New Year is the time when people conscientiously decide
to “turn over a new leaf” and do things differently. Some
excise old vices; others add new virtues. But what happens
when former ideals re-surface in the midst of professed
change? Or, even more, when past beliefs appear at inconvenient
times of new progress. Well, Texas Republican candidate,
Ron Paul, is stuck with a dilemma on the eve of the Iowa
Paul is in a virtual tie with former Massachusetts Governor
Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination for president.
Paul spent much of the race pulling up the rear. His rise
in the polls has brought with it increased scrutiny over
a series of racist newsletters that went out under his
name in the 80s and 90s. It’s not unusual that dirt comes
out when you’re on your way to the top. If there’s anything
there, it should.
newsletters claimed that “[o]rder was only restored in
L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their
welfare checks,” that nearly all Black men in Washington
DC “are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and that AIDS
sufferers “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with
being sick,” among other controversial claims.
of the statements - whether cherry-picked or not - are
specifically meant to demean and were targeted toward
Blacks. These are the same types of code-word statements
used today by the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O’Riellys,
Neal Boortzes and Glenn Becks of the conservative punditry.
These code words become the lexicon for whites who never
have personal encounters or relationships with Black Americans,
and for whites who will be voting in November.
Paul’s campaign says he didn’t write an advertising letter
mailed under Paul’s name 20 years ago that predicted a
“coming race war in our big cities” and referenced a “federal-homosexual
cover-up on AIDS.” Paul reiterated his claim that he did
not know who wrote the newsletters, saying “everybody
knows I didn’t write them, and it’s not my sentiment.”
Funny how he never disavowed them upon their publication.
He suggested that the resurfacing of the issue reflects
“politics as usual.” What’s
ironic is that these statements are direct reflections
of what “smaller government” fiscal conservatives surreptitiously
place before the American public as to why the nation
is in debt. Paul happens to be one of those conservatives.
claims he didn’t write those newsletters, but of course,
his name was on every one of them. If he didn’t write
them and the newsletters emitted some positive, world-changing
rhetoric, do you think he’d then claim them? He wouldn’t
hesitate to take responsibility for any uplifting, uniting
publication. For that reason, we should be acutely suspicious
of these writings, their origin and their distribution.
ain’t new to this rodeo. This is Paul’s fourth run for
president. He ran the first time as a Libertarian. The
Libertarians still embrace him as one of theirs. His policies
are good for white America
- and are a death knell for Blacks who suffer from America’s systemic injustices in all areas, including
the federal departments concerned with education, environment
and housing. He wants to eliminate oversight and regulation
of the bandits who fleece the working class: banking,
housing, retail corporations and workplace safety. He
wants to de-fund government-sponsored opportunities for
our children to attend college.
opponent in the Republican race, Michelle Bachmann, says
that Paul’s policies make him “dangerous” as a candidate
(she better hope he doesn’t win the nomination). But she
finds him “dangerous” for an entirely unrelated reason.
She’s coming in dead last in the polls and has to use
some inflammatory rhetoric to bring him down.
Paul’s policy positions are consistent. Many know his
drug legalization policies make sense. Sure, his anti-interventionist
foreign policies are wise and frugal, but when it comes
to the real lives of the one-quarter minority population,
Paul’s belief system is adverse and harmful to representing
the final analysis, we only wish that we could cherry-pick
our candidates, taking the good parts and discarding the
trash. Unfortunately, every candidate must be taken in
whole. If the preponderance of his/her positions work
against our best interests, we must discard the entire
candidate. If only their best ideas could be incorporated
into the better candidate in the race.
policy positions made him a wolf in the 80s and 90s; he’s
trying to put on the sheep’s clothing today. We’ve seen
in this Republican race, most of the candidates have been
exposed for what they truly are. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich,
Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and now, Ron
Paul. Don’t be fooled. What I know, is that in politics,
it is rare that a wolf is not a wolf.
Redd, is the former Executive Director of
the workers rights advocacy, Sincere Seven, and author
of the on-line commentary, “The
Other Side of the Tracks.” He is the host of the internet-based
talk radio show,
Socially Speaking in
here to contact Mr.