Ron Paul the Supreme Anti-Racist

Over at Tumblr, blogger Dusty Dusterson asked:

Ron Paul attracts a disturbingly large amount of respect and consideration from white supremacists ranging from former KKK members to neo-nazis with their anti-Semitic rhetoric. Most of this comes from Ron Paul's views on war, social state, and anti-globalist views. Does it concern you that he makes no campaign against these groups, that he accepts their donations, or allows them to continue supporting him?

I replied: I like that Ron Paul uses their money to promote a libertarian agenda, which is inherently anti-racist in its celebration of individuals. Paul himself has explained why someone who truly espouses libertarian beliefs cannot be racist:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

Ron Paul is as incorruptible as they come, so no this does not concern me. And money that is voluntarily given by these individuals can be put into direct actions that completely repudiates their beliefs. If warmongers in both parties started donating to Paul’s campaign, should he return that as well? I find warmongers more odious (and more racist) than some harmless tool making a fool of himself somewhere.

As for campaigning against groups, why should he? I rather that he devote his energy campaigning against racist policies, not against some ineffective group that have been marginalized and made irrelevant by the growing message of liberty. In fact, Paul has been the most vocal critic of the destructive and the most racist government policies this country has ever undertaken: the war on drugs and the war on terror.

We can debate ad naseum about Paul’s supporters, but the same charge can be levied against Santorum’s, or Bachmann’s, or Romney’s supporters as well. Is it productive or relevant? No, on all counts. Paul is running for president, not some dude somewhere.

Everyone ought to challenge Paul on his beliefs, but why hand-wring over the beliefs of a small, insignificant minority of his supporters?

Which is racist? Paul receiving small donations from racist individuals or Barack Obama’s endless wars against brown-skinned Muslims, the deportation of record number of illegal immigrants, and continued escalation of the drug war?

Comments

[Georg Thomas]

Excellent article, Jayel. Thank you for your clear thoughts. I find them very helpful. The other day, when I was "ambushed" (his own words) by an American living in my vicinity, approaching me without greetings, instead confronting me with a list of criticisms of Ron Paul, this indirect racism charge was one of the first propositions he hurled at me (I had Ron Paul stickers on my car).

Incidentally, while there certainly are considerable streaks of racism in American, as in any country's jingoism, I doubt Bomber Barry perpetuates wars out of racism (while the effects of Bubama's aggressions are indeed the same as those of genocidal racism), all he ever does is geared to gaining and maintaining power and to aggrandise himself; he would kiss the feet of Eskimos if that served the purpose. Also, I think the American war machinery is a compulsive feature of the power structure in the USA, it would produce aggression even if the category of "racism" did not exist in the human mind.