By the way, the latest version of the guest list at archive.org, from 8-27-07, includes Ron Paul:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070827215915/http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php

Of course, there could be various explanations for the subsequent removal of his name.

The matter will probably never be settled, but Ron Paul’s current “official” stance (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/), which was added to the campaign website relatively recently, is controversial enough.

Interesting, the anti-collectivist school of anti-racism, to which Paul belongs, is at the same time quite opposed to other forms of anti-racism, putting it in a somewhat tenuous position. Specifically, the anti-collectivist school tends (in my casual observation) to be marked by:

1. Categorical objection to any form of affirmative action.
2. Implicit objection to any collectivist mobilization for rights (black-, women’s, gay, or otherwise)

The problem, of course, is that without some degree of collectivism we probably wouldn’t have had the women’s and civil rights movements, with the progressive reforms that they brought. The anti-collectivists should either explicitly grant that these were good instantiations of collectivism, or they should make good arguments to the contrary. But if they simply argue idealistically for individualism without acknowledging America’s troubled (sexist and racist) past, their arguments remain both ungrounded and uncomfortably similar to arguments-of-convenience made by actual racists. Ron Paul could easily clear all this up by addressing the issue more fully, but of course he would thereby bring more attention to a potentially divisive issue, so we may not get that.

Still, there is potentially a good argument to be made that a Ron Paul America would be far less racist than the other versions currently on offer. For one thing, he would work to stop putting people in jail for petty narcotics violations. As things stand now, such needless incarceration has the practical effect of keeping a significant proportion of African Americans either in jail or with jail on their resumes.

All things considered, I’m tentatively inclined to still support Ron Paul, but I think we should hound him on these issues and keep him true.

(Disclaimer: These are just some ad hoc, speculative thoughts. I do not have expertise in this area.)

You don’t have to disagree with every point made in a vile racist screed to repudiate the piece itself — just like if a chocolate bar gets stuck in a piece of dog poop, that doesn’t keep you from throwing the poop away. Furthermore, assuming for the sake of argument that Paul didn’t write the piece — and note that at no point in my article do I rule out the possibility of a different author — why did Paul publish it in his newsletter? He bears total responsibility for what passed between its covers, author or no.