David Bernstein on Ron Paul

by Liberty and Power

David Bernstein, a scholar I greatly respect as I have noted here in the past, has criticized Ron Paul's statement against racism. While he makes some good points, he is completely off base on the crux of the matter:

Paul has condemned racism in general, but the only specific categories of racialist thinking he has criticized are racial set-asides, and advocates of"so-called 'diversity.'"

This is not correct. No other Republican candidate has spoken out so forcefully about those issues of direct concern today for blacks that relate to racism.

For example, Paul has condemned the differential treatment of blacks in the criminal justice system, police brutality. the racist aspects of the war on drugs and in capital punishment. The other candidates have been silent on these issues or, as in the case of Giuliani, are a key part of the problem.

Paul is certainly not the perfect candidate but he is light years ahead of his competitors. For this reason, I hope that Bernstein will explore at similar length the stands of the top tier candidates (many of whom have been openly endorsed by his colleagues at the Volokh Conspiracy) and how they compare with those of Paul on these issues.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Bill Woolsey - 11/21/2007

Ron Paul is close to the paleo-libertarian movement. The Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell.

From the beginning, paleo-libertarians worked to build alliances with paleo-conservatives. There are racists and anti-semites in the paleo-conservative movement.

So, the notion that Ron Paul would end up with someone writing for his newsletter who made racist remarks should be no surprise.

Also, from the beginning, paleo-libertarians, starting with Rothbard, made harsh criticisms of other libertarians. Failing to make the "paleo" turn in the party line resulted in Leninesque denunciations.

And there have been plenty of harsh criticism in return, some of which points to the racist and anti-semitic views of the paleo-conservatives. (And what about Hoppe?)

I believe that this has created some hard feelings on both sides.

Fortunately, Ron Paul hasn't made public (or private) attacks of these sorts. He is a nice guy.

I think most libertarians are supporting him. Except, of course, the hawks.

D.S. Hube - 11/21/2007

David: I read that Paul claimed a ghost writer was responsible for some pretty racist writings that were apparently scribbled in his name. I've no problem believing him; however, would it not be prudent to reveal who this ghost writer was?

Bill Woolsey - 11/21/2007

Ron Paul's general remarks about racism as a type of collectivism and support for individualism is a direct rebuff to the white nationalist movement. Remember, this issue arose because there are racists who support Paul and some of them are close to neo-Nazis. (Maybe some are neo-Nazis.)

As I see it, the political racists see conflict between ethnic groups as a key issue and use it for political organizing. Jewish bankers own the Federal Reserve and are charging white people interest on our money to line their pockets. The Mexicans are stealing our jobs. The blacks are destroying our neighborhoods with crime.

Ron Paul is claiming that this vision of politics is contrary to traditional American values. And I think it is probably good rhetoric (if not historically acurate) to emphasize that.

Read Ron Paul's endorsement of the Junteenth celebration where he speaks of slavery as being a blemish contrary to American principles. Come on! Claiming that libertarianism is the American way is one of our best rhetorical ploys!

Anyway, to point out that the white nationalists are similar to advocates of affirmation action is a very cutting remark.

Think of it as being aimed at right-wingers who are also being targeted for recruitment by neo-Nazis.

Ron Paul appears to take the hard core libertarian view that slavery is (and was) wrong, government enforced segregation is wrong, but that government should not try to prohibit private discrimination. Many libertarians hold this view.

Is Berstein ignorant of that? Is this one of those areas where he dissents? (As Nozick came to do, and claimed he wasn't a libertarian any more?) Fine, let him say that he rejects hardcore libertarianism. But he writes as if he is unaware of all this? Is he?

Paul is not making the legalization of private discrimation a campaign issue. Which is good, in my opinion.

More controversial among libertarians is Paul's strict federalism. In particular, opposition to having the Federal government prohibit the state governments from doing bad things. So, while many libertarians have no problem with the Federal government outlawing slavery in all states or prohibiting states from enforcing racial segregation, Paul appears skeptical of these things. Paul's view isn't uncommon among libertarians, but it is controversial. (By the way, I think the implication is that state or local governments would be free to prohibit private discrimation, or enforce "affirmative action," in Paul's ideal world.)

But the reality is that Paul isn't promoting any of these ideas. Personally, I think worrying about Paul winning the Republican nomination, then the Presidency, then repealing the Civil Rights act, and then South Carolina or Alabama passing Jim Crow, is unrealistic.

If Paul was "educating" people about the importance of allowing private discrimation or the evils of having the federal government stop state governments from enforcing segregation, then I would not be inclined to support him.

I would be wondering, "Where is his sense of priorities?" And, it is true, I would think that someone who did focus on these issues might well be a racist. I am no fan of affirmative action, but I wonder about people who think that is the most important issue facing America as well.

If I really thought those issues were important, the fact that he doesn't say anything about them, would greatly reduce my interest in promoting his long shot candidacy.

In other words, why would a racist support Paul when he isn't doing anything to promote their view of the world?

Surely Tancredo gives better rhetoric on immigration than Paul. That is where Paul's emphasis comes closest to the interests of the racists.

Personally, I think that the real point of connection is that Paul does take positions that solve the "problems" seen by the conspiracy-minded in the Patriot movement.
Abolish the IRS, abolish the Federal Reserve, and get out of the UN, WTO, etc. The racist-wing of the patriot movement finds these positions just as appealing as do the non-racist elements. The racist elememts of the Patriot movement have common interests with the neo-Nazis. And there is the connection.

Some in the Patriot movement worry about the Jewish bankers conspiracy while others don't worry about the ethnic backbround of the conspirators (and in critiquing the anti-semites point to alleged WASP members of the conspiracy.) The Neo-Nazis are also very worried about the conspiracy, and, of course, insist that it is the Jews.

Paul explains his postions on the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and even the WTO on reasonable libertarian grounds, not the conspiracy theories.

And, his remarks about racism and collectivism do show a rejection of the approach of the racist-Patriots, an approach they share with the neo-Nazis.

I am not too concerned about any element of the patriot movement, but one small advantage of the Paul campaign is that he is, in a very gentle way, promoting more sensible (and more libertarian) views in the patriot movement.

And, of course, the now people being attracted to Paul and getting the Paul message--not the conspiracy theories of the Patriots, much less conflict between enthic groups.

Sheldon Richman - 11/21/2007

Keep up the good work, David.