The everyday bigotry we ignore

[dsc]

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/20/the_everyday_bigotry_we_ignore/

If they have any value at all anymore, presidential election campaigns at least remain larger-than-life mirrors reflecting back painful truths about our society. As evidence, ponder the two-sided debate over Republican candidate Ron Paul and bigotry.

One camp cites Paul’s hate-filled newsletters and his libertarian opposition to civil rights regulations as evidence that he aligns with racists. As the esteemed scholar Tim Wise puts it: This part of Paul’s record proves that he represents “the reactionary, white supremacist, Social Darwinists of this culture, who believe … the police who dragged sit-in protesters off soda fountain stools for trespassing on a white man’s property were justified in doing so, and that the freedom of department store owners to refuse to let black people try on clothes in their dressing rooms was more sacrosanct than the right of black people to be treated like human beings.”

The other camp tends to acknowledge those ugly truths about Paul, but then points out that the Texas congressman has been one of the only politicians 1) fighting surveillance, indefinite detention and due-process-free assassination policies almost exclusively aimed at minorities; 2) opposing wars that often seem motivated by rank Islamophobia; and 3) railing against the bigotry of a drug war that disproportionately targets people of color. Summarizing this part of Paul’s record, the Atlantic Monthly’s Conor Friedersdorf has written: “When it comes to America’s most racist or racially fraught policies” affecting the world today, “Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them (while) his opponents are often on the wrong side.”

So which side is right? Both of them, and thanks to that powerful oxymoron, Paul has become a mirror reflecting back our own problematic biases. Specifically, his candidacy is showing that the conventional definition of intolerable bigotry is disturbingly narrow — and embarrassingly selective.

This reality is best demonstrated by those voters who say they detest Paul not because of his extreme economic ideas, but because they feel his record represents an unacceptable form of racism. These folks will likely tell you that their alleged commitment to policies promoting racial equality has moved them to support Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, politicians who, of course, support bigoted civil liberties atrocities, Islamophobic foreign invasions and a racist drug war.

lots more at article. I recommend reading the entire thing I almost didn't quote but felt I should quote some but please read the entire article.

[ret5hd]

1. i don't think he is fundamentally opposed to...

1) fighting surveillance, indefinite detention and due-process-free assassination policies almost exclusively aimed at minorities; 2) opposing wars that often seem motivated by rank Islamophobia; and 3) railing against the bigotry of a drug war that disproportionately targets people of color.

He is against the federal gov't doing it. if a state wants to do it, i'm pretty sure he'd be ok with it, maybe even happy.

[dsc]

2. The first two are federal functions even in his world view

the third I might give you.

[Major Nikon]

3. It's like throwing out a dozen babies with a thimble of water

The Ron Paul loons are quick to point out the bad things he wants to throw out, but rarely do they mention that he also wants to throw out pretty much everything else the federal gov does like civil rights laws, social security, medicare, bank regulation, and the fed just to name a few.

[Romulox]

4. Tim Wise's piece ignored the racism inherent in the War on Drugs.

Seemingly proving the logical knots we can tie ourselves into in defense of the indefensible.

[Major Nikon]

5. Tim Wise "ignoredthe racism inherent in the War on Drugs" because it is irrelevant

...to whether Paul is a racist or not.

Here is what Paul has said about the "War on Drugs".

“[...] the federal war on drugs has proven costly and ineffective, while creating terrible violent crime. But if you question policy, you are accused of being pro-drug. That is preposterous. As a physician, father, and grandfather, I abhor drugs. I just know that there is a better way — through local laws, communities, churches, and families — to combat the very serious problem of drug abuse than a massive federal-government bureaucracy.”

(Nov '08, NYT interview)

In other words, Ron Paul could care less if drugs are illegal or not. He just wants the federal government out of the illegal drug enforcement business. If you want to read exactly what Tim Wise did say, you can read the entire piece here:
http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

So if you want to argue that Ron Paul is not a racist, and more importantly the policies he promotes are not racist, you're going to have to tie yourself into some pretty big "logical knots".