Comments on: Race, Ron Paul, the Primaries, and More — Now and…at Lolita 2/6 with John Derbyshire! http://toddseavey.com/2008/01/08/race-ron-paul-the-primaries-and-more-now-andat-lolita-26-with-john-derbyshire/ Conservatism for punks. Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:29:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.9 by: Todd Seavey http://toddseavey.com/2008/01/08/race-ron-paul-the-primaries-and-more-now-andat-lolita-26-with-john-derbyshire/#comment-9594 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:54:53 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/01/08/race-ron-paul-the-primaries-and-more-now-andat-lolita-26-with-john-derbyshire/#comment-9594 It's always interesting to see how broad the conclusions extrapolated from something like this will be. I may have a tendency to underestimate fallout (perhaps a side effect of wanting to analytically compartmentalize things) -- as in 1995, when (as I recall) I said via e-mail to a worried few friends that "no one" would leap from the Oklahoma City bombing to accusing the bland congressional Republicans of stoking dangerous anti-government radicalism, which of course some of their critics (including Bill Clinton) proceeded to do. Matthew Yglesias takes the prize so far for despicable effort to maximize the damage-zone radius, saying this should be no surprise since, he claims, Barry Goldwater's appeal was primarily to "white supremacists." And if you believe that -- or rather, if enough people believed that -- the entire right may as well close up shop. But it's not true. Nor is it true of Paul -- nor even of the Mises Institute, lest we be too quick to turn them into the sole punching bag, isolable infection, and root of all evil here. I learned valuable things about economics from one of their seminars, as recounted in my Retro-Journal entry before last: http://toddseavey.com/2007/12/28/retro-journal-conservatism-for-non-punks-in-1992/ They've been mailing me issues of their _Free Market_ newsletter and book review pamphlet for years, and none of it contained racially inflammatory stuff, though co-founder Murray Rothbard had spent years reaching out to radicals across the political spectrum -- some of them offensive, some of them crazy, but some of them far saner than anyone in "mainstream" politics. Sort of an any-coalition-in-a-storm strategy, with the occasional over-the-line result. Sigh. Onward and upward. Evolutionary learning process, etc., etc. It’s always interesting to see how broad the conclusions extrapolated from something like this will be. I may have a tendency to underestimate fallout (perhaps a side effect of wanting to analytically compartmentalize things) — as in 1995, when (as I recall) I said via e-mail to a worried few friends that “no one” would leap from the Oklahoma City bombing to accusing the bland congressional Republicans of stoking dangerous anti-government radicalism, which of course some of their critics (including Bill Clinton) proceeded to do.

Matthew Yglesias takes the prize so far for despicable effort to maximize the damage-zone radius, saying this should be no surprise since, he claims, Barry Goldwater’s appeal was primarily to “white supremacists.” And if you believe that — or rather, if enough people believed that — the entire right may as well close up shop. But it’s not true. Nor is it true of Paul — nor even of the Mises Institute, lest we be too quick to turn them into the sole punching bag, isolable infection, and root of all evil here. I learned valuable things about economics from one of their seminars, as recounted in my Retro-Journal entry before last:

http://toddseavey.com/2007/12/28/retro-journal-conservatism-for-non-punks-in-1992/

They’ve been mailing me issues of their _Free Market_ newsletter and book review pamphlet for years, and none of it contained racially inflammatory stuff, though co-founder Murray Rothbard had spent years reaching out to radicals across the political spectrum — some of them offensive, some of them crazy, but some of them far saner than anyone in “mainstream” politics. Sort of an any-coalition-in-a-storm strategy, with the occasional over-the-line result. Sigh. Onward and upward. Evolutionary learning process, etc., etc.

]]> by: Dylan http://toddseavey.com/2008/01/08/race-ron-paul-the-primaries-and-more-now-andat-lolita-26-with-john-derbyshire/#comment-9593 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:26:53 +0000 http://toddseavey.com/2008/01/08/race-ron-paul-the-primaries-and-more-now-andat-lolita-26-with-john-derbyshire/#comment-9593 I've been visiting Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute sites a lot more lately. I kind of like their fringiness. Regardless, this kind of stuff does piss me off. I was becoming more and more enamored with the idea of Paul as at least a symbol for a movement that might continue to grow in the future, even though I knew how unlikely it was that he'd ever go all the way in this election or in any other. But these quotes -- as Balko, Gillespie, et al have been saying at Hit & Run -- really do put a stain not only on Paul, but on libertarians in general. I know that a lot of liberal friends of mine who might be inclined to see something in Paul's anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-freedom agenda will be extremely put off once they read some of that stuff and very well might be inclined to think that this is what most libertarians believe -- that their support for things like states rights really <i>is</i> just a cover for returning to the Jim Crow era or something. I realize Paul probably didn't write those articles, but he should offer better explanations. I'm sorry, the 1980s-1990s doesn't qualify as "ancient history." You're right about some of the quotes -- pointing out that crime rates are higher in minority ghettos does not make one a racist. But the language of a lot of the pieces quoted really is pretty nasty and intolerant sounding. I'm depressed. Must get back to work. I’ve been visiting Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute sites a lot more lately. I kind of like their fringiness.
Regardless, this kind of stuff does piss me off. I was becoming more and more enamored with the idea of Paul as at least a symbol for a movement that might continue to grow in the future, even though I knew how unlikely it was that he’d ever go all the way in this election or in any other. But these quotes — as Balko, Gillespie, et al have been saying at Hit & Run — really do put a stain not only on Paul, but on libertarians in general. I know that a lot of liberal friends of mine who might be inclined to see something in Paul’s anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-freedom agenda will be extremely put off once they read some of that stuff and very well might be inclined to think that this is what most libertarians believe — that their support for things like states rights really is just a cover for returning to the Jim Crow era or something. I realize Paul probably didn’t write those articles, but he should offer better explanations. I’m sorry, the 1980s-1990s doesn’t qualify as “ancient history.”
You’re right about some of the quotes — pointing out that crime rates are higher in minority ghettos does not make one a racist. But the language of a lot of the pieces quoted really is pretty nasty and intolerant sounding.
I’m depressed. Must get back to work.

]]>