History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Objectionable Comments in the Ron Paul Newsletters: How Long Did It Go On?
by Liberty and Power
[Addendum now follows]
I believe it is now generally agreed that the offensive material in the Ron Paul newsletters was written by someone else. From the extracts published on the web (see below), I would surmise that there were at least two different hands at work. (Incidentally, the writer (inter alia) says that ‘forced segregation’ is an ‘evil’ -- but so too is ‘forced integration’; he also says it is ‘legitimate to remove Jim Crow laws’. These two touches do not appear to be standard racism. The writer also opposes the war on drugs.) -- That apart, there is another aspect I would like to go into here. It is a key point, but it has not been given the stress it deserves.
For how long did the Ron Paul newsletters publish material that is clearly offensive (or may be so regarded), on race & homosexuality? Clearly the time-period involved is critical. It is one thing to publish such material more or less continuously over decades; it is another thing altogether if such comments appeared in a few issues only.
Let me begin with some opinions on this point, taken randomly from the vast numbers now available on the internet:- “allowed the bigotry to go on…for years”; “many instances….over the last two decades”; “printing racist rhetoric over three decades”; “decades worth of…..deeply-held bigotry”; “the views his newsletters have long espoused”; “frequently”; & so on.
Are there any facts so far? The New Republic, 8th Jan 2008, have published extracts from some ten issues on these two topics. Material on race appeared in October, November, December 1990; January, February 1991; June 1992 (a ‘special issue’.) Comments on homosexuality appeared in March, June, August 1990; January 1994. In addition, comments on race were published in December 1989 & in an issue (not further specified) in 1992; & an unspecified issue carried derogatory comments on Barbara Jordan. Thus between December 1989 & January 1994, deplorable views were expressed in some 13 issues, out of the 50 or so published in that period.
Overall, the newsletters appeared from 1978 to ?date?. Thus, on the basis of the published extracts & other quotations/references -- this caveat is absolutely crucial -- it can be said:- Over some 30 years & possibly 360 issues of the newsletter (assuming it was published monthly), offensive material appeared in some 13 issues, concentrated in a four-year period.
Regarding the caveat: Copies of the newsletter are available in two libraries. The University of Kansas Library has various issues running from June 1977 to Feb 1985. The Wisconsin Historical Society Library has a collection on microfilm. The issues run from Jan 1988 to 2006 (some are missing.)
The key question: Is the same sort of material to be found in some -- a few? many? -- of these other issues? Or is it confined (more or less) to the 13 issues known so far? The answers will tell us the exact nature of the problem: whether it is long-standing, or a short episode. Each of these raises an entirely different range & type of question.
In short: What is needed is solid evidence. The only way to get any answers, is to go through all of the available newsletters. At present, the copies are accessible to anyone who is in Lawrence (Kansas) or Madison (Wisconsin) & cares to inquire at the appropriate library. Thus the material is already available, tho’ to a small number of people (so far.) It is of course (technically) possible (for someone) to digitise the copies & place them on the web. How much this involves (& what problems, if any, arise), I do not know. But some such measure would help to provide solid evidence. In its absence, we cannot even know what exactly we are to speculate & surmise about.
Addendum: In light of (A) some of the comments below, & (B) the suggestion that the newsletters are, after all, some 15 years in the past & repudiated by Ron Paul, I should like to add a few words of clarification.
1. I would like it to be crystal clear that I am interested only in clarifying Ron Paul’s position. He certainly stopped the objectionable material when he learnt about it, & regretted (eg) the attack on Barbara Jordan. But for how long had similar material been published before then? To repeat: A short period is one thing; a longer period is another thing altogether.
2. The newsletters available at the Ron Paul Freedom Report (Jan/Feb 1999 - July 2007), reprint certain speeches in the House; some issues consist of comments on policy matters. So it is the period upto December 1998 which needs to be cleared up. Apart from the 13 issues referred to above, what is in the others? The answer will tell us one of the following: (a) Objectionable material appeared from time to time over a large number of years. In that case, was Ron Paul too trusting, over too long a period? (b) Such material is found only in the period Dec 1989-Jan 1994. Here, there is a lack of ‘closer attention’ -- which Ron Paul has publicly acknowledged.
To repeat again: Ron Paul’s position can be clarified only after we have the answer.
3. It should be clear that (a) & (b) are not the same. That is the reason for dragging out these newsletters. No doubt ‘It was in another country & besides, the wench is dead’, but what happened before?
Derbyshire has an interesting quote, in discussing one George McDonald Fraser in this article (http://www.vdare.com/derbyshire/080115_flashman.htm), which I do not necessarily endorse but pass it on here as being of possible interest to some:
"An elderly character in one of Barbara Pym's novels grumbles, in the presence of some youngsters, about the awfulness of the pop music they are listening to. One of the youngsters turns on her rather nastily: "Of course you don't like it. It's not for you. Nothing's for you any more."
"This came to mind while I was reading the "last testament" of the writer George MacDonald Fraser, who died January 2. Fraser was 82 when he died, and quite out of tune with the Britain where he had been born and spent most of his life. Fraser wrote a great many books, both fiction and nonfiction, but he is best remembered for the Flashman series of comic-historical novels.
"The things that Fraser hated, and that I hate—the smug moralistic conformism of Political Correctness, the prissy horrified shrieking at commonplace observations and plain facts, the deception and (far worse) self-deception about human nature and human differences, the groveling and self-abasement before inferior civilizations, all the weasely lies and hypocrisy and preening moral vanity of the PC-niks, all the bullying and witch-hunting and anathematizing, all the gas and the crap and the cant, all the terror of everyday reality, and the yearning to hide from it behind a thick, warm, soft comforter of wishful thinking—all those things are, alas, mighty in the world, and will not be dented by Fraser's vituperation, much less by mine.
"That he and I detest them is of no importance. They are not for us. Nothing's for us any more."
Bill Woolsey -
1/16/2008
I think there are three groups.
The liberventionists have been attacking Paul all along. I think part of the reason is that the other Republicans are more acceptable to them. I think all libertarians have trouble with all the other Republican candidates, (even liberventionists,) but it is stronger for those of us strongly opposed to the Iraq war, bellicose rhetoric against Iraq, etc.
There are also people who feel strongly about immigration or abortion who attacked Paul harshly. Many of them were LP partisans or principled nonvoters. That is, people who advocated an alternative to supporting Paul. But not all.
There have been many noninterventionists who have been worried about Paul's paleo ties, but volunteered very little on the issue. If asked, they would say what they thought, but mostly stayed quiet. When the Mainstream Media (TNR) broke the newsletter story, then they began to volunteer criticism. Personally, I think that there are people who planned this all along. I am not going to bring attention to Paul's "problems," but when it comes out, I am going to shout out my disgust.
But I think there are people who supported Paul, worried a bit about the Paleo issues, but didn't know to what degree they touched Paul. His response to the scandal doesn't satisfy them. They don't think it ads up. If Paul gives a response that they find credible and separates him from the scandal, then they will support him again. (I guess.)
Anthony Gregory -
1/15/2008
Of course. Most people attacking Paul were attacking him before. The newsletter story was on the web many months ago. I have been disappointed in some people who have known about this the whole time who all of a sudden act indignant about this. It is indeed old news.
Bill Woolsey -
1/15/2008
Bolton, you don't get it.
Paul wrote a newsletter, but it wasn't for his constituents.
Paul wasn't in Congress when the objectionable things were written.
Whether it was written by his "staff" has yet to be determined. (Dondero/Rittberg describes it in a way that suggests it was. Others have claimed it was published by a partnership in which Paul was a part owner. I don't think these stories are necessarily inconsistent.)
The probability that Paul will actually be elected President is so small, that worrying about his administrative skills is foolish. Other things that are pointless to consider is what would actually happen if he were elected and who would serve in his administration.
The relevant question is whether libertarians (and especially libertarian academics) should support Ron Paul's campaign. The purpose of such support would be to promote the spread of libertarian ideas. And, so, indirectly to achieve libertarian policies at some future time.
The problems with such support is that Paul is promoting some policies that are controversial among libertarians. Those libertarians who disagree with one of more of those policies are troubled. (Personally, I can't imagine any libertarian supporting the Buchananite rhetoric about "jobs.")
And, of course, Paul was associated with, and perhaps remains associated with people (and probably libertarians) who have a history of using racist invective. Supporting Paul, then, is supporting those libertarians, (in an indirect way.)
There have been calls by many for Paul (or his campaign) to give the details on the operation of the newsletters. Who was the editor? Who selected the writers?
And then, when did Paul first find out that racist invective has being used in this newsletter? And what did he do about it? Depending on the answers to those questions, there may be more questions to come.
I certainly hope that many of those interested in these matters would be willing to support Paul if he gives the correct answers. But I must admit that I am certain that there are some libertarians who are asking these questions who never supported Paul and won't support him.
Anthony Gregory -
1/15/2008
He wasn't a congresscritter when the objectionable stuff came out. He was a practicing doctor — probably more busy with delivering babies than the newsletter. He has already fessed up to his negligence here.
Seriously, what's the big deal?
Craig J Bolton -
1/15/2008
I guess I just don't understand this controversy. Would someone see if I've got the basic facts right?
(1) Fact one: A congresscritter puts out a newsletter to inform his constituents about what issues he thinks are important and his stances on those issues.
(2) Fact two: The newsletter contains some very disagreeable things which, as far as I have heard no one is defending on their substance.
(3) Fact three: The congresscritter says "Well, I DIDN'T WRITE THOSE THINGS."
That sounds pretty lame to me and much like an admission of simple incompetence in managing one's office and office staff. You want someone as President who can't even take the time and bother to supervise what goes out under his name, in his own personal newsletter, to his constituents?
Sudha Shenoy -
1/15/2008
1. Who might or might not, have written the material in the newsletters is a _separate_ question from the one I was trying to raise: Ron Paul's own position. This is why the period over which the material appeared is important: it matters not a jot otherwise. I addressed myself to the second question, _not_ repeat not, the first.
2. Quite probably the whole topic of the newsletters was raised only as a stalking horse in long-standing, sharp, intra-libertarian differences; as a means to attack people other than Ron Paul. But he remains involved. _Because_ of this the question of what is in the other issues _has_ to be raised.
3. Historians will want an answer, because Ron Paul simply cannot be ignored in the American politics of the early 21st century; & in the political thinking of both the US & the world, then. So this is an issue in 'contemporary history'.
Sudha Shenoy -
1/15/2008
Shouldn't have posted late at night (as it was for me.)
What I _should_ have said: 'As with other similar allegations', there are no numbers given.
Otherwise I wanted to make it clear (in general) that _all_ of Ron Paul's statements had to be taken together. (There are other similar allegations that are equally one-sided.)
Steven Horwitz -
1/15/2008
One small correction. When I said:
"That is not the group of people I would hitch my libertarian wagon to (Mises excepted) as much as I admire and agree with significant portions of their work."
I didn't mean to refer to Rothbard in the same breath. I think there is much of value in Rothbard's work up until the paleo turn. And whatever my complaints about that turn, it doesn't invalidate his earlier published work.
Steven Horwitz -
1/15/2008
Sorry Karen, got side-tracked with some other things today (including doing some actual scholarly writing) and forgot about this.
"Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention--economic, cultural, social, international--amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise."
I believe liberty is both a means and an end itself. It is a means to the spectacular improvements in human well-being that have marked the last few centuries. Here I stand with Mises in making the utilitarian argument for liberty. I do believe liberty has value in its own right, but were it true that liberty led to misery, I would give up liberty and adopt that set of institutions that promoted human flourishing. I am a through and through consequentialist.
" It is "paleo" because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization."
That is not the group of people I would hitch my libertarian wagon to (Mises excepted) as much as I admire and agree with significant portions of their work. There were those among the Old Right who held some odious views. I support the right of association and political decentralization, but I also recognize that both have been used as justifications for private behaviors that I would characterize as illiberal and with which I would not want to associate, even if the people in question had no interest in using the state to enforce their views.
I would rather hitch my libertarian wagon to the classical liberals of the 19th century who were explicit in, and chose to foreground, their commitment to peace and free trade among all nations, racial equality, the rights of women, and the extended order of human cooperation and association that emerged from the operation of the free market. Frankly, I see Mises as much more in that tradition (the last Knight of liberalism as it were, not the one of the Knights of the Old Right Table), and I see the modern left-libertarianism as in it as well.
"Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of "policy options." Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes."
This is simply an ad-hominem that, as far as I'm concerned, reveals more about paleolibertarianism than anything else. There are plenty of major libertarian scholars and policy people who I know personally who have plenty of intellectually robust ideas and are deeply committed to principle, and who are hard core (nearly) anarcho-capitalist, who both work in and around DC and who find paleolibertarianism to be beyond the pale.
And what of me? I'm more or less an anarcho-capitalist, I live 500 miles from DC, like you, I make my living outside the libertarian movement as a college professor at a small school, I have no affiliation with Cato or Reason (IHS, yes), and I write frequently for the Freeman and lecture at FEE (or are they now part of the beltway crowd too?).
This line of ad-hominem, which has been the only argument the defenders of the paleos can muster, just doesn't fly. I have yet to see much of anything by the paleos this week other than trying to engage in this sort of ad-hominem, change the subject, or claim everyone else has flaws. Not one of those address the substantive criticisms.
What this point amounts to, I think, is a disagreement over strategy. Should we pursue gradualist improvements where we can find them, even if that requires making short-term political alliances with non-libertarians? I think the answer to that is yes, but I also think libertarians can legitimately agree over it without engaging in name-calling. I do think there are ways that we can strategically ally with folks without giving up our principles.
It's funny that the paleos would raise that point, given some of the people THEY have chosen to ally with. If I have to choose between allying with "DC insiders" who aren't libertarians to advance libertarian goals and allying with racists, anti-Semites, and the like to advance libertarian goals, I'll take the former, thank you very much. In the long run, it's a better strategy, and in any run, it's the strategy more consistent with classical liberal values.
"What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order."
Well I reject the language of "natural order" at least as I think I understand it here in the context of religion. No question religious beliefs have been an important source of classical liberal values and are intimately tied to classical liberalism historically. Whether religion either "is" or "needs to be" the bedrock of liberty and property is another question, the answer to which I think is "no."
That said, I've made my personal peace with my religious background, but I don't think libertarianism needs to "make peace" with religion. We need to bring our analytical tools to it and understand both the good it has done and can do, and the bad is has done and can do. No simple answers here. FWIW, I think one can be a deeply religious person and be a solid libertarian, but that's a different question than one about the relationship between libertarianism and religion as a social institution.
So this ought to set off a whole other set of dozens of comments, which I cannot promise I can respond to given other pressing tasks.
Karen De Coster -
1/14/2008
Steve -
Why the evasion of the paleo question? Do you have any definition of those whom who claim to want to silence/discredit? I'm waiting for you to address my very clear definition.
Karen De Coster -
1/14/2008
Why do you guys keep trotting out this lack-of-evidence trash?
I REPEAT again: For any of you anti-Rockwell libertarians who are giving credence to this smear without evidence, tell me you don't have a problem with this guy's nameless, blank profile. No name, no profile, no information on the guy, no evidence behind his words, and the guy "blogs" twice per year, and only when he attacks a "Rockwellite."
Your agenda is so exposed, so obvious, it only benefits those whom you hope to destroy. Keep it up.
Sudha Shenoy -
1/14/2008
Thank you for the quote and link.
1. RightWatch says:"...these articles appeared over a period of years...multiple issues and multiple years...it went on too long and in too many issues..."
_No_ numbers are given. This is precisely why I investigated -- hoping to find some _facts_.
2. Rightwatch also says that Ron Paul accepted authorship of the objectionable material in 1996, then denied authorship to the 'Texas Monthly' in 2001. They say plainly that Ron Paul _lied_ on _one_ of these occasions.
Let me now quote from Ron Paul's 'Texas Monthly' interview: "...I actually wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but...[campaign aides] said that's too confusing. It appeared in your letter...your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it."
This statement is taken directly from the interview. I believe it should also be taken into account, to get an _honest picture_ of Ron Paul's position.
Karen De Coster -
1/14/2008
"Do you deny that the "paleo-turn" was a strategy of making an alliance with the right? That there already were "paleo-conservatives" and "paleo-libertarian" means, "libertarians who will tailor their ideology to appeal to "paleo-conservatives?'"
You need to study these big words, my friend. I completely deny. I suppose you could start with my definition of "paleo" above? Then perhaps you should look up Paleo Rothbard's alliances -- with the LEFT.
"I disagree that all sound libertarian thinking passes through Rothbard..."
How do you guys manage to so easily put words in peoples' mouths? You spew total hatred toward anyone that ever claims a fondness for the great thinker named Murray Rothbard. So who are the Real Hate-Filled people, here? The Haters always claim that someone else "hates" (racist, homophobe, sexist, MLK-o-phobe, etc., etc.) But look at yourselves. You hate openly, yet accuse everyone else of "hating" the state's protected classes secretly!
"Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention--economic, cultural, social, international--amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is "paleo" because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of "policy options." Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order."
You know nothing about me or my "friends," Mr. Bill. Besides, was I asking you?
John M Shaw -
1/14/2008
I certainly do admire Congressman Paul's very principled stand against the U.S. invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq and its people. But subsequent investigation into Mr. Paul's background has revealed an ugly racist side to certain self-proclaimed libertarians and himself.
"As the story sits at the moment Paul admits he published the newsletter. He admits the comments are genuine and doesn’t assert they were faked. He no longer claims they were taken out of context merely that he didn’t write them. The newsletter had Paul’s name in big letters on the front page. Subscriptions to it were taken by his staff. It was printed by his campaign manager and it was edited by former aide and close friend Lew Rockwell. What you have then is basically an admission that he published a bigoted newsletter for several years out of his own office. He put his own name on it but wants to say someone else wrote it.
Of course if they ghost wrote if for Paul then Paul is still responsible. And as the publisher he is still responsible. He was the one who put out the newsletter. At best if he proves someone else wrote it he will have only shown that he paid someone else to write bigoted articles in his name -- hardly an improvement. But he’s not even attempting to prove that.
He’s refused to name the author. In addition he claims he can’t remember who it is. So why did he allow this to happen. He says it happened during a transition. Apparently it lasted several years which is hardly a transition. So why didn’t he stop this when he noticed it. He claims he didn’t notice it because he didn’t read his own newsletter. And apparently no one on his staff, his including his campaign manager, ever saw fit to tell Mr. Paul that bigotry was being promoted from his own office. No subscriber mentioned it to him either. All his closest friends and allies who worked for him apparently conspired to keep him in the dark from what was going on right under his own nose.
That is hardly believable. To make it worse Paul’s office has stated that he will not investigate the matter."
Who chose the word "paleo" as a prefix for libertarian? Was it pulled out of a hat?
Do you deny that the "paleo-turn" was a strategy of making an alliance with the right? That there already were "paleo-conservatives" and "paleo-libertarian" means, "libertarians who will tailor their ideology to appeal to "paleo-conservatives?'
Anyway, I disagree that all sound libertarian thinking passes through Rothbard, so I am not a Paleo on that account.
I do recognize that "paleo-libertarian" should be defined as being against other libertarians (the ones who refused to follow Rothbard's change in party line like good libertarian leninists.) I don't define my views in opposition to other sects of libertarians.
But the real question is, who wrote the racist stuff. Which paleo libertarians were tasked with spewing hateful propaganda in an effort to appeal to rank and file paleo-conservatives?
Why don't you ask your friends in Auburn?
Karen De Coster -
1/14/2008
Steven --
Might I ask, who are "the paleos?" The definition of "paleo," as defined by Lew himself is:
"Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention--economic, cultural, social, international--amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is "paleo" because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of "policy options." Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order."
Is this something you disagree with, and why?
Also, you mention here, more than once, that you must get rid of the "paleo influence." I am very pleased to have my post so easily validated (concerning the purposeful lies on the part of the beltway-Kochtopus crowd and its followers).
P.S. -- you do know that Paul's former Chief of Staff hates Lew's guts, and has for a long time, right? I'm sure you checked up on this? I know that in my search for solid evidence and unbiased commentary, I did.
Karen De Coster -
1/14/2008
Steven --
Might I ask, who are "the paleos?" The definition of "paleo," as defined by Lew himself is:
"Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention--economic, cultural, social, international--amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is "paleo" because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of "policy options." Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order."
Is this something you disagree with, and why?
Also, you mention here, more than once, that you must get rid of the "paleo influence." I am very pleased to have my post so easily validated (concerning the purposeful lies on the part of the beltway-Kochtopus crowd and its followers).
P.S. -- you do know that Paul's former Chief of Staff hates Lew's guts, and has for a long time, right? I'm sure you checked up on this? I know that in my search for solid evidence and unbiased commentary, I did.
Steven Horwitz -
1/13/2008
David,
I've been following almost all of the RP threads over there for the last several days and do not recall Kirchick entering the fray or saying anything like that. It's certainly possible I missed it though. (Frankly, if I were him, I'd stay the hell away from any discussions of the article.)
That said, it's probably true that what he dug up is the "worst of it." But most of it is bad enough such that it being "the worst" doesn't make me feel any better. I do, however, think that critics (and I've tried to be careful about this myself) need to not make it seem like every issue of the various newsletters had "the worst" in them over a period of decades. That's a distortion of the truth.
It was several issues over several years, but not every issue for a decade or more. Again, in my view, the stuff was bad enough, and symptomatic of deeper problems in the libertarian movement, that the frequency isn't the real issue. However, those of us who want to criticize the paleos harm our cause by playing fast and loose with the truth.
That applies equally to any claims about authorship of those newsletters. Although several folks have asserted quite strongly that they know who they authors were and have named names (including Paul's former chief of staff who seems quite certain about it: http://hnn.us/comments/117858.html ), I'm not yet to call it an established fact, and worded my post from Thursday carefully for just that reason.
There's no reason to undermine criticisms of the paleo influence in the movement by distorting the truth. The truth is all we need as it's plenty bad by itself.
David T. Beito -
1/13/2008
I can't find it now. There are tons of threads over there. I searched the author's name and couldn't find any response from him. Perhaps I misunderstood something but I'll keep looking.
Karen De Coster -
1/13/2008
Please do - I would appreciate that.
David T. Beito -
1/13/2008
This very question was asked over at Hit and Run comments section. The author of the New Republic Article chimed in to say that the stuff he founded was "the worst" that he found. I can dig up the link if you like.
Karen De Coster -
1/13/2008
Oops, "right," not "write." Also, as most of us know, The Economist smear piece called "Rockwell Files" was written by Reason's Julian Sanchez, formerly of Cato. It had no byline, at least what I saw.... So here it looked like The Economist had incriminated Lew, but it was Mr. Sanchez who was put to the task of getting that perception taken care of...
Karen De Coster -
1/13/2008
Sudha, I have been bringing up similar points about "evidence" on my blog. Problem is, this is a strategy (that has been in the making for 25 years) on the part of Kochtopus and its followers to derail the Mises Institute and LRC and Lew Rockwell (and Rothbardian, plumb-line libertarianism/economics). As we know, once they plant the perception all around, most people will absorb *that* and not look for facts as evidence. These libertarians trot out the state's pc, moral agenda as if they are hired hands, and take Lew's lack of *engaging* (or caring about) pc issues as "he must be guilty." He doesn't openly engage and support gay marriage? Then he must be a homophobe. You are exactly write about the overwhelmingly faulty comments circulating from "libertarians" on the web who have not asked - nor do they care - for EVIDENCE. It is absolutely sickening and inexcusable, IMHO.
