If anything were to hurt Paul's ideological revolution, it'd be the racist newsletters published under his name in the 80s. His views on foreign policy and the war on drugs won't die out; they'll be endorsed by mainstream conservatives within two decades. But the newsletters will never get mainstream endorsement (as they shouldn't), and they'll diminish the passion of Paul supporters (as they have).
I still haven't been convinced, though, that Paul is racist. That's what is implied by the stories about the newsletters, but I don't see it. There's no racist language in any of Paul's own speeches or writings. Indeed, he's decried how frequently African Americans are specifically targeted by drug laws, and he rejects any worldview that sticks people into groups. He says stereotypes are bogus because the world is made up of individuals who consistently buck the stereotypes.
He promotes a worldview that claims all human beings are equal:
Regarding the newsletters:
"I was not the editor. I was the publisher. And there were some very bad sentences put in. I did not write those. I did not review them. And that is an error on my part. I don't think anybody in the world has been perfect on management, everybody that's ever worked for them. So, yes, it's a flaw. But I think it's a human flaw. I think it is probably shared by a lot more people than myself." (here)
0 comments:
Post a Comment