As far as I can tell, libertarianism has completely fell for Political Correctness (PC). The problem with PC is its intentionally wide and vague nondefinitions of such things as "racism", "racists", "anti-Semitic", "anit-semitism", "homophobia", "sexist" and "being anti-gay", etc.
And as far as I can tell, libertarians have either sat on their hands or worse, joined in on the Ron Paul Newsletter bashing that ensued from the neoliberal and ultra PC police mag, The New Republic (TNR). Indeed it was Reason Mag who "broke the story" just a week ahead of the all important New Hampshire primary in 2008. Reason has been no fan of Ron Paul and his newsletters and they took the opportunity to prove their PCness and "out" Ron Paul as some kind of racist, using the liberal rags smear. What TNR had done was dig threw 20 years of newsletters and pull out about 12 sentences that they then point at as "racist", "anti-semitic" and "anti-gay".
Now in the 1980's Political Correctness had not won the day nationally until two rather important court cases against companies for the crime of "being racist or sexist. That caused companies everywhere to go back and rewrite their company policies and procedures manuals for fear of being sued. Those legal wins gave PC a leg up, but libertarianism like everyone else, had a choice to make, go with it, or fight it. Reason and Cato and perhaps the LP I think chose to go with it. What was admirable was that Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul did not. They fought the good fight. I read those newsletters during those years and found nothing wrong with them, indeed I am indebted to them. More on that later. But by 1990 after Jesse Jackson's democratic Rainbow coalition run and in 1995 during Clinton American public went fully PC. That left the RP newsletters all alone fighting the good fight I think. What then followed were a series of laws and rullings all based upon these vague and wide open definitions resulting in "mandatory cultural sensitivity training classes" order by courts and "Hate Crime" laws (thought crime). PCness usurped regular language in a whole new Orwellian anti-language entered the lexicon whereby no one could call a spade a spade. "Garbageman" was "Waste-disposal technician", and so forth. Old names like "Stewardess" and "Actress" went by the way side all under the banner of Political Correctness. It seemed to escape libertarians the this Orwellian language was restricting thought.
Now I know Ron Paul as a politician seeking to win his Congressional seat had to politically survive this and disavow and apologize for the "crime" but what bothers me most is that no libertarian took up the fight against PCness itself. Some may have, but I am unaware of what they wrote or said.
And here is the meat of my contention with my fellow libertarians: They do not defend the RP Newsletters as NOT racist, antisemitic, or anti gay.
Lets take 3 of the often quoted RP newsletter remarks taken out of context by the liberal TNR look at them:
A) “95 % of black men in Washington DC are criminal or semi-criminal”
B) "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."
C) "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how incredible fleet of foot (fast) he can be".
Reason and TNR's smear attempt works because libertarians as a group accept the PC premise and I think fail to have well defined definitions themselves.
But when we put A & B back into context, it becomes clear there is nothing "racist" about them. Context and knowing the readership is very important. The Readership does not like drug laws and considers black market activity as something that all should be legalized. This is very important to understand when knowing what is said. Here is the whole quote:
“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Now if I said to a libertarian audience, "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the drivers on our freeways are lawbreakers"..... You know that I am talking about the fact that we all routinely break the 55 mph limit. You know I am condemning the govt's law, and in the same way above, you know that the writer is condemning the government's black market laws.
Now lets address C). But before I do that let me suggest to you this definition: Racism is the disparagement of an ethnic group's (real or imagined) negative traits and using that as a call for LEGAL discrimination.
So let me put out several sentences for you and YOU then tell me which is "Racists".
A) "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how incredible fleet of foot (fast) he can be".
B) "If you have ever ran away from a white middle aged cop, you know that after 50 yards you are home free."
C) "You know Black People don't ice skate. Brothas just don't skate."
D) "English people always have such poor teeth, why is that?"
E) "Black people always have such nice big white teeth. They simply have the prettiest teeth among all the ethnic races of man really."
F) "Black people are so criminal, they are naturally tricky, evil, dirty, smelly, there is hardly a decent one among them, and so the laws in this country should make them all live in another part of the city."
G) "“We are constantly told its evil to be afraid of black men, that’s hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, muggings, out of proportion to their numbers”.
H) "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"
I) "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions"
J) "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal".
K) “Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
WELL... What was your answer? Which was "racists"? The answer is F) and that statement DID NOT come from the Ron Paul Newsletters.
Notice I did not ask which one "offended" you or which one was "bias" or "bigoted" or "mistaken", I asked you, which one was "racists"? If you are Politically Correct liberal like those liberals at The New Republic, you might say they all are racist! Then why do they change their answer based upon WHO is saying it? Charles Barkley on The Daily Show explained to John Stewart that "brothas don't skate". It got a laugh, Its a generality that is mostly true and rarely spoken. Now if that sentence had been in the Ron Paul "racist" newsletter, white Politically Correct liberals would be screaming in "horror" and "disgust". Why? Cause they THINK they know what racism is and they THINK 'they know black people' (to quote Dave Chappelle.)
There is only ONE racist sentence above. The rest of the sentences are simple generalities and these generalities may be true or false. Black teenage robbers may be fast, at least the ones that don't get caught!. White Middle aged cops are pretty out of shape and 50 yards is pushing it in my opinion. But of course not everyone is the same and of course, its just a generality that may or may not be true. Neither statement is "racists".
For D and E, I just made those up. Ron Paul did not say them, I did. They are simply my general observations. While I prefer nice white teeth, that does not mean I call for locking up or LEGALLY DISCRIMINATING UPON THE ENGLISH RACE because of their "bad teeth". Nor do I call for special legal treatment in favor of black people because of their good teeth.
G This is a good point, if some ethnic groups statistically, committing crimes far in excess of their proportion numbers, when does it make sense to be a afraid? Certainly one must have 'street smarts' about oneself and not naively approach everyone equally. Yet the Ron Paul INVESTMENT newsletter, talking about the increased inner city crimes (Jessie Jackson was talking about this too at the time) simply said it. It was not "Politically Correct" in 2012, but after the LA and Chicago riots in early 1990's with crack cocaine hitting cities hard, its not an unreasonable statement.
H. Now order MAY have been restored after the Rodney King rioting when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks, but I thought is was the National Guard that did that. Its an assertion of fact, a fact that I think is not true, and so perhaps that was an "over the top" statement, but racist? Not. There is no disparagement calling for legal discrimination.
I and J are the most pulled sentences from the Ron Paul INVESTMENT newsletter. I emphasize "investment" because to listen to the Media's pre-conviction, it was the Ron Paul "racist" newsletters, as if THAT WAS ITS SUBJECT! Now I can agree with anyone, taken all alone, those two sentences seem bigoted and biased. Not racist because those two sentences are not disparaging ethnic traits (real or imagined) and using that to call for legal discrimination. So I and J seem bad, but take a look at the last one, K). K is the WHOLE QUOTE, all in context. And here you will see what a disservice it was by the liberal rag The New Republic for dropping the CONTEXT. By "reasonable opinion", the writer spells out what he means:, support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. Yes that is true, few blacks support such things. Now The New Republic you can see, INTENTIONALLY dropped this context to MAKE IT look "racist" as defined by them, the Politically Incorrectness Police.
So notice, all the statements that came from the Ron Paul Newsletters where NOT racist.
But there was ONE racist statement, and that one was F). F) DID NOT COME FROM THE RON PAUL NEWSLETTERS. It was inserted here just to show what a racist statement is. Racism: The disparagement of an ethnic groups (real or imagined) traits for the purpose of gaining LEGAL discrimination. F fits all that. F is clearly a RACIST sentence. And again, THAT sentence or one like it was never found in the Ron Paul newsletters.
So what must be done? First Black people need to tear away the POLITICS of racism from the Politically Correct Liberals who are using the racist charge much too broadly and wide and vaguely. Its now a smear, and in time it may just be a meaningless smear. The New Republic has a vested interest in WIDE and VAGUE definitions; it helps push their liberal cause. But that does not make it right, even if you agree with the liberal cause. They have successfully used it so much that Free Speech is now under attack from intense political correctness for fear of "offending somebody". Being offended is NOT the definition of what is and what is not "racist". Hitler was racist because he both disparaged Jews as cockroaches and dehumanized them to gain LEGAL discrimination. The KKK with their WHITE POWER does the same thing, disparaging black characteristics to make the claim to gain LEGAL discrimination and Legal Separation. This is racism. But if we widen that to the point that it just means that some minority somewhere was offended by some majority person, then the seriousness of the offense of racism is soon lost.
So stick up for Ron Paul. His newsletters called a spade a spade and did not mince words. They were appalled at inner city crimes and appalled that crimes and race was used to confuse the issue. The Ron Paul newsletters where not about Racism, they were for 20 years about investments and politics at large. But if The New Republic pulls things out of context and holds it up to the light of political correctness DURING A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, we need to say HOLD ON HERE ONE MINUTE. You may be using the claim or charge of Racism for your own purpose. That purpose to discredit a man. A man who as it turns out during those years was not really writing them. He was delivering 2000 babies. Nevertheless, he has apologized for the offense and disavowed those words. But we owe it to ourselves to see WHO really is this man and what is his true nature. Watch here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nRHPcVy ... ture=share and we should see who really did write those words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE9VXaRY ... ture=share Most of all, if Ron Paul is to debate President Obama, it may just those TNR liberals who fear it would go like this OBAMA VS PAUL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMSEah00 ... ture=share