (1) and (2), and is erroneous for both reasons.  The fact that Duke likes Paul is not evidence of Paul's racism, for the same reason that the fact that Hitler likes vegetarianism is not evidence of vegetarianism's evil.  Furthermore, (3) assumes that Paul wrote the letters-- which again, has not yet been proved.  And even if it *were* proved, Duke's comments would *still* be irrelevant.  After all, if we know that Paul wrote racist letters, then we know that Paul is a racist.  Duke's comments do not enter the equation.

So for any point one could be trying to make about Paul, Duke's comments are meaningless.  So why are they being offered?  

- asistos

January 10, 2008 at 2:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

caaggies, I have no agenda.  I'm a "not a Republican" supporter-- I support any candidate that will help there not be a Republican in the White House in 2009.  I can't help but think that everyone here has already assumed the conclusion (Paul is a racist).  Once one treats that question as undetermined, the logical hole in using Duke's comments becomes glaringly obvious.

Are folks just reinforcing their own beliefs/conclusions?  Or is there a point (4) Duke's comments are being used for that I missed?

- asistos

January 10, 2008 at 3:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry, asistos, but you are being obtuse here. And it's plainly (and painfully) obvious that you have no real notion of what David Duke really represents. The fact that Duke has put his fat, neo-Nazi ass into this mess -- and Ron Paul hasn't said boo -- shows that these two characters are two birds of the same feather.

And I'm starting to believe that you have an agenda here -- and I'm not sure that I like it that much.

- caaggies

January 10, 2008 at 3:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

caaggies, try not to jump to any conclusions about me.  I'm not being obtuse-- I'm being methodical.  I'd appreciate it if you would point out where my reasoning has failed rather than accusing me of having "an agenda" and insinuating that I support Nazis.  Reducio ad Hitlerum indeed.

As I said earlier, if Paul likes Duke, then I agree that Duke's endorsement is evidence of Paul's racism.  But the only evidence being offered of that is the fact that Paul hasn't "said boo,"  Duke's statement was made today, right?  Is Paul expected to immediately refute any endorsement made by a neo-Nazi ass?  I imagine he'd be busy all day then-- most of his supporters are nuts.

If someone brings Duke's statement to Paul's attention and he doesn't denounce it, then Paul's a racist.  If a long period of time goes by without Paul denouncing it, then he's (probably) a racist.  Until that happens, the argument that Paul is a racist because of Duke's quote is incomplete, since the "Paul likes Duke" relation has not yet been proved.

- asistos

January 10, 2008 at 3:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

asistos, fwiw, I don't think you are being obtuse at all and are making your case pretty methodically. Beyond that, Paul is a fringe candidate so this is really just an intellectual exercise, one which I think yours holds up well. caagies, I really think that what asistos is doing here is an intellectual exercise so don't take it so personally. I can't stand Paul but find nothing objectionable in what asistos says.

- blackton

January 10, 2008 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks, blackton.

Yes, I'm purely engaging in an intellectual exercise.  I suppose I should have stated that in the beginning: I'm not trying to defend Paul so much as to point out the errors in this particular argument against Paul.  It's possible I misjudged the purpose of the comments section, and that this is supposed to be a place to rail on Paul/Paulites.

If so, I want in on that.  I can't stand those Ayn Rand fanboys.  :)

- asistos

January 10, 2008 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

asistos, yeah, I have run into that same problem myself from time to time, i think it is pretty well understood that no subscriber to TNR will be a Ron Paul supporter (or would be an unusual one) so all of us sitting around agreeing with each other about Paul would make for a boring thread, you livened it up well.

- blackton

January 10, 2008 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

with caaggies on this one. Paul needs to make it clear to not us but Duke and Rockwell and their supporters that a) he does not want their support and b) that if they presume to use his name or claim his support for their filth, he will use every available legal mechanism to prevent such behavior.

Does Ron Paul not know any good lawyers? If he can't prevent his name from being used to produce this vile trash, he's not fit to run for dogcatcher.

- teplukhin2you

January 10, 2008 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's my view: Intellectual exercises are great when they're done in undergrad courses (grad courses, not so much).

But my point is this: Whether Ron Paul personally authored the articles in question or not is beside the point. The point is that these articles went out under his own name. Presumably, he approved what was written in his "newsletters." Therefore, he has ownership over what has been written. And based upon my own knowledge of Dr. No, this is not a man who lets people use his "brand" willy-nilly. And he has a history of associating with some highly unsavory types. So, in my mind, Paul=Duke makes abundant sense to me (much as Buchanan=Duke).

- caaggies

January 10, 2008 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Huh... both my grad degrees were filled with intellectual exercises.  Then again, graduate programs are as disparate as can be.  Getting an MBA is totally different than getting a math PhD, for instance.

caaggies, your point concludes that Paul is a racist before the Duke element is even thrown in.  It can be reduced to "Paul is a racist, Duke likes him, therefore Paul is a racist."  That's really not a valid argument.  The initial "Paul is a racist" part may be (and the longer Paul takes to disclose the "alleged" author of the newsletter, the more I think it's him), but as I methodically pointed out earlier, Duke's endorsement is immaterial to that.  So again, why was it presented?  This looks like an instance of the association fallacy at best, and a smear job (to the extent Paul can be smeared) at worst.  

Now I'll take my intellectual exercises and my memories of younger, more carefree days off the table.  :)

- asistos

January 10, 2008 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At this point, it seems that the only people still defending Ron Paul are the openly bigoted or the comically

- Anonymous

January 15, 2008 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Ron Paul's newsletters were unveiled, respectable libertarians like the writers at Reason magazine

- Anonymous

February 4, 2008 at 11:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close