Will Wilkinson’s New Republic piece about Ron Paul gives one just a touch of hope. The senile old farte has not had a good few weeks, being exposed for the Confederate apologist, anti-war, and almost anti-American crazy that he is.
“...It’s hard to interpret Paul’s position on this matter in a kind light. During the last campaign season, James Kirchick revealed in the pages of this publication that in the late 1980s and early 1990s Paul had published newsletters under his name containing rank bigotry against African Americans and gays. Paul claimed he did not write the columns in question or even know about them. Whether you believe that or not, the newsletter scandal highlighted Paul’s longstanding ties with figures, such as Lew Rockwell, with a history of catering to racist and nativist sentiments for political gain.
But let’s give Paul the benefit of the doubt, and assume his opposition to anti-discrimination legislation is a principled stand untainted by prejudice. Even then, it’s not so clear his stance is underwritten by his stated principles. Paul’s third principle of a free society says that “Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.” I follow Ron Paul enthusiasts in endorsing this principle wholeheartedly. Nevertheless, it’s hard to say exactly what “justly acquired property” amounts to in a country built in no small part by slave labor on land stolen from indigenous people. How much of Thomas Jefferson’s property was justly acquired?
These issues get complicated fast. Most of us think there’s a sort of statute of limitation on the sins of our fathers, and for good reason. But it’s absolutely undeniable that the distribution of property and power in America partly reflects hundreds of years of constant and systemic violation of precisely those rights Paul claims to prize. Anti-discrimination legislation indeed puts some limits on rights to property and free association. But in light of America’s cruel history of official social, legal, and economic inequality, it’s hard to see these limits as “arbitrary,” even if we want to pretend, for the sake of social peace, that the distribution of property reflects a history of mostly just acquisition….”
Wilkinson references an excellent expose James Kirchkick did a few years ago.
If this weren’t so pathetic, it would be laughable. If you want something that truly illustrates what we’re up against with Ron Paul Bots, this is it.
Try reading the comments about the Wilkinson piece from American Power and have a little laugh. Evidently Ron Paul supporters haven’t received the drugs are our friend memo.
Way much fun…
Why do people defend this man?
They are crazy. Remember the old stories about the medieval theologians who would debate for hours about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? They aren’t much different.