I recently submitted what I took to be a spirited defense of Ron Paul to a well regarded right-leaning publication\u2014that is to say, a publication that is widely esteemed by more than a few establishment neoconservative Republican pundits.\u00a0\u00a0It was rejected.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In what follows, I relay both the essentials of my argument as well as my latest experience with its editors.\u00a0 I welcome any feedback from readers\u2014including feedback that is critical: if I am wrong, please call me out on it.\u00a0 I only ask that you supply reasons <\/em>for your assessment.<\/p>\n The Argumentative Strategy<\/strong><\/p>\n Identify distortions; State Paul\u2019s positions; Identify contradictions in his critics<\/em><\/p>\n In my article\u2014\u201cSetting the Record Straight on Ron Paul\u201d\u2014I pursue a simple, three prong strategy.\u00a0 Courtesy of his Republican detractors, the political horizon is replete with gross distortions of Dr. Paul\u2019s positions.\u00a0 I expose these distortions for what they are.\u00a0 Next, I reiterate what Paul has actually said on the issues.\u00a0 Finally, I show that by their own standards, <\/em>Paul\u2019s enemies contradict themselves.<\/p>\n The Strategy in Action<\/strong><\/p>\n Paul on Domestic Policy<\/em><\/p>\n For example, Paul\u2019s Republican rivals inexhaustibly tell us that the Texas Congressman wants to \u201clegalize\u201d drugs, prostitution, and so-called \u201csame sex marriage.\u201d\u00a0 As anyone who has actually listened to Paul knows all too well, this is not <\/em>his position.\u00a0 Rather, it is an end to the federal government\u2019s <\/em>intervention on behalf of these issues that he seeks.\u00a0 Paul, that is, believes it is unconstitutional <\/em>for the federal government to either criminalize or legalize <\/em>any of these activities.\u00a0 I observe that by the standards that his critics judge him, they convict themselves.\u00a0\u00a0 Familiarity with elementary logic reveals in no time just how inescapable is this verdict.\u00a0<\/p>\n Paul insists that the federal government has no constitutional authority to speak to the issues of drugs, prostitution, and \u201csame sex marriage.\u201d\u00a0 He believes that these are issues best left to the states<\/em> to determine.\u00a0 Because of this, his rivals claim that he favors their legalization. \u00a0But when it comes to, say, the hot button issue of abortion, <\/em>these same Republicans\u2014virtually all of them\u2014are just as ready to invoke federalism as is Paul.\u00a0 It is the states, <\/em>not the federal government, that has constitutional authority to address abortion, they claim.\u00a0 By their own reasoning, though, there is no way to circumvent the conclusion that they<\/em>, then, must <\/em>favor the legalization<\/em> of abortion<\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Such Republicans, I note, are either incapable of adhering to this most fundamental logical demand of consistency or else they are unwilling to do so.\u00a0 Thus, they are either intellectually or morally confused.\u00a0 Perhaps they are both.<\/p>\n Foreign Policy and Islamic Terrorism<\/em><\/p>\n Ron Paul\u2019s vision of terrorism generally and the 9\/11 attacks specifically is another issue that I address by way of this same argumentative strategy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s nemeses repeatedly claim that he \u201cblames\u201d America<\/em> <\/em>for the Islamic violence that has been perpetrated against Americans.\u00a0 This is their distortion of Paul\u2019s position.\u00a0 In reality, Paul has \u201cblamed\u201d no one, <\/em>short of the terrorists themselves.\u00a0 After all, he did <\/em>vote in favor of military action against the Taliban in the days following the attacks of September 11, 2001.\u00a0 Least of all can he be said to have ever <\/em>\u201cblamed\u201d America<\/em>.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n \u201cBlame\u201d is a concept located within the universe of moral<\/em> discourse.\u00a0 Along with its complement term, \u201cpraise,\u201d \u201cblame\u201d belongs to the language of justification. <\/em>\u00a0Paul, in sharp contrast, is concerned with supplying an explanation <\/em>when he addresses the topic of Islamic terrorism and 9\/11.\u00a0 In other words, he seeks to justify nothing.\u00a0<\/p>\n The distinction between explanatory and justificatory modes of discourse is another species of elementary logic.\u00a0 Again, that Paul\u2019s enemies do not recognize what every college freshmen enrolled in an introductory logic course is expected to recognize renders it impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are either cognitively or morally impoverished\u2014or perhaps a little (or a lot) of both.<\/p>\n However, I continued, let\u2019s just say that Paul is<\/em> looking to assign blame <\/em>when he speaks of Islamic terrorism.\u00a0 According to Paul, the actions that invite Islamic violence are not <\/em>those of America<\/em>; <\/em>they are the actions of the federal government.\u00a0 <\/em>Surely Republicans, of all people, can understand that to \u201cblame\u201d the federal government for this or that is most certainly not equivalent to blaming America.\u00a0 Think about it: it is Republicans, both politicians and pundits, who tirelessly rail against the federal government.\u00a0 It was Ronald Reagan\u2014a man who counts for no small amount of importance among Republicans\u2014who famously said that (the federal) government is not \u201cthe solution\u201d to our problems; all too often it is <\/em>the problem itself.\u00a0 Does this mean that Reagan was essentially saying that America<\/em> <\/em>is the problem<\/em>?<\/p>\n If Paul is guilty of bashing \u201cAmerica\u201d because of his observation\u2014one shared by, among other sources, The 9\/11 Commission and the Central Intelligence Agency, including the CIA\u2019s Michael Scheuer, who presided over its Osama bin Laden unit for 22 years\u2014that our federal government\u2019s foreign policy provoked this \u201cblowback\u201d phenomenon, then every Republican who criticizes the federal government for anything and everything is equally guilty of bashing America.<\/p>\n Paulophobic Republicans, once more, are inconsistent.\u00a0 But because of the glaring nature of this inconsistency, it is hard to imagine that they aren\u2019t being dishonest.<\/p>\n Foreign Policy and Foreign Aid<\/em><\/p>\n Finally, I looked at the topic of foreign aid andIsrael.\u00a0<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s opponents state that he is no friend of Israel.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Paul, you see, wants to eliminate all <\/em>foreign aid\u2014which obviously includes foreign aid toIsrael.<\/p>\n Paul opposes foreign aid for the same reason that he opposes all redistributive schemes: it is a redistributive scheme<\/em>.\u00a0 But among the various forms of government welfare that prevail in our country, foreign aid is arguably the most egregious, for it requires that the United States government compel its own citizens\u2014the vast majority of whom are not affluent\u2014to part with their resources so as to subsidize the wealthy office holders of the governments of other countries.\u00a0<\/p>\n Yet he objects to foreign aid on another ground: the subsidization of other governments makes those governments forever dependent<\/em> upon those governments that subsidize them. That is, the sovereignty of a nation is compromised inasmuch as it is beholden to another.\u00a0<\/p>\n Now, there may be cogent reasons for why Paul may be mistaken as to what being a good ally of Israel(or any other nation) entails.\u00a0\u00a0 But it is only ill faith that can account for why his Republican objectors would charge him with being \u201canti-Israel,\u201d for Paul\u2019s view is that a true champion of Israel(or any other nation) is one who seeks her independence.\u00a0 <\/em>By calling for an end to foreign aid, it is exactly this<\/em> for which he calls.<\/p>\n When we consider that it is Republicans who charge Democrats with \u201cracism\u201d for allegedly desiring to keep blacks dependent upon Big Government, one would think that Republicans more so than anyone else would sympathize <\/em>would Paul on this topic.\u00a0 Yet again, Paul\u2019s Republican enemies contradict themselves: if Paul is \u201canti-Israel\u201d or \u201canti-Semitic\u201d because of his desire to liberate <\/em>Israel from its dependence upon Big Government, then it is Republicans, not Democrats, who are \u201cracist\u201d because of their desire to liberate blacks from their dependence upon Big Government.\u00a0\u00a0 If, on the other hand, such Republicans insist that respect for persons requires that we affirm their autonomy or independence, then insofar as they want to keepIsrael dependent upon the American government, it is his Republican detractors, not Paul himself, who are the real \u201canti-Semites.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Editor\u2019s Remarks and My Response<\/strong><\/p>\n These are the arguments that I made in my article. The editor of this reputable publication rejected it as a \u201cnon-starter.\u201d\u00a0 In an unusually long email, he claimed to be \u201cshocked\u201d and \u201cstunned\u201d that I would accuse his publication of furthering distortions and lies <\/em>concerning Paul.\u00a0 He then pointed out that while he has published anti-Paul pieces, he has also published critical pieces of all of the Republican presidential contenders.<\/p>\n Although he spent most of his time defending his publication against my charges, he managed to criticize my piece for its lack of \u201cobjectivity\u201d and its \u201cemotionalism.\u201d\u00a0 Because I didn\u2019t \u201ccite\u201d a single source, what I submitted was merely my \u201copinion\u201d of what Ron Paul has said\u2014nothing more.\u00a0<\/p>\n The editor\u2019s comments call for several responses.<\/p>\n First, it is worth noting that not once did he question either the substance or the logic of my arguments.\u00a0 Nor could he, for, in my humble judgment, the substance was true and the logic impeccable.\u00a0<\/p>\n Second, it is true that I did not cite any sources.\u00a0 Yet it is equally true that most articles written in this venue, including no inconsiderable number of anti-Paul essays that had been published at this specific publication, are typically devoid of citations.\u00a0 Besides, those of Paul\u2019s positions to which I spoke are public knowledge: everyone knows what he says about the federal government and its role vis-\u00e0-vis drugs, prostitution, and marriage, and everyone knows what he thinks about foreign aid.\u00a0 We are also all too familiar with his opponents\u2019 criticisms.<\/p>\n Third, this publication has, to its credit, published a couple of defenses of Paul.\u00a0 And yes, it has indeed published articles taking some of the other candidates to task.\u00a0 But, first of all, for every one pro-Paul piece there have been numerous critiques.\u00a0 This in and by itself is fair enough.\u00a0 What is most unfair, though, is the nature <\/em>of these critiques.\u00a0 In fact, they can\u2019t really be said to be critiques at all.\u00a0 They are, rather, the standard diet of character attacks that we have come to expect from the Republican-dominated media: Paul is \u201cinsane,\u201d \u201cnutzo,\u201d and \u201cmad.\u201d\u00a0 He is a \u201cconspiracy monger\u201d and an \u201canti-Semite\u201d who \u201cblames the Jews\u201d for Islamic attacks against theUnited States.\u00a0 Paul is a \u201cracist,\u201d a \u201cbigot,\u201d and a \u201ccrackpot,\u201d someone who is little better than \u201can apologist for the KKK!\u201d\u00a0 No other candidate comes close to suffering this same abuse.\u00a0<\/p>\n Fourth, the editor determines that my defense of Paul isn\u2019t \u201cworthy\u201d of his publication because it is not \u201cobjective.\u201d\u00a0 At the same time, he permits the foregoing trash to make it to print.<\/p>\n Finally, there appears to be some confusion as to the meaning of \u201cobjectivity.\u201d\u00a0 This is pardonable, for fewer words have been as mired in ambiguity as this one.\u00a0 If by \u201cobjective\u201d we mean non-partisan and\/or dispassionate, then I confess that my argument on Paul\u2019s behalf was resolutely non-objective.\u00a0 At the same time, no argument <\/em>fits this description of objectivity.\u00a0 If, though, an objective analysis is one that is supported by reasons that are at once true and that answer to the universal requirement of logical consistency, then my defense was most certainly objective.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n Conclusion and a Call for Feedback<\/strong><\/p>\n At least this is the case as far as I can tell.\u00a0 Any readers who think that perhaps I have overreacted, as the editor accuses me of doing, or who have any other thoughts about this little episode, please, let me know.<\/p>\n Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.<\/p>\n originally published at The New American<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I recently submitted what I took to be a spirited defense of Ron Paul to a well regarded right-leaning publication\u2014that is to say, a publication that is widely esteemed by more than a few establishment neoconservative Republican pundits.\u00a0\u00a0It was rejected.\u00a0 In what follows, I relay both the essentials of my argument as well as my…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-370","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n