One more...
First, I would like to apologize to everyone for my last post on this thread. It was an exercise in vindictive, bitter sarcasm, and that is not usually my way. I was frustrated by the direction the discussion took, and I lost my cool. I am sorry.
I just wanted to review, all in one place, all the statements I have made on this thread concerning whether or not Ron Paul and his followers are bigots. This review will be followed by some final comments.
"I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots; on the contrary, by and large they seem to be normal, patriotic Americans who are drawn to him by his devotion to the Constitution and his emphatically pro-American and libertarian views. This is NOT an attempt to smear Ron Paul or his supporters."
"To be fair, Ron Paul's writing has been PUBLISHED in some white-supremacist newsletters; to say that he writes "for" them is not quite fair....As I said in my OP, I'm not saying that Paul himself is a bigot..."
"I think I made it clear in my OP that this is NOT an attempt to smear Dr. Paul as a bigot. I suppose it bears repeating: "I certainly do not believe... (etc.)" (2nd time)
"I have no reason whatever to think that Dr. Paul himself is a racist or an antisemite; there is even an organization called "Jews for Ron Paul", and I doubt that that would exist if he had a problem there. Okay?"
"...As I thought, upon examination there are explanations for this OTHER than Paul or his advocates being bigots themselves..."
"For the record, I agree with Paul on all three of the issues mentioned here... I also recognize their appeal to racists and anti-Semites, but that doesn't mean people who hold those positions are bigots..."
"I suspect you're right on the aid-to-Israel issue. That makes four positions of Paul's that bigots would agree with, NONE of which are themselves indications of bigotry...."
"Fallacy of composition: That would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that. On the contrary; I said, and quite explicitly, that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots." [3rd time] ...."
"...Fallacy of generalization: Again, that would be true if I had ever said, "Some of Paul's followers are bigots, therefore they all are." But I never said that."
" repeat, once again, that I have said from the beginning that "I certainly do not believe that most, or even many, of Dr. Paul's fans are bigots; on the contrary, by and large they seem to be normal, patriotic Americans who are drawn to him by his devotion to the Constitution and his emphatically pro-American and libertarian views." [4th time]..."
"As I hope I've made clear, I don't think Paul is a bigot, and I think we've hit on a few ideas here that explain the bigots' infatuation with him...."
"As has been said, it's not Paul's responsibility to account for every screwball that loves him, any more than Jodie Foster was responsible for John Hinckley..."
"If you'll look back at my posts, you'll see that I, myself, refuted the allegation that Ron Paul ever "wrote for" any racist newsletter as soon as it was made..."
Finally, there is this, which I think expresses the entire INTENDED point of my thread:
"...the question from the beginning has been... "Given that Paul and his fans are NOT bigots, what would account for bigots being attracted to his program?"
And here is the answer:
"There are logical, specific reasons that racists and anti-Semites are attracted to Ron Paul's campaign, and they do not in any way indicate that either Paul or his followers are bigots."
Some final remarks:
After some reflection, I can understand why some might think that bringing up this subject was an attempt to "smear" Dr. Paul and those who support him. I apologize for contributing to that impression in any way, and particularly for my intemperate remarks about the views expressed by Wendy Campbell and others' opinion of them. I know, and ought to have said, that those execrable ideas meet with no one's approval here. I can only plead frustration and defensiveness, and once again, for that I especially apologize.
I can only say this, in the end: I live in this head, and I know, and swear by all that I hold sacred, that I never for a single moment intended to attribute racist or anti-Semitic views to Dr. Paul or to the overwhelming majority of his supporters. I tried, or thought I tried, to make that clear in the remarks quoted above.
My initial question was sincere and serious, and held--as far as my own intentions were and are concerned--no "hidden messages" or efforts to insinuate anthing other than what I said in as clear a manner as I could. Upon reflection, though, as I said, I can understand why others might think otherwise, and once again, I apologize for doing anything to contribute to that impression.
For the record: I oppose the nomination of Dr. Paul for reasons stated elsewhere, NONE of which impugn his character, his patriotism, or his dedication to the proposition that "all men are created equal." though, as I said, I disagree with his views on many issues, I regard him as without a doubt the most courageous, forthright, and simply HONEST candidate running today. His unwillingness to pander to any audience for any reason, or to temper, modify, or "deemphasize" any of his ideas to curry favor with any audience anywhere, is absolutely unique in modern American politics. I actually find his occasional bouts of apparent confusion and inarticulateness, and his tendency to lecture at length, refreshing; he is clearly speaking his own mind, and is not coached, rehearsed, and carefully polished into delivering glib "sound bites" with Hollywood perfection, as is every other candidate on the podium. I can think of no one, except possibly Reagan, that I think could be more trusted to actually tell the truth as he honestly sees it. I can certainly understand the enthusiasm of those who support him, and the ferocity with which they greet any perceived attack on his character.
I wish I could support him, but there are many issues on which I think him simply wrong on the merits; further, I think he proposes some actions which I think are absolutely unworkable and impossible, in practical terms, to implement. None of those grounds for my opposition imply any negative reflection on Dr. Paul's character, and I hope that is crystal-clear.
I hope this has helped. For my own part, I'd like to say that my own concerns about the subject that I broached here have been put to rest. I admit to a somewhat obsessive concern with bigotry in general and with anti-Semitism in particular, and I do not apologize for it. There are some truly vicious and dangerous people out there, and just as we shooters have learned to keep an eye on the antis and keep our guard up, we Jews have learned to take the same attitude toward Nazis and their ilk. I was rightly, I think, disturbed by the undeniable facts that I brought up in my initial post--though I say once again I did not at any time think that such views were those of Dr. Paul. (If I simply thought that Paul was an anti-Semite, why would I ask why anti-Semites liked him? The answer would be obvious.)
With the help of others on this board, I think the mystery--and to me, it WAS a mystery--of bigots' attraction to Paul was solved.
That I ought to have been able to figure it out on my own is, I suppose, true--though, as I said, I think that could be said about the question of, say, whether an AR is superior to an AK, and if so, in what ways. One can do research on the Net to answer such questions, yet still we come here and ask them. Discussion is what we do.
I apologize, as I said, for doing anything to further the impression that I was attempting a smear; but I do not apologize for asking a rational question that had a rational answer.
I respect everyone here as fellow shooters and fellow Americans. I truly believe that the differences we have, on political matters or any other, are all but insignificant compared to what we have in common. My best to all.
Charles Norman