AUTHOR’S NOTE: The following article has been modified from its original publication on January 23, 2008 to include additional detail that was provided by Julian Sanchez, Contributing Editor for Reason magazine, and co-author of the Reason article referenced in this blog entry. Many thanks to Mr. Sanchez for his input, and my apologies if I was not as clear as I should have been in the original text.
In 1919, the Chicago White Sox were the overwhelming favorites to win the World Series. They ended up losing because a few members of the team made a deal with the bookies to throw a few games. One of the most popular players at the time was Chicago’s “Shoeless” Joe Jackson. Baseball legend has it that a small boy stopped Jackson on the street and begged, “Say it ain’t so, Joe!” Jackson could only respond, “I’m afraid it is, kid.” Although there was never any indication that Shoeless Joe himself was involved in the plan to throw the Series, his association with the Chicago “Black” Sox was enough to get him banned from baseball for life, and shatter the illusions of at least one young baseball fan.
Lately I’ve been feeling like that kid from Chicago in 1919. I’ve written of my enthusiastic support of Ron Paul in this blog before (here and here), but my enthusiasm has waned since the publication of an article in The New Republic detailing a number of Dr. Paul’s newsletters which contained several offensive remarks about blacks and gays. Dr. Paul has denied personally writing the newsletters, saying they were written by a staffer who was fired as a result. He has accepted “moral responsibility” for not providing enough oversight of the newsletters that were published in his name, and has publicly rejected the racist sentiments they contained.
I had learned of this issue before the story broke in The New Republic, but the version I heard implied that it was an isolated incident that had been dealt with quickly. The New Republic story, however, provides much greater detail, and it’s pretty disturbing. The disparaging newsletters spanned a period of five years, from 1989 to 1994. That hardly qualifies as a one-time incident.
As if that weren’t enough, Reason magazine (the most popular libertarian magazine in print) now reports that Tom Lizardo, Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff, has openly claimed that the true author of the newsletters in question was Lew Rockwell, founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, one of the most influential libertarian think tanks in the world. According to the full Reason article, the inflammatory comments were part of a larger scheme hatched by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, another controversial yet highly influential libertarian thinker, designed to tap into racist sentiment among rural white voters as a way of garnering their support for libertarians or libertarian-leaning candidates. This seems a dubious (not to mention disgusting) strategy, and quite surprising given Murray Rothbard’s previous work with, of all groups, the Black Panthers. Rothbard was famous for forming unusual alliances, but a libertarian/redneck coalition seems to defy all logic.
From what I’ve read so far, Lew Rockwell has neither confirmed nor denied his authorship. The witnesses for the prosecution can be found in The New Republic and Reason articles. The defense, such as it is, is here and here (there are others in the blogosphere as well). The fact that offensive comments were indeed published under the Ron Paul moniker does not seem to be in dispute. Instead, the defenses that I have read seem to focus more on the motives of those publishing the allegations. The reader will decide for himself, but one thing is certain – whatever the truth is, it’s not good. The comments quoted in The New Republic and Reason articles do not seem to have the same “voice” as various other books and publications in which Ron Paul’s authorship is not in doubt, so personally I doubt that Dr. Paul wrote the newsletters himself. But I also realize that this is not a whole lot to go on, so I absolutely respect the opinions of those who come to different conclusions. If Congressman Paul did write the articles, then he’s clearly got some distasteful attitudes (although I have not seen any evidence of that in anything he’s said during his presidential campaign). Even if he didn’t write the articles himself, he did allow them to be published in his name, which at the very least makes him guilty of hiring the wrong people and of a gross lapse in managerial oversight. Neither option highlights the kind of qualities a voter looks for in a president.
If it were any other candidate, it might not be that big a deal. If I were a Giuliani supporter and something like this were revealed about him, I’d be disappointed but I could shrug it off and get behind one of the other candidates like Romney or McCain – they’re all basically interchangeable, after all. Ron Paul, however, is not just another candidate. For better or worse, he is the face of the libertarian movement right now. What reflects badly on him reflects badly on the freedom philosophy and all those who espouse it. It may not be fair to place the weight of an entire movement on the shoulders of any one person, but that’s the way it is nonetheless.
Ironically, the saving grace in all this (from a strictly political perspective) is the fact that Dr. Paul was never realistically going to be in contention for the GOP bid. The same obscurity that led the major media outlets to ignore both his fundraising success and his broad support among non-GOP voters has apparently worked to his advantage in this case. Although the CNN and others have run the story, they appear to have moved on fairly quickly. Perhaps that’s just as well. This is not the kind of publicity we really need, although I obviously think it’s an important issue that should be addressed.
As bad as the whole thing is for Ron Paul the candidate, it doesn’t stop there for the libertarian movement as a whole. The allegation that Lew Rockwell was the author of the offensive comments, if true, may be even worse than the damage done to the Paul campaign. As I mentioned before, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is one of the main sources for modern libertarian thought and is without a doubt the world’s foremost proponent of Austrian economics. The LVMI offers an incredible array of books, articles, and lectures online, and has probably influenced more new libertarians than any other source. To have suspicions raised about the attitudes of its founder is troubling indeed, particularly since libertarianism is so susceptible to these kinds of charges to begin with.
As I stated in the article For or Against, it’s easy to misrepresent libertarian positions. Most people usually judge libertarianism on an issue by issue basis, rather than starting from the non-aggression axiom. Take the current controversy over racism, for example. Hopefully by now most people believe racism to be morally reprehensible – the vast majority of libertarians certainly do. Nevertheless, a libertarian will oppose a government mandate forcing businesses to open their doors to all customers regardless of race. If one does not understand the principles that underlie this opposition, it is easy to mistake the allowance of discrimination with approval of that discrimination. This is a very nuanced distinction, and even under the best of circumstances it is not easy to explain how protecting deeply unpopular attitudes actually protects more fundamental freedoms. When people who are closely associated with libertarianism publish articles containing expressions of actual bigotry, it becomes virtually impossible.
The newsletter controversy is deeply troubling, and the whole affair has certainly blunted my earlier enthusiasm. That being said, it’s important not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The libertarian philosophy is ultimately one of tolerance and equal rights. Greater freedom benefits everyone regardless of race, creed, or national origin, and this message is strong enough to overcome any shortcomings that may characterize some of its proponents. In addition, I do not want to lose sight of all the good that has been done by the people in question. Ron Paul may not be the liberty’s most eloquent proponent, but he is without question its staunchest defender in Congress. Murray Rothbard refined and expanded libertarian thought, and continues to be a driving force for the freedom movement long after his death. And finally, Lew Rockwell’s contribution to liberty through his establishment of the Mises Institute cannot be overstated. Nevertheless, it may turn out that these particular heroes do indeed have feet of clay despite their considerable good works.
I just wish they could say it ain’t so.
