In the Republican presidential candidates’ debate on Jan. 7, Rep. Ron Paul said: “I’m the only one up here … that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system.”
The linked article, by Dennis Prager, reports on what Paul said in a recent debate, and many of the comments dispute the veracity of the report, based on the fact that Prager reports it. Prager, being a Jew with neocon leanings, is declared to have written a 'hit piece' by many commenters at AmRen.
To me, Prager and his conflicting interests are not the issue, despite the claims at AmRen that he is out to 'get' Paul. The problem with that line of 'argument' is that Paul has said the same things previously, as this discussion from October 2011 indicates. A commenter in this discussion from last month says that Paul has "repeatedly said" that the justice system is biased against blacks. And the fact is, I remember reading/hearing similar comments attributed to him well before Prager wrote the WND piece that is being attacked at AmRen.
Paul's supporters, whether left or right, will not be deterred from supporting him, regardless of what he has or hasn't said. The left and the libertarians believe he did not say anything ''racist'' in the notorious newsletters that have been used against him, believing that he naively lent his name to ''racist'' newsletters that some unidentified somebody wrote years ago. Paul, in their eyes, is one of them: aracial and innocent of any bigotry towards blacks. On the opposite side, his right-wing and even WN supporters believe he did in fact write the ''racist'' newsletters but that he must now pretend not to have written them in order to maintain his credibility with the left and the aracial libertarian faction. Which side is right? Is he a closet racialist who ''has to'' hide his real beliefs in order to ''maintain viability within the political system'' as Bill Clinton once said? Or is Paul an aracial, orthodox libertarian who believes (as he says in a video) that libertarianism is anti-racist?
Each side wants its view of him to be true; it seems as if his actual words or actions have no effect on the opinions of either faction of his supporters. He has become a blank screen for many upon whom they can project their own wishes for the ideal presidential candidate.
I supported him back in 2008 when he was considered even more of a 'fringe' candidate than he is now, but the cumulative effect of all his statements (like the ones in the video) plus his about-face (sort of) on amnesty, and his promise to ''increase legal immigration'' finished that for me.
So I don't kid myself that I will change anyone's mind on Ron Paul; the leftist supporters and doctrinaire-style libertarians will see him as their anti-racist anti-neocon, anti-war champion, while the racial right sees him as a crypto-WN who ''has to'' say the correct things on race and immigration to keep his political career alive, and who ''can't'' reveal his real stance on the most important issues of our time. The majority of the (mostly heated) comments on the AmRen thread I linked at the top are staunchly pro-Paul, and they express a lot of anger at anyone who does not agree with them. That, I find troubling: the idea that after all we have been through with politicians who are on everybody's side but ours, we are willing to rally around one who has openly opposed the things we supposedly care most about --- all on the strength of a belief that he is secretly one of us, and is dissimulating.
Do we need another dissembling politician? I am sure many people would answer a resounding YES! Why? Because ''they have to...they can't.''
How long do we think we can wait for the permission to speak honestly and forthrightly? Who has the right to withhold or to give such permission? Why do we continue to grant them this power over us?
And yes, I know that another stock answer (which the Bush supporters used, too) is that ''no politician is perfect; we have to settle for the lesser of the evils...politics is the art of the possible...you are a purist, and we can't afford to be purists'', etc. And I have heard all about how Paul's stance on ''limited government'' will cure all our ills, including our immigration tsunami. But that presumption rests on the notion that Paul will be able to single-handedly bring the present self-perpetuating system to a halt. And what is the evidence that he will be able to reverse all the damage of the last several decades?
For myself, I am only more convinced that voting will not solve anything; the system is too hopelessly corrupted and the electorate is apparently desperate, traumatized beyond being able to make sensible, responsible choices. The system is broken, as it was intended to be when the forces of subversion got the helm some decades ago.
About this time someone will pointedly ask me: ''well, what's your answer? What do you think will fix things?" Short of divine intervention I don't know, really, but I do know we have to go beyond the realm of blind faith in 'leaders' of whatever stripe, at least those who are part of this present broken system, and we have to seek the truth, and avoid thinking wishfully.
