No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no way Ron Paul looks good in the wake of his newsletter hullabaloo. Anybody trying to justify or excuse the racist content of his past publications should just quit while they’re slightly less behind.
Let’s examine the possible scenarios:
1) Ron Paul is directly responsible for the racism, and it reflects his exact thoughts. Well, obviously, that wouldn’t be good.
2) Ron Paul didn’t write the racist content. But he did include it in a publication with his own name in the title, which would seem to suggest that he felt it worthy of inclusion even if it didn't reflect his views. People who name things after themselves tend to make sure those things don’t sully their reputation.
3) Ron Paul didn’t adequately vet the content because he was too busy doing leader-type stuff. At best, this means he’s an irresponsible editor. Publishers are charged with ensuring their output meets certain standards of accuracy and fairness. If he didn’t have time to do that, then he should have stepped down. And considering the Washington Post reports that Paul was very hands-on in editing the material — more so than your average publisher, even — this one strikes me as a flat-out lie.
4) Ron Paul included it to attract business. This is the worst one of all. From a pure market standpoint (Paul’s favorite), one can argue that there’s a ton of money in bigotry. Paul apparently proved it, considering the financial windfall that resulted. But fanning the flames of hatred for profit is disgusting. And it’s especially disgusting if you don’t even believe it yourself. In this situation, Paul would have more integrity if he actually was racist. That’s unfortunate.
But hey, he’s against the war, so there’s that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment