Why Do Racists Back Ron Paul?

In his bid for the presidency, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been endorsed by such white supremacist groups as Stormfront, Vanguard News, and the Nationalist Coalition. But does being supported by a hate group mean that you, too, are guilty of the same bigotry as its members? As Thomas B. Edsall wrote at the Huffington Post:

The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. "We don't know who these people are," said Jesse Benton, Paul's communications director. Their support has "nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for... His message of freedom, peace and prosperity--that's why people support him."

If there is an overlapping philosophy among white supremacists and Dr. Paul, it arises out of a shared disdain for the federal government. Abolishing the IRS and the Department of Education, trashing the Patriot Act, and a strict adherence to a doctrine of States' Rights -- these libertarian ideas have traction with many Americans, including those who want to keep the races from mingling.

Then again, there may also be another source for the impression that Paul has bigoted tendencies, as he himself explained in a June interview.

Muckraker Report: In a 1992 newsletter, arguing that government should lower the age at which juvenile criminals can be protected as adults, you wrote, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." In the same newsletter, you also wrote, "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on the grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" Obviously, there are many Americans and not just blacks and Asians, who would find these comments upsetting. What would you say to these people?

Congressman Ron Paul: In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that these comments do not reflect my beliefs.

And what of Dr. Paul's specific writings on race? Earlier this year, the candidate addressed the Don Imus controversy, and stuck to a strict freedom of speech argument:

Let's be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

His point is well taken, but with all due respect, it did take passing laws and regulations to rid the country of slavery and segregation, to say nothing of affording women the right to vote.

Of course, politics is largely about forging symbolic connections. Just this week, the conservative website RedState decided it wanted to end its affiliation with Paul supporters, not because of some of their views on racial equality, but because it deems them too aggressive in the comment section. So much for freedom of speech.

But back to the larger point. Since no candidate can possibly agree with each and every position a diverse group of voters may have, alliances are often formed which seem, to some, like a case of strange bedfellows. Just ask Mitt Romney (Bob Jones III). Or Hillary Clinton (Norman Hsu). In Dr. Paul's case, it just so happens that his libertarian rhetoric has brought him into the homes of many of our most staunchly racist citizens.

---

---