James Kirchick’s New Republic piece Angry White Man and its later follow-up, uncovered a number of controversial statements on taboo subjects such as urban crime, South Africa, and Martin Luther King from decades-old copies of Ron Paul’s newsletter. The language in the newsletters is sometimes crude and hyperbolic. Ron Paul has denied writing the letters or having much knowledge about their contents. Most everyone is willing to accept that—particularly if they know how things are done in Washington. But this is not a sufficient answer for TNR—or, significantly, for Paul’s libertarian critics.
As usual the starting point for everyone discussing the newsletter—including Ron Paul himself—is that all the statements contained in it are vile, untrue, and indefensible. Yet a rational, unemotional look at the letter shows that most of the allegedly vile etc. statements are in fact defensible.
This is not to say that these letters are beyond criticism. When dealing with taboo issues, the truth is shocking enough. Whoever wrote these pieces made rational discussion more difficult because their language made it easier to dismiss their content as the product of racist crackpots. And some of the statements—such as repeating the suggestion [PDF] that one should wipe off one’s gun after shooting an urban youth—are simply indefensible.
