Ron Paul and Race

James Kirchick has a long article delving deeper into the archives of Ron Paul's newsletters and finds a lot of racist and neoconfederate stuff, plus some serious homophobia. Some of this has been seen before, and Chris Hayes' article on the gap between the Ron Paul / Von Mises Institute school of libertarianism and the urbane cosmopolitans of Cato prefigured the general thrust of the thing, but Kirchick has a lot of the goods.

On the other hand, I think Ron Paul's responses as given to Dave Weigel and now issued in a press release are reasonably reasonable. If you're a pro-life, anti-war, anti-immigration, libertarian I don't really see anything here that would make you suddenly embrace John McCain as a preferable presidential candidate. Meanwhile, it shouldn't really be surprising to see a link between a libertarian politician and white supremacists. The main constituency for Barry Goldwater's message was white supremacists, after all.

UPDATE: This, though, is really outrageous.

Comments

Hmm...James Kirchick...James Kirchick...

Isn't that Marty Peretz's James Kirchick we're talking about...

Posted by RKU | January 8, 2008 5:16 PM

oh geez, this is going to be an ugly thread.

Posted by southpaw | January 8, 2008 5:18 PM

Clear the deck, ronpaulbots ahoy!

Posted by freddiemac | January 8, 2008 5:19 PM

The main constituency for Barry Goldwater's message was white supremacists, after all.

That seems like a stretch. There doesn't seem to have been much of constituency for Goldwater's message at the time.

Posted by Gabriel | January 8, 2008 5:19 PM

It's totally F-ed up that so many anti-war ultra-liberal types have been so duped by Ron Paul. Is his Iraq position so different from the major Dem candidates that they're willing to tolerate aligning with white supremacists, Neo-Confederates, and those that would destroy the governmental safety net in a heartbeat?

Also:

reasonably reasonable

That some good bloggin'...

Posted by afferent input | January 8, 2008 5:22 PM

Yet I suspect Ron Paul has more African American supports than any other Republican candidate.

Or are my NYC-based observations just a fluke?

Posted by Preston | January 8, 2008 5:23 PM

Just jumping in (although, as a Goldwater scholar who, at an awards dinner following the reception of said scholarship, was seated next to Barry Goldwater's lovely daughter, I may be biased): AFAIK, Barry Goldwater was in no way a racist. That racists so supported his ideas should give people pause, but one should not discount his ideas solely on the basis of guilt by association (FWIW, I am not at all a Goldwaterite). Certainly, Goldwater disassociated himself from what his party became, in part due to the discovery by political operatives of how racists tuned into Goldwater's message.

OTOH, post-Southern Strategy, with anyone framing the messages in a certain way, whether it be Paul or St. Ronnie of Miss. Stump Speech, ya gotta wonder how they sleep at night framing their message in a way that attracts the crowd it attracts if they are not racist. And while there is only a short step between the fruit of the poison tree doctrine and the genetic fallacy (which distinction wingnut welfare recipients seem incapable of grasping, per chance because their welfare receipt depends in part on that failure?), the poison tree doctrine is not a fallacy per se, is it?

Posted by DAS | January 8, 2008 5:24 PM

Reasonably reasonable?

Posted by Chilly | January 8, 2008 5:39 PM

By the way, is any mainstream media outlet in the US going to ever mention last Sunday's big article in the London Times about Sibel Edmonds' charges about who was behind Pakistan getting The Bomb? I have no idea if the story is true or not, but it sounds like a big deal. It's been 48 hours, but I haven't seen anything in the U.S. press about it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 8, 2008 5:41 PM

Not surprising that MattY would respond to an article that has a few holes with a misleading statement ("anti-immigration") and a smear of his own. (It's only misleading because he doesn't lie about someone or some group in particular, but stay tuned for future posts from him.)

Posted by TLB | January 8, 2008 5:41 PM

Steve Sailer,

Don't hold your breath. Of course, if it were a Clinton-era official, it'd be all over the media.

How much ya wanna bet that it's someone implicated in Iran/Contra?

Posted by DAS | January 8, 2008 5:47 PM

Even if he didn't actually write the more odious pieces in those newsletters, he let them be published in his name and didn't take steps to disavow them until much later. Is he saying that he let various newsletters be published using his name and never even examined the content? Either he's a liar or a majorly incompetent boob.

Posted by Chuchundra | January 8, 2008 5:47 PM

Well Preston, all he has to do is beat out Alan Keyes' immediate family, so probably.

Posted by Rob | January 8, 2008 5:48 PM

Ron Paul would like to dismantle the military, medical, and wall street industial complex...this would certainly be a crushing blow to all minorities, gays,...wait, wait that's not correct..this would actually be a blow to rich white guys. Hold on I'm confused, is Ron Paul a racist?

Posted by Thinker | January 8, 2008 5:56 PM

UPDATE: This, though, is really outrageous.

That's the sound of Andrew Sullivan's heart breaking.

Oh well. Clinton getting shelacked tonight should cheer him up plenty.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 8, 2008 6:01 PM

Yeah, if you can't trust TNR, then by golly, who can you trust?

It's totally F-ed up that so many anti-war ultra-liberal types have been so duped by Ron Paul.

Odd, because I keep thinking that it's totally fucked up how many lefties are all a-twitter about Obama or Edwards, when NEITHER of them has any serious scheme for withdrawing from the Iraq debacle -- let alone reversing the slide into imperialism.

Posted by sglover | January 8, 2008 6:03 PM

Im with DAS. Goldwater likely had some biases along the way, but he definitely matured and was so NOT a bigot in his later Senate terms, but was actually a champion of human rights.

He'd have no place in today's Republican party and would loudly be denouncing it for its hate-spew.

As for Ron Paul? Look, even a mental and moral midget can figure out the Iraq War is stupid...

Posted by Kevin Hayden | January 8, 2008 6:13 PM

Meanwhile, it shouldn't really be surprising to see a link between a libertarian politician and white supremacists. The main constituency for Barry Goldwater's message was white supremacists, after all.

Yeah, and all liberals are fascists. You're younger than Jonah Goldberg but it's good to see you are well on your way to making Important Arguments that Nobody etc etc.

Posted by R. Totale | January 8, 2008 6:23 PM

Matt rolls off the rails again. A daily occurrence here, almost.

"Meanwhile, it shouldn't really be surprising to see a link between a libertarian politician and white supremacists. The main constituency for Barry Goldwater's message was white supremacists, after all."

Look, genius. First of all, as I've said here before, Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN with libertarian positions on some issues. Period.

Second, who gives a flying fuck who were supporters of Barry Goldware, who wasn't even close to being a "libertarian"?

Get a goddamn clue, Matt. Your hatred for anything that isn't "librul" is getting boring. It's worse than "identity politics."

Matt is just pissed off that Stan Goff, a leftist with considerably more credentials than him, explicitly came out for Ron Paul.

Steve, I sent Matt everything on the Sibel Edmonds case. He's ignoring it like he ignores everything outside of his little office.

The Edmonds story is the biggest story in years. It could derail the elections. Major elected officials in this country will be going to JAIL for TREASON.

I mean, the UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT HANDED PAKISTAN THE BOMB! How big a story is that?

And Matt is like, 'Gee, I dunno...I guess Ron Paul's racism is like, so important..."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 8, 2008 6:25 PM

"It's totally F-ed up that so many anti-war ultra-liberal types have been so duped by Ron Paul. Is his Iraq position so different from the major Dem candidates that they're willing to tolerate aligning with white supremacists, Neo-Confederates, and those that would destroy the governmental safety net in a heartbeat?"

His presence on the GOP side has allowed some of his more reasonable views (anti-war, adherence to the Bill of Rights) to get an airing in a party where they have not been welcome among the leading lights.

I think this is a good and healthy thing, even though I wouldn't vote for Paul. It's not good for one of the two main parties to be taken over by demented authoritarians without resistance.

Posted by Jon H | January 8, 2008 6:28 PM

The Ron Paul campaign dismisses Kirchick here:

Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

" January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 8, 2008 6:31 PM

Re Matthew's comment " Meanwhile, it shouldn't really be surprising to see a link between a libertarian politician and white supremacists. The main constituency for Barry Goldwater's message was white supremacists, after all. "
------------------
Oh , Matthew. Matthew. Matthew.

You disappoint me when you sound like Marty Peretz in full batshit mode.

I disagreed with some of Goldwater's policies but he did more to kick the Republican Party's extremists in the nuts -- and to defend some liberal positions -- than ANY Democratic politican ever dared to do.

Look at Wikipedia's article on his war against the religious right --and their citations.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Libertarian_views

A few excerpts re Goldwater:
---------------
" Goldwater viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice, not intended for government intervention.

As a passionate defender of personal liberty, he saw the religious right's views as an encroachment on personal privacy and individual liberties.

In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would "fight them every step of the way".[16] "
-------------
"In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said,

“ When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. ”

In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell's opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned,” Goldwater retorted: “I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”[17]
--------------
Some of Goldwater's statements in the 1990s aggravated many social conservatives.

He endorsed Democrat Karan English in an Arizona congressional race, urged Republicans to lay off Clinton over the Whitewater scandal, and criticized the military's ban on homosexuals:

“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”[20]

He also said, “You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight.”

A few years before his death he went so far as to address the right wing, "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican Party much more than the Democrats have."[21]
----------
In that same year[1996], with Senator Dennis DeConcini, Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana against the will of social conservatives.[22]

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 6:33 PM

Matthew, "In your heart you know he's right."

Er..left.

PS Barry Goldwater was one of the Chosen People. At least under Israel's Nuremberg Law (so strange that they let the Nazis define who's a Jew ).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Personal_life

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 6:41 PM

Is he saying that he let various newsletters be published using his name and never even examined the content? Either he's a liar or a majorly incompetent boob.

This is the takeaway point, unfortunately. I don't intend to vote for Paul, but I think his campaign and support have been fascinating politically. But this hits the nail on the head: if we take Paul completely at his word, then it means he was willing to let a lot of crap he didn't agree with go out under his name for years, and this is a non-trivial indictment in its own right. And that's the good interpretation.

Odd, because I keep thinking that it's totally f-d up how many lefties are all a-twitter about Obama or Edwards, when NEITHER of them has any serious scheme for withdrawing from the Iraq debacle -- let alone reversing the slide into imperialism.

With all due respect (however much that is), no candidate has proposed a scheme more "serious" for withdrawing other than "I will withdraw X troops by date Y." And Obama (for example) has spoken out against sanctioning torture, voted to keep FISA warrants intact, to implement unfinished recommendations from the 9/11 commission, for habeus corpus at Guantanamo, for oversight of CIA interrogations, against wiretapping. Paul rails against the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the Department of Education. No offense, but if both of those are schemes for "reversing the slide into imperialism," Paul's isn't the one that looks serious.

Posted by Watts | January 8, 2008 6:41 PM

Oh, yes. And what Republican cut off Richard Nixon's nuts??

" Goldwater disliked Johnson (who he said "used every dirty trick in the bag"), and Richard M. Nixon of California, whom he later called "the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life." It is believed Goldwater, then a Senator, forced Nixon to resign at the height of Watergate by threatening to vote in favor of removing him from office if he did not. The term "Goldwater moment" has been used to describe a moment when members of Congress from the President's party disagree and go against the wishes of the President."

Posted by Don Williams | January 8, 2008 6:44 PM

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf

On "Dr." King:

"So now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.

He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party memeber, the man who replaced the evil of forced segregration with the evil of forced intergration.

King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adultere, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Raplh David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before.

And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holidy that puts him on a par with George Washington?

Congratulations to Arizona! Who could doubt that the result would be exactly the same if the other 49 states could also vote on a holiday for this affirmative-action saint?

Bottom of the newsletter: Happy Holidays!

"My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and yoru family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists and other big-government types, making America freer and thus truer to her own heritage, in 1991"

Unless he's completely clueless, how could a person who claims to find this stuff morally repungnant let someone ghost write 1) a piece claiming MLK was an adulterer, child molester and gay, and 2) a holiday greeting from Ron and his family?

Posted by TheF79 | January 8, 2008 7:01 PM

Oh, and http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf

"As a flight surgeon in the Air Force, I remember the promises that air power would win the Vietnam War,"

"In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress for a Martin Luther King day."

I liked the bit predicting the Soviet Union and Gorbachev moving to crush the Baltic states as soon as US troops engage Iraq (Gulf War I)

Posted by TheF79 | January 8, 2008 7:14 PM

The author of that newsletter is a worse speller than Matt.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 8, 2008 7:28 PM

Paul may not be the most enlightened person, but during the recent debates he was the only Republican challenging the idea that we're in a war with the "Islamic terrorist threat against us", or "radical jihad". For Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee, particularly, we're either at war with the Muslim world or a pretty big subset of it. OBL isn't a terrorist - he's a Muslim terrorist. And their solutions are either to bring war to Muslim lands or to teach moderate Muslims not to be so hateful.

REP PAUL: they don't attack us because we're free and prosperous. And there are radicals in all elements on -- in -- in all religions that will result to violence. REP. PAUL: You paint all Islamics the same way.

REP. PAUL: What you're doing is damaging our relationship by destroying our relationship with all Muslims.

Those don't sound like the words of a skinhead to me.

Posted by Jinchi | January 8, 2008 7:31 PM

Paul seems okay with Muslims or non-whites as long as they keep out of the US. He's an isolationist as well as a bigot. There's a lot of Pat Buchanan's "Fortress America" in Paul's positions.

Posted by Zxcvbnm | January 8, 2008 7:47 PM

Yep. I love it. Ron Paul may be a paranoid racist asshole, but he sure brings a breath of sanity to the Republican Party.

Posted by Rob Mac | January 8, 2008 7:49 PM

Did you read through to the part about Ted kennedy? Not that's a smear.

Posted by benton | January 8, 2008 9:08 PM

How about those Reason.com comments?

Bill Whalker | January 8, 2008, 4:05pm | #
I smell Bagels on this smear job.
Neo Cons are running scared.

Posted by Other Ezra | January 8, 2008 9:20 PM

Clearly, Congressman Paul has more explaining to do. I have never seen any indication of bigtory on his part in the past decade, and, having attended more than one "meet up", I have not seen the white supremacists and true crackpots that turn out for him else where (I am, though, in New England).

I agree with the comments relating to Goldwater; just because racists supported certain positions he took do not make him a racist himself. The same goes for anyone else.

As for his view of non-white people. As one of these people myself, I can say that every Ron Paul supporter I've met is either a normal person, or a hardcore type libertarian that holds no racist views. Such supporters exist elsewhere, but they have had no real influence on Paul's campaign aside from giving money, and he has never taken their "Side" when in office, save for things such as Martin Luther King Day (which I myself think is rather useless; how many Americans that take it off are thanking Dr. King for his great work as a civil rights leader as opposed to the fact that they aren't in class or aren't at work?). George Bush said he would stand against "secret evidence" and other civil rights violations when he ran for office and that he would pursue a less interventionist foreign policy; he did none of it. And Mr. Paul has (or may have, if we give him the benefit of the doubt) authored/publish bigoted materials. Yet has he proposed legislation that is racist? Has he supported such legislation? Does he advocate racist policies? No. His actions seem rather principled, and racism does not look like it's on the agenda.

As for this:
"Paul seems okay with Muslims or non-whites as long as they keep out of the US. He's an isolationist as well as a bigot. There's a lot of Pat Buchanan's "Fortress America" in Paul's positions."

Actually, he's quite friendly with and fond of non-whites. Quite a lot of his supporters are black, from my observation, as well as being of other ethnic minorities, such as Arab Americans (like myself). One of Paul's biggest supporters is George Ajjan, a former New Jersey Congressional candidate and Arab American Republican.

I find this idea that he wants non-whites out to be very funny; supporting the enforcement of immigration laws is not racist. He is not anti-immigration, he's anti-illegal immigration. My grandparents and my father came to this country legally, form Syria and Algeria respectively. They didn't hide in cargo ships and they didn't get smuggled in. My grandparents went through Ellis Island; my father got a student visa, legally, and went through the same process as millions of other Americans-to-be. This is part of the American tradition of rule of law and fairness. To allow people who cheat their way into the United States do so and get away with it. The law needs to be enforced and every effort to limit illegal immigration needs to be taken. It is both a moral and a fiscal burden that absolutely should not be tolerated in any society.

I am not 100% a Paulite (and I wouldn't even say I fit that category; I'll probably vote for a Democrat in the general election, though with reservations, especially if it is Obama). I am supporting him in the CT primary and I stand by that because he raises important issues, his personal failings aside (nobody voting for him anywhere is voting for him because they think he can win). There's also a lot of sincerity in his positions, which is something lacking from the mainline candidates, just about entirely. He isn't anywhere near perfect, but neither is anybody else. I'm waiting for somebody to tell the Democrats/liberals to disavow people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who instigate race riots and spew racist venom against immigrants in our cities. When Korean and Muslim shop keeps, grocers, and liquor shop operators are described as "blood suckers" and other hateful phrases, where is the condemnation or outrage?

Posted by Nouri Luhemiya | January 8, 2008 9:26 PM

I really do apologize for being so long winded. My bad.

Posted by Nouri Luhemiya | January 8, 2008 9:27 PM

Let's see, one the one hand, 10 terms in the House worth of Congressional Record, no racist or bigoted quotes found. On the other, a couple ghost written essays ten years ago, from a guy who got fired.

Obviously the latter is the better guide to Paul's character, right?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | January 8, 2008 9:51 PM

On the other, a couple ghost written essays ten years ago, from a guy who got fired.

It's not a couple of essays. It's a newsletter a month over the course of nearly two decades.

Chuchundra is right. Either he's lying about having written them and/or he approved them at the time, or he completely ignored what was being published under his name for decades. Neither option speaks well for him, and the second puts him on the Bush Junior scale of incompetence.

Posted by MouseJunior | January 9, 2008 4:03 AM

Either he's got a really severe case of MPD, or you can't square his record in Congress with the largely ghost-written newsletter. Which am I supposed to take as the definative guide to what sort of President he'd be? Is he going to hire a ghost writer to run the Oval office, while he goes off and starts delivering babies again? I suspect not.

And, yeah, the newsletters got published over a long period of time. Did the objectively offensive stuff in them get published over that whole period? Since I haven't seen any recent examples of the really offensive stuff, I'm guessing not. Actually, I'm guessing he learned a lesson from the whole fiasco.

Yeah, that he allowed stuff to be published under his name without reading it first was not good. If he were running against human paragons of virtue, that would be a really black mark against him. He's running against John "screw the 1st amendment" McCain, Mitt "magic goggles" Romney", Rudolph "Where did I leave my jack boots" Guliani...

In a race between flawed people who want to take the nation in a direction I abhor, and a flawed person who wants to restore limited, constitutional government, I'm gonna have to go with the latter. Unless maybe you can point me to somebody better whose policies I largely agree with.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | January 9, 2008 7:26 AM

I really just CAN'T IMAGINE that a batshit-crazy uber-Zionist with a magazine would try to malign Ron "no aid to Israel" Paul... ::yawn::

Posted by Murph | January 9, 2008 11:49 AM

All the citations to Elder Statesman Goldwater are very nice, but when he was an actual political force, didn't he advise the Republican Party in the post-Civil Rights Act '60's to "hunt where the ducks are."?

Posted by CJColucci | January 9, 2008 12:22 PM

"we liberals own more blacks than you do. nyah!"

this circle-jerk is really is hard to take.

someone above wondered how so many progressives came to support a man with such mallign views. for what its worth, paul's alleged ghostwriter, lew rockwell, has been mother cindy sheehan's sexual partner throughout her journeys with medea benjamin, so the connection there is intimate. the lew rockwell brand of "conservativism" has always been soley an asset for progressives' campaigns of "brown scares", always prepared to shout "better red than dead" first.

why has the antiwar movement attracted so many extremist goons? why do progressives march shoulder to shoulder with david dukies carrying "no war for israel" placards? the fact is that the black-clad plutocrat of progressives imaginations and the international bankers of the alex jones variety are the same charicature; the same "bad guy" in the same manechean fantacy.

or maybe that's reading too much into it. maybe when your antiwar movement is literally founded by saddam hussein's attorney and led by groups of the same actual internatinal party as the shining path, nobody notices the two or three putatively rightwing cranks in the crowd.

i dunno. its not as if the ron paul rEVOLution ever mattered in my universe. i'm watching the election, you see.

in fact, i'm wondering how it is that hilldog's people sleep at night framing the choice between their candidate and barack obama as they do. i don't just mean the stuff about the "american people" (read: northern trade union democrats) not being "ready for a black president". i mean stuff like the implicit assasination threats, like when francine torge, responding to obama likening himself obliquely to jfk, noted that jfk was assasinated, and that lbj went on to actually enact civil rights.

that's the kind of stuff that drops your jaw to the floor. particularly when you consider that lbj rationalized his "gift" to african americans thusly:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference."

but in a rotten stew with other presidential contenders like chris dodd announcing that senior senate democrat and kkk grand kleagle, robert byrd "would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation," what can you expect? this is who progressives are.

goldwater, incidentally was a founding member of the arizona chapter of the naacp and fought for state level anti-discrimination legislation while opposing ammendments to the federal constitution. mr. conservative's devotion to federalism and states rights was principled, not "coded". but one can't expect progressives to deal honestly with race, being as they are people who have so much to regret about themselves in that regard.

Posted by jummy | January 9, 2008 11:11 PM

Yeah, and all liberals are fascists. You're younger than Jonah Goldberg but it's good to see you are well on your way to making Important Arguments that Nobody etc etc.

Posted by R. Totale | January 8, 2008 6:23 PM

funny. why didn't you think to mention naomi wolf's most recent book, titled "the end of america" and based on a hysterical peice of paranoid ranting she wrote called "fascism in ten steps"? that one's actually been on the shelves for a couple of weeks, so you might have had the time to actually read it, fairly assess the arguments offered therein, and perhaps you could have made the sort of comparison you were trying to make make some sort of sense.

it's really something. progressives have been flogging the "all non-progressives are nascent hitlers" nonsense for sixty years. one conservative writes one book, and suddenly progressives are capable of seeing the fallacy and paranoia in it to the extent they're dishonest enough to pretend that it's a conservative meme.

Posted by jummy | January 9, 2008 11:53 PM

"The main constituency for Barry Goldwater's message was white supremacists, after all." I rang doorbells for Barry as an idealistic college freshman and I find this statement really offensive. Neither I nor anybody I knew in the campaign was a "white supremacist."

Posted by Lester Hunt | January 12, 2008 12:44 PM