Ron Paul and the Big Boy Rules for Scandals

Ron Paul wants to be President, but he doesn't want to play by the big boy rules of political scandals. Vile, racist statements were made repeatedly in a newsletter entitled the Ron Paul Survival Report (which he began publishing in 1985). Paul says he's not racist, he admires Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks, and those nasty statements were written by a ghostwriter (whom he has never named), not him. (see this PoliGazette post for the basics, if you've been asleep today). To the army of Paulites across the 'net, Paul's blanket denial of racism, and his support for libertarian principles, means he can't possibly be a racist, and that's all the response that's needed.

But that's not the way it works for the folks wearing big boy pants (and skirts). Bill Clinton denied having sex with that woman, but guess what, he really did. Hillary Clinton says Whitewater was all on the up-and-up; the special prosecutor said otherwise, though he didn't think he could convince a jury. Richard Nixon said he was not a crook; we know how that turned out. A blanket denial means very little.

Even taking Paul at his word, that somebody else was responsible for the newsletter at that time, there are many questions which this issue raises about his judgment. To begin with, note that in neither this Reason interview nor his formal campaign response nor in any of the sources cited in the Wikipedia article does Paul flatly deny being aware of what was being published in his name at the time. He says the articles were written by someone else, but he doesn't say he never knew about them until scandal erupted, at least as far as I've been able to find. According to some sources in this story, columns were often published in his name, of which he was unaware until "later," but it's not clear whether "later" was before or after it became a scandal in the '96 campaign.

Certainly it's a common practice in political circles for PR people and others to write columns in the name of a candidate or political leader. But the big boy rules of politics require that you bear more than just "moral" responsibility. There's a serious political cost to be paid if somebody you hire or authorize to speak for you starts talking about black people as "animals." By claiming "moral responsibility" but passing this off as no controversy, Paul is revealing himself as a typical politician, wanting to have his cake and eat it too. Accepting moral responsibility for that vileness means making amends, means not associating with neo-nazis, it means returning their campaign contributions (or donating it to charity) and denouncing them as evil. Paul refuses to do that.

Even taking Paul at his word, how much did he profit from the racist editions of this newsletter? Who was responsible for the day-to-day oversight of the publication? Is the editor of the magazine from back then still a friend of Paul's? Is he on the campaign staff, is he and adviser of some sort?

When did Paul first realize that racist statements were being made in his name? Why didn't he at least read those articles after publication, and step in after the first racist comments?

In politics, particularly Presidential politics, proximity to a politician is a source of power, intended or not. The president's brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, and friends are treated with favor and respect by people who wish to curry favor with the powerful. That is why it is crucial that presidents, and presidential candidates, disavow, publicly and forcefully, those who might misuse their proximity, either for corrupt purposes, or merely to gain attention for their own dangerous political viewpoints. Paul cannot end this scandal simply by convincing us he is not himself a racist. He must demonstrate that he holds no truck with racism, that he will not tolerate it among his associates, friends, and business partners. To end this scandal, to convince us that he has the judgment to be president, he must disclose what happened, who wrote in his name, why he didn't bother to pay closer attention, how much he profited from this vileness, and show us that he does not maintain ties to those who hold these despicable views.

I predict he won't. But then, I've long said he's too loony to wear big boy pants.