Ron Paul's racist kook past

I'd been somewhat enthusiastic about Ron Paul's candidacy because of his stances on the war, on abortion and on immigration, but I never managed to work up much enthusiasm for his campaign. Mostly, I think, because I knew he'd never win, but also because every now and then he'd start talking about the gold standard or some fringe thing, and I'd think, "Uhh, yeah, he's really ... out there."

Well, apparently I didn't know how far out there. Jamie Kirchick's piece in the New Republic is utterly devastating. He's been going over newsletters Paul put out as recently as the 1990s to supporters, and they're cesspits of racism, anti-Semitism, gay-hatred and paranoia. The pieces aren't bylined, and I find it very hard to believe that Ron Paul believes all this stuff, or even most of it.

Nevertheless, libertarian Paul supporter Radley Balko writes:

Like Nick Gillespie, I think the most disappointing thing about all of this is what Dave Weigel posted this afternoon from New Hampshire: Paul doesn't consider this worthy of a serious reaction. I was hoping for much, much more. If Paul didn't write these screeds, he should tell us who did, or assign someone from the campaign to do some research, and reveal the authors' identity. He should explain his relationship with the authors, and how it is they came to write for a newsletter that went out under his name. He should acknowledge which of these positions he at one time supported but now repudiates, which he has never supported, and which he still supports. If he's going to claim he merely lent his name to some people and causes he shouldn't have, and with whom he didn't at the time or doesn't now agree, he should say so, and explain how he could let a newsletter continue to be published under his name after first, fifth, tenth, or twentieth time it ran something he found offensive. Like Kirchick, I find the prospect that Paul never read the newsletter implausible.

Me too. I never had a lot invested in Paul, so this is no big blow to me. But political thinkers whose work I like and respect -- Andrew Sullivan and Daniel Larison come to mind -- really have had, and this has got to be a blow to them. And even for a nominal Paul supporter like me, it's a real disappointment because his ideas ought to be a bigger part of the mainstream conversation on the Right. As Balko writes:

Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association.