The Crossed Pond

If you have not read The New Republic’s expose of Ron Paul’s newsletters, it’s worth your time, particularly if you are, have been, or considered supporting Ron Paul’s campaign. Allow me to free form riff on this for a bit. For the sake of this discussion, let me make some very generalized assumptions. They represent my short form model of the libertarian community and its reaction, recent past and present, to Ron Paul:

TNR’s loose classification of libertarians into two major camps, the Cato/Reason sort and the Lew Rockwell sort is a fair though generalized assessment. I understand it is a simplification, and I understand that there are other models (anarcho-caps versus minarchist, etc), but seriously, on the internet, in the blogosphere, this really does seem to be a major fault line.

We might classify libertarian and libertarian leaning individual reaction to the Ron Paul campaign as Strong Supporter, Unwilling to Support, and Grudging Support. I include myself in the last category, with reservations, mostly documented in my posts and comments here, in the areas of civil liberties, gay rights, federalism uber alles, and 14th amendment rejection, though I did swallow those pills in favor of Ron Paul’s general message. I don not regret that decision, though I am very distressed by the material in the TNR article.

The Cato/Reason camp were very likely to fall in the latter two support categories (Unwilling to Support or Grudging Support), while the Lew Rockwell types were very likely to fall in the first Strong Support category.

Some sampling of the blogosphere reaction from the Unwilling and Grudging Supporters.

Jim Babka, a Ron Paul supporter, is chagrined:

Yes, the The New Republic is an anti-libertarian rag — as anti-libertarian as they come.
Yes, there were some simple facts misreported in the original version of the story.
Yes, it appears Kirchick is a Giuliani supporter.
Yes, the Left typically calls anyone who disagrees with them racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. That’s par for the course.
Yes, the article also had the tired, old charges of guilt-by-association that, by themselves, don’t amount to much of a case.
And you know what I say?
So what? Look at what’s left! There’s a lot. It’s all too damaging.
It’s a disaster.

Please note: The Bill White charges of White Supremacist meetings with Paul at Tara Thai didn’t fly. The Don Black donation was petty news and ridiculous. Even the newsletter charges, as originally published, seemed minor — a management oversight. The guilt-by-association and “speaking in code” charges were the result of faulty logic and perhaps even wishful thinking.
I was willing to defend all of that. That was a matter of hardball politics. Charges fly around in every campaign.
And no one’s perfect.
But this is much, much worse. Does Ron Paul believe the stuff written under his name? Personally, I don’t think he does. But the statement issued by the campaign is insufficient in this case.
Is Ron Paul an absentee manager? Does he have poor staff selection/character analysis skills?
I’m chagrined by the news. I’m concerned about the long-term perspective this might leave long after this campaign is over.

Radley Balko, a Ron Paul supporter, is disappointed:

The 1990s is not “ancient history.” We were by then well past the point in American history where the kind of racism and bigotry present in those articles had any place in civil discourse. I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul. The “I’ve answered that in the past” reply isn’t sufficient. You’re running for president, now. You have a national platform. You’ve been an ambassador for libertarian ideas on Colbert, the Daily Show, Meet the Press, and Jay Leno. That you’ve provided a brief explanation for some of these passages a decade ago during a little-noticed congressional campaign doesn’t cut it. No one was paying attention then. Just about everyone is now.

I also think the Paul phenomenon ought to be separated from any personal baggage Paul may have. Yes, there are some losers who support Paul’s candidacy. Any time you’re a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you’re going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos. But there’s nothing bigoted about the thousands of college kids, mainstream libertarians, war opponents, drug war opponents, and hundreds-long threads on sites like Digg and Reddit where enthusiasm for Paul’s candidacy is strong.

Ed Brayton, unwilling to support, is vindicated without being pleased about it:

This was one of the first things that really sent up a red flag for me about Ron Paul, his ties to the anti-14th amendment wing of neo-confederate “libertarianism” (I put that in parentheses because, frankly, I don’t think it’s libertarian at all, I think it’s anti-libertarian). I’ve tangled with these folks many times over the years on this blog and many of them, including Woods and DiLorenzo, have shown up here in the comments. I make no secret of my disdain for their views. So when I learned that Ron Paul was deeply involved with them, that was a big deal to me. Still is.

this response strains credulity to the limits. He let people write these vile things in his name for 20 years (the issue was first raised in 1996 during a campaign; his first response was that the quotes were “out of context” and then, in 2001, he said that he didn’t really write them) and didn’t put a stop to it? He never bothered to even read what they wrote in his name? Sorry, that’s laughably ridiculous.
It’s even more ridiculous when you consider that he is closely associated with a wide range of groups with a long history of taking the very positions he says he condemns now. And that he was pandering with his newsletter to the very people who agree with such arguments. Even if he didn’t write it, he absolutely bears responsibility for it.

I don’t write this with glee, I write this with disappointment. I’m disappointed because all of this makes Ron Paul the wrong messenger for what is often precisely the right message. And I hope that message does not get lost.

Thoreau, unwilling to support:

If he didn’t do those things at the time, if he didn’t see those statements in his name as a problem in need of correction, then it raises a lot of questions. I really don’t think he’s a bigot. The man is quite open about all sorts of opinions that are out of the mainstream. If he were a bigot he’d let it out. On the other hand, a failure to correct things done in his name raises questions about his sincerity, and makes me wonder whether he’s a better actor than I’ve given him credit for.

So what is to be done? Whither goest libertarianism? In comments to Rojas’ Night of Suck post, several of our attentive readers guessed the movement’s future, ranging from “it’s over” to “the core message resonated!” The proposals range from “jettison the fringe” to “embrace the paleo conservatives.” My take:

The next libertarian torchbearer needs to come from the Cato/Reason minarchist camp. He needs to be free of the extraordinary baggage created by long-term association with, support from, and influence by the neo-confederate Southern nationalists. He needs to respect the 14th amendment and have a more solid civil liberties record. Consider: Despite his libertarian credibility, Ron Paul could not carry the endorsement of many pundit class libertarians. It was more than libertarian purity testing; it was an unwillingness to embrace a candidate carrying the whiff of repugnant bigotry and unadulterated support for state power in the guise of libertarianism. Ron Paul could not even garner the support of many pundit or blog heavy libertarians, and many who did support him did so with expressed reluctance. The rejection and reservations of these libertarians served notice to many potential supporter that there were problems, and provided ammunition for his ready critics.

Imagine the situation altered. All other things being equal in terms of candidate experience, foreign policy positions, and major party affiliation, had the candidate been a Radley Balko type, he would have had the support of all the Cato/Reason crowd. My question to you: would our candidate have the Lew Rockwell crowd? I suspect so. They would have held their noses as many libertarians did with Ron Paul. Even if the hard core anarcho-capitalists, Southern nationalists, and fringe groups had rejected our hypothetical candidate in numbers and vitriol like we saw with Ron Paul, they would not have given our candidate’s non-libertarian observers such easy ammunition. Indeed, their departure from the camp might have helped to mainstream our candidate’s acceptability and support.