Because of his semi-frontrunner status in Iowa, Ron Paul is now attracting some negative attention, including the fact that he received a $500 campaign contribution from an avowed racist.
Very few people think Paul is biased, but read this article by Steve Horwitz, my grad school classmate. Since I’ve written both supportive and critical posts about Paul, I think I have some credibility in saying that it is a fair summary of the issues.
Not surprisingly, other GOP presidential campaigns would like voters to disqualify Paul on the basis of unsavory associations, and I certainly agree that Paul showed very bad judgment. Normally it’s a good thing that he’s not a typical politician, but this is one of those cases where it undermines the case for freedom – as Steve explains in the article linked above.
But if sauce for the goose is supposed to be sauce for the gander, shouldn’t we also be upset that the head of the Communist Party in the United States has – for all intents and purposes – endorsed Barack Obama? Here’s some of what Sam Webb, an apologist for totalitarian mass murder, wrote earlier this year.
Communists don’t agree with either one of these views. In our view, the differences between the two parties of capitalism are of consequence to class and democratic struggles. Neither party is anti-capitalist, but they aren’t identical either. Differences exist at the levels of policy and social composition. And despite the many frustrations of the past two years, the election of Barack Obama was historic and gave space to struggle for a people’s agenda. …We don’t have any illusions about the Democratic Party, but we don’t have any illusions about the Republican Party either. Furthermore, we are also aware of the undeniable fact that no other party besides the Democratic Party stands a chance of beating the GOP next year.
It goes without saying that these unwelcome expressions of support should not be used as evidence that Barack Obama is a communist or that Ron Paul is a racist. It’s not the fault of politicians that they sometimes receive support from nutjobs and morons.
My only complaint is that there’s not a level playing field. There’s lot of coverage of a loathsome person who supported Ron Paul, but I’m not aware of anybody paying attention to Sam Webb’s expressions of support for Barack Obama.
Yes, racism is evil, and we should be suspicious of people who get support from racists. But communists have butchered tens of millions of people. Shouldn’t we be equally skeptical of politicians who attract support from these evil people as well?
[…] Though maybe he’s the French version of Obama, who also got support from communists. […]
[…] the way, even though I freely admit it’s unfair, I can’t resist adding this link revealing who the head of the Communist Party has endorsed for 2012. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
Reblogged this on Kip's Thoughts and commented:
Food for thought.
Mr. Reeve, thanks for the thorough and well-written clarification. I was afraid that you were stating that our opinions determine right and wrong, etc, and am glad to see that is not the case.
Mike Jones wrote “America was founded on the principles that liberty comes from God” –
Yes, America was founded on the principles that liberty comes from God (Creator) through the Laws of Nature as it is written in The Declaration of Independence
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them… We hold these truths to be self-evident… that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed”
and “The Laws of Nature” is reasoned principally by John Locke in The Second Treatise of Government
“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will consult it, that being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all servants of one sovereign Master; sent into the world by his order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses…”
Mike Jones wrote “who defined what liberty is, as well as good/evil, right/wrong, etc.” –
Yes I understand what Jesus defined as Liberty when he said
Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God. MT 5: 3-9
You have heard that it is said, ‘love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than other? Do not even pagans do that? MT 5: 43-47
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘let me take that speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. MT 7: 1-5
And as for good/evil & right/wrong well I look to what Jesus spoke of as the Greatest of God’s Commandments and its supremacy over all laws which would provide the parameters of good & right.
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, and expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” MT 22: 34-40
Mike Jones wrote: “Saying we all have our own opinions on these issues is saying that rights come from government and not God. So while you have a right to your opinion, (a) you only have that right because God has given it to you, and (b) it is inconsistent with the American constitution, and consistent with all totalitarian governments ideals.”
Mike with all due respect, when I say that we all have our own opinions on these issues, I am not saying that rights come from the government at all. If anything, I am saying that opinions come from man and man is free to have them based upon God’s Law of Nature. I would also interject and say that the opinions of man come from a limited and imperfect man that is limited by time, experience, and the capacity to understand the minds and experiences of other men.
Which then Liberty requires that a person be independent and free to have their opinions, viewpoints, and beliefs and not subject to the control of government or another person or group to have to change those opinions, viewpoints, or beliefs. Which is the basis of my statement that Liberty is attractive to all sorts of people, for the simple fact that the government and/or groups of people cannot legally harm them because they have unpopular, extreme, or otherwise different views?
Because this liberty exists for American citizens under the constitution, provided by the laws of Nature, authorized by God, it will naturally allow for many viewpoints to conflict with one another and some will even conflict with what Jesus has conveyed of what God’s expectations are of his creation. We are not talking about a Theocratic political system with God (Church) at the head of the government, of which people would not be at liberty to have such viewpoints nor would they with any “totalitarian governments”.
As for it being inconsistent with the American Constitution, In context with what I was saying, a citizen having the right to have differing opinions and to vote for whomever that person wants is not inconsistent at all. However if you are referring to the ideology of racism & communism being an inconsistent ideal of our American Constitution, I say I agree with that statement 100%.
Mike Jones wrote: “I ask that you ask God to help you to come to a new understanding of who He is”
I appreciate this advise and will continue to ask God to help me come to know him better and to gain a better understanding of who he is.
Nate Reeve wrote “We all have our viewpoints and opinions about values, morals, and good/evil which is what makes American Liberty so very attractive to all sorts of people, because we are free to have them.”
Mr. Reeve, America was founded on the principles that liberty comes from God, who defined what liberty is, as well as good/evil, right/wrong, etc. Saying we all have our own opinions on these issues is saying that rights come from government and not God. So while you have a right to your opinion, (a) you only have that right because God has given it to you, and (b) it is inconsistent with the American constitution, and consistent with all totalitarian governments ideals. I ask that you ask God to help you to come to a new understanding of who He is.
[…] strategy in the 80s thinks that Paul was pandering to the Neo-Nazis (via Dan Mitchell). You see, he didn’t want hippies in his movement, so he went for the white supremacist […]
Wow, you riled up the crazies with this one.
Anyway, it seems to me that “guilt by association” has more implications and subsets than the simple prima facie one; and that the defense that others are implying “guilt by association” is often misapplied.
There’s simple “guilt by association” in which someone is held accountable for the specific acts of another only by virtue of an association between the two THAT IS UNRELATED TO the specific criminal, or immoral, act. This is generally, and wisely, held to be both illogical and unfair. And, it usually applies only to criminal/unethical ACTION; not merely words, ideas, or viewpoints.
There is “guilt by association” in which someone is held to share or espouse the views, ideas, and words of another who has unilaterally associated themselves with the person in question. To apply this kind of “guilt by association” categorically is also illogical and unfair. However, it does raise what I like to call “suspicion by association”. That is, it begs the question of why certain people or groups wish to associate themselves with the person in question. As people like to associate themselves with others who share similar views and ideas; this kind of “suspicion by association” forces us to at least QUESTION whether the person at issue does indeed share the views and ideas of the person or group that is trying to associate themselves with him. The answer could be “no”; and the answer could be “yes”.
There is also a “suspicion by association” when the person in question voluntarily associates himself with others. “Guilt” should not be assumed. However, again because people like to associate themselves with others who share similar views and ideas, the QUESTION must be asked: “Does the person in question associate himself with others BECAUSE he shares their views and ideas?”. The answer could be “no”; but, more often, the answer is “yes”.
The third type of “suspicion by association” arises when the person in question associates themselves FREQUENTLY, and almost EXCLUSIVELY with individuals who are known to hold and espouse certain views and ideas. Where this is the case, again “guilt” is not inevitable ….. but it’s pretty darned likely. So much so, in fact, that it rises to the level of a presumption of an ACTUAL “guilt by association” — that is, NOT an unfair or illogical assumption of guilt, but a real, factual, kind of guilt** based on substantial evidence.
**((this is as it applies to words and ideas, not specific acts. The defense of “simple” “guilt by association” still applies to specific acts.))
In the case of Ron Paul, I readily admit to not knowing enough about his associations to say which type of “suspicion by association” applies to which associations; but certainly enough to raise the QUESTION of where Ron Paul’s views and ideas stand in relation to the views and ideas of those he associates with, and those who associate themselves with him.
In the case of Barack Obama, the answer is unequivocal. He has, from the cradle, almost exclusively been associated with, and associated HIMSELF with, people who espouse views which — at the least — conflict entirely with the ideas and principles upon which America was founded, and which — at worst — are flat EVIL. Mostly, these are communists, and the ideas are communistic.
Personally, of course, I think that each of these men has condemned themselves beyond question by their own words and deeds. But, it was a good opportunity to expound on the types of circumstances where “suspicion by association” (of varying degrees) arises.
Boy! That’s a lot more than I intended to write. … sorry.
Ron Paul 2012. This may be America’s last chance, may be the World’s last chance. God Speed Ron Paul.
I am keen reader of whatever Cato Institute tweets. I come from a small state in India which is known for having had the first communist govt. elected via ballot. You can imagine how tough a free-market capitalist has it here!
Your proposition that communists are worse than racists seem unconscionable. The stick with which you beat the commies, their proclivity for mass murder, fails to take into account the whole variety of, dare I say relevant, marxist/leninist/socialist political ideologies out there? To me it recalls the venom spewed against US capitalists in painting them uniformly as bigots, interventionists and obscurantists.
In my personal experience, the ideological marxist, regardless of the stupidity of her economic pronouncements, has proven to be a more decent human than the bigots, racists and casteists.
Perhaps the priority for the US conservative is dealing with the “leviathan”, but a dogmatic approach that somehow seems to diminish the value put on human dignity – that great fruit of western liberalism – is distressing.
The fourth estate, once characterized as being an independent press, and guardian of the objective truth, is now subjective in it’s every pronouncement. What is acceptable for the chosen party and the “correct” view point will be unacceptable for any other. (Right or Left).
Oscar Wilde had it right:
“Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism.
The press serves only itself, and serves itself by keeping their version of the State in power.
The Right believes the State is good if it they run it, pass out the favors, and appoint the bureaucrats.
The Left believes the State is good if it they run it, pass out the favors, and appoint the bureaucrats.
With every year that passes the power of the state grows, the rights of the people are decreased, and the press is complicit in the process.
Neither side realizes that the bureaucrats protect every increase in their power no matter who gives the power to them.
The enemy isn’t right or left, the enemy is the the Leviathan itself.
That means someone like Ron Paul is the enemy of all three.
In addition to my comments above, I would also like to point out that a person who is considered a racist, or a communist, or a member of any other grouping of peoples that is viewed as “evil” by another person or group of persons is still a subjective viewpoint.
We all have our viewpoints and opinions about values, morals, and good/evil which is what makes American Liberty so very attractive to all sorts of people, because we are free to have them. Ron Paul’s message of Liberty and upholding the Constitution and limiting the government’s ability to control and essential “define” people into groups is going to be attractive to all most every group within the spectrum, obviously with some exceptions.
People with opinions, belief systems, and/or the desire to be able to decide for themselves on social, cultural, economic, religious issues etc will find within the liberty message something of value. Because this represents the majority of Americans, it is going to be next to impossible to not attract the people with extreme viewpoints, or culture values, or beliefs systems mostly because, who defines extreme and evil? It’s a subjective definition and differs between people to extent and degree, does it not?
Abortion is “evil” to large percentage of American citizens however the limitation of a women’s reproductive choice is evil to others, homosexuality is evil to many people as is the limitation of their ability to have marriage considered evil by those who support homosexual choice. Racism is evil to a large percentage of people but based on many sociological studies racism and ethnic stereotyping is found at every level of our nation and is found in every ethnic group of our nation. The point I am sure is understood.
Liberty in my opinion and more so the Constitution of the United States exists so that citizens can be free to have their beliefs, opinions, and values (even if extreme). Society over time (as our history has continually proven) will help shape itself and weed out some of the more extreme viewpoints. But we must understand that when the federal government or majority group of people are able to control another group of citizens because of their beliefs, opinions, or values we will keep coming back to the question of Liberty and we will find at the end of the day, Liberty has very broad wings covering the multitude of people. That’s why America is history’s greatest nation, for this simple fact we are free. However, freedom does come with a price and that is the inability to control your neighbor’s freedom.
Sorry for the spelling issues in the above comment I was using my IPhone.
Interesting article, I have to ask though what kind of country is America when it comes personal liberty and freedom of thought, opinion, and ideology? There are 300M+ people in this country of which the majority are able to vote for any candidate that they choose. If there are 7- 9 candidates running including the President, what kind of argument is it to point out that one of the people that is support a candidate is a racist or a communist, or any other categorical grouping based on ideology? If Americans have the right to vote and there are a limited group of candidates to vote what value does connecting one person or one sub group with a know ideology in America to a candidate especially when that racist or communist could also be a father or mother, a veteran, gay, Christian, business owner, healthcare worker etc. Everyone in the US is categorize into many groups and these groups sometimes are self labeled and sometimes they ate labeled by others. If a candidate has a message that is attractive to people who support an idea for example “liberty” or “change” at why point does that idea only belong to certain groups? If a person is gay and christian how do you group that person? Or maybe a pro-choice mother, or a Palistianian Jew, or young business owner, or a anti-war-veteran. These absolutes in categorizing Americans and connecting opinions, beliefs, and values to a candidate is not logical and it is very distructive really. You cannot put people in a box and explain who they are based on one idea or belief.