Tom Knapp, Ron Paul, and Racism

[This thread has morphed into “Who is the best current choice to promote libertarianism?,” so please pop on over there and leave your thoughts :) --MJ]

Tom Knapp, over at KN@PPSTER, found an old, seemingly racist article written by Ron Paul, and has requested libertarians to abandon Paul for the offence.

While initially shocked and appalled, after reading the article I have to come to the conclusion that Tom jumped the gun and came to the wrong conclusion.

Here's my reply to Tom's post....
[Please leave replies to Tom on Tom's comments page. If you want to flame me, you can leave them at either place :)]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the link to Paul's article and a lively debate over it. I'll be upfront and politely disagree with your conclusions and ask you to reconsider your request for ditching Paul.

Why do I ask this? Well....

Let's first start by agreeing to the assumption that he wrote the piece himself and fully believes it as it is written. That way we eliminate the whole problem of basis and history revisionism. Then we can launch strait into whether it is a racist* document or if it is a presentation of facts and opined conclusions to those facts.

But, before we do that, may I ask that you re-read the Paul document, fully, completely, and specifically trying to eliminate any preconceived bias you have?

# # #

Back yet? Good.

The article presents a multitude of soft and a few hard 'facts.' Not widely distributed tidbits on Rodney King's beating and resulting officers trial, 30 year background on US population brainwashing, anecdotal grocery store events, abandonment of the general populace by 'those in charge,' NAACP jury tampering, etc, etc, etc.

So, moving along as I'm not really trying to pen a dissertation. Given the piece isn't perfect and really could do without the 'marketing' elements like the child in the grocery store, but, on the whole do you disagree with the 'facts' presented? Some of them? All of them? Can we generally agree that the facts as presented are reasonably close to the truth?

Well, I hope so, because I'm not trying to start a nitpick the world here, so assuming you agree with me that the facts presented are reasonably close, then why are the conclusions so unpalatable? Quite frankly, they seem fairly spot on, even if harshly presented.

Yes, a large portion of African Americans have been brainwashed into the 'something for nothing' mentality over several decades by politicians, yes they do have a vastly larger violent criminal element than the average US population, and yes they did riot. And as horrifically as it is to say it, that given the facts presented, the conclusion that one subset of America is under assault from some other subset isn't wrong or even racist. It just is.

The piece does not promote that one subset is inferior, nor does it promote that one subset should rule over another. If anything you could seriously read into the piece that it is against racism, as it wants equality for all. In the end, it's against the backhanded racist governmental policies that lead to the riot.

# # #

While you don't have to change your mind, I hope you will, as Ron Paul, pretty much without argument, is the best means for libertarians to move the US society back to our libertarian roots. He's got the brand name recognition, he's got the money, and he's got a whole lot more support than anyone else available for us to chose from. All while delivering a very strong libertarian message.

So, even if we throw out all my arguments above and establish the piece as a purely racist diatribe, a statement along the lines of, “While I support Ron Paul as probably the best current choice to promote libertarianism, I don't support his known racist views,” would seem to be much preferred to your blanket statement to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Your friend, no mater which side of this debate you fall on,

M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom

* racism [from dictionary.com]
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.