The Crossed Pond

It seems that there’s a reason that the Paul campaign hasn’t jumped on the story about racist comments in his newsletter. His version of the story has been out there since 2001. And while it does help to explain how a non-racist could be on record as the author of calumnies of this kind, it still doesn’t make Paul look particularly good.

Paul’s comments first emerged as an issue during his 1996 campaign for Congress. His explanation of the issue, linked here among other places, was printed in the October 2001 issue of Texas Monthly:

In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.” In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the ‘criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And under the headline “Terrorist Update,” he wrote: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

This kos diarist is unconvinced by Paul’s explanation. He builds a well-documented case; readers will in particular want to look at the newsletter article relating to the Rodney King riots, which is MUCH, MUCH WORSE than the comments currently being used to attack Paul. Nonetheless, the diarist’s attempts to establish Paul as the author of these articles are not persuasive. It’s not merely reasonable, but virtually certain, that a person with Paul’s duties and obligations would be employing staffers to write his newsletter. That is pretty much the way it works in public life. The problem isn’t that Paul’s defense isn’t credible; it’s that it explains more than it excuses.

The last paragraph of the Texas Monthly snippet makes clear that Paul understands the problem. Whether the words were his or not, he permitted them to be published under his name, and that makes him accountable for them. Even if Paul isn’t a racist, this constitutes a dereliction of duty that is unbecoming of a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. He knows this, and is rightly embarrassed by it. So, frankly, am I.

Ron Paul probably shouldn’t be President. Which is fine. He won’t be. He is, however, a decent and intelligent man, and the vital urgency of his candidacy is undiminished by his poor judgment of two decades ago. He’s right about the size and proper role of government; he’s right about civil liberties and torture; he’s not right about America’s role in the world, but he expresses a perspective on it that deserves to be heard. And he’s even right about race (or perhaps one of his staffers is). His candidacy remains the best mechanism for redirecting the course of the Republican party.

Ron Paul isn’t a perfect politician or a knight on a white horse. But he’s not a racist either, and he’s worthy of our support.