Too many charges and points in the New Republic article to address them all... but I'll start with just a few.
(Feel free to come back and raise any others you might want to discuss.)
I start with the title of the article: Angry White Man
Does this guy strike you as an 'angry white man'?
He sure doesn't sound very 'Archie Bunkerish' or like 'Joe' to me.... (So, I start with the assumption that the article is likely to be a bit of a 'hit piece'.)
It later feels a bit like that 'Seven degrees of Kevin Bacon' game --- this guy is connected to this guy... who knows this guy... who once met this guy... who rented an office to this guy in the seventies... who was an idiot and a racist... etc.
You get the idea.
Re: "Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."
Since I don't know anything to the contrary about this, I have no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Time guy who actually looked into this particular charge.
Now, as to an "alliance with neo-Confederates" I am aware of no evidence suggesting or supporting the charge of an "alliance" of any kind... but, I don't doubt at all that when you philosophically support the concept of STRICTLY LIMITED powers for the federal central government, (a strict interpretation of federal powers, based upon a plain language interpretation of the Constitution), I don't see it as unreasonable that you are likely to attract the notice of a WIDE ARRANGEMENT of 'States Rights' advocates. (As well as the sub-set of 'strict constructionists' and pipe smoking history professors.... :-)
Among them, undoubtedly, will be a smaller, and a motley assortment of racists and 'neo-confederates' (to use the article's terminology). After all... WHO ELSE (among elected public officials) advocates anything like a strong 'States rights' philosophy these days? Where the Hell else do you suspect they might focus their gazes? Among Big Government, strong-federalist types? Gun control advocates? 'Revenuers'? LOL!
But I don't believe that such a confluence would necessitate a racist attitude for Paul. But, if their is any direct evidence of such, I'd truly want to know about it.
Now, as to the famous German 'monetarist' economist von Mises, I cannot speak to any 'racial' attitudes he may, or may not, have personally held... but I am aware of NONE at all from his broad scholarly work. I've read several of his books and, I can assure you that --- unless you are attracted to dense economic theorizing, and daunting math, you will not be very titillated. <GGG>
(And the American school of economics that is the direct offshoot: the "Chicago School of Economics", made very famous by Milton Friedman, which in my opinion has added very much to von Mises' theories... is certainly not 'racist' by any definition.)
en.wikipedia.org
Re: As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."
Can't speak to that. All I can say (apologies to the unnamed 'Washington Libertarian') is that I'VE never heard anything of that sort.
Re: The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"
That much seems accurate. But, again, I don't seem much evidence for systemic 'racism' or 'antisemitism' there.
To sum up --- the farther one goes back in American history (or the history of any other part of the world, for that matter), the LESS LIKELY it is that I would be surprised to find evidence of systemic racism, or homophobia, or sexism, or religious bigotry, etc., etc., etc.
And, undoubtedly, there are no people walking around who don't share with the rest of mankind a propensity for 'feet of clay'. (I'm sure that anyone as old as Paul is especially no exception... but then again, I know PLENTY of ignorant and bigoted YOUNG PEOPLE are still walking around loose these days as well. :-)
Alas, but I'm not surprised by such.
(However, trying to connect someone to unpopular and unsavory positions by utilizing mostly the 'Seven Degree of Kevin Bacon' technique does not overly impress me as conclusive evidence either. :-) |
