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 Company He Keeps

THE PLANK NOVEMBER 12, 2007

The Company He Keeps

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Andrew Sullivan has predictably responded to my post noting Ron Paul's accepting money from a prominent neo-Nazi by labeling it a "smear." He offers no rebuttal or rejoinder to this news (nor does he even bother to link to the original story), and it does not seem to faze him that a man claiming to believe in liberty would accept money and support from out-and-out fascists. To Andrew, any and all criticism of Ron Paul is automatically attributed to the hysterical fear-mongering of the Christianist War Party against The Truth-Telling, All-American, Constitutionalist Hero. 

Today I learned from Dave Weigel that the Paul campaign has no intention of returning the money it has received (and will probably continue to receive) from white supremacists. You may recall that in 1996, Bob Dole returned a $1,000 contribution from the Log Cabin Republicans. I imagine that episode made Andrew angry, as it ought have. But Ron Paul taking money from a prominent neo-Nazi merits no response from Andrew, just attacks on those who merely point it out. 

Andrew has been Ron Paul's biggest booster on the blogosphere. He should explain why Ron Paul's unapologetic acceptance of money and support from neo-Nazis does not disturb him. And the next time he's tempted to label Rudy Giuliani a "fascist," perhaps he should pause and consider whom actual, self-described fascists are supporting for president. 

--James Kirchick 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 22 comments

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

22 comments

You know, this Ron Paul thing - and Sullivan's lame response to it - has nothing to do with the fact that Rudy is, in fact, a fascist.

- WoodyBombay

November 12, 2007 at 5:17pm

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

Well, as Ronald Reagan said, just because they support me doesn't mean I support them.

And while I would reiterate my previous comment on James' original post, I'd add that it's kind of amusing to imagine a fascist so disgusted with the size and reach of the Federal government under Bush that she's driven to support Ron Paul. There's an easy liberal punchline there. Of course, in reality, maybe Neo-Nazis truly think that, holding our policy of domestic racial cleansing constant (I'm assuming Paul doesn't deviate much from G.W. on this front), a smaller government is superior to a larger government.

- primwallflow

November 12, 2007 at 5:45pm

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

My, my, Andrew's quite the excitable boy, isn't he? What can be said about someone who swings from a schoolgirlish crush on GW Bush to fawning over a fringe isolationist and nutjob like Ron Paul?

- teplukhin2you

November 12, 2007 at 5:46pm

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

I now see exactly why Sullivan does not have a comments section.

- psantillana

November 12, 2007 at 5:54pm

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

In the south and midwest, reactionary racial and political views and isolationism of the conspiracy-addled, anti-Washington variety go together like biscuits and gravy. This has been true since the days of Father Coughlin at least, probably back to the Klan's golden age, the 1920s. The only isolationists whose views of the world are not tainted by a racist fear of contamination by furreigners are those pre economic nutjobs who advocate unicorns like, say, a return to the gold standard....

- teplukhin2you

November 12, 2007 at 6:27pm

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

I'm actually curious about what the implications would be if the US did attempt a return to the Gold Standard.

Anybody know?

- The Ignorant Populist

November 12, 2007 at 7:00pm

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

I don't know for sure, but wouldn't it devalue the $ even further? As far as I know, the money supply now outstrips the value of America's gold reserves.

- primwallflow

November 12, 2007 at 7:10pm

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

Good idea--make Paul return the money to the Nazis.

After that, have all the candidates return the contributions from companies and their employees in the death industries: weapons, tobacco et al. that kill more Americans every year than America's Nazis do in their wildest dreams.

Then I'd go after the contributors from industries that exacerbate global warming: coal, oil, automobiles, the unions that build freeways, the airlines, everyone involved with oil tankers.  Those who promote or provide cover for the above, the attorneys and marketers, should be on your list, too.  The deleterious effects of their labor will be terrorizing tens of millions of people around the globe long after everyone reading this is dead.

Individuals who participate in organized religion and wish to see its myths translated into the law of the land--e.g., push Kirchick, Sullivan et al. back into the closet--need to keep their funds to themselves, too.  Stamp their checks "Return to sender."

The prison guards' union? Big contributors. Thanks to them, petty marijuana dealers are rotting in and clogging our prisons. Tell the guards where they can stash their contributions.

Indian casinos in California now outdraw Vegas.  How many thousands of American families will be destroyed because of their avarice?  Send the Indians a message: here's your dirty money back, we don't want it.

Have I left anyone out? After all, the lives of millions of Americans have been materially degraded, damaged, and sometimes outright ended by the efforts of the groups and individuals I listed.  Meanwhile, America's Nazis can't even get their bandwagon out of the driveway.

So, whose money should candidates be returning?  Or is the ideological symbolism of their actions, rather than the reality transpiring at this moment, what's really important?

- williamyard

November 12, 2007 at 7:32pm

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

I'm with Andy on this one.

James Kirchick thinks he has a Watergate Smoking Gun on Ron Paul with this Nazi smear, but all he has is someone who gave a contribution.  

teplukhin2you is right.  Conspiricy theories, rasicst ideologues and the gold standard travel together and it's no surprise that these guys support Ron Paul.  If you want to talk about Coughlin, let me know.  I have the full library there.

The major candidates spend lots of time and money looking at who contributes, but they have all had their stumbles.  Al Gore & the Buddhist, Hillary and her chinese guy.  Everyone looks at their contributors and then does nothing until they are caught.  But really they haven't done anything but try and keep up appearances.

Kirchick wants to pull on a strong and get Ron Paul to dance.

I think Ron Paul's plan to ignore him has more merit than sending the money back.  At least he's nt wasting time and money on something hypocritical.

- CRS9TNR

November 12, 2007 at 7:38pm

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

Uh oh, catfight!  Our Boychick is obviously oblivious to a basic rule of campaigning, Republican or Democrat: Cash the check!  Apparently, she's also checked out the gown worn by Christopher Hitchens, when he pilloried Mother Teresa for taking money from Haiti's Duvaliers, and decided she'd look good in it herself. Sanctimony is Kirchick's favorite designer label.

- jm_rice

November 12, 2007 at 7:41pm

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

I believe there's a logically fallacy called reductio ad Hitlerum, Kirchick. Look it up.

- btau24

November 12, 2007 at 9:47pm

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

I suggest all involved read what dear Mr Shaw wrote about accepting money from people whose morals we dislike; Major Barbara is most enlightening on the subject. I suspect that much of this angst is generated by a weird fear that anyone accepting money from anyone else automatically becomes that person's puppet. Although that truly is the way to bet, it isn't always so.

- AlanK

November 12, 2007 at 9:54pm

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

If Ron paul received money from a neo Nazi he should return it and scorn the source.

If Andrew Sullivan calls the calling of this out a smear, and if the calling out is true, he has further dicredited himself.

if Andrew Sullivan is high on Ron Paul, then he is an embarrasment to himself.

Read his essay in Atlantic about Obama linked somewhere around here: an exercise in well written ostensibly intelligent sounding intellectual crap like you have never read.

(p.s. If anyone reads the exchange between Sam Harris and Andrew Sulllivan as linked to  on Sullivan's website, they will experience an absolute, however civil.  dismantling of of Sullivan and the reduction of him to near hysterics.)

- basman

November 13, 2007 at 12:01am

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

Rice, you despicable little toad, keep your loathsome bile to yourself.  You have apparently dragged your unbelievably tired attempt at wit back out of the mothballs and decided that you will now refer to Kirchick using feminine pronouns, just like you do with Sullivan.  I am no great fan of Kirchick's, but I'll be damned if I can read your simpering insults without wanting to throttle you.  If you lack the ability to say anything without immediately descending, as you so very often do, to rank stereotype and hateful slurs, then keep your penny-ante thoughts to yourself.

- drdannyu

November 13, 2007 at 8:06am

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

I find this post most refreshing. First, Kirchick disagreed with one of his mentors. Good, the first sign of intellectual maturity. Second, Kirchick is correct to highlight Sullivan's rather weird and discredited slavish support of candidates who catch his fancy...and he has thrown his goatee behind some real losers, GWB coming to mind immediately.  Third, Kirchick is essentially right - if Paul is getting money from real neo Nazi's, he should at least feel uncomfortable about it. Perhaps even send it back.

Kirchick, Ron Paul has built quite a following here in SF of all places.  Everyday, along Park Presidio, which is the artery leading to the GGB, there are some very bizarre looking blokes holding Ron Paul signs.  He seems to have acquired quite a dedicated ward of supporters.  Someone from tnr should fly out here and interview these specimens.  Probably make a good story.

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 13, 2007 at 9:52am

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

What Drdannyu said. The neo-nazis like homophobic humor too.

- miceelf

November 13, 2007 at 9:58am

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

yikes..

I haven't been visiting tnr too much lately (the new format kinda sucks) and after I wrote my pro Kirchick blurb, I scrolled down and much to my dismay, found the original Kirchick post, calling Paul a Nazi.  Can't support that...

but this particular post is better and I stand by my previous post.  As for the other, well, Kirchick got pummelled for that one and deservedly so.

btw, can we have a chance to give feeback on this new new format?  Based upon input from my little crew of tnr talkbackers who communicate with me offline, it is generally disliked and found to be frustrating.  I don't like it at all.  This is the reason for my diminished presence on the boards.  Oh course, that is music to the ears of many but overall, I have noticed a marked decline in posting.

- thejauntyboulevardier

November 13, 2007 at 10:07am

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

Andrew should address the Bob Dole - Log Cabin Republican analogy -- my guess is that back in 1996 he condemned it, so why isn't he condemning Ron Paul today?

Hate the new TNR format -- change for change's sake is not a good thing.

- Lymon1

November 13, 2007 at 10:57am

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

Jaunty B - funny, I get the feeling that the Bay Area of all places is Ground Zero for the Paul campaign. "Ron Paul Revolution" banners keep popping up along overpasses on major commuting routes in the South Bay, and I see more and more programmers (always male, white, youngish) climbing aboard the Paul spaceship.

I think TalkBacker "gabbage" nailed it when he said Paul's appeal is about hostility to 1) the war 2) Microsoft 3) the RIAA, to which you could add 4) the war on drugs. The perfect Silicon Valley candidate!  

- teplukhin2you

November 13, 2007 at 12:43pm

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

Iggy Pop - a return to the gold standard would mean rampant inflation and an irreversible acceleration of the dollar's downward spiral, to be corrected only by the kind of root-canal high interest rates that we saw in the Paul Volcker era (1979-82).

Not necessarily bad for US hegemony/power or the US economy overall-- American consumers have been living way beyond their means for many years now-- but a disaster for the US working class, particularly those who can't reinvent themselves as moneyfiddlers or service providers to the new gilded classes.

- teplukhin2you

November 13, 2007 at 12:47pm

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

The South Bay Area is home to a lot of computer scientists and engineers.  For whatever reason, these sorts of people are very attracted to libertarianism and objectivism.  I think it's because they think they know enough to spout off about economics and science because they're good at math.  Most of them are just "f*** you, jack, I got mine" brand a**holes.  You know, like anyone over the age of 20 who takes Ayn Rand seriously.

Candidates like Paul are America's id on crack.  Sullivan has, in the past few months, revealed himself to be a complete intellectual weenie.  Oh, and jm_rice is still a homophobe.  Some things are like the seasons.

- jfelliott

November 13, 2007 at 2:03pm

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

I second or third the frowning on the Coulter-like slurs on Sullivan AND Kirchick, as well as the sentiment that campaign contributions should not be returned. That's a slippery slope. And since - I think - Bob Dole returned the Log Cabin money, to argue that this was bad, and that Ron Paul should not return money, would not be at all inconsistent. But I don't even think Sullivan was saying that, or arguing against Paul returning the money [although I would], I think he thought the Paul = Nazi bit was a smear. And he's not an intellectual weenine! He was wrong about Bush and has publicly flogged himself at every opportunity for that blunder ever since. Also, he regularly publishes critical letters as "Dissent of the day", or "Dissent of the day II" etc.  I respect him even when I disagree with him, because his heart is absolutely in the right place, and he tries to get to the truth through by being open to opposing views. What more do you want? And he's funny.

- psantillana

November 13, 2007 at 2:28pm

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

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close