Jamie Kirchick says Ron Paul is a homophobe. Andrew Sullivan says he's just ignorant. I was going with confused and evasive until I saw Paul's latest, from a google.com interview:
'Don't ask, don't tell' doesn't sound all that bad to me because as an employer, I've never asked them [employees] anything and I don't want them to tell me anything. ... So I would say that everyone should be treated equally, and they [gays] shouldn't be discriminated against because of that alone. Which means that even though those words aren't offensive to me, that 'Don't ask, don't tell' don't sound so bad to me, I think the way it's enforced is bad. Because, literally, if somebody is a very, very good individual working for our military - and I met one just the other day in my office, who was a translator - and he was kicked out for really no good reason at all. I would want to change that, I don't support that interpretation.
He seems to be opposing the military's DADT policy and anti-gay discrimination. In fact, he seems to favor the closet for everyone in the workplace, not just gays. Maybe he's just weird.
Given his age (72, almost) and party (Republican, sort of), give him some credit for maybe opposing DADT and definitely opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. But rather than psychoanalyzing him, we need to get this guy to be specific. As president, would he support and sign repeal of DADT? Civil unions or federal domestic-partner recognition? Immigration rights for gay couples?
I doubt he's given it much thought. Let's change that.
30 Comments for “More from Planet Paul”
posted by Mad John on
What troubles me most about Paul is his vote for the DC gay adoption ban. There is no libertarian reason I can conceive of for the federal government to prevent peaceful adults from forming whatever kinds of families they desire – and there’s certainly no evidence to suggest gay adoption harms kids. Paul is a principled guy who doesn’t pander, which makes this vote rather inexplicable. Has anyone heard him justify it? Is there a libertarian basis for doing so?
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m not sure just where Paul’s loyalty lies. He certainly seems more principled than the other Republican candidates, but there was no small compromise involved in his having switched from the Libertarian Party to the GOP in the first place. That should have been our first clue that when it comes to realizing his political ambitions, “a man’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.”
The DC adoption matter was, in my opinion, only a further compromise. He has gotten into bed with a party that panders to bigots, and there is simply no easy way around this.
Ron Paul is about as principled, in short, as he can politically afford to be. We will find out what this means, in greater detail, as the campaign season wears on.
posted by Xeno on
What about his rant concerning SCOTUS striking down the anti-sodomy laws still in backwards states?
posted by Craig2 on
From what I’ve read about Paul, he seems to be more a neoconservative than a libertarian on most issues these days…
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Antaeus on
Craig, you need to learn what a neocon is. Ron Paul is definitely more libertarian.
posted by Dale Carpenter on
Why does it matter what Ron Paul thinks? He will not win a single GOP primary, will not break 3% in any contest he enters, and will not be the VP choice of any nominee. I don’t see why we should care how many angels can dance on the head of this libertarian pin.
posted by ETJB on
Ron Paul is often cited as the sole Libertarian in Congress (often by Libertarians).
More likely he is really a conservative who likes to seem ‘trendy’ in certain circles by creating some ‘libertarian buzz’ around his name.
He supported the DC ban, tried to pass a law overturning Lawrence v. Texas.
posted by Mark on
Dale:
If you think any Republican has any more than a slim chance of being elected in 2008, you obviously are not aware of the hatred most Americans have for most Republicans at the moment.
You obviously think your fortune telling abilities are very good. Would you like to bet me $500 that Ron will not get more than 3% in any primary?
Even if Ron does not win, he matters because he is bringing important ideas and issues to this campaign.
posted by bret on
I would love to take Dale up on that bet, too, heh. What sort of odds are we talking here?
I think you have to look at what goes along with gay rights “candidates.” None of the people who fully support such rights are as adamantly, and intelligently, anti-war as Paul. None. War is the single most important issue facing our country. If we can stop the philosophical tendency towards war, we can start making some real progress in the “equal rights” arena as well.
I always like to make the point that it is much, much easier to change a local / state law than a federal one. All of you who seek a federal law, once you concentrate the power at that level, what happens when a rogue government gains control (cf Bush/Cheney) and abuses that power in the opposite direction? What then? That is why libertarians favor decentralization over centralization.
posted by Mark on
Paul isn’t perfect by any stretch, but I’d trust him with power more than I would just about anyone else running for office. As incomprehensible as it may seem, Generational differences probably account for quite a bit of Paul’s language and beliefs. But for all of that, I think he’s a hell of a lot more progressive on the issues than I’d ever dream someone his age would be. Remember, 50 years ago, when he was 21, he was becoming a young adult where communism was the great fear, where Homophobia and Racism was rampant and segregation was the way of life in the United States.
I won’t say give him a pass, but try to be understanding of the person. Then compare what he would do to other candidates and decide if he fits what you want better than the others. Because I promise you, no candidate is going to fit what you want, unless you decide to run and vote for yourself. 🙂
posted by Tim Hulsey on
If you think any Republican has any more than a slim chance of being elected in 2008, you obviously are not aware of the hatred most Americans have for most Republicans at the moment.
That would depend on whether Hillary is the Democratic nominee.
posted by Jeff on
The DC ban was to end federal funding which is inline with his principles. Same with Lawrence vs Texas where he thinks states can be as progressive or conservative as they want to be. This is why he’d probably be against Federal domestic partnerships, since he probably figures the feds should not be involved in any marriage benefits or rights in the first place.
posted by grendel on
“The DC ban was to end federal funding which is inline with his principles.”
but wait — isn’t DC a “federal district”? One would think even a libertarian would support federal funding for a federal district. But I guess not.
I wonder. Has he voted against all federal funding for DC? If not, on what basis does he pick and choose?
posted by ETJB on
Well, Dennis K. is certainly supportive of equal rights and anti-war. Yet, he and Ron Paul have zero chance of winning their respective party primaries.
Again, he supported a law that effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children in D.C.
Again, he felt that states should be able to lock up every gay person they can find.
Even deny them the right to vote.
These positions are certainly NOT libertarian. Period. They may be conservative, but his libertarian label is more flash then substance when it comes to many social issues.
posted by Lori Heine on
I have to agree with ETJB on this.
Libertarians certainly do believe in states’ rights, but they do not believe in the right of the states to tyrannize. As a matter of fact, genuine libertarians oppose the abuse of power at all levels.
If Ron Paul believes that states or municipalities have the right to discriminate against or to persecute gays, then he is no libertarian. The idea that libertarians ought to plant a gold star in his forehead simply because he doesn’t think the federal government ought to do those things is absurd.
posted by FatDrunkAndStupid on
Lori,
I think you’re missing the point a bit. It’s true that a Libertarian Constitutionalist (which probably best describes Paul) would not be for state discrimination at either the State or Federal Level, but what you have to remember is that Paul isn’t a State Official. Just because he doesn’t think the Federal Government has the power under the Constitution to prevent certain kinds of discrimination by the states doesn’t mean he supports discrimination by the states. That’s what is so unique about Paul. Principle matters very much to him. He’s not going to support the right result gotten the wrong way. That’s why he opposed NAFTA even though he is a staunch advocate of free trade.
posted by Gee on
Lori wrote of Paul, “there was no small compromise involved in his having switched from the Libertarian Party to the GOP in the first place”.
This is a very ignorant statement, as the GOP has *hated* Paul for decades; not only does the GOP not support his campaigns, but they actually run and fund primary challengers to an incumbent Paul.
Paul has been a vocal opponent of the Drug War, all corporate welfare, a bloated, interventionist military offense, and a fervent supporter of privacy rights and civil liberties for decades; there’s not one iota of “GOP compromise” in his record.
posted by Lori Heine on
“This is a very ignorant statement, as the GOP has *hated* Paul for decades; not only does the GOP not support his campaigns, but they actually run and fund primary challengers to an incumbent Paul.”
Okay, Gee, so the money question: Then why the hell is Paul a Republican?
The only way to make the Libertarian Party a viable political party, capable of fielding contenders for high public office, is by running Libertarians and voting for them. Period. If he’s a libertarian, then he should stand with the Libertarian Party.
There is more than a whiff of dishonesty in all these rhetorical gymnastics about Ron Paul. I never claimed he had a horrible voting record on every issue. But by joining the Republican Party, he has indeed placed himself in a position to compromise on any issue he chooses. He does, indeed, seem to have done so on gay issues. And the explanations he gives for this — when he bothers to give them at all — are double-talk.
Trying to tell me that isn’t so simply because the Republicans hate him is nonsense.
The presidency is a bully pulpit. How he WOULD treat gays — whether or not, as chief executive, he’d get the chance to — is the real issue here. His stand on gay issues is much more than symbolic. And once he declared himself a presidential candidate, he had an obligation to answer questions about where he stands toward gays.
Telling us he is going to harm us because he’ll be a federal official and doesn’t believe in federal legislation on gay issues is a punt. He’s merely dodging the issue, and we’re letting him get away with it.
If my neighbor has a pack of pit bulls that would maul me to death if it got the chance, the fact that it won’t as long as they keep it under lock and key is small comfort.
What I hear Ron Paul saying is “I really don’t like gays at all, but don’t worry. As president, I won’t be able to get at ’em because I believe — because of my lofty, principled politics — that they should be out of my reach.”
What a crock.
We have every right to ask him a few simple questions, and to expect a few direct answers.
posted by Bobby on
Lori, you know well that libertarians are disliked by the left for their hatred of big government and disliked by the right for their hatred of war, support of drugs, etc. Is it any wonder Ron Paul has to join forces with republicans?
posted by Lori Heine on
“Is it any wonder Ron Paul has to join forces with republicans?”
If he’s joining forces with them to help change their party for the better (which, according to his own professed principles, would be a more libertarian direction), then I’m all for it.
I just wonder whether that’s what he’s doing. In some ways it looks like it. In at least one other way, it does not.
If (for the sake of argument) Paul really did happen to win the White House, he would be — as every president has been — the putative leader of his party. That would be a fact of his having been elected, whether every other Republican in the world liked him or not. And again, the presidency is a bully pulpit. He can, and will, send a strong signal to the states and municipalities about how he feels government should relate to gays.
Whether he means it or not, many of the more-reactionary members of his party are liable to hear what he’s said about gays as, “It may be hands off for me, but as for you, sic ’em!”
Regardless of what Paul might intend once he gets into office (saying again, for the sake of argument, that he somehow did), he will find that the office is bigger than he is. His politics are very different from those of Dubya the Boy Emperor, but Bush has pumped the office up into something that would have given the Founders nightmares.
Paul, should he become president, will inherit all the history that goes along with it.
posted by quo on
Lori,
If a man is a real libertarian, he ought to avoid the Libertarian Party like the plaque – it is a phoney, opportunistic, pseudo-libertarian organization.
For that matter, if a man is a real libertarian, he should be advocating revolution to overthrow the US government, not running for President.
posted by jeff on
“I doubt he’s given it much thought.”
Heh. Suprisingly, it seems like he’s thought about every issue…
His take would be that the sexual orientation of someone has no bearing on whether they should be in the military. He thinks the military also shouldn’t ask.
As for things like gay marriages he’s against a law for them, but actually isn’t against them. He’s against the government recognizing /hetereo/sexual marriage too! Basically, he doesn’t think the federal government should have any business dealing with marriages at all.
Of course, for him a free society would also permit private discrimination as well (at least at the federal level).
posted by jeff on
Oh, and see the Q&A section of his visit to Google where this issue is asked directly.
posted by Brian Miller on
Jamie’s interview with fake-libertarian Ron Paul was excellent. It would have been even better if he had asked Ron Paul why, if he believes that government marriage licenses are an abomination, he’s legally married to his wife Carol. After all, he could have been married in the “eyes of God” and not the eyes of the government — lots of gays do that today.
It wouldn’t be that his “get government out of marriage” schtick is yet another hypocritical fig leaf for his idiotic appeals to homophobia, would it?
Oh, of course not. . .
posted by Brian Miller on
He certainly seems more principled than the other Republican candidates, but there was no small compromise involved in his having switched from the Libertarian Party to the GOP in the first place.
Lori, he never “switched from the LP” in the first place. He was always a Republican. He became the LP candidate 20 years ago in order to raise money for his congressional campaign, but remained a Republican party member during his LP candidacy.
His LP “membership” is a $2,000 “life” membership.
He scammed the dimmer right-wing of the LP 20 years ago by taking their contributions for his presidential run and using it for his congressional run, and lo and behold, here he is doing it again! And the dim right wing in the LP is rushing to back him yet again, happily handing him $2 million to ensure another unchallenged couple of years in Congress and a rich retirement.
The worst thing of all is how easily conned they are, and how they defend him as ardently as any fundamentalist defends a far-right candidate. Fortunately, the LP mainstream sees through him and I’m looking forward to an excellent campaign in 2008 long after Ron Paul plays PT Barnum to the LP’s right.
The other benefit of this is ensuring that the LP candidate is a solidly progressive Libertarian who holds true LP values — while the right gives away all its money to Ron Paul, the LP progressives can spend our money on the actual campaign in 2008. That means the LP candidate will be strongly pro-gay (again), and strongly pro-liberty (again).
posted by Gee on
Lori wrote:
> Okay, Gee, so the money question: Then why the hell is Paul a Republican?
For the same reason that many libertarians run as Democrats or Republicans – to have a chance at winning in a system rigged against third parties.
> The only way to make the Libertarian Party a viable political party, capable of fielding contenders for high public office, is by running Libertarians and voting for them. Period.
No, that’s essential, but not the the only way. It’s also essential that libertarian ideas get heard, and Paul is more than doing his part at achieving that.
> If he’s a libertarian, then he should stand with the Libertarian Party.
He does – he’s a member. He did – he was the LP presidential nominee in ’88. And in about a year, he just may be again.
> But by joining the Republican Party, he has indeed placed himself in a position to compromise on any issue he chooses.
True, but so what? EVERY politician is “in a position to compromise”. That’s different than your original contention that he’s ALREADY compromised.
> He does, indeed, seem to have done so on gay issues.
I disagree. That’s just his way. Look, I also cringe when Paul too-often resorts to his “that’s not a Federal issue” mantra. I wish he’d provide his take on an issue more frequently regardless of whether it should fall under state or local domain, but he does this, at times, on a host of issues, not just on gay rights, so I’m convinced it’s an expression of principle on his part, not pandering/dodging.
> We have every right to ask him a few simple questions, and to expect a few direct answers.
True.
posted by Brian Miller on
why the hell is Paul a Republican
Because he *is* a Republican.
It’s also essential that libertarian ideas get heard, and Paul is more than doing his part at achieving that.
This contention is being tossed around left and right (pun intended) — but whenever I ask “how,” the answers are light on substance.
Some mention the war opposition — but that would mean that Dennis Kucinich is a “libertarian” by that standard.
And most of the rest of Paul’s agenda — declaring wombs to be federal property, sealing the borders, curtailing immigration, increasing import tariffs, and reinstating sodomy laws — are classic right-wing Republican boilerplate.
There’s nothing “libertarian” there, I’m afraid.
I also cringe when Paul too-often resorts to his “that’s not a Federal issue” mantra. I wish he’d provide his take on an issue more frequently regardless of whether it should fall under state or local domain
Oh, but he has!
His whole “that’s a state issue” thing is quite inconsistent — especially on gay stuff and women’s issues. He loves federalizing in those situations, and has a 10 year history of floor speeches in Congress to prove it.
He’s not even a “libertarian of convenience” — he’s trading on his faux-lib cred to con a few of his True Believers out of a little extra dough.
His campaign is literally meaningless — his base of support is smaller than Badnarik’s election totals in 2004, and since he’s only got a libertarian view on an extremely small subset of issues, he no more advancing “non-LP libertarianism” than are Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton, or Rudy Guiliani (who hold a proportion of “libertarian” views that are quite similar to Dr. Paul’s).
posted by Lori Heine on
I pretty much agree with everything Brian has to say on this. Although I have not yet made up my mind who I will vote for (I think it’s still WAY too early), I remain deeply skeptical of Ron Paul. I still don’t understand why so many libertarians are swooning over him.
“EVERY politician is ‘in a position to compromise’. That’s different than your original contention that he’s ALREADY compromised.
Gee, no it really isn’t. He has compromised already, so we can certainly expect more of it to come.
I guess part of my disagreement with many other people on the issue of voting for third-party candidates and “dark horses” is that I don’t see an election as a horse race at all.
Elections are the means by which we make our voices heard. Does that happen only when we win? Certainly not. After every election, the votes cast are tabulated, studied, analyzed and interpreted by a wide variety of different groups. Our votes do count — in more ways than we realize.
People who don’t realize this should go live in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while. Maybe then they’d appreciate just what we have here. For all its flaws, it’s certainly far better than not only what anybody else in the world has today, but what anybody else has known throughout history.
As for the flaws, we are still the owners of this country. Maybe we should assume the responsibilities that go along with that ownership and work to make the system better.
In my opinion, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote by the powerless. It would be a vote not of hope, but of resignation.
posted by ETJB on
I hate to burst anyone’s bubble, but American elections (esp. presidential) are not, “the means by which we make our voices heard.”
American Elections (esp. presidential Elections) are a choice between two viable candidates. Period.
Candidates do not really care about ‘the voice of the people.’ If they win, they do not care how large/small their actual mandate is. If they dont win, then no one really cares what they think.
“People who don’t realize this should go live in Iraq or Afghanistan for a while.”
A poor argument. (1) Both of these nations have very different (and young) electoral systems. (2) Both of these nations are involved in their own civil war.
“Maybe then they’d appreciate just what we have here.”
Another poor argument. (1) In some respects both of these two nations offer more political freedom then in the US of A. (2) I actually grew up in the Middle East. (3) You rabble.
Americans have one of the worst electoral systems in the world, when you actually compare us to other developed democratic nations.
We have no right to vote or be a candidate. Discrimination/disenfranchisement against voters and political parties is commonplace.
“Maybe we should assume the responsibilities that go along with that ownership and work to make the system better.”
I would certainly agree. However, too few Americans are involved in serious campaign law reform. They bitch or dont bitch. They toss away their vote on a third party candidate or don’t vote. etc.
“A vote for Ron Paul is a vote by the powerless.”
Primary and General elections are two different things. Paul is basically a tv preacher and rainmaker with a little bit of a phone-sex operator.
posted by Lori Heine on
As I asserted in my previous post, a great deal of study and analysis goes into deciphering the results of every election. If there is, indeed, a surge in the third-party vote, for that very reason it does, indeed, register with the political operatives.
Ironically, it has been the growth of government that has taken small money and small players out of politics. Only the big boys can afford to play now, and the stakes are so high they’re certainly going to.
Nothing but a turn to a more libertarian philosophy of government is ever going to change that. Hand-wringing certainly won’t.
I say a vote for Paul is a bad thing because it drags down the standards of libertarians. Paul is a compromise in every sense of the word. He’s a Republican, who’ll roll in the hay with the extreme Right every chance he gets. If he can make a few libertarian noises out of one side of his mouth and fool everybody, then indeed our standards have fallen.