scottfrost:

Ron Paul has argued against racism. He is on record saying that it is collectivist nonsense. He should get the benefit of the doubt.

That's not an argument against racism. That's an argument against "collectivism" and a form of denial that he and his kind could possibly be racists.

Furthermore, it's an easily refuted view. The National Election Survey asks a number of relevant questions, most notably, it asks people about their feelings towards different groups, including Blacks, using a temperature scale from 1-100, as well as asking about their policy views. There is a consistent correlation between more negative views of blacks and opposition to "collectivist" positions. For example (each of the three categories is about 1/3 of the population +/- 4%):

Strongly favoring a government insurance health plan:

0-50% Temp: 16.9
51-75% Temp: 16.3
76-100% Temp: 24.2

Strongly favoring Government seeing to job and good standard of living:

0-50% Temp: 7.2
51-75% Temp: 6.8
76-100% Temp: 18.2

Increase Federal Spending On Poor/Poor People:

0-50% Temp: 43.2
51-75% Temp: 53.1
76-100% Temp: 63.5

Increase Federal Spending On Child Care:

0-50% Temp: 50.0
51-75% Temp: 53.4
76-100% Temp: 65.4

In short, the less you like blacks, the less "collectivist" you are. The exact opposite of how Paul characterizes racism--thus proving conclusively that it's "collectivism" he opposes, not racism.

It is also worth noting that he never advocates any policies which disproportionatley benefit one group at the expense of another. He clearly insists that all people have equal rights.

That's what he claims. But what if you look at who benefits from the things he opposes? Then the picture will clearly show he opposes programs that benefit Blacks and Latinos. But that's all just coincidence, right?

I'm just waiting to hear that some of his best friends are black.

UsedtobeKristin:

From the Paul Article at Chron.com

Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Aside from the obvious offensiveness of his comments, this one strikes me as, if not stupid, then willfully obtuse. How could it not occur to him that perhaps African-Americans are disproportionately arrested and convicted because the justice system carries the same prejudices he does?

The statistics aren't hard to locate. The war on drugs, the death penalty - both administered unfairly and disproportionately to African-Americans. He didn't have time to look those up?

While it's extremely well documented that the war on drugs is racist every step of the way, it's nonetheless also true that blacks commit more street crimes than whites. That's largely because lower-class criminals commit more street crimes than middle- and upper-class criminals. What this doesn't address is that most crimes are committed between people of the same race--which is where Paul's "logic" falls completely apart.

But the points that both UsedtobeKristin and I raise are not merely about racial awareness--they are about subtlety and nuance, which are age-old enemies of "straight-shooting" and "plain-spokenness" and being "a man of the people."

In short, there is a deep connection between Paul's "no nonsense" appeal and his unexamined racism. This reflects a white nativist American political tradition (or, pehaps more accurately a skein of political traditions) that goes back centuries, and has always had an admixture of ugly small-mindedness along with it's more admirable desire to stand up to its oppressors--real or imagined. (All us Jewish bankers, for one thing, don'tcha know!) It really does help to be read American history, including some of those dangerous leftists who tend to be the ones that write about such things.

Otherwise, it's like Buffy, The Vampire Slayer said: "You know what they say... those of us who fail history--doomed to repeat it in summer school."

SomeNYGuy:

Glenn, you've jumped the shark

I knew you were a libertarian, but reading your columns over the last several years I honestly believed you'd grown, matured, developed a soul, a conscience and empathy for your fellow human beings, and transcended the adolescent selfishness of Ayn Rand's elitist fantasy world. I'm shocked and saddened to realize I was wrong.

Glenn was making a cogent point with his original post. The fact of Paul's seamier side merely deepens the tale of our political culture's rottenness. What lies in the backyard does not invalidate Glenn's description of what can be seen in the foyer.

I can see you beginning to back off in your updates and some of your comments, and I expect you'll find yourself eating a lot of crow in the coming days, but I predict that the Pauliacs who've been unleashed and empowered in your comments section will send the mostly thoughtful, smart, amusing people who post here regularly fleeing for the exits and deal a crippling blow to your readership.

As one of those raised these issues with long quotes from other sites, I can say that I see nothing of sort happening here. Glenn really has nothing to back off from, though his post may have had some unanticipated consequences. (Stop the presses! That never happened with a blog post before!) He's always been willing to drill down through layer after layer, and note how the contradictions at one level may be different from those at another. I fully expect more of the same here. And while various old-timers such as Mona and myself may post here less persistently than in days gone by, there are many others here as well with a fairly firm grasp of Glenn's central focus--and many more elsewhere throughout the blogosphere who link here with increasing frequency.

None of that is likely to change.