Skip to content

Why Blacks Should Think Twice About Supporting Ron Paul

October 4, 2007


By Thought Merchant

I have to admit, I was excited about the Ron Paul campaign. Now many African Americans who cannot fathom the idea of watching a Republican debate, no less voting for one of their candidates might be asking: 1) Who is Ron Paul; and 2) Why would any person of Color think about voting for him, or any of the other Republican candidates for that matter? Those who ask that question probably have not been surfing the Internet or watching Youtube, because Ron Paul by far is the hottest candidate in cyberspace.

Congressman Ron Paul from Texas is attractive basically for the following reasons: he is the only Republican candidate who is strongly against the war, strongly against the Bush administration’s foreign policy, and strongly against the Constitutional encroachments caused by the War on Terror.

Ron Paul goes farther than even any of the major Democratic candidates in voicing his desire to bring home the troops, revoke the Patriot Act, stop extraordinary renditions, and close Guantanamo Bay. While Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Edwards cannot guarantee that they would bring home the troops by 2013 if elected President, Ron Paul unabashedly calls for immediate withdrawal and return of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Sounds good so far, right? So what’s the problem? The problem is that Ron Paul is also a libertarian ideologue, as was Barry Goldwater–remember him? Libertarianism as a philosphy states that the  least amount government is the best amount government. Within the confines of quaint ideological discourse that might be fine, but when it comes to African Americans, that philosophy is problematic. I’m not referring to the perceived dependence by poor Blacks on social program like Welfare and subsidized housing, though Libertarians oppose these on ideological grounds as well. Blacks need to worry about Ron Paul and his Libertarian ideas for other reasons.

When Congress celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ron Paul was the only U.S. congressman to vote no.

A quote from Congressman Ron Paul summarizes his opposition:

“I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.”

This sounds like language you might have heard from Strom Thurmond in the 1940’s. Yet in 2004 this is how Ron Paul described the Civil Rights act of 1964, which gave legal protection to Blacks against discrimination in the workplace and in private facilities that depended on the public thoroughfares.

This is why Blacks should think twice about supporting Ron Paul. His narrow ideological adherence to Libertarian philosophy denies the racial reality that African Americans have faced in this country since its inception–racism. Libertarianism assumes that when left to their own devices, people will act rationally and make the best decisions, minus government intervention. Libertarians fail to realize that in America, racism has often been viewed as the most rational of behaviors to exhibit, especially when the government has sat silent and allowed it to happen. The question is, does Ron Paul think the government should allow racism to happen as well.


57 Comments leave one →
  1. October 4, 2007 10:18 am

    So in other words you would rather have a system that tells people how to act? How about one that continues to cause massive inflation that slaughters poor people in the country. Racism draws itself its greatest soldiers when you tell people that others are different. I am tired of seeing laws that draw racial boundaries, not to mention schools, groups, organizations, companies, and many other areas where it is ok to be all black but if that happened on the other side of the race fence there would be lawsuits, protests, and government intervention. And the statement that racism is drawn from the intelligent people of the country is…well.. not so much the word. Racism is from ignorance and fear. I find that you would rather have a government stepping in and doing a poor job of making sure people are treated equal. But I would like to see how blacks in the country don’t think segregation causes racism either, cause all the schools and NAACP only backing up blacks and always demonizing whites is a counterproductive way to handle this. I have yet to see the NAACP apologize for going after those Duke students before they where in court. Remember that? They found out she was lying and so many people jumped the gun on that it was stupid. Just think there is way to much handouts and letting people get reliant on the government and not enough action to clean the areas up and lifting those places out of poverty. Plus I hate the fact that every time I hear anything about the poor, it is always directed towards the black community. I guess all whites are born with a silver spoon.

  2. October 4, 2007 11:42 am

    You have outlined well why I’d never support Paul. As a Black person, I don’t have the ‘ luxury’ for his ideological purity. I’d still be in the back of the bus drinking from ‘Colored Only’ water fountains. Supporting the Civil Rights Act is a basic for me. One of those non-negotiables.

  3. October 4, 2007 11:42 am

    Racism is from ignorance and fear.

    So what would you call someone who is neither ignorant nor fearful but hates Black people?

    Your definitions are incorrect.

  4. October 4, 2007 12:36 pm

    Hello…..Ron Paul believe that “ALL men are created EQUAL” and therefore don’t need laws that actually threat them other than EQUAL. You are nothing but a race baiter. We have had enough of your kind creating fear were there shouldn’t be.
    No one explains Dr. Paul better than Dr. Paul. Check what he has to say at the on race and government

  5. Scott permalink
    October 4, 2007 12:46 pm

    I have to agree with others here. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution gaurantee the rights and freedoms of all people. The segregation of the 50s and 60s was a violation of these principles, and so could have been addressed as such.

  6. Hotchney permalink
    October 4, 2007 12:47 pm

    I’m sorry, but I think we’re beyond a point where government can solve race problems. While yes, his ideological purity would have inhibited the civil rights movement back in the day, now his ideas can only further the promotion of civil rights. Ron Paul’s economic policies and positions on the war on drugs would do much for the black community. You position would have been relevant in 1964. It is no longer. We need to end collectivism, that is the next step. Ron Paul will take us there.

  7. Michael permalink
    October 4, 2007 1:09 pm

    Ron Paul is the individuals best friend. Regardless of race, gender or sexual preference. He tries to remind us all that following a fundamental principal that everyone is equal and has inalienable rights. When you bypass this fundamental principal and grant one group more privileges than the other, while, it may “Feel good” it actually does more harm than good (at least in the long run). Collective groups in any fashion is a form of segregation and prejudice.

    Right now we can see the many problems these government programs cause to one race or another.

    Welfare programs – Are designed to help people get back on their feet. It is not a retirement program. These programs are great if you use the money as it’s intended. The people that stay on Welfare for extended periods of time are less likely to get a better paying job or furthering their lives.

    War on Drugs – Was designed to stamp out drug use, especially in our children. Now it imprisons a strong majority of African Americans for drug violations. Some of them on the 3 strikes rule and are in for life.

    Department of Education – Without choice the people in the inner cities are forced to go to the local public school. If that school is not up to standard, there is not much choice for the parents. If there was a choice, with a voucher system the parent would have the choice to place their children in the public schools or in a private school. This actually promotes race integration.

    Now, I could go on all day about things like this. However, I hope that it gives everyone a different perspective. Imagine a day where it didn’t matter what you were, other than an individual with the same rights as your brother, mother and neighbor. Ron Paul is trying to level the playing field, even though they may seem scary, they are fundamental to our Constitution. The same Constitution that preserves our inalienable rights. Unfortunately, we have chipped away at those rights for a long time.

  8. October 4, 2007 1:10 pm

    True Ron Paul supporters have an idealistic vision about the nature of race relations in America. Liberty alone will not end something as irrational as racism. Certain human actions are so abhorrent they require state intervention to discourage. Racism in practice is a perfect example of such action.

  9. John Coffee permalink
    October 4, 2007 1:18 pm

    Hurray for the NAACP!!! What don’t need less government on equality. We need MORE!
    MOST minorities have rights and tax incentives to those whom hire them. We need to give this to ALL minorities!!!

    All the Hillbilly-redneck types need to have gov. sponsored rights, tax incentives for hiring a hillbillie!!!
    All the GAY types need to have gov. sponsored rights, tax incentives for hiring a GAY!!! (Can we give special rights to women who swallow too? Special rights for ALL sexual preferences!!!)
    Let’s not forget non English speakers!!! All the non English speaking types need to have gov. sponsored rights, tax incentives for hiring a non English speaking Americans!!!
    If I’ve left your SPECIAL group out of this list, feel free to add it. We want ALL the SPECIAL groups to be equal, including…
    All the White Males need to have gov. sponsored rights, tax incentives for hiring a White Male!!!

    Now that we ALL have special rights, ain’t that special…and ain’t THAT fair?

  10. Lawana permalink
    October 4, 2007 1:30 pm

    I never thought I’d see the day. The author is saying black’s shouldn’t vote for Ron Paul because he isn’t a racist and would treat you as Americans, not a “special” group.


    Thanks for the advice, pal. Was worth every cent I paid.

  11. Jason permalink
    October 4, 2007 1:35 pm

    Government CAUSES these problems, it does not help them. You cannot fight racism with force, only cultural change.

  12. Billy permalink
    October 4, 2007 1:41 pm

    This government has many, many ways to force compromise, and once in a while someone slips through the cracks who just won’t budge. This 40th anniversary zippidydooda is a perfect example of gun-to-the-head diplomacy of forced diminished integrity that Paul refused to participate in. Making sure Black Americans had opportunities and better lives never required massive welfare and democracy at gun point. If they would have followed sound monetary practice and controlled immigration to maintain a slight shortage of labor the economy would have needed black workers and would have had to pay them well. -Instead we had raised taxes to support a welfare society that destroyed the family unit in the Black community. Affirmative action to compete against immigration instead of it’s absence and yellow bus equality to “integrate” a society that 45 years later doesn’t look so integrated to me. Paul’s got guts to stick up for common sense in a world of “look at me” charity-at-the-expense-of-others grandstanding. If you don’t want a free society and an economy that works, don’t vote for the Doctor. After all, Blacks are doing great these days, right?

  13. October 4, 2007 2:01 pm

    This 40th anniversary zippidydooda is a perfect example of gun-to-the-head diplomacy of forced diminished integrity that Paul refused to participate in. Making sure Black Americans had opportunities and better lives never required massive welfare and democracy at gun point.

    Did Ron Paul could denounce the recent anniversary of the integration of the Little Rock school system as well? That school integration to be done at gun point so I guess it’s bad to white people like our libertarian friends; like the the white racists of Little Rock they figure the deaths of a few black children is a small price to pay in order to protect their “right” to all white schools.

    There’s not much point in arguing with these Ron Paul supporters as they’re single issue fanatics. They are willing to ignore the entire history and context of American race relations and history in order to make their completely unsupported, hypothetical arguments about what woulda, shoulda, coulda worked better if their fellow crackpots were in charge. Sad, really.

  14. Michael permalink
    October 4, 2007 2:40 pm

    How did England deal with racial integration? Can someone inform me please?

  15. Tribal permalink
    October 4, 2007 3:09 pm

    They dont really have a lot of black people there and you can’t make a comparison between England and USA.
    Too many differences to be conclusive.

  16. William permalink
    October 4, 2007 3:16 pm

    Affirmative action laws make a false affirmation:
    Human beings, who are “different” from “normal” human beings, should be treated differently.
    That affirmation perpetuates racism and collectivism; discrimination is a direct result of both conditions.

  17. Michael permalink
    October 4, 2007 3:38 pm

    The status quo in politics is what is eroding the rights of people in the US. There is a cause and effect relationship with every regulation, tax, prohibition etc…Although, it may seem like it’s “doing good”, we don’t see the consequences of these things. Here are a couple of things that typically keep lower & middle class people stuck where they are.

    – Income Tax (If you rent, or don’t have kids, you are taxed very heavily)
    – Capital Gains Tax (If you save all of your life and put money in a investment fund, it gets taxed heavily)
    – Inflation (Have you compared the average income and the average price of a home lately?)
    – Minimum wage (why pay minimum wage when you can hire a illegal immigrant for half?)
    – War on drugs (Hopefully self explanitory)
    – Military recruitment (They target lower income people for military service, the good = college, the bad = you could die in an unconstitutional war)
    – Welfare (Typically doesn’t provide incentive to get out of the system, especially with inflation, taxes and house prices)
    – Health Care (Managed health care is a government sponsored monopoly, increasing costs, patient options and fixes prices)
    – FDA (restricts many known pharmaceuticals from entering the market and keeps drug costs artificially high)
    – Social Security (designed for retirement, the money is being spent on other things and the money you will end up getting after inflation is almost nothing)

    All of these things keep most people down, regardless of race. The problem is the people that are already on the ropes will have almost zero chance to break out. Even though all of these programs are designed to help them.

  18. tejón permalink
    October 4, 2007 3:42 pm

    “There’s not much point in arguing with these Ron Paul supporters as they’re single issue fanatics.”

    I have never seen a more perfect example of the fence calling the bedsheet white.

  19. October 4, 2007 4:29 pm

    Yes, all black people should vote the same way because their skin is of similar color. Tell me that’s not racist. As long as “black people” blindly give their vote to Democrats there’s no reason for Republicans or Democrats to even bother considering them when they campaign and are in office. Ron Paul didn’t support some meaningless anniversary celebration and that’s your big reason for not supporting one of the only candidates who would end the racist Drug War and end the War in Iraq which is being fought primarily by the poor and minorities of this country who join the army as a means of upward mobility. In sum, you are a joke.

  20. Michael permalink
    October 4, 2007 6:12 pm

    Illegal immigrants are the new blacks. They are the slave labor force in the shadows of American business. The civil rights movement is over and African Americans have won. They have claimed the #1 spot in daytime talk shows, music charts, comedey, Nobel prizes, research, etc, etc… It is now time for us all to demand a level playing field based on merit, not race, gender, religion, or collusion. Unfortunately the field is sinking into debt as we wage war around the world and play political games with money and business. It is time for us to finally achieve the system that the founding fathers were afraid to enact: A constitutional government that gives ALL of us the freedom to succeed. Your fear of success is indicated by your racist view that you need extra rights over the rest of us. You don’t have to sit on the back of the bus or fight to have the right to go to college and can really run for President. It is time to actually fix the problems that may afflict blacks more, such as ending the war on drugs, encouraging academics over sports, firing corrupt individuals working for the government.

    BTW, my ancestors were treated worse than yours when they were hunted for sport and forced to march until death on the trail of tears.

  21. October 4, 2007 6:51 pm

    How about those extra 200 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow that Black people got instead of those “extra rights” you claim we are asking for?
    Your perception that racism is over and everything is OK demonstrates much of the facile naivite of the Ron Paul supporters. Racism, in all its irrational manifestations, is a regular part of American society. Libertarians DO NOT have the answer for it. Those “founding fathers” had all the answers, while at the same time many of them were getting rich of off slave labor.

  22. Jared permalink
    October 4, 2007 7:25 pm

    I have a question I’ve wanted answered for sometime from our fellow African-AMERICANS (we are all Americans after all and open dialog is a wonderful thing), what do you feel should be the next step? Or are you happy with how everything has turned out and the path it is on? Serious, non-sarcastic question from a fellow seeker of truth, opinions, and open-mindedness (if that is a word).

    I am a fervent Ron Paul supporter and have always thought of his race-relations view are like his views of most things, the states can take care of it. The nation is too big and diverse to say, what is working in California will work in Mississippi. You mention Goldwater and while he was against the same thing he was one of the people fighting for ending segregation in the Arizona National Guard.

    To many, Mr. Goldwater was a man of contradictions. He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard. But he also voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, contending that it was unconstitutional, and he backed restrictive amendments to earlier civil rights legislation. Blacks voted overwhelmingly against him in 1964.

    That all being said, an Obama-Paul match-up would have me absolutely giddy…as I was backing Obama until I saw Paul on the first debate and was floored (the war is my main issue).

  23. Jared permalink
    October 4, 2007 7:37 pm

    Michael and thoughtmerchant, I don’t think we need to be arguing over who’s people got a more raw deal from my people, they were both pretty damn ghastly periods in our time. Which does bring another point and question (I just thought of this and it might be the conspiracy theorist in me asking), do you believe the Civil Rights movement was done because of a sudden an honest change of heart after thousands of years of us white people (still) using every other race for our own imperial and economic advantages or has there always been some underlying plan…I’m not sure how to say this because the Civil Rights movement certainly has done much good, but living in San Francisco I see many problems that the War on Drugs and things like public housing projects have, I feel, brought upon the black community…that we get to look like good guys while still being able to keep our thumb on the community?

    Sorry for the rambling, I get typing and new thoughts start flying through my cranium…

  24. October 4, 2007 7:45 pm

    tejon writes: “I have never seen a more perfect example of the fence calling the bedsheet white.”

    I would be careful about making assumptions about my politics. You seem to be suggesting that I find Ron Paul supporters a bore because I’ve got a bee in my bonnet about race, but you know as much about my politics as you know about how race has operated throughout US history.

    There are lots of quite serious and thoughtful libertarians in the world, but the arguments from the anonymous posters in this thread strike me as the kind of aggressive, pointless rhetorical posturing you get from (admittedly brainy) undergraduate boys flush from their first orgasm to – i mean reading of! – Ayn Rand. The fact is that Ron Paul supporters don’t give a flying a fuck about the health of the black community, this is just a stalking horse allowing them to maintain conservative bona fides by giving the Negroes the what for. I said that there was no point in arguing with these people because they’re politics is essentially an arrested form of adolescent narcissim, and of course, who should chime but but Michael comment about how he has the biggest oppression penis. (“BTW, my ancestors were treated worse than yours when they were hunted for sport and forced to march until death on the trail of tears.”) But it back in your pants, dude. No body cares.

    The sonorous, yet mediocre vagueness of the arguments being made (“Affirmative action laws make a false affirmation:
    Human beings, who are “different” from “normal” human beings, should be treated differently.
    That affirmation perpetuates racism and collectivism; discrimination is a direct result of both conditions.”) indicates that these are largely rhetorical exercises as opposed to legal, constitutional or political propositions. The paulites live in a kind of ahistorical fantasyland untroubled by facts. They either don’t care or don’t have a no clue that the civil rights consensus that they’re shitting on is the imperfect but legitimate reflection of a centuries long and bloody struggle for self-determination by African Americans. These are self-owing people who were far from the rube victims of collectivism that populate paulite/libertarian fantasy.

    Don’t get me wrong: The “Doctor” as you like to call him (talk about cult of non-personality!) is a refreshing curiosity, but just because he’s right about Iraq doesn’t make him right about everything.

  25. October 4, 2007 9:12 pm

    We are borrowing 3 million dollars a day from China, we have no choice but to produce money from thin air.

    We have the most government on our backs than ever before- whether its the “war” on drugs, department of education, or homeland “security.”

    We were spending 60 BILLION DOLLARS on security pre-9/11, we had reports of AlQaeda’s plans to use air planes as weapons in major cities, we had reports of Saudi’s learning to fly planes with no plan of landing knowledge!!! We had all the information we needed, and out of fear we decide to add a gigantic level of B.S (Homeland Security) and send our troops all over the world conquering “EVIL.”

    Dr. Paul is the only one who ACTIVELY and STRONGLY has been fighting against the Wilsonian/Neo Conservative notion that our innocent and more often than not, poorer people are considered “expendable” resources, how much longer do you suggest we actively engage in this war against the invisible enemy?

    Ron Paul unlike Hillary who voted for the war, and the rest of the “anti”-war democrats, he actually would get the troops out… The latest the Democrats could come up with was 2012?!!???? That is anti-war? 2012?!

    Yet you are more worried about Affirmative Action and having Washington decide how your state should run all of its affairs.

    How do you think eliminating the I.R.S would help black and poor people regardless of race?!

    In Iraq alone 17,000 Blacks have been wounded, since March of 03 at least 235 black women and men have died.

    Now we have a pre-emptive strike on the table against IRAN, which includes a NUCLEAR FIRST STRIKE, yet you will not support the only man who will change our future because ?!?! You are afraid that the states will become segregated against once Washington takes there strangle hold off them?

    With liberty comes prosperity and with a free and equal America we will all benefit no matter what religion, race or sex.

    I think you are doing an injustice to not only black Americans but to Americans across the board, and should be ashamed of yourself.

  26. October 4, 2007 9:13 pm

    3 Billion a day from the chinese, Im sorry for the mistake.

  27. Michael permalink
    October 5, 2007 5:07 am

    I feel sorry for you. I am an optimist and try to make the world a better place and don’t feel that I need to take rights from others. Some minorities think it is OK to be racist because they are a minority. But that does not make it right. It is ALWAYS wrong. And taking from one group to give to another based on race is also racist.

    You don’t live in the same world as your parents! You have it easy compared to them.

  28. October 5, 2007 6:29 am

    what rights have you had taken away? what concrete rights?

    better yet….when was the last time the market was actually free in the theoretical sense?

  29. October 5, 2007 8:05 am

    I understand you points sir, but I must reply that the government did not sit by and do nothing. The government sanctioned and enforced slavery (remember those federal marshall’s that could pick up any Black man and give him to any white man and send him back South?), Jim Crow (“back of the bus” was the State Law), military segregation and discriminatory job assignments (again Military Code), murder-rape-theft (local and state police ignoring crimes commited by white men and charging Black men for crimes they did not commit–and let’s not forget writing laws that were just plain immoral and unjust), educational malfeasance (giving Black childrenoutdated and racist propaganda books, supplies, schools), and more. The government did not DO nothing. I would say that the government did more harm to Blacks and Indians –many of whom are the same people–than the private sector.

    And I am a Black woman–whatever that is.

  30. October 5, 2007 8:18 am

    So, the point is that the government should get out of the business of putting poeple into classes based on race, gender, etc. That has been the problem since the beginning. Treat each of us like an American–period–equally. Things are different today–if Mr. Jim Crow does not want to serve me in his restaurant, there are PLENTY of chain restaurants, hotels, that will. Actually MANY privately owned businesses FIND ways to descriminate with strange billing policies, credit requirements–some of which is determined by factors greatly related to race–etc. And necessity is the mother of ingenius. Where are all the Black-owned restaurants, stores, grocers, hotels, theaters, taxi services, dress shops, family doctors, thriving private Black schools and colleges. They are a rarity. We are consumers mostly in establishments that really don’t want our money.

    I support Ron Paul 100%–and like he said–if we could get equal justice and fair and equal access to the courts, sound money, home schooling and choice vouchers, and be able to keep the fruits of our labor and our property, what is the problem?

  31. Derek permalink
    October 5, 2007 9:07 am


    No Democratic candidate is as against the war as Ron Paul? You must have never heard of Dennis Kucinich. Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel both want the troops out immediately too.

    All of these Paulites criticize the Dems but no one calls out Kucinich. Just because Clinton, Obama or Edwards have screwy timelines doesn’t mean that they all do.

    He has been against the Patriot Act and war since day zero. He has never voted for the war, unlike Clinton or Edwards. I am a Kucinich supporter but feel free to peep his record on the war.

    I just think that talking about presidential candidates and oppostion to the war can’t happen without talking about Dennis Kucinich.

    Check out his interview on PBS:

  32. October 5, 2007 10:57 am

    Sunshinysmile, I appreciate your response…though it isn’t quite right. Both public AND private parties participated in the subjugation of non-whites. During the enslavement the federal government not only upheld private property rights (the “free market” during this period was fueled by the traffic in black bodies) but used its force to actually HELP private property owners to get their property back.

    After Reconstruction was dismantled it was the state that instituted the wishes of private WHITE citizens through Jim Crow laws and the like. Private white citizens did not want to share political, economic, and social resources with blacks….so they used legal and non-legal means to withhold them.

    Further, when the state did not act quickly enough to support (white) legal interests, private citizens took it upon themselves to lynch and terrorize black men and women. Private businesses benefited here by offering discounted train tickets, and by increased consumption of newspapers (who advertised the lynchings). Both merchants and landowners benefited by loose regulation of black life…this allowed them to extract significant amounts of work without fair compensation.

    The libertarian position ignores this history, largely because this history violates the fundamental assertion of libertarianism–that less government equals more liberty. This equation has not even been true for slaveholders (who certainly wanted government support to help them track down runaways) much less black citizens (who suffered from private and public racism).

    But all of this doesn’t get at the fact that you never answered my questions. When exactly has the free market been free?

  33. October 5, 2007 12:52 pm


    “The fact is that Ron Paul supporters don’t give a flying a fuck about the health of the black community.” I personally beg to differ. As a wary Ron Paul supporter I have to say that a great number of RP supporters do care about the black community. Please don’t paint us all with the same brush. Any community has its trolls. The more conscientious among us are concerned about all our communities but my concern for black americans (not black america, I hate the collectivization of individuals in that term) is part of what leads me to support Dr. Paul.

    He is the only candidate who would end the War on Drugs, that in addition to being an unnecessary and colossal failure, has disproportionately and disastrously effected black Americans.

    He is the only candidate who opposes ‘anti-gang,’ which we all know are just euphemistically clothed anti black, gun laws.

    He is the only candidate who would end the foreign policy that has led to the current imperial wars abroad where our, again disproportionately minority, soldiers are dying.

    He is the only candidate who will end the war swiftly, without equivocation, without starting new ones in Pakistan or Syria or Iran or Africa or the Baltics.

    He is the only one who wants to end a tax system where anyone with a clever lawyer can pay less than your average working family.

    You know what else, ebog? You seem pretty fond of rhetoric yourself. But I ask you, did congress give anything in the Civil Rights act that blacks had not already won for themselves? You wouldn’t be sitting in the back of the bus now. Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Church Leaders you seat on the bus through direct action. It was the courage of civil right leaders, their courage and humanity, that did the most to end racism and segregation in this country. Don’t rob them of the accomplishment by attributing so much to the actions of reluctant and halfhearted congresscritters. It is the continued hard work, talent and interconnectedness of brave and good People that will erase racism for all time.

    Don’t let yourself be fooled. The government hasn’t improved the situation. In spite of integration we have a public school system, especially in urban areas more segregated than ever.

    We have a failing education system that delivers less learning to black children.

    We have a criminal justice system obviously biased against blacks.

    And your solution is to criticize the one candidate who is not offering more of the same failed state? I think you might be a little rhetoric over substance.

  34. October 5, 2007 1:45 pm

    Mr. Spencer–thanks for your reply. I cannot say when the market has ever been free–but the point is to look to the future. If we can try to make it free, why not try?

    I think we agree on more than we differ. I said the government did MORE harm than individuals, because it sanctioned and enforced the very thoughts and ideas of the private sector, instead of fulfulling its own ideals of “liberty for all.” This sanctioning of white supremacy made it more palatable to those who did not agree.

    Like the music industry today…if I used the words of some of the lyrics of songs today in my everyday speech, I would sound like a fool…but when you legitimize it through song and play it for children over and over again…the children think utter foolishness and vulgarity is the norm. Not preaching censorship, just easier access to radio, so family-oriented programming by not-so-megabillionaires will be possible.

  35. October 5, 2007 2:03 pm

    Not to hog the comment section, but it does not seem too smart to berate the candidate who could do the most for non-white citizens because of his stance on personal freedom. I think you are throwing the Black baby out with the bath water. I for one would like for other Black children to be able to go to a school as good as my son’s. I don’t want any mother’s children to be drafted. I would like for people to be able to keep their money instead of the gov. counting your pennies and giving you back what it wants you to have. I want veterans and their families to not want for a THING. I want non-violent offenders out of federal prison for unjust, racially biased “crimes”. I want government and big business out of medical care. I want gov. agencies that do nothing but send money to big business and pay heap-big salaries without providing meaningful service to close. I want workers to not have to work for an hour in order to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk, which a teenage boy can eat in two days. I want government to stop bailing out businesses–so smaller businesses can compete. I want only citizens to have jobs funded by tax payers. I want business to stop polluting private property. I want governments to stop building highways through Black neighborhoods and taking private property and giving it to private entities. I want drug addicts to go to the hospital and not to jail. These are ALL on Ron Pauls list of issues, and more.

    By the way, call your US Congressman to support the Tax Free Tips Act that was just put forth by Ron Paul last week (House Ways and Means Committee) He wants to end the tax on tips. Gee, families may not need food stamps and free lunch if that happens!!!

    I mean really–when we deal with policy instead of personality, non-white people will be much more successful. Who cares if you like me…just don’t rob me or hamper me.

  36. October 5, 2007 4:02 pm

    What many of these Ron Paul supportors fail to realize is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 most salient result was not forcing integration. The Civil Rights Act protected citizens who, because of their skin color, would have been denied acces to goods and services offered by the private sector because of their skin color.

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 insured African Americans the right to employment free from arbitrary denial caused by the irrationality of racism.

    Moreover, the legislation required private commerical enitities to allow access to people of color who otherwise would have been denied such access.

    Ostensibly, without the Civil Rights act of 1964, and its subsequent adoptions, every major commerical bank in the United States could come together and require African Americans to remove their savings, with no recourse.

    Even with the existance of Civil Rights legislation, heinous practices such as redlining (where banks impede access to home loans based on racial demographics) continue up until today among many lending institutions. How would libertarian Paulites deal with such dilemas, with more liberty to discriminate?

    The Paulite fantasy is an idealistic notion of the nature of American society, coupled with irrational adherence to a constitution that did nothing to equalize the playing field for African Americans until fire hoses and dogs had to be let loose on them in the 1960’s.

    This same Constitution, which authorized slavery within its own text, is what Paulites expect to do the job of assuring that Jim Crow remains a thing of the past, while racism can make it a reality of the future.

  37. October 5, 2007 4:49 pm

    So, who do you support, and why? How will their presidency and policies that they have consistently proposed specifically effect your life directly? Tell me something better please.

  38. October 5, 2007 5:17 pm

    Sunshinysmile if we don’t understand the history of our country, and the role of the state, of private individuals, and of multinational corporations in robbing people of liberty and power…then we become slave to what sounds like “common sense.” And while it sounds like “common sense” to say something like “the government is taking YOUR money and enslaving you”…a study of history reveals that it isn’t that simple.

    The biggest strides the country has made for example came during three waves of significant state involvement. The GI Bill singlehandedly did more to create the middle class that we rely on than any private intervention. So it isn’t just about “where do we go from here” but “where is HERE” and “how did we GET here?”

    Now with that said, here are my ideas about Paul.

    I believe that Ron Paul’s desire to end the drug war is on point. I also believe his policy on Iraq is on point.

    But I also believe that his position on the role of government not just on racial issues but on other issues would be disastrous. It isn’t just the government that has the ability to take our liberty away from us, but multinational corporations. If we reduce the ability of the government to serve as a check on large private interests how exactly will we be protected? Further we’ve progressed in large part because of the intellectual capital we’ve amassed. How can we move forward if we don’t use taxes to fund our schools, rebuild our roads, keep our water safe, etc.?

    Paul is ahead on two issues I care about. On the rest he’s wayyyyyy in the back.

    I support John Edwards because he understands more about the proper role of government and private interests as they both relate to issues of inequality.

  39. John Lutticken permalink
    October 5, 2007 5:35 pm

    I enjoyed your take on Ron Paul. If he was elected, congress would moderate some of his policies. Overall I think he could improve quality of life in America, and restore our standing with the world. Does this mean everything will be perfect for Blacks? No, because government can’t fix racism. Racism ultimately is solved one person at a time on a social level. Government can only fine-tune programs that seek to mitigate the unfairness of the past. Blacks must become more politically active, by voting and running for office. In the end the only way to solve racism in America is for all of us to get that chip off are shoulders. forget the sins of the past and reach out to one another.

  40. memosphere permalink
    October 5, 2007 8:17 pm

    Based on your argument, we will return to slavery and exterminating Native Americans if Ron Pau is elected. Just because you reduce red tape, everyone will start devolving back into monkeys. Nonsense.

    The law rarely drives the morality of the majority; laws are enacted only after a significant percentage of the population pushes the debate. There were many people in the North that disliked the oversight in the constitution, but slavery was compomised for unity. The language of the Constitution was intentionally abstracted to only imply slaves and savages.

    And it does not make business sense to be exclusive of customers or valuable employees based on irrelevant traits. Where is the law that says Spanish commercials must be on English channels? Why would this ever happen? Money.

  41. Michael permalink
    October 5, 2007 8:25 pm


    You are more in line with Ron Paul than you may care to realize. The government is in place to ensure everyones equal rights. The big Corporations that you mentioned are all in place by powerful lobbying groups in Washington. Legislation is then passed to help keep their stranglehold on the market. Corporate monopolies exist because of government backing. Ron Paul would eliminate the corporate monopolies amongst other things. If you would like to list the corporations that are backed by the government, it would go a long way in understanding the power they have on the politicians.

    Let me list a few industries and you can tell me if the government isn’t involved in keeping their monopolies (bipartisan support mind you).

    – Health care/Insurance
    – Pharmaceuticals
    – Media/Networks
    – Cable TV/Telcos
    – Oil/Petroleum
    – Energy/Water
    – Banking

    Not to mentioned the “supposed” free trade agreements and the majority of our manufacturing going overseas. Just Ron Paul’s understanding of Economics is enough to vote for him.

  42. October 5, 2007 10:08 pm

    Michael i appreciate your comments. I do understand that racism is something that has a long history. But I also understand how the passage of laws can mitigate racism’s effect (on ALL of us). Integrating school settings for example not only led to better schooling for some, but led to the type of exposure that changes attitudes.

    You are absolutely right in your comments about corporations. And ending corporate subsidies would help us in a number of different ways. But the thing is that government can only serve as a check on private power if it has the resources to serve in an oversight capacity. The FCC doesn’t work half as well as I’d want it to (in part because of government interference), but if it were abolished what would prevent an even more powerful oligarchy from starting? I don’t believe our liberty is enhanced by removing corporate subsidies AND the ability of the government to check private interests.

  43. memosphere permalink
    October 6, 2007 12:44 am

    We have more governmental oversight in place than anytime in history and we are MORE subject to influence from big government. They can now force us into war and and are better able to control policy as government merges with business. The government only gives us a false sense of security. All you have to do is look at all the dangerous products coming in from China. When was the last time baby bibs contained Lead?

    The role of government is application of force. And the use of force is the only way to create a true monopoly.

  44. October 9, 2007 6:58 am

    Lucille Victoria Rowels: If you are elected president in 2008, what positive and significant legacy, if any, will you leave for Black Americans?

    Ron Paul: I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we’re all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement.

    And also, I think that if you’re going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don’t control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn’t suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.

    This is what we need and we need to share it. The free society is the only society that can provide goods and services and distribute them in the most fair manner. And that is the society that I would advocate and argue for and believe it’s available to us.

    Tavis Smiley: Is there a particular policy that you would support to guarantee young Black and brown men watching right now a fairer equal justice system?

    Ron Paul: A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs.

    For instance, Blacks make up 14 percent of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63 percent of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change.

    We don’t have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn’t working.

    We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn’t work. Prohibition on drugs doesn’t work. So we need to come to our senses.

    And, absolutely, it’s a disease. We don’t treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.

  45. October 16, 2007 3:52 pm

    RON PAUL: Why Blacks & People Of Color Should Vote For Him

  46. jasondeezrickner permalink
    October 19, 2007 11:07 pm

    Great article. Many of the pro-Paul commenters appear to be skirting around the the fact that Paul wasn’t just saying that the US is beyond the need for government intervention against racism (which is fallacious in itself), but that government intervention was a bad idea even when institutionalized segregation was fully alive and showed little signs of weakening under the force of the “True Market.” Jim Crow was in place for generations before the passing of the Civil Rights Act; just how much longer would people of color have had to wait before the market finally corrected itself?

  47. memosphere permalink
    November 13, 2007 7:26 pm

    The real sin was that when they tried to set up alternate areas and stores, the police would come in and destroy it. It was not a free market.

    The government was violating the corrected constitution. It is there to protect liberty of all individuals.

  48. blakmira permalink
    December 22, 2007 2:34 am

    I strongly suggest you view a documentary entitled “Little Rock Central: 50 Years Later” (shown on HBO but now available on DVD).

    Watching this film, I was appalled at the level of segregation still going on in this ‘first ever to be integrated’ school! Except now, 50 years later, the students segregate themselves!

    From the film:
    “On a recent visit to Central High, Ms. Trickey spoke to a self-segregated classroom: whites on one side, blacks on the other. An African-American student apparently dozed as she spoke. Students and teachers alike spoke blithely or painfully of the low educational aspirations and achievements of too many black students. Central, many said, is now two schools in one: a poor, demoralized black majority and a high-achieving, affluent white minority.”

    Is this progress? Is this equality? Something has gone horribly wrong since the Civil Rights movement led by the great, late Dr. Martin Luther King — who Dr. Ron Paul references in many of his speeches when speaking of tax protestation and civil disobedience effecting change.

    Ron Paul is a kind, positive man who wants individual rights for everyone, not special rights for some. Please reconsider your position on him and learn why he is so beloved to so many supporters.

  49. internationalman permalink
    January 2, 2008 8:44 pm

    I think you simply don’t understand that the back of racism was not broken by the federal government, but by Black Americans themselves. This myth that Black Americans needed state intervention to find their way is just that: a myth. Black Americans were making progress long before the white saviour of the Federal Gov’t came to the rescue. And it has been empirically demonstrated again and again that black progress has been retarded by so called federal protection.

    I think you need a good dose of Walter Williams’ “The State Against Blacks” where he dismantles **empirically** every notion you propagate above.

  50. unbiased permalink
    January 10, 2008 5:40 pm

    My definition of racism: treating people differently because they have a different skin color.

    Example: Someone says “all blacks are bad” => racism.

    However, the opposite is also true. A black saying “all whites are bad” is also racism. Note that saying “all whites are racists/all blacks are racists” is racism as well.

    But racism does not mean treating people negatively. Supporting black people more than white people is also racism, even if it might be intended to fight racism, it is racism itself. The strange thing is, if you’re not a racist, people will likely call you a racist. Why? Simple: If someone says “I don’t think black people should get support that white people don’t get” he will be called a racist, because people assume he does not like black people. There might be some people that think so because they are racists, but most people aren’t. The opposite is true. Giving black people a support that white people don’t get is racism, by definition. Look at the definition of racism again: Treating people differently because of race. So what is it if not racism?

    Racism does not merely mean treating people worse because of race, but also treating people better because of race. In the end, if you do any of these two things, you are a racist. That’s a fact.

    Let me say three more things:
    1. I’m black myself.

    2. I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but he is definitely not a racist. Nobody (including Obama) is more anti-racist than he is.

    3. I support Obama, but not because he is black as I am, but because of his views on certain issues. However, even though I support him, I am concerned. It seems to me that many people are just supporting him because he is black. Same with Hillary, it seems to me that many people support her just because she is a woman. I’m against both of these things. You shouldn’t support a presidential candidate ONLY because of race/gender. That’s ridiculous. More: That’s racism. Again, look at the definition: Treating people differently because of race. Voting for Obama because he’s black is by definition racism (note that I’m saying this EVEN THOUGH I’m supporting him and EVEN THOUGH I’m black myself.) Why am I saying this then? Because I’m using LOGIC and ARGUMENTS to make my decision, and not emotions. Emotionally, I could say: Obama is black, I’m black, I should vote for him because I feel connected to him. But logically, that would be racism. And, honestly, anyone who votes for somebody just because he is black/white, man/woman, or who does not vote for somebody because of any of the things mentioned above, should have no right to vote. (Of course, I don’t mean that, but still…)

    We’re all individuals, we’re all humans. Differentiating people because of skin color, gender, or something like that is artificial in my view. Dividing people in black and white is an artificial division. In my opinion, it is the same as dividing mankind in people that wear glasses and people that don’t wear glasses; it’s the same as dividing mankind in people that are above 6 feet and people below 6 feet; it’s the same as dividing mankind in people that have the favorite color green and people with a favorite color different than green. It’s artificial, it’s useless, and it’s unfair. Everybody should have the same rights because he is a human being, and not because of anything else, because every other differentiation would be artificial. And in this point I strongly agree to Ron Paul.

  51. Holly permalink
    February 10, 2008 9:44 pm

    does anyone know who took this picture because i am competing in a national patriotic illustration competition and was wondering if i could get permission to use this picture. thank you

  52. December 13, 2008 1:41 pm


  53. July 17, 2009 11:34 am

    ! Nice site
    Keep posting, and mate thanks.
    there is nothing in the world I enjoy more than learning. In fact, i’d rather be learning now!

  54. Mike permalink
    September 26, 2010 12:09 pm

    You are right. Both Capitalism and Libertarianism have flaws. I am still a Ron Paul fan. And I think he represents half of the solutions. But I think that we need to start rethinking the idea that property rights trump any notion of the rights of people to a just wage. This is what will get to the solution of racism. Protectionism of minorities is not the ultimate solution. Only when we prevent exploitation of ALL people, will we approach and end of racism. But how to do this and avoid the horrors of Marxism? Too bad the looney left have cornered the market on the discussion of workers rights. In the big cities, I see neighborhoods that look like minimum security prisons. I don’t see how anyone lives like that. That is the other half that doesn’t get discussed. Can we morph Ron Paul and Ralph Nader into a single human being? hahahahaha

    • rene permalink
      October 13, 2010 8:14 am


      I think you have the best reply on this post yet!


  1. Guest Post: Why Blacks Should Think Twice About Supporting Ron Paul « Backyard Beacon
  2. Thoughtmerchant offers criticism of Ron Paul as a candidate for black americans. « Civil Unrest

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: