There’s an interesting conversation between Ed Brayton and Timothy Sandefur regarding Ron Paul’s politics. While Paul has attracted a lot of attention (especially online) for being the only Republican presidential candidate who is against the Iraq war, Brayton and Sandefur point out that there are deeply disturbing elements to Paul’s politics (and I am not just talking about his desire to dismantle the EPA).
In the first post, Brayton discussed the idea that Paul may be a Dominionist. Paul has made statements that appear dominionist, and has the support and endorsement of Reconstructionists like Gary North. Sandefur replies that having the support of Reconstructionists doesn’t necessarily make you one of them and suggests instead that Paul is a “neo-confederate:
Far more troubling to me is the question of whether Paul is a neo-confederate of the variety of Thomas Di Lorenzo and allied crackpots. He is quoted as having called for the literal end of the Constitution … He has endorsed a popular myth among the Di Lorenzo crackpots, saying in one speech that the “war between the states” was “fought primarily over tariffs.” In 1995, he spoke at the Council of Conservative Citizens (which is what the Klan politely calls itself nowadays) and appeared to endorse secession and to attack Lincoln as the originator of centralized government, another neo-confederate myth. “The Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery,” he said on Bill Maher’s show, but “was fought over unifying a strong centralized state. You could have paid for all the slaves and released them.” (Simple as that! What was old Abe thinking?)
Brayton replies to this by pointing out that the two positions are not mutually exclusive – one can be both a neo-confederate and a dominionist.
Like Huckabee, Paul resonates well. He comes across as less distasteful than the rest of the Republican field. But closer examination suggests that he is actually one of the scarier elements in that field.
Filed under: Dominionism, Politics, Right-wing Christianity, Theocracy
“He is quoted as having called for the literal end of the Constitution”
Can we have a source for that reference??
“saying in one speech that the “war between the states” was “fought primarily over tariffs.””
Actually the full quote which you have omitted.
“The War between the States, fought primarily over tariffs, was nonetheless inspired by the abhorrence of slavery.”
“In 1995, he spoke at the Council of Conservative Citizens (which is what the Klan politely calls itself nowadays”
Reference please
“but “was fought over unifying a strong centralized state. You could have paid for all the slaves and released them.” (Simple as that! What was old Abe thinking?)”
Actually Abe Lincoln did support that as stated in his statements before and after he was president
“Such separation … must be effected by colonization … to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.” – From a speech delivered in Springfield, IL; 26 June, 1857
And, while prosecuting the war to “free the slaves,” Lincoln said: “I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization…in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race.” Annual message to Congress; 1 Dec 1862
So what is you point of this article when most of it is unreferenced, misleading and not well-researched?
FAIL: Paul says he’s against the war. You say he’s against the environment. Are you pushing his anti-environmental stance or attempting to avoid his position on war?
FAIL: Appeal to Authority by linking Paul to “neo-confederates” (whom we might as well assume are racists, for the sake of argument). Communist China endorsed and supported Al Gore’s campaign. Big deal.
I never said he’s against the environment, I said someone who want to dismantle the EPA is disturbing. It isn’t an either/or option – one’s stance on the environment is utterly unrelated to one’s stance on the war, as far as I can tell. I have no idea how you see that as a dichotomy. Imagine that – he’s on the same side as most of the American people, he’s on the same side as most of the world. Since when does anyone commend politicians for jumping in front of a bandwagon? It’s what they do, and it’s part of the reason never to trust a politician.
Well, there’s a heck of a lot more information out there since then (look around Sandefur’s new blog, for example ) showing that Paul actively courted racists. While I don’t recall an endorsement from China for Gore, it’s in no way comparable. Gore never published a newsletter praising communism is China. Ron Paul was publishing racist hate for years. Sure, he claims he didn’t know what he was publishing in his newsletter or some tripe like that. But seriously – that’s even more pathetic than Alberto Gonzales’ claim that he didn’t know what was going on in the DOJ.
To top it off, he’s also come out as an evolution denier. Has he started ranting against the Illuminati yet? How is he different from the average internet crackpot? I’m still looking.