As a former Republican, I’m shocked that the party of Abraham Lincoln is nominating a man with a vision of America that doesn’t even resemble that of the party I once knew. And his vice presidential pick, Mike Pence, who as governor of Indiana has left a record of division in his state only makes matters worse.
Despite the calls at the GOP convention in Cleveland for national unity, Donald Trump sees our country as a land of exclusion. He wants Americans to act as powerless serfs bullied by someone who says he will protect them. Throughout world history, that has been the calling card of Big Government autocrats.
His character assaults are unbounded. His campaign has been one of serial attacks on opponents and climbing to the top by hurting people. And frankly, his immigration and trade policies appear to consist of the same strategies.
I was the Republican governor of a very Democratic state. I succeeded because I brought a brand of fiscal conservativism, together with respect for people with different lifestyles. Government must live within its means, and we have to respect one another’s freedoms. Government should not incite culture wars that divide a state’s citizens as has Trump’s new running mate.
L, Spooner gains what a lot of deontological NAPsters gain from alienating all sides: A personal sense of sanctimony. Self-righteousness can be addicting.
I think Spooner was too intelligent not to see that. Which leaves only the conclusion that he was pandering.
For what purpose?
From the Wikipedia article: “He argued that the right of the states to secede derives from the natural right of slaves to be free…. This argument was unpopular in the North and in the South after the War began, as it conflicted with the official position of both governments….“[emphasis added]
What would Spooner possibly stand to gain by adopting a position that alienated both sides?
…is the mission of the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement to promote freedom, or is it to dispute the accuracy of various accounts of distant history?
Well, I don’t think the two things are mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I think that slaughtering the state’s sacred cows can help to delegitimize it in the public consciousness. There’s significant value in exposing the emperor’s nudity. As you yourself say:
…the version of history in which the heroic north, led by the god-like Abraham Lincoln, fought a glorious war to end slavery, is an exceedingly strong point in the enemy’s works.
If we can show that this whole story is a lie, it will cause some people to wonder what other lies the state has told them. In fact, I remember when I was about 12 years old (long before I had ever even heard of libertarianism, let alone the LP), we learned about the Civil War in school. I found the story to be a bit odd (particularly the part about Lincoln waiting until 1863 to issue the Emancipation Proclamation). So, I went to the public library, and did a little digging. It soon became clear to me that Lincoln’s motivations weren’t nearly as benevolent as I had been led to believe. This led me to get into a bitter argument with my history teacher, but it also led me to be very skeptical of the “official” state-endorsed “truths” I later encountered, and this skepticism was integral to my future political development as a libertarian.
Now, as I said above, I don’t think this sort of myth-busting should be a primary focus (or a focus at all) of the LP Presidential ticket. There are other parts of the libertarian movement better suited for that sort of thing. But I do think that we do ourselves a disservice by (even implicitly) promoting the state’s propaganda, as Johnson seems to be doing here.
gd: Michael Huemer calls the Idiot’s Veto
me: Thanks. A new one for me. I advocate what I call Harlos Nonarchy Pods, where any one (idiot or not) would be given the option to secede onto his or her property, thereby dropping out of the government and civil society.
langa: right and wrong do not change over time.
me: You may have mentioned it, but it doesn’t make it true! 😉 Attitudes and laws about, say, euthanasia or marry-able age have changed quite a bit over time. Maybe one of the legal setups was “right” in Langa-world, but I probably can’t convince you of the relativistic nature of morality here.
L: If the position was not inherently racist when Spooner took it, it is not inherently racist today.
me: Oh, the paleoL position on the Confederate Elite Insurrection is certainly NOT “inherently racist.” It’s not even racist. It is, however, a position that many racists take, and it’s easy for more-archists to associate Ls with racists.
It’s really, really poor politics. It’s really strange to bring up in anything other than among academic historians.
Andy: “Did anyone ask the slaves held in Colonial America if they wanted to secede from England? No. So going by this “logic,” the American Revolution was wrong.”
Well, yes: using Spooner’s arguments, the American Revolution can be proved wrong as easily as proved right.
Fortunately, the Declaration of Independence relied on Locke’s arguments, not Spooner’s.
Langa: “All three of the men [Rockwell, Rothbard, and Tom Woods] take basically the exact same position on the Civil war that was taken by the great libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner. Do you consider Spooner to be a Confederacy-loving racist?”
No, just (like Rothbard) an anarchist pandering to them.
Spooner’s argument for secession was that government *per se* depends on explicit consent: an argument that makes government impossible since it’s susceptible to what Michael Huemer calls the Idiot’s Veto . In fact it does not justify the southern states’ succession, because under it the Confederacy and even the constituent state governments (not being based on consent any more than the federal one), had no more right to exist than the Union did.
I think Spooner was too intelligent not to see that. Which leaves only the conclusion that he was pandering.
Tom: First things first: let me thank you for amending your original argument, from a dilemma to a trilemma, and say I agree with your third fork:
“Ron allowed others to use his name as the Author possibly under contract for cash.”
That does not ‘look good’, as you say, but it does allow one to escape the conclusion (which I thought was the whole point of the original “Paul said he wrote the newsletter articles” story in the first place) that he’s just another lying politician. His honesty and integrity were what attracted me, despite some awful political positions he held.
I’d say that his honesty and integrity were what messed him up: he seemed to think that all his allies were similarly honest and people of integrity, and was blind to all the evidence that they weren’t.
That explains why he’d give others a blank check to use his name, as in the newsletters case and the 2012 bribery/fraud incident. But it doesn’t excuse his doing so.
I guess Jefferson and Washington were terrible people too, right?
Yes, they were, although they weren’t nearly as bad as Lincoln was.
HA! I guess that the “sex with slaves” thing was just dandy.
“Bottom line: Is the Mises crowd’s version of the Civil War a bit one-sided? Sure, but certainly no more so than the version taught in the schools.”
Agreed.
Now, is the mission of the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement to promote freedom, or is it to dispute the accuracy of various accounts of distant history?
Politics is warfare by other means (IIRC, I am reversing Clausewitz on that point).
One well-understood principle of war is, as Sun Tzu put it, “the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.” And the version of history in which the heroic north, led by the god-like Abraham Lincoln, fought a glorious war to end slavery, is an exceedingly strong point in the enemy’s works.
In fact, per #3 of The 36 Strategies, “Borrow one’s hand to kill” (i.e. use the enemy’s strength against it).
It doesn’t require a lie — Lincoln IS the most closely analogous president to a prospective “third party” winner, and Lincoln IS plausibly credited with ending chattel slavery in the US, whether that was his original goal or not. Why SHOULDN’T Johnson/Weld snatch Lincoln’s mantle off of Trump’s shoulders and put it on themselves? It’s a useful mantle, and they’re free to discard it at their leisure having never uttered a false word with respect to it.
ALL historical figures must be judged by the times in which they lived.
So, by this standard, anyone currently over the age of, say, 30 or so gets a free pass for being homophobic, right? After all, I’m 39, and when I was a kid, the majority of the population considered homosexuality to be immoral. Heck, as recently as the 1970s, the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental illness. So, if someone like Donald Trump, who grew up long before then, were to refer to gays as sick, mentally deranged perverts, and suggest that they should be rounded up and removed from society, as Lincoln did with blacks, you would simply dismiss such bigotry as a natural product of the times?
I guess Jefferson and Washington were terrible people too, right?
Yes, they were, although they weren’t nearly as bad as Lincoln was.
They love to point out that the war was over secession, not slavery. And to omit that secession was about slavery (or even to try and make it about something else entirely — tariffs).
Well, for the North (and for Lincoln especially) it was about secession. Lincoln himself stated that clearly, loudly, and repeatedly.
And, of course, just as one can defend freedom of speech without endorsing the specific content of said speech, one can also defend secession without endorsing the motivation for it.
Bottom line: Is the Mises crowd’s version of the Civil War a bit one-sided? Sure, but certainly no more so than the version taught in the schools.
Was the express purpose of the American Revolution to preserve the institution of chattel slavery in the face of fear that it might be limited or ended? No.
Someone’s ridiculous here, but it’s not me.
Did anyone ask the slaves held in Colonial America if they wanted to secede from England? No. So going by this “logic,” the American Revolution was wrong.
Ridiculous.
Senor Langa stated : “Sorry, I don’t buy into your convenient moral relativism. What’s wrong today was wrong back then, and vice versa. There were plenty of people in Lincoln’s time who were outraged by slavery and demanded its abolition. He was not one of them. He supported fugitive slave laws. He idolized the slave owner Henry Clay. He defended slave owners in court. He was an enthusiastic fan of racist minstrel shows. No matter how you slice it, the unavoidable fact is that your hero Lincoln was a racist, plain and simple.”
I have never stated that Lincoln was “my hero.” Moral relativism is not “convenient,” it’s just reality. Usiing YOUR moral absolutism would tend to mean that only those who are living today are morally benevolent. I’m sure 200 years from now, there will be some (like you) who will decry those who lived in the 2010’s for some moral reason. ALL historical figures must be judged by the times in which they lived. I guess Jefferson and Washington were terrible people too, right?
“There are no good guys here.”
True. But try telling that to the paleos.
They love to point out that the war was over secession, not slavery. And to omit that secession was about slavery (or even to try and make it about something else entirely — tariffs).
The next time they mention that the Confederacy had a universal conscription law for all males 15 and older, or that it hanged people who advocated secession from it, or that its money was worthless paper that early on was “backed” by borrowing/bonds and later on just printed at breakneck pace without any backing whatsoever, etc. will be the first time they’ve done so in my sight or hearing. In the paleo conception, the Union is not just the source of original sin, but the source of all sin, while the Confederates are virtuous martyrs to voluntaryism.
Which, of course, is horseshit.
Did anyone ask the slaves … whether or not they consented to the “right” of the “Confederate States of America” to govern them? Did anyone ask their opinion of secession?
Those are two entirely separate questions. I would argue (and I would expect Spooner would agree) that any person (or group of people) have the right to enter or exit any voluntary association at any time they choose. However, that in no way means that they have a right to make those same decisions for others. So, as in every instance of war of which I am aware, both sides were wrong. There are no good guys here.
Campaigning for the power of the CSA to secede a century and a half later makes no sense to me.
As I mentioned above, right and wrong do not change over time. If the position was not inherently racist when Spooner took it, it is not inherently racist today.
“All three of the men you name take basically the exact same position on the Civil war that was taken by the great libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner. Do you consider Spooner to be a Confederacy-loving racist?”
Mentally/emotionally or in practice? From the Wikipedia article you cite on Spooner:
“Spooner recognized the right of the Confederate States of America to secede as the manifestation of government by consent, a constitutional and legal principle fundamental to Spooner’s philosophy; the Northern states, in contrast, were trying to deny the Southerners that right through military force.”
Which southerners?
Did anyone ask the slaves of Alabama (percentage of population: 45%), Arkansas (26%), Florida (44%), Georgia (44%), Louisiana (47%), Mississippi (55%), North Carolina (33%), South Carolina (57%), Tennessee (25%), Texas (30%) or Virginia (31%) whether or not they consented to the “right” of the “Confederate States of America” to govern them? Did anyone ask their opinion of secession?
L, no, I have no reason to believe that Spooner was a racist. He made an assessment based on his feelings and beliefs at the time. Based on the insurrection clause of the Constitution, I disagree with his position.
Campaigning for the power of the CSA to secede a century and a half later makes no sense to me. LR, TdL, and TW have a quirky interpretation of the Constitution. And they have the benefit of viewing the Confederate Elite Insurrection (Civil War) ex post, where the upshot was that slavery was abolished, the single biggest blow for liberty in US history.
It’s a story put out by a group that used to be called the ‘paleolibertarians’: Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and especially Tom Woods, the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South” and similar neo-Confederate books.
All three of the men you name take basically the exact same position on the Civil war that was taken by the great libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner. Do you consider Spooner to be a Confederacy-loving racist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#Abolitionism
This was a common idea at that time. We must judge historical figures by the times they lived in. Many felt that they were brought here against their will so they should be returned. That doesn’t really account for the fact that probably a big majority of slaves at the time were born here and had no real ties to Africal, but it still was a popular feeling of the day. It was a much more enlightened idea than keeping them enslaved.
Sorry, I don’t buy into your convenient moral relativism. What’s wrong today was wrong back then, and vice versa. There were plenty of people in Lincoln’s time who were outraged by slavery and demanded its abolition. He was not one of them. He supported fugitive slave laws. He idolized the slave owner Henry Clay. He defended slave owners in court. He was an enthusiastic fan of racist minstrel shows. No matter how you slice it, the unavoidable fact is that your hero Lincoln was a racist, plain and simple.
Yes, he did a great job in that debate.
on Ron’s behalf let me state that I did contribute $1000 to his 2008 presidential race because he stood up to Rudy Giuliani in a debate and spoke the truth about why the west suffers from radical Islamic terrorism. Ron put down a very well stated argument against military occupations of foreign countries. An argument that needed to be repeated again and again until the American voters get it.
George,
I’m glad we agree on how ugly the “paleo strategy” was. I don’t see any way to extricate Paul from that, or from the newsletters, or from his pork barrel bait and switch games, etc.
Paul built his career on one set of things (the newsletters, bringing home the bacon to his district, etc.) and his reputation on another set of things (the perception that he was honest and principled). To the degree that those two sets are incompatible, and they are, they damaged both his career (by dragging down his presidential campaign even if it might otherwise have had a chance) and his reputation (by calling his honesty and principles into question).
To be honest, the newsletters blind-sided me. After many years of admiring Paul (while not liking his game of supporting GOP candidates versus LP candidates while fundraising from libertarians — I wrote that off as party loyalty necessity stuff), what turned me against him was his first fundraising letter as a presidential candidate. It hit my mailbox a few days after he announced, and it touted his main accomplishments/principles as:
– Keeping the women from having abortions;
– Keeping the gays from getting married; and
– Keeping the brown people on the other side of the Rio Grande.
Not a single mention of foreign policy. Not a single mention of the Federal Reserve. Not a single mention of the war on drugs. Just red meat for social conservatives. A “paleo strategy” fundraising letter from top to bottom.
Did he write it? Probably not — politicians have writers to write fundraising letters. But he signed it. Therefore he owned it.
It was only after that that I looked into his pork games. Biggest porker in the Houston area. Millions in earmarks for stuff that couldn’t possibly be justified under the enumerated powers of Congress in the Constitution — programs for promoting Houston-area shrimping, subsidies for programs to train nurses, etc. He put that stuff in the spending bills and got credit for bringing the money to Houston. Then he voted against the spending bills, knowing they would pass without his vote, and went off to libertarian gatherings to raise money on how honest and principled and anti-government-spending and constitutionalist he was.
It was only after THAT that the newsletters came out and exploded the one thing I was still defending him on. For YEARS, whenever someone would claim he played footsie with racists, I’d point out that he put out his weekly column and had no control whatsoever over whether or not David Duke reprinted it and so forth.
Then I find out his newsletters, with his name on them, that he claimed to write, that he knocked down six figures a year for, and that he built the fundraising list that sent him back to Congress off of, extolled David Duke and Jared Taylor while asserting that 95% of black males in DC were criminals (and “fleet of foot”), etc.
THAT is when I decided I was completely done with the lying sack of shit.
As far as the effect of the “paleo strategy” on the LP, it’s true that we were fortunately not right in the middle of it. But it did have some effect on us. I joined the party in 1996 and didn’t attend my first national convention until 2000, but someone — I think it was Carol Moore — once mentioned that at the 1996 or 1998 convention, Willis Carto’s filthy Liberty Lobby had a table. And in 2000 (and 2004) we had former Lester Maddox speechwriter Neal Boortz as a featured speaker. So we at least caught some of the paleo backwash.
Hell, there’s a degree to which the “paleo strategy” probably pulled ME toward the LP, so anyone who’s not glad I’m here can blame it if they like. I came to the LP via Aaron Russo’s “Constitution Party” (not the current abomination operating under that name) and the mid-1990s militia movement (the first political meeting I ever set up, which was for the older, other Constitution Party, featured militia speakers — two days after the Oklahoma City bombing).
“Not the such and such Powell Political Report, not the Lew Rockwell Invetment Letter, etc.
“The Ron Paul [insert publication type here].
“Nobody made him put his name on them.
“Nobody forced him to cash the checks.
“He chose to do those things, and he clearly did so pursuant to the “paleo strategy” he had cooked up with Rothbard and Rockwell, which culminated in his return to Congress and his two presidential campaigns built on the back of fundraising from the subscription lists of those newsletters.”
“All true; and not in question. All that’s in question is: Did he lie by saying that he both did and did not write the “racist” articles?”
Ron either lied when the Authorship listed him as the Author.
or
Ron lied when he denied he was the Author.
or
Ron allowed others to use his name as the Author possibly under contract for cash.
None of these look good for Ron.
“Ben Swann already debunked the Ron Paul newsletter story, and Tom Knapp already knows this, because it has been talked about here on IPR multiple times in the past.”
Really? Well have we talked about the 9-11 truthers yet?
Ben Swann already debunked the Ron Paul newsletter story, and Tom Knapp already knows this, because it has been talked about here on IPR multiple times in the past. Some of the news sources that turned the Ron Paul newsletter story into a controversy also KNEW at the times that the articles in question were written by a guy named James B. Powell, yet they purposely suppressed this information, because they wanted to smear Ron Paul.
It was only something like 9 issues out of 143 Ron Paul newsletters that contained the offending passages, and like I pointed out above, they were written by a guest freelance writer named James B. Powell, who was given free reign to say whatever he wanted.
Like I said above, there was ZERO legislation that came as a result of the offending passages, and although one may not understand this if they only encounter “politically correct” leftist libertarians, but being rude, including making racially charged remarks, does not necessarily violate any libertarian principles.
Ironically, the people who seem to make the biggest deal out of this 20 plus year old controversy, are pasty white “politically correct” leftist libertarians. I have met several black people over the years who like Ron Paul, and they think the controversy is bullshit.
George Dance:
Yes, the Proclamation only dealt with confederate land, but Lincoln pushed hard to for the 13th amendment. He may have started the war to preserve the union, but he came around to realizing that the two go hand in hand. Slavery had to end and it did.
Tom Knapp:
From the article you link to:
“Starting as far back as 1976, Congressman Paul published a newsletter. It has gone by several names. The Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Investment Letter, etc.”
True: I’ve said that in the article (which I wrote); and I’ve also said that here, in this thread.
“Not the such and such Powell Political Report, not the Lew Rockwell Invetment Letter, etc.
“The Ron Paul [insert publication type here].
“Nobody made him put his name on them.
“Nobody forced him to cash the checks.
“He chose to do those things, and he clearly did so pursuant to the “paleo strategy” he had cooked up with Rothbard and Rockwell, which culminated in his return to Congress and his two presidential campaigns built on the back of fundraising from the subscription lists of those newsletters.”
All true; and not in question. All that’s in question is: Did he lie by saying that he both did and did not write the “racist” articles?
“I know it sucks. I know you don’t like it.”
Actualy, you didn’t “know” that, since we weren’t talking about that. But it is true: I think the “paleo” strategy was the worst thing that ever happened to the libertarian movement, ever. Fortunately, the LP was never a part of it: which is why Rothbard and Rockwell tried reading the Party out of the movement over 20 years ago.
“But that’s how it is whether you like it or not. No matter how hard you click your heels together and no matter how many times you squeal “there’s no place like Paultopia,” he will still have done what he actually did.
And “what he actually did” does not include “claiming” or “admitting” that he wrote those articles that he later denied writing. At least, there is *no* evidence that he ever did.
Thanks for mentioning Rothbard, Rockwell, and the “paleolibertarians”, BTW – since I’ve also mentioned them in this thread, as the authors of the “Lincoln was the most evil president” meme, this is more evidence of what they were and what they were doing.
From the article you link to:
“Starting as far back as 1976, Congressman Paul published a newsletter. It has gone by several names. The Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Investment Letter, etc.”
Not the such and such Powell Political Report, not the Lew Rockwell Invetment Letter, etc.
The Ron Paul [insert publication type here].
Nobody made him put his name on them.
Nobody forced him to cash the checks.
He chose to do those things, and he clearly did so pursuant to the “paleo strategy” he had cooked up with Rothbard and Rockwell, which culminated in his return to Congress and his two presidential campaigns built on the back of fundraising from the subscription lists of those newsletters.
I know it sucks. I know you don’t like it. But that’s how it is whether you like it or not. No matter how hard you click your heels together and no matter how many times you squeal “there’s no place like Paultopia,” he will still have done what he actually did.
As far as Lincoln, the (not so) Civil War and slavery is concerned, it is too bad the Republican Party didn’t run on using eminent domain to force the sale of the slaves to the federal government for their release as freemen. Imagine the economic savings that this would have had.
There were about 4 million slaves in the US in 1860. At an average price of $800 buying them all would have cost 3.2 billion. The North spent over 6 billion dollars fighting the war and the South 2 billion. Not to mention the property damage estimated at 10 billion dollars. We also tied up 3.5 million men and around 600,000 of them died.
So spend 3.2 billion that could have been re-invested or lose 18 billion not including the opportunity costs of the 3.5 million men or the deaths of 600,000.
The lesson should be avoid military intervention, especially if there are other solutions.
Tom Knapp: “Bullshit”.
“BY RON PAUL”
“No bylines”.
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
Bullshit right back atcha.
steve m: “I guess Ron didn’t put much value on his good name.”
From what I’ve read, Paul didn’t even bother to read ‘his’ newsletter. He did write for it (and fax his material to the company, 60 miles away); otherwise he left it alone.
His one fault has always been that he was too trusting of those who worked for him. That came back to bite him in the ‘newsletters’ case. It came back to bite him again again this year, when his son-in-law and 2 other aides were convicted of bribery and fraud in connection with his 2012 campaign.
As I see it, after looking over the evidence, that’s all he’s guilty of.
“I can’t prove that Ron Paul never said that he wrote those articles. What I can prove, and have, is that every claim that he did say that, to date, has been based on hearsay accounts, with absolutely no direct evidence.”
Bullshit.
“BY RON PAUL”
Tom: “I guess we’re just going to have to disagree here. You’re clearly not going to admit you’re wrong, and I’m just as clearly not going to pretend you’re right.”
This is an instance of what Wikipedia calls “Verifiability, not truth”. Your standard isn’t what Ron Paul provably said, but what ‘reputable sources’ (the media you quoted) claim that he said.
I can’t prove that Ron Paul never said that he wrote those articles. What I can prove, and have, is that every claim that he did say that, to date, has been based on hearsay accounts, with absolutely no direct evidence.
Until someone comes up with the missing evidence, that’s where it has to rest.
“Ron Paul’s name appeared at the top of the newsletter: “Ron Paul’s Survival Report”. He was paid (by the company that produced them) for the use of his name. That’s it.”
I guess Ron didn’t put much value on his good name.
Tony: “I guess all of those hundreds of historians who rank Lincoln either #1 or #2 are all wrong.”
Well, Lincoln gets credited with preserving the Union, and with ending slavery. The second is probably the greatest achievement for liberty in U.S. history. It is a matter of record that Lincoln did not end slavery: his goal was to preserve the Union, and he was willing to tolerate slavery to do that. It’s also a matter of record that a large portion of the Republican Party was anti-slavery, and that they were able to do that, after the war; part of that involved turning Lincoln into a martyr to the abolitionist cause.
The truth behind the myth is that Lincoln did sign the Emancipation Proclamation, which ended slavery — but only in the territory the Confederacy controlled.
It’s not that historians are unaware of the mythology; I think it’s more that (unlike the neo-Confederates) they see no reason to try to debunk it. What would that achieve, beyond possibly getting the historian tarred with the racist brush?
George,
I guess we’re just going to have to disagree here. You’re clearly not going to admit you’re wrong, and I’m just as clearly not going to pretend you’re right.
Tom: “I did read the article in question. It leaves out the actual smoking gun, the three words which can be found atop every one of the articles in question:
“BY RON PAUL”
Actually, as everyone (from Kirchick, who broke the story in 2008, to Ben Swann, who found Powell) has pointed out, the vast majority of the articles (and all the “racist” ones but one) were unsigned.
“Reality Check: The story behind the Ron Paul newsletters” by Ben Swann
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters
Ron Paul’s name appeared at the top of the newsletter: “Ron Paul’s Survival Report”. He was paid (by the company that produced them) for the use of his name. That’s it.
George,
I did read the article in question. It leaves out the actual smoking gun, the three words which can be found atop every one of the articles in question:
“BY RON PAUL”
So was he lying when he said he wrote them, or was he lying when he said he didn’t write them? Because it’s one or the other.
Yes, Tom, I read all those hearsay accounts in the press. What I discovered (using the Lexis Nexis search Matt Welch did) is that not one of them was backed up by a quotation from Paul. He didn’t deny being the author, but (according to the record) he did not “admit” it, either:
I really wish you’d read the article in question:
“The Search for the Smoking Gun”
https://www.nolanchart.com/article1630-the-search-for-the-smoking-gun-html
Thanks George Dance for giving a bit more explanation on that. I find the whole thing quite odd.
I guess all of those hundreds of historians who rank Lincoln either #1 or #2 are all wrong.
langa: “The LP is a “semi-serious” contender for the White House this year, in the same way that the Braves are a “semi-serious” contender to win the World Series this year. In other words, it’s mathematically possible, but it ain’t going to happen, and anyone who seriously believes it will should get their head examined.”
Heh … tell it to the Marines.
”
“Current, reserve and former members of the Army preferred Johnson at 35.4 percent. Trump, the Republican nominee, came in second at 31.4 percent, and Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, at 15.3 percent.
“Among the Marine community, an overwhelming 44.1 percent chose Johnson, while 27.1 percent chose Trump, and 12.7 percent chose Clinton.
“The majority of the Air Force respondents chose Johnson at 39 percent, but Trump next at 29.9 percent and Clinton at 12.9 percent.
“Trump ranked the top choice for the Navy community, at 32.4 percent, versus 31.7 percent for Johnson and 22.9 percent for Clinton.”
“Johnson leads Trump and Clinton in military poll”
http://gdspoliticalanimal.blogspot.ca/2016/07/poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump.html
Tony: “Hmm for all my years on the periphery of the LP, I never knew that one of the most revered Presidents in this nation’s history is a pariah.
“All the more reason the LP purists remain ultra fringe.”
There’s a good reason you never heard it: that has nothing to do with the purists’.
It’s a story put out by a group that used to be called the ‘paleolibertarians’: Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and especially Tom Woods, the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South” and similar neo-Confederate books.
Except for Rothbard (who was a member for 10 years or so), these ‘paleos’ and their love of the Confederacy have nothing to do with the Libertarian Party. Nothing.
“I wonder if Johnson is aware that Lincoln was a strong advocate of rounding up all the former slaves and deporting them back to Africa. ”
This was a common idea at that time. We must judge historical figures by the times they lived in. Many felt that they were brought here against their will so they should be returned. That doesn’t really account for the fact that probably a big majority of slaves at the time were born here and had no real ties to Africal, but it still was a popular feeling of the day. It was a much more enlightened idea than keeping them enslaved.
If someone TODAY called for such a mass deportation, they would rightfully be called a racist . . . hmmm who could fit that bill . . .
—–
When the newsletter story first came up, in the 1996 election, Paul did not say that he wrote those articles (or even defend their content). His sole comment was to attack his Democratic opponent (who brought the story up) for “name-calling and race-baiting”. That may have left the impression that he wrote them, but that is *not* the same as saying that he did.
—–
“Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context. … Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. … In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. … ” — Dallas Morning News, 05/22/96
“Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles ‘Lefty’ Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.” — Washington Post, 05/26/96
“Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday.” — Houston Chronicle, 10/11/96
Tom Knapp: “As to who wrote the passages in questions, Ron Paul said he did when they were published. Then a few years later he said again that he had written them, and defended the content. Then when he ran for president, suddenly he didn’t agree with them and they were written by an unnamed ghost writer.”
Sorry, Tom, but that’s wrong. That’s another story I researched back in the day. What I discovered was:
When the newsletter story first came up, in the 1996 election, Paul did not say that he wrote those articles (or even defend their content). His sole comment was to attack his Democratic opponent (who brought the story up) for “name-calling and race-baiting”. That may have left the impression that he wrote them, but that is *not* the same as saying that he did.
“The Search for the Smoking Gun
https://www.nolanchart.com/article1630-the-search-for-the-smoking-gun-html
The first time Paul is on record as saying anything about the authorship is in 2001. At that time (and ever since), he denied being the author:
“The ‘Newsletters’ FAQ ver. 1.2”
https://www.nolanchart.com/article2435-the-newsletters-faq-ver-12-html
It’s not true that GJ hasn’t critiqued HRC…he has. Yes, he critiques DJT more, is my sense. This makes sense, since so many R leaning voters are outright disturbed by the prospect of a Prez Trump, who is patently unqualified for the job, and has used fear-mongering and blatant bullying to secure the R nomination.
With an electorate that is generally fed up with politics as usual, there’s a surface appeal of DJT that needs to be pierced, vigorously so. HRC voters are generally OK with the status quo and J/W’s agenda is not appealling to them, since it represents a marked change in trajectory.
I’ve seen polls that suggest that GJ is getting significant support from BS supporters (Warren Redlich included?), at least at this stage. This also makes sense, and it’s a point GJ makes…a lot.
While the LP’s purpose is to challenge the cult of the omnipotent state, nowhere does it say, “Therefore, all our candidates must to ‘bash’ Rs and Ds equally.” Tactics are left to the candidates, yes?
langa: “I wonder if Johnson is aware that Lincoln was a strong advocate of rounding up all the former slaves and deporting them back to Africa. ”
Another story I helped break, back in the day (that day being the time of Ron Paul’s newsletter scandal).
“Paul vs. Lincoln”
https://www.nolanchart.com/article1640-paul-vs-lincoln-html
Langa — very interesting, I had not heard of that book before. At first glance it looks reputable — written by two academics, with blurbs from some very well-respected scholars, including one whom I’ve met. I’ll have to take a closer look at it.
Andy: “George Dance said: “Why should he mention Hillary Clinton? How often does she mention him?”
The Libertarian Party candidate for President should spend equal time bashing the Republican and the Democrat candidates.
I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Bondurant: Why? The Democratic and Republican candidates go out of their way to ignore Johnson and all other candidates. Why should the Libertarian candidate spend his time giving them free media?
That’s a different question from what he should say about them when asked; I’d agree that, if asked, he should respond. But why should he gratuitously mention either of them?
In this
Andy Said: “The Libertarian Party candidate for President should spend equal time bashing the Republican and the Democrat candidates.”
The LP candidate shouldn’t be “bashing” anyone! Pointing out policy differences is OK. Saying that certain positions by opponents are “incendiary” is OK, but simply “bashing?” That is such an easy route. Gentle ribbing is OK, but pointless “bashing” is not.
Why is Weld “friendly” toward Clinton? Maybe because they are friends and have been for over 40 years.
Someone we all know has said over and over that “we can disagree without being disagreeable.” Good words to follow
No, the GOP didn’t achieve “major party status” within four years of its founding, because “major party status” is a term of art relating to ballot access, and ballot access didn’t become a thing until a quarter century after the GOP captured the White House.
As far as the analogy goes, the objections I’m seeing are along the lines of “in your new religion, the messianic figure crucified by an occupying power took FIVE days to rise from the dead, so comparing it to Christianity is absurd.” OMG, there are differences between a new party formed in 1971 and a new party formed in 1854? Say it isn’t so! Of course there are. There are also similarities.
One of the similarities which is also a difference is that the Republican Party doesn’t really date to 1854. “The Republican Party” had actually been around for more than two decades before winning the White House, under different names and in factions that united under one banner over time.. Before they were the Republicans, they were the Free Soil Party (formed in 1848). Before they were the Free Soil Party, they were the Liberty Party (formed in 1839).
All of which is neither here nor there in terms of the analogy of Johnson to Lincoln as used. The last time the US elected a president whose party had never elected a president before was 1860. The president was Abraham Lincoln and the party was the Republican Party. Whether or not Lincoln was a good president or his party a good party is irrelevant to the soundness of the particular analogy.
It’s silly to say that in 1860 the GOP was a “new party” that won the White House, and thus the LP, being a “new party” in 2016 — still? — might also win the White House.
The GOP was never a “new party” in the sense of being started from scratch. It was founded by established politicians, and achieved major party status within four years of its founding.
From Wikipedia: “It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas–Nebraska Act … by 1858 in the North it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.”
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party
The LP was founded in 1971. To follow the GOP’s “new party” path to success, the LP should have “formed majorities” in some region of the U.S. by 1975.
As we all know, that didn’t happen.
Lincoln for a while supported sending slaves to Africa, but it was never an actual or proposed policy under his administration, and after 1863 he actively repudiated it.
Not true. He continued to support the idea, even at the time of his assassination. See here for details:
https://www.amazon.com/Colonization-After-Emancipation-Movement-Resettlement/dp/0826219098
“The Libertarian Candidate isn’t running to be equally fair to non-equal opponents, the libertarian candidate is running to get the most votes possible.” — steve m
I thought minor political parties were supposed to actually stand for something — you know, an ideology and principles and a willingness to stand by them.
Then again, if that were true you’d need a presidential candidate with a basic understanding of economics and political theory and policy — something the Libertarian Party has clearly lacked in the past three presidential election cycles.
Johnson is a joke.
Here’s a short Wikipedia article I wrote on this subject six years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linconia
Lincoln for a while supported sending slaves to Africa, but it was never an actual or proposed policy under his administration, and after 1863 he actively repudiated it. It’s a silly thing to hold against him — even Frederick Douglass forgave him for it, since he never actually did it or tried to do it.
I mean, when I was sixteen, I supported John McCain for president. Surely you won’t hold THAT against me?
“The Libertarian Candidate isn’t running to be equally fair to non-equal opponents, the libertarian candidate is running to get the most votes possible.”
Yes, and considering that Libertarians are not left wing or right wing, the best strategy for Libertarians is bash the Democrats and Republicans equally.
“The Libertarian Party candidate for President should spend equal time bashing the Republican and the Democrat candidates.”
Well that is silly. It presumes the Democratic candidate is exactly equal to the Republican candidate. It leaves no room for political decisions as to one or the other being more vulnerable to bashing.
The Libertarian Candidate isn’t running to be equally fair to non-equal opponents, the libertarian candidate is running to get the most votes possible.
“The Libertarian Party candidate for President should spend equal time bashing the Republican and the Democrat candidates.” — Andy
Exactly, especially since there’s so much to criticize — unless, of course, you’re trying to protect part of the Establishment. Like I said, this is a weird election cycle, made even stranger by the presence of a Republican ticket, circa 1996, posing as Libertarians.
George Dance said: “Why should he mention Hillary Clinton? How often does she mention him?”
The Libertarian Party candidate for President should spend equal time bashing the Republican and the Democrat candidates.
“Another fail from the campaign trail for Gary Johnson. He fails, once again, to mention Hillary Clinton is competition” — Bondurant
That’s a great point. It’s really quite strange that the candidates supposedly representing the country’s leading third party are focusing their criticism on only one of their major-party rivals while effusively praising the other. How odd, even for this bizarre election cycle.
At this point, what we really need is somebody willing to criticize Trump, Clinton and Johnson — all three of whom are a disaster waiting to happen.
Bondurant: “Another fail from the campaign trail for Gary Johnson. He fails, once again, to mention Hillary Clinton is competition”
Why should he mention Hillary Clinton? How often does she mention him?
Tonight Ted Cruz spoke at the Republican Convention and when he did not endorse Trump, he was booed off the stage. If the Republican party has a significant angry break and given the vitriol between Trump and Cruz and Trump and the Bush family then Johnson has a significant opportunity to pick up significant support.
Enough to win a couple states? maybe just maybe.
Point is, my anarcho friends, that J/W is qualified by conventional standards, and have gotten coverage acknowledging so.
Another fail from the campaign trail for Gary Johnson. He fails, once again, to mention Hillary Clinton is competition and makes it sound kind of like he wouldn’t be running if Trump wasn’t the GOP nominee.
That’s my point. Look at the Braves. They are in last place, with the worst record in baseball. Yet I have actually encountered a couple of delusional fans who think they are about to go on a long winning streak, and might even make the playoffs. This is the same as the delusional people here on IPR who think the LP ticket has a realistic chance to win the White House. It is wishful thinking at best, if not outright insanity.
langa, by that standard, it has been mathematically possible for Libertarians to win the White House in several elections, bur this does not mean that this has ever been a realistic possibility.
The LP is a “semi-serious” contender for the White House this year, in the same way that the Braves are a “semi-serious” contender to win the World Series this year. In other words, it’s mathematically possible, but it ain’t going to happen, and anyone who seriously believes it will should get their head examined.
Robert, I hate to burst your bubble, but the Libertarian Party’s presidential ticket is not even close to being serious contenders for the White House this year either.
L: The LP is not a “new” party. It’s been around for over 40 years.
me: True, but misleading. The Rs were founded in 1854, but they didn’t win the prez til 1860, so they weren’t “new,” either, then.
Point is, this is the first time that the Ls could be a semi-serious contender for the Oval. Yes, the LP has been challenging the cult for more than 4 decades, but few — generally less than 1% — have taken it seriously.
It is far too ambitious to also want to correctly rewrite and amend history, dethrone undeserving folk heros and dubunk historical mythology as part of a political campaign for public office.
I agree an LP campaign shouldn’t go out of its way to debunk historical myths. But it also shouldn’t go out of its way to perpetuate them, either.
Lincoln was the last president of a new political party.
The LP is not a “new” party. It’s been around for over 40 years. If Johnson wants to be the first president of a “new” party, I suggest he start his own. He can call it the Milquetoast Party.
Better to just run candidates, win, change laws, and set the world free.
This is not how change happens. Election results are a lagging indicator of societal change. First you have to change public opinion, and then you get elected. Many people in the LP seem to think that if we can just trick people into voting for closet libertarians, then once “our guy” is in office, he can simply ram libertarianism down the country’s throat. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
What myth is he propagating?
He is clearly attempting to contrast the “inclusive” and “tolerant” GOP of Lincoln with the “exclusionary” and “bigoted” GOP of Trump. Why else would he bring up Lincoln at all? But, as I have pointed out, Abe was every bit as bigoted and exclusionary as Trump (if not more so).
Funny to see how “politically correct” libertarians think it is OK to propagate the Abe Lincoln myths, but the same people rightfully threw a hissy fit when Wayne Allan Root propagated the “Ronald Reagan libertarian” myth.
Great point, Andy. The idea of a “Lincoln libertarian” is, if anything, even more ridiculous than the idea of a “Reagan libertarian” is.
As for saying that Lincoln is a popular figure with most Americans, so what? FDR is also considered by most Americans to be one of the greatest Presidents. Should Johnson compare himself to FDR, too?
George, membership in an organization that has lots of influence over the government is a hell of a lot more relavent to the voters than whether or not Dick Cheney plays checkers.
Robert, my statement about Hillary and the CFR may not have beenam exact quote, but my point still remains the same.
This is further illustrated in how chummy Johnson and CFR member Weld have been toward Hillary Clinton.
You got that one right, Tony.
Cheney may also never have told his constituents if he knows how to play checkers.
Umm, you don’t have to correct your type-o’s . We know what you were saying. And I agree with Robert. I’ve never heard her say she takes ORDERS from anyone (other than the President when she worked under him I guess)
AJ, do you mean this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba9wxl1Dmas
If so, I didn’t hear what you did. She’s not saying she takes “orders” from the CFR. Did she say so elsewhere?
Should read, “was….”
Hillary Clinton has admitted that she takes orders from the CFR. Dick Cheney has admitted that he never told the people of Wyoming that he was a member of the CFR when he wad campaigning for re-election to Congress.
Ah yes, the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the favorite pets of the Tin Foil Hat wearers . . . .
Andy,
I never said that Lincoln should be regarded as a “hero for liberty.”
I simply pointed out that the two factual statements I made about him were irrefutably factual statements, not “myths” that need to be “busted.”
“The [racist — there, fixed that for ya] comments in a tiny handful of issues of newsletters put out by Ron Paul did not call for or lead to any legislation being passed, and the comments in question were written by a guy named James B. Powell.”
I don’t recall whether or not those particular articles called for any legislation being passed. If Ron Paul got any legislation passed, however, they did LEAD to it being passed, because those newsletters were the basis for the fundraising list that got him back into Congress.
As to who wrote the passages in questions, Ron Paul said he did when they were published. Then a few years later he said again that he had written them, and defended the content. Then when he ran for president, suddenly he didn’t agree with them and they were written by an unnamed ghost writer.
I don’t profess to know which (if either) of Paul’s claims in the matter is true, or what his actual feelings are on the matter of race. However, since the claims are mutually exclusive and since he indisputably made both of them, they do prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is a liar.
Considering that Weld is s member of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the groups that steers the policies of the D’s and R’s, the Johnson / Weld ticket is not busting any “two party system” myths, as they are a co-opted ticket that is just another head on the same multi-headed dragon as the D’s and R’s.
It’s just a saying. . Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
A: I thought that Libertarians were supposed to be myth busters.
me: I’ve never seen that as a requirement. Which tablet is that etched into?
The LP, if anything, is committed to perpetuating a myth: the cult of the omnipotent state!
That said, I’m a big fan of myth busting. Specifically, in this election, the first myth that J/W are busting is the alleged two-party system. Busting myths from history seems way down the list, and I’d say rightly so.
WW has been quite articulate and insightful in comparing Trumpsters and the No Nothing Party, so history can be useful in the present.
He says the “party of Lincoln” as if that has something to do with liberty.
I honestly don’t understand your gripe. This thread is about a short statement Gov. Johnson made wherein he referred to the GOP as the “party of Lincoln.”
Lincoln was, in fact, a Republican. So the GOP is, in fact, the “party of Lincoln.”
What myth is he propagating?
I can’t comprehend what you are bitching about. This thread is about a short statement put out by Johnson in which he called the GOP “the party of Lincoln.” What myth is he propagating?????????
Lincoln WAS in fact a Republican. So the GOP is in fact the “party of Lincoln.”
Tom, libertarians can and should mention the good and bad in regard to Jefferson.
The “politically incorrect” comments in a tiny handful of issues of newsletters put out by Ron Paul did not call for or lead to any legislation being passed, and the comments in question were written by a guy named James B. Powell. I would much prefer a candidate where somebody other than the candidate once made a few comments that hurt some peoples’ feelings 20 plus years ago over a candidate who makes stupid policy proposals today.
Lincoln said that he did not intend to interfere with the institution of slavery, and he had in fact pledged to sign a bill mandating that, and he also said that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do it.
Funny to see how “politically correct” libertarians think it is OK to propagate the Abe Lincoln myths, but the same people rightfully threw a hissy fit when Wayne Allan Root propagated the “Ronald Reagan libertarian” myth.
I thought that Libertarians were supposed to be myth busters.
If Lincoln should be regarded as a hero for liberty, then how about Woodrow Wilson, or Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or Lyndon Johnson (who signed the Civil Rights Act)? How about Ronald Reagan? How about George HW Bush (who liberated Kuwait from the Iraqi government)?
Hmm for all my years on the periphery of the LP, I never knew that one of the most revered Presidents in this nation’s history is a pariah.
All the more reason the LP purists remain ultra fringe. I remember when I bought into libertarianism much more than I do now. I used to think “well what happens after we win?” If that ever came to pass, the Andys of the world would be in a panic! Nothing more to bitch about!
I’m surprised I haven’t read in this thread about Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus.
Also, if the purists despise Lincoln, then they should have loved Johnson referring to the GOP as the party of Lincoln! They should have seen it as disparaging. But of course, they nit pick every little thing that Gov. Johnson says and does.
Tony, certain subjects tend to inflame a sect with the LM. Lincoln is one of these subjects. In that sect, Lincoln’s name can never be mentioned without clarifying that he was an “evil” man, among the most notorious figures in history.
Personally, I’ve never bought this approach, even when I was a Randian/Rothbardian ideologically speaking. It among other things is a bummer worldview, in which anger and rage take the place of civility.
It strikes me that demonstration and effective communication ARE educational, in fact, often the most important kind of education. J/W is demonstrating to voters that one can take a lessarchist approach to politics and be effective, and for the most part civil. It need not be what “ClnTrump” is offering.
History and figures in history have to be judged by the times they lived in. If Jefferson lived today and owned slaves, it would be quite different.
Not everything about Lincoln is a myth. What “false narrative” was being spread?.All he said was refer to the GOP as “the party of Abraham Lincoln!!!!” Jeez! He didn’t do a biography of the man! My god man!!! The GOP has been called “the party of Lincoln” for decades.
Why is everything so serious with you? Have you every just had a decent day and laughed and smiled?
Andy
July 20, 2016 at 12:03
I thought that the job of Libertarian Party candidates for President was to educate the public, not to spread ignorance. It appears that Johnson needs some educating on history, philosophy, and economics, himself.
************
I thought the job of LP candidates was to win office and change laws to make us freer, thereby demonstrating the benefits of a free society, leading to the election of more LP candidates, so we can smash the state and be free.
But, if you just want to teach, I suggest you start a school. Of course, few will come to your school, most who do won’t really listen, even those who listen won’t learn much and among that tiny number that learn, most will either decide not to believe you, ignore you or forget what they learned. The rest will take no action and die in an increasingly statist world.
Better to just run candidates, win, change laws, and set the world free.
To be elected you have to look attractive, smile, be trusted, spend a lot of money on Major Network Broadcast TV to earn free media so that people know you’re the attractive, smiling, trustworthy guy or gal they want to vote for. Few will notice what you stand for or what you do as long as they like you.
But, go ahead, start your school.
and i thought the job of a political candidate running for office was to win the election
But the things I just pointed out aren’t a false narrative. They are indisputable facts.
By your standard, a libertarian must never mention or quote Thomas Jefferson without talking about how he owned slaves, had American citizens held incommunicado and without charge by the military, went to war without a declaration of same by Congress, and ignored the Constitution when it got in the way of the Louisiana Purchase.
And of course, libertarians must never mention or quote Ron Paul without discussing Newslettergate.
I disagree. Spreading a false narrative does little to advance the cause of liberty, and in fact just reinforces the ignorance of much of the population.
Andy,
Yes, educating the public is one of the Libertarian Party’s jobs. Better to educate them in ways that actually promote liberty now than to waste time trying to revise their entrenched understanding of something that happened a century and a half ago.
Lincoln was the last president of a new political party.
Lincoln came into office opposing the expansion of chattel slavery, and he was a primary figure in ending chattel slavery via the 13th Amendment.
Those things are true. They are facts. Should those facts be used to promote liberty, or should they be ignored in favor of flogging the public with other, uglier facts because REASONS?
I thought that the job of Libertarian Party candidates for President was to educate the public, not to spread ignorance. It appears that Johnson needs some educating on history, philosophy, and economics, himself.
My point is that — who knows? — a century from now, Trump might be a beloved folk hero.
Stranger things have happened. Today Stalin is beloved in parts of Russia.
“Lincoln was much despised in his time … ”
Indeed. But those who despised Lincoln in his time are all dead.
Now, he’s a folk hero. Fact has been replaced by myth. Beyond Lincoln the folk hero who freed the slaves, most Americans could not tell you when the Civil War was fought, how long it lasted, the names or locations of any battles, nor even the states involved on either side.
… Why would we ask anyone to try to a re-eduction project on such a scale.
Robert, he only grew the beard AFTER he was elected 🙂
There really isn’t much in common between the two Senor Root. Lincoln was even a better businessman than Trump. I don’t think his law firm went through several bankruptcies!
Be Rational: Making the comparison of Lincoln the folk hero as the founding US President of a new party of change and Trump as the despised final act of that same party makes a good historical arc …
However, Lincoln was much despised in his time, even by his own party leaders. Same as Trump.
Hmmmm. Seems they have more in common than some might, at first glance, think. Wonder if their historical similarities will grow over time? Food for thought.
br, tk, and tfli have convinced me.
It may well alienate elements of the L base, but invoking Lincoln as the first prez of a new party is just too rich an opportunity to pass up. Agreed. Turnout might be dampened in and around Auburn, but J/W is attempting a game-changing, 15% type of game.
Maybe GJ should grow a beard, too!!!!
Robert, you both overestimate the historical knowledge of the average American voter and also admit you haven’t read a lot about Lincoln.
If you took a favorability poll of Lincoln, he would have a 98% approval rate! Plus, the GOP is known as “the party of Lincoln,” so Gary Johnson was not going out on a limb invoking Lincoln.
The nit-picking of GJ continues . . . .
I see Be Rational beat me to it. GMTA.
George,
“The identity of the man who opened fire on Fort Sumter is well known. At the time, he was a hero.”
I assume you’re referring to Edmund Ruffin. There’s actually some argument over whether he really did fire the first shot at Fort Sumter (explored in, IIRC, Foote’s The Civil War: A Narrative) — and some rhetorical controversy over whether that first shot really constituted the beginning of the war (other candidates include Harper’s Ferry, or the attempt of the Star of the West to forcibly resupply/reinforce Sumter, or the shots fired at it by cadets at the Citadel).
Robert,
If I were GJ’s counselor, I’d NOT advise him not to invoke Lincoln. Lincoln is an incredibly popular and nearly universally recognized historical/ political figure who was the last “candidate of a new party” to be elected to the White House. I’d be surprised if any significant fraction of the population which doesn’t normally vote Libertarian but might be open to doing so this year actively dislikes him. Not invoking him would be … well … dumb.
Libertarians have enough to do as it is, promoting radical change and liberty, hopefully to come someday in our future lives.
It is far too ambitious to also want to correctly rewrite and amend history, dethrone undeserving folk heros and dubunk historical mythology as part of a political campaign for public office. If that’s your goal – a fine one to be sure – you should pursue that as a PhD university history professor, researcher and textbook writer.
Making the comparison of Lincoln the folk hero as the founding US President of a new party of change and Trump as the despised final act of that same party makes a good historical arc and lead in for Gary Johnson as the upcoming first President of the next new party of change to become a major party in American history.
tk, you may misunderstand my short view. First, were I GJ’s counselor, I’d suggest he not invoke Lincoln. While most think “freed the slaves” with Lincoln — a huge blow for lessarchy and justice — AL also said and did many dysfunctional things, things that are generally not in the general public’s Lincoln narrative.
Stepping back to the 1850s and 60s, I can imagine that sending slaves and former slaves back to Africa might have some appeal at the time, and a certain coherence. If slaves were forcibly moved, move them back doesn’t strike me as nearly as insane as, say, privatizing NORAD. 😉
I’ve not read THAT much about Lincoln, but my recollection is that he was an anti-slavery (or at least very uneasy about slavery, wanting to restrict it) racist, and that he at one point felt that blacks were inferior to whites. If so, that’s hardly the stuff of a hero or an enlightened person. OTOH, if he only encountered uneducated, subjugated slaves, it might not be surprising that a person would form a rather negative bias about blacks. (I suspect white slaves from birth would seem inferior, also.) I seem to recall that Lincoln met Frederick Douglass and was blown away by FD’s intellect.
OTOH, WW’s been trying to promote the idea of Honest Gary, comparing them as physically superior. This troubles me less.
Good to see that we now have posts from total liars:
“Thomas Knapp… factually inaccurate, dipshit. It’s been paid off already (other than the $300k the scumbag federal government is trying to STEAL). ” That’s a total lie. Even Johnson admitted it.
” The dude intentionally started a civil war. ” White racist rose fertilizer from male cows. The identity of the man who opened fire on Fort Sumter is well known. At the time, he was a hero. Lincoln kept saying he had no interest in disturbing slavery where it was then practiced, and the delusionary southerns committed cultural suicide, to the long-term good of our country. Alas, they did not commit suicide very well, and we still have white racists claiming the Civil War was not about slavery, contradicting the honest testimony of the Confederate leadership.
Shane, yeah, it had nothing at all to do with the states that left the Union immediately after the election of Lincoln.
It had nothing to do with southerners (who left the United States) occupying a Union fort and firing upon a union ship – first . . . OK
It was all Lincoln . . . . .
As usual, finding any way possible to criticize who will be the LP’s most successful candidate in the party’s history. Can you all ever say anything positive? ANYTHING????
Lincoln’s scumbaggery has little to do with the slaves. The dude intentionally started a civil war. In my eyes that makes him a mass murderer in line with the other tyrants of history that killed their own people.
As for Johnson, I’m starting to think that the guy just isn’t all that bright.
RC,
That may be the strangest thing I’ve ever seen you write.
Lincoln held that free black people and free white people would have a very difficult time living together. Therefore, he proposed to round up all the black people and deport them. How the fuck is that any more “proposing to right a massive wrong” than it would be today, when most African-Americans are likewise descended from ancestors brought to the US forcibly?
L: I wonder if Johnson is aware that Lincoln was a strong advocate of rounding up all the former slaves and deporting them back to Africa. Sounds pretty exclusionary to me!
me: Not to me. Former slaves were already here, brought to the US forcibly. Or born into slavery here, due to parents or grandparents being brought to the US forcibly.
Lincoln was proposing to right a massive wrong. That’s different, yes?
“It’s been paid off already”
Hmm.
You say it’s been paid off already.
The Johnson campaign, as of July 7th, says it hasn’t.
On the other hand, forced to choose between believing an official statement from the Johnson campaign or the ravings of anonymous semi-literate comment troll, I have to admit that it’s an actual dilemma.
“Seriously, most people that post here seem to have IQs below 5”
Speak for yourself!
QHI,
“ALL government employees are brain dead scumbags and/or blatant liars. ALL OF THEM.”
This is perhaps the most stupid statement I have read all election cycle. I know some rather brilliant people who work for the USGS and for NASA. So your premise is Dumb.
Given that you are so biased and foolish I suspect every other part of your diatribe is equally worthless.
Thomas Knapp… factually inaccurate, dipshit. It’s been paid off already (other than the $300k the scumbag federal government is trying to STEAL).
Do you really trust a God Damn word out of any brainless government employee (the FEC)? If so you are ridiculously gullible and naive. ALL government employees are brain dead scumbags and/or blatant liars. ALL OF THEM. That’s the only reason they choose to work for the government; they’re too brain dead to be employed in the private sector.
Seriously, most people that post here seem to have IQs below 5, so you’re in good company, I guess. Then again so does the general public as a whole, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
So much for the U.S. being saved by libertarians. This site is a perfect example of that faction of the electorate, and they’re too good Damn incompetent to get elected. You have to people outside your party switch parties AFTER they get elected. And even then the LP still gets nothing done.
Seriously, the LP will be forever irrelevant. And I mean forever. Your active membership is going to drop below 5,000 by 2017.
langa,
You get an “A” for your knowledge of history and an “F” for your knowledge of how to appeal to voters.
Sadly, though, it isn’t a history test that Governor Johnson is part of, its an election.
$1.5 million in 4-years-unpaid campaign debt, as well as more than $300k of federal welfare owed back to the FEC, say otherwise.
As a former Republican, I’m shocked that the party of Abraham Lincoln is nominating a man with a vision of America that doesn’t even resemble that of the party I once knew.
There is a good chance that Trump would be the worst President of my lifetime, but there is almost no chance that he would be as bad as Lincoln was.
Despite the calls at the GOP convention in Cleveland for national unity, Donald Trump sees our country as a land of exclusion.
I wonder if Johnson is aware that Lincoln was a strong advocate of rounding up all the former slaves and deporting them back to Africa. Sounds pretty exclusionary to me!