John Derbyshire and Ron Paul

In the comments, someone points me to this post on National Review's blog in which conservative John Derbyshire derisively questions the piece in the American Thinker for casting aspersions on some of Ron Paul's supporters (i.e. the racist ones.)

Derbyshire is a very smart man. And his defense of Ron Paul is very apropos, considering he once described himself as a racist (but a "mild and tolerant one.") Ezra Klein links to another of Derby's posts on the Corner in which Derbyshire admits he's in the habit of checking the ethnic breakdown of schools in which shootings occur. He also expresses mild disappointment at the media's failure to provide the information in the case of one shooting that occurred at a majority-black school.

According to Derbyshire, the problem is that the media doesn't talk enough about how its the black kids who are shooting people.

Here's how the post ends: "Boy, that school-integration thing worked out great, didn't it? Thank goodness for Brown v. Board of Ed.!"

Yeah, if only the Supreme Court hadn't relied on an "imaginary constitution" and allowed segregation to stand. At least then the shootings would be confined to the black-only schools! I can see why Derbyshire hearts Dr. Paul now.

And no, I'm not claiming Ron Paul is a racist, but it's interesting how the really smart racists seem to flock to him, isn't it?

More racists for Ron Paul

Andrew Walden at American Thinker has written a fantastic article on the depth of Ron Paul's support in the neo-Nazi community. I may have to put together another post shortly addressing some of the facts Walden brings to light. For now, here are a few things that caught my attention:

• Stormfront had/has a prominent donation link to Paul's campaign on the front page of their website. It would not be too difficult for Paul's tech team to block the link (you just send computers coming from that IP address somewhere else, or no where at all.) As of yet, Paul's campaign has not enacted this simple solution.
• One of Paul's top Internet organizers once "coordinat[ed]...the largest neo-Nazi party in the U.S."
• Radio personality Michael Medved, who has been researching ties between Paul and neo-Nazis, was denounced in vile, anti-semitic terms on his own website and on other websites supporting Ron Paul. Lew Rockwell (of course) attacked Medved in typically brainless fashion.

There is a lot more in the article. I really like Walden's conclusion. He says:

If Paul wants to be taken seriously, he must stop cowering behind the internet and face these questions. Until then it is only reasonable to presume that Paul is happy to wallow in well-financed obscurity accepting the support of some of the worst enemies of freedom and liberty within American society.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Edit: corrected a misspelling.]

Ron Paul hates atheists

Think atheists are immune to Ron Paul's affirmation of the bigoted status quo? I quote one of Ron Paul's many articles published at Lew Rockwell's website:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

(I guess mentioning God once (in the DATE) makes the Constitution literally replete with references to the Deity.)

Anyway, in his article, Ron Paul claims wicked secularists are trying to obliterate Christianity. His solution, again, is for the federal government to take a hands off approach, i.e. political neutrality. I don't know any secularists involved in the plot Ron Paul cites. Most atheists I know feel like they're the ones who are imposed on. Think that will get any better if Dr. Paul weakens the federal government?

Let's see: Either (a) powerful secularists, using the power of the federal government, are on the verge of quashing Christianity across the land; or (b) powerful religious interests, using the power of state and local governments, are busy getting legislatures to pass mandatory "moments of silence" in public schools. Which of these sounds like a more accurate picture of your reality?

And, if (b), how will weakening the federal government improve the situation? It's the Supreme Court that has ruled against mandatory school prayers and the like in the past. But, yeah, I know, activist judges, blah blah.

Do secularist libertarians know what they're supporting? Maybe they all live in blue states where the situation looks more like (a) than (b.) Unfortunately, not everyone can say that, and, as a libertarian, I'm not willing to write those people off. People like Dawn Sherman a freshman at a Chicago high school who is fighting against Illinois new legally mandated moment of silence.

Many libertarians will attack the law in this case. Do they not understand that they're supporting someone who will make it easier -- nay, uncontestable -- for states to pass laws like this one?

Update: A commenter explains how Ron Paul was co-sponsor of the "The Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act." The proposed bill would have made it easier for religious organizations to exert influence over the political process without losing their tax exempt status. The bill aimed to create this easement only for religious organizations, like churches.

Ron Paul and gay marriage

Kip Esquire posts back in October about Ron Paul flipping on gay marriage. His observation pretty much confirms my own: like many of his followers, in his prejudices, Ron Paul is not all that different from any other Republican, except he knows a weakened federal government will make it easier to impose those prejudices through state legislatures. I'll only add that the weakened federal government Paul envisions is actually unconstutitional according to current readings of the 14th Amendment, and according to Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and other landmark Supreme Court decisions.

In other words, Ron Paul doesn't support the Constitution. He doesn't support the law. He only supports these things as a means to achieving the domination of gays and other minorities.

Don't believe me? Let me quote Dr. Paul:

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state.

Recall that Paul also supported federal legislation that would have included zygotes in the legal definition of person. In both cases, I'm sure libertarians would tell me that Dr. Paul's goal is to ensure that states get to decide issues for themselves, and that the federal government ought to be neutral.

But neutrality is sometimes impossible. According to Ron Paul, states should not have to recognize same sex marriage licenses issued in other states. But states do have to accept heterosexual marriage licenses -- that is simply the status quo. Paul simply refuses to extend the legal protections heterosexual marriages already enjoy to same sex marriages. Any idea why? Take a guess.

To use the law to maintain this status quo is not neutral; it is, rather, to endorse that status quo, and to keep same sex couples in a position of legal inferiority. It is to affirm bigotry.

(Next, libertarians will be telling me that Dred Scott was a neutral exercise of federal power because all it did was reaffirm the widespread southern belief at the time that African-Americans could not be citizens. Maybe forcing the southern states to grant African-Americans a modicum of political equality violated the sovereignty of those states; it was still the right thing to do. Especially from a libertarian perspective. Individual rights trump states' rights.)

In the Republican debates, when asked about gay marriage, Ron Paul made this very revealing statement: "We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution."

Well, yeah, he was in a room full of Republicans. I'm sure they do know what marriage is about, and their agreement makes further argument unnecessary. I'm sure a lot of Republicans agree with Ron Paul's legal definition of person, too. Notice, also, how Dr. Paul encased "same sex" in scare quotes in the passage I quoted previously.

There's only one definition Ron Paul of marriage could have meant in the context of the debate, and it's the same one that affirms the status quo. It's the one that legally discriminates against gays and lesbians.

[Edited to make the post more "fair and balanced."]

A libertarian's dangerous liasons

You probably haven't heard of Gary North, but he's a prolific commentator at Lewrockwell.com. He's also a "Christian reconstructionist," whose ultimate goal is, in his own words, to

use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

Gary North also claims to be a libertarian and is an ardent supporter of Ron Paul's presidency. In one article on Rockwell's website, he calls Dr. Paul "the Gandhi of our time." (Yes, seriously.)

Aside from his desire to punish homosexuality with stoning (again, yes, seriously), another interesting fact about North is his interest in the so-called Y2k bug. Circa '99, he went on and on about how Y2k "will call into question science, technology, the free market, and the welfare state. It will call into question all of modern humanism." Etc. For 225 dollars, you could (can?) subscribe to his magazine and learn how to protect yourself from the banking collapse that was supposed to occur.

And didn't occur, of course. But I wonder how many subscriptions North sold to libertarians. How much money did he take in? I'm not claiming North talked up Y2K in order to bilk people out of their money -- on the contrary, I believe he was sincere in his uninformed paranoia, like many of Rockwell's folks. To quote a Wired article, "[North] wants to make sure the banking system crashes. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."

North's advice for surviving the collapse included stocking up on food, weapons, and gold, and moving to the middle of nowhere in order to avoid riots and looters. Probably, he would suggest gathering up a whole lot of rocks, too, in order to bash in the heads of rampaging homosexuals (in accordance with Biblical law, naturally.)

I ask this question: why does Gary North support Ron Paul? I can think of a few reasons. Ron Paul has described the Supreme Court's action in cases like Lawrence v. Texas as the imposition of an "imaginary constutition." Like Justice Scalia, he apparently believes there is no right to "sodomy" in the federal Constitution. He would leave the criminalization of homosexuality for each state to decide on its own.

Can you see why someone like Gary North would support this doctrine? Suppose a state like Texas outlaws gay sex and actually enforces the prohibition in a way it did NOT just prior to the time of the Lawrence decision. Ron Paul's supporters will say, "Well, ok, if you don't like it, then move out of Texas." Great. Now there are even fewer gays in Texas, and more opportunity for someone like Gary North to marginalize those who remain.

It's not a big leap from my scenario to North's favored scenario, in which, based on Biblical law, gay people have their heads smashed in with stones in the city square.

(Oh, and what's so great about stoning? Quoting an article in Reason magazine that quotes North extensively:

"Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians."

See? Stoning is cool. Just like knitting, except you don't need needles. Or yarn. Just lots of fairly big rocks.)

It'll never happen, you say? Maybe. But Gary North knows a Ron Paul presidency would make it just a little more likely. Real libertarians should recognize that as well.

We need to separate those who merely want to use liberty in order to eventually quash it (as North is wont to do) from those who truly value liberty for all.

Is Ron Paul a racist?

At Pam's House Blend there's a recent post about the support Ron Paul is receiving from organizations like Stormfront and other neo-Nazi groups. Here is a link to an unintentionally hilarious video Stormfront made to support Ron Paul's candidacy.



Ok, first: even in politics, you can't usually smear somebody based on who happens to support them. Even if Dr. Paul hasn't officially denounced Stormfront et al. that doesn't mean he wholeheartedly accepts their support, either. Like most, he probably doesn't take the Stormfront seriously enough to make the organization worth responding to. If the flat earth society happened to really like this blog, I doubt I'd care enough to officially respond.

(On the other hand, if the flat earth society liked my blog, I might be happy enough to have fans I'd overlook their kooky views. Nevermind, though. Suppose flat earthers really liked Instapundit; would Glenn Reynolds be obligated to respond?)

But, as savvy readers will note, if flat earthers identified with this blog for a reason, it might be worthwhile knowing that reason. So why are the neo-Nazis lining up behind Ron Paul?

Perhaps it is because he's published/possibly wrriten comments like these:

* "Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

* "We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

* "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males who have been raised and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Ron Paul has now publicly denounced the views expressed in these quotations, but that could be explained as mere political expediency. What attitude did he take to these comments before he was running for President of the United States?

The blog Alternate Reality dug up an article by Alan Bernstein of the Houston Chronicle in which Paul defends the remarks when he was running for Congress in 1996. Rather than distancing himself from the language, Paul's campaign spokesperson at the time suggested that Paul's rhetoric "mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson."

When running for political office back in 1996, why didn't Ron Paul claim then that the objectionable newsletter articles were written by someone else? Why did everything he say at that time seem to support the racist claims, rather than denounce them?

Libertarians will claim, loudly, that Dr. Paul is not a racist, and that it's not his fault that neo-Nazis are lining up to support him. But what if the neo-Nazis are willing to view the truth, the whole truth, in a way well-meaning anti-war libertarians refuse to do?

Interestingly enough, I've heard it suggested that the original author of the comments about blacks being "fleet footed", etc. was none other than Ron Paul's chief-of-staff at the time, arch-libertarian/Paleo-conservative Lew Rockwell. According to none other than the Cato Institute's Tom Palmer, one of the most interesting people I've had the pleasure to meet, Rockwell is a racist, or at least good friends with him, and uses his ideology as cover for a very evil point of view.

(I knew there was another reason to love Tom Palmer...)

If there's doubt, check out this list of headlines from Rockwell's website. "Heil Abe"? Some things require very little comment...

So perhaps not all "libertarians" are so naive about Ron Paul after all. Rockwell is still one of Ron Paul's most strident supporters online. Do you think he is naive about Ron Paul's views? Stormfront's Nazis could be mistaken about Paul's support for their cause; anti-war libertarians could be blinded by idealism; but is Lew Rockwell confused? If he was the one who wrote the original racist comments, has he changed his mind?

Probably not. Rockwell's website is still churning out the neo-Confederate propaganda. And I'm not saying Ron Paul is a racist. I am saying some very sophisticated, very evil racists see Paul's candidacy as very compatible with their evil, racist views. That should be worrisome, especially to libertarians.

The Case Against Ron Paul

The Case Against Ron Paul: Should a Libertarian Support the Repeal of the 14th Amendment?

Amendment XIV, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


1. Introduction
It is not an overstatement to say that the 14th Amendment, ratified in after the Civil War in 1868, marked a fundamental shift in the relationship of the federal government to the governments of the states. This shift has led to decisions in the Supreme Court the framers of the Amendment probably never envisaged, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.

The 14th Amendment was intended to restrict the power of the states. Its aim was to stop southern states from using the law to oppress their new black citizens. Each clause in Section 1 – Citizenship, Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection – directly or indirectly blocks the states from treating those within their borders in certain ways.

Here I’m just going to focus on the Privileges or Immunities clause and the Equal Protection clause. I’m going to argue that libertarians should be staunchly in favor of these two clauses. They should favor the latter clause as the Court has traditionally used it. They should favor an invigorated reinterpretation of the former as an alternative to the states’ rights rhetoric some libertarians currently use. To the extent Ron Paul uses such rhetoric, he should not be considered a friend to libertarians.

2. Equal Protection
The Equal Protection clause requires states to guarantee “equal protection of the laws” to persons within their jurisdictions. Concisely, this means states may not apply one set of laws to some group and another set to a different group. For example, states may not set different penalties for white and black criminals. Without the 14th Amendment, a state like Georgia could establish whites-only schools – it would not even have to provide formally equal schools to its black citizens!

I’m not sure how a libertarian could be against this clause, or something like it. The libertarians I’ve known are not egoists: they genuinely want to increase the freedom of everyone. At a minimum, the Equal Protection clause ensures that if liberty is going to be restricted, it can’t be restricted selectively. The majority in a state cannot limit liberty without limiting its own liberty. This provides an additional check on majority power, and thus enhances personal liberty.

Of course, the 14th Amendment expands personal liberty at the expense of each state’s liberty to determine its own laws. But for a libertarian, this has to be a worthy trade off. Libertarians care about individual liberty, not the liberty of governments. Otherwise, any restriction on individual liberty could be justified as a way of increasing “the liberty of the government” to run people’s lives.

As something of a libertarian myself, I don’t even mind the Supreme Court’s use of the Equal Protection law to strike down separate but equal schooling. This requires accepting that the “equality” of “equal protection” has a substantive and not merely a formal dimension to it. That is, it does not require states to apply one rule to everyone, but to ensure – to some reasonable degree – that the law does not burden some groups much more than it burdens others. The emphasis here is not only on equality, but on the idea of protection. This perception of equality, fundamental to the existence of civil society, is what must be protected.

3. Privileges or Immunities
This clause of the 14th Amendment was quickly emasculated in the infamous Slaughterhouse Cases. It prohibits states from using the law to “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Constitutional scholar Randy Barnett has argued that this clause, combined with the 9th and 10th Amendments, adds up to what he calls “a presumption in favor of liberty.”

There’s no need to recount Barnett’s argument here. The idea of the presumption in favor of liberty is that, when liberty is to be restricted, government – any government -- has the burden of proving why such a restriction is reasonable and necessary. Moreover, the principle applies to a restriction of any liberty, including those not enumerated in the Bill of Rights itself.

Rather than empowering states at the expense of the federal government, Barnett’s argument empowers individual citizens. Taken seriously, the presumption in favor of liberty would stop governments from pursuing practically all of the projects libertarians currently object to, such as the so-called “war on drugs.” But it would not allow, say, Arkansas, to conduct its own intra-state war on drugs, either. The citizens of Arkansas would be as free as the citizens of any other state, an outcome one might think libertarians should favor.

The privileges/immunities of U.S. citizens may include only the most important and basic rights, like those contained in what classical liberals often call our “natural liberty.” Thus, it may not be the case that according to this clause each state would have to provide its citizens precisely the same set of liberties as every other state.

At the same time, as Barnett points out, a restored version of this clause might very well achieve the same outcomes for liberty the Court has more recently pursued through other means (like the Due Process clause) in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. For example, in Griswold, Connecticut’s law prohibiting the sale and use of contraception was overturned. A presumption in favor of liberty could justify overturning such a law, which, as the Court found, could not be justified on any basis Connecticut had offered in its favor. However, without the 14th Amendment, nothing would stand in the way of states taking importance choices away from American citizens.

4. Conclusion
Ron Paul does not like the 14th Amendment. In his response to Lawrence v. Texas, he decries the Court’s reliance on an “imaginary” constitution in its decision to overturn anti-sodomy laws. He claims, “The State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.” But if Barnett is right, the Constitution does not give Texas this right. The presumption in favor of liberty requires Texas to justify its anti-sodomy laws against the privileges and immunities of its citizens.

I hope most libertarians are against anti-sodomy laws simply on principle. Why some of them support Ron Paul, who favors such laws as long as a militant Christian minority in a state can get enough votes in the legislature, is mysterious to me. Perhaps they think that in their comfortably blue state, the local government would not try to prohibit sodomy, birth control, or abortion. But this is a remarkably self-serving attitude, one that confirms some of the left’s worst prejudices against libertarians.

Rather than supporting oppressive proposals for expanded states’ rights, libertarians ought to support genuine rights for all individuals, regardless of what state they happen to reside in. They should support the 14th Amendment and not Ron Paul.