The Accidental Gentrifist: It Was a Close One, Kids. But it’s still ‘Better Dead than Red’

Editors’ Note: The opinions and ideas expressed in The Accidental Gentrifist are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the outlook or beliefs of anyone else in the Ist network.

If you happened to grow up in a middle class household like mine, it was probably instilled in you to never talk about politics at work, in a bar, or at the dinner table. Which meant, let’s face it, you never really talked about politics. Since the only other place you went to was bed.

But two Mondays back I had a fine time writing about Barack Obama and his momentum-shifting win in South Carolina. There was some lively discussion, and many people managed to lodge their 2 cents in both the bilious comments section, as well as catching me unawares in the “real” world. Some people got their tempers up, others mounted their own soapboxes. The reaction was all rather amusing for me, since the column itself was pure exercise. You see, two weeks ago, I wasn’t even an Obama supporter. Two weeks ago, I was pretty sure I was going to vote Republican for the very first time. That’s right: Dr. Ron Paul.

It shouldn’t take more than 350 words to explain why I intended to vote Ron Paul for President, and roughly two words to explain why there’s now no chance in hell.

Sorry, America. I’ve never really been able to seriously entertain the notion that my vote matters. Primarily because my vote has always been a protest vote.

The reasons:

1. The two-party system is totally fucked.

2. The Electoral College is totally fucked.

3. The run-up to both the primaries and general elections is part self-effacing theatre (which I actually enjoy) and part strategic pandering (which I don’t). But I guess that’s just politics. The unsettling part, though, is that the system in place is simultaneously shadowed in semi-secrecy, yet when it’s cast in daylight, it’s revealed to be little more tactical than a deft game of Risk played by shrewd yet pocked-marked teenagers, who are, it should be noted, not shrewd enough to get dates or fabricate realistic fake i.d.s.

4. Little to nothing has ever been done to offset the fact that money still determines influence.

5. Electronic balloting (with hand counts in case of incongruity) was perfectly adequate, yet was without justification replaced by computerized voting machines, which are recognized to be grossly inaccurate. And that’s before they’re hacked into, which is a known vulnerability.

6. The poor standards of public education in America have resulted in a popular media that has far too much sway in terms of public opinion. Howard Dean (and his wife, the Ketchup lady) was perhaps the least offensive democratic candidate since… well, maybe ever. And since he had a decent shot at actually deposing Alfred E. Newman, he was dismantled, overnight, by a conservative and almost hermetically-sealed media machine that holds the Teflon-coated W. in high regard, if for no other reason than his entertainment value (and his complete anathema to inciting boring ol’ news stories like ceasefires and sustainable economies and gradually improving air quality).

7. Finally, I live in Texas. My liberal/libertarian/green/pink-o vote in national elections is tantamount to rifle fire against the Luftwaffe.

But why did I like Ron Paul specifically? Well, I love the constitution, I disdain globalism, I think the middle class is overtaxed, and I want to know a helluva lot more about what actually happened on September 11th.

There. 353 words. Almost made it. Ah, Dr. Paul—we could have had such fun! Alas, I suppose we should, by now, get to the Two Words that explain why my vote for Ron Paul won’t happen:

White Supremacy.

…As Christmas plans segued into a long-awaited vacation to New York, I somehow missed the full scope of a pretty interesting news item. Specifically, that Ron Paul accepted $500 dollars from Don Black, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, an operator of this charming little website, and in a final, scintillating detail, he’s also the husband of David Duke’s ex-wife.

Now, I’m not a political strategist, but it occurs to me that there are two things a political candidate must never do. One is publicly take money from hate groups. The other is refuse to budge in the face of a quite understandable public outcry. I mean, shit. That’s the game, Man! You pay people to find out what America doesn’t like about you. If you can improve your image and still stay within your basic values set, you best change your mind like you’re changing your socks.

Not that Mr. Paul and his camp don’t have their justifications. You better bet they do. And have his supporters spoken up on his behalf? Certainly. Has he stuck to his guns? You bet. But does Dr. Paul really deserve credit for not wavering on this one? No, I don’t think so.

Since I’m no longer a Paul supporter, I have no issue in pointing out the sheer fallacy in continuing to support him:

It’s not so much that Paul didn’t waver after (perhaps unknowingly) accepting money from a very public racist. It’s that he didn’t waver over $500. For those with numeric dysplasia, that’s Five Hundred Dollars. That’s how much it cost for Ron Paul to risk losing many tens of thousands of votes (the loss being mollified, no doubt, by gaining the votes of thousands of people crouching in Bible-laden bomb shelters, oiling their guns in preparation for RaHoWa). Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s no longer about race. Ron Paul, whose candidacy was ultimately a much-needed statement against the status quo of many American political institutions, has sullied himself for a much, much smaller sub-statement: I’ll do whatever the hell I want.

In his most recent, post-Super Tuesday web post, Dr. Paul references Trotsky: “…this Revolution is permanent.” It’s a sporting spin on a concession speech. Ron Paul colors his success and groundswell of support as only the spark, the primary inertia of a movement that is beyond himself… and the millions of dollars people donated to his run on the White House. He’s also quick to add that he also has to campaign for his own congressional seat. So that he’s not, you know, unemployed come next year.

In reality, the unofficial concession transpired last December. Supporters of a presidential Ron Paul should have groaned but probably didn’t: Their man no longer wanted to win.

Did he spend every cent raised in his name? Beats me. But chances are if Don Black can’t have his nickel back, neither can you.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Benjamin Reed in Other on February 11, 2008 11:30 AM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

mdahmus

"You've made the argument that because Paul received $500 from a white supremacist––out of millions of dollars he's raised––and didn't give it back, that he's all of a sudden bad and doesn't deserve your support."

Well, there's the fact that he allowed his name to be put to some awful racist stuff and has never really given a good answer as to WHY. That might lead one to believe that he was always bad, and the donation just made it more obvious.

reynard

I disagree entirely; it's not his supporters, it's him. I wouldn't call Ron Paul a fascist. In some ways (emphasis on some) he's actually the opposite of a fascist because he's a libertarian, which is exactly the problem I have with his politics. Libertarians want to disband the EPA, FDA, NASA, etc. And think capitalism is such a great idea that it can somehow work on its own without any regulation whatsoever. It's the most insane, crackpot idea I've ever heard of, and I used to be one. Also, Ayn Rand's prose is atrocious.

I think it's bizarre (and scary) that so many independents who would usually vote for a far left candidate support(ed) Ron Paul without knowing anything of his politics - I say this because I asked many of them personally - and I do feel that it is entirely different from supporting Obama without knowing his "plans," because Obama is a moderate democrat, whereas Paul is a radical republican; it's quite a different situation. Most people that I asked only knew that Ron Paul wanted to legalize Marijuana (which wouldn't happen anyway) and end the war.

Of course, a lot of his supporters are actually radical conservatives who do have fucked up evil agendas. Most of the libertarians I've known are very wealthy and want to support a system that will allow them to become wealthier. In fact, if the libertarian revolution were successful, it'd be very much the same situation as every revolution in world history: The middle class convinces the lower class to usurp the upper class so that middle becomes upper, and lower stays the same with some new "rights," which are quickly taken away.

Yes, the system is fucked. Yes, racism is retarded. But supporting a jerk like Ron Paul is not the answer. Who cares if he accepted a donation from a racist? He supports the very ideology that created and continues to tolerate slavery itself. The KKK is a sad group of sorry losers that live on hate and bigotry; whatever, they rarely even do anything about it anymore. American capitalism kills and enslaves people worldwide on a mass scale every single day.

Benj

Okay, sure, whatever. But when I run for president, and I decide that I'm credible enough to represent all Americans, forgive me if I decide against accepting money from the KKK, who, you know, lynch people.

On this note, I never really understood why people called Ron Paul a fascist. But now I do. It's his supporters. Kind of like how Jesus himself wasn't a Christian, it was just his supporters.

cram

I thought the two words of why you were not voting for Ron Paul were going to be "looney bin" or "gold standard". Damnit.

David Topping

That's not really an answer––I read your article, I just still don't get it.

First of all, popularity is a subjective judgment. How popular must a bad person be before their money is no good? Who decides when it is or is not appropriate to return money? A donation is a donation. People are allowed to support the causes they want––I'm sure plenty of bad, evil, hateful people are supporting any of the other candidates. If I recall correctly, there's a video of Paul defending why he held onto the money, denouncing any support for white supremacy, and saying something like "isn't that man's money better in my hands than in his?" Isn't it? Does it really mean anything, whatsoever, that this guy supports Paul, other than that they share a few libertarian views?

You've made the argument that because Paul received $500 from a white supremacist––out of millions of dollars he's raised––and didn't give it back, that he's all of a sudden bad and doesn't deserve your support. But this is not shaking hands with the devil; this is the devil slipping you a penny when your pockets are already full, and you not giving it back to him.

Benj

Ha! That's an easy one. But since some others raised the same point, why not:

(But first: Arghh! Why do you make me repeat myself?

Okay. Better.)

Now: It wasn't that a racist guy gave him money. It's because the racist was the well-known head and former head of well-known racist organizations. Don Black used this publicity to explain which of Paul's views correspond to his own. Which, incidentally, include Worldwide White Power. The flip side is that Ron Paul was given a $500 opportunity to use this publicity in his favor, by drawing a line between racist yokels and himself. He passed.

For $500.

(It's also in my column, too.)

Sigh.

David Topping

Setting aside all other issues with the Paul campaign, and there are issues, I don't understand what you're talking about––Paul's raised millions upon millions in campaign donations. That one of those donations came from a white supremacist, well, what does that matter? What if I'm a crazy racist (I'm not; I swear!)...is the candidate who accepts my money––say, Obama––responsible, no matter the sum? Are they necessarily supporting me because I'm financially supporting them?

Then again, I'm from Canada. Maybe someone can enlighten me on how presidential candidates must be responsible for the personal ethics of all the people who choose to donate money to them.

katy

If you really want to "know ... more about what actually happened on September 11th", I recommend this excellent article from Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

nebby

Yeah, I don't agree with the pro life part of his platform either. The guy delivered thousands of babies. It seems to have left him touchy on the subject. He falls back to the accurate, but unpopular, position of saying it is a state matter.

It is definitely a drawback, but compared to the aggressive across the board infringements championed by the rest of the candidates it is a drop in the bucket. Like I said above, I have my own reasons for not supporting him even though there would be a large net increase of freedom if his positions were adopted.

causal observer

I think there's a big difference between accepting donations from racist ORGANIZATIONS as opposed to racist INDIVIDUALS. There are a lot of racists in the world, a lot of them in America, and I bet a lot of them are contributing to various political campaigns. Just because you accept a campaign contribution from someone, does not mean you endorse their particular walk of life. That's true if you're Ron Paul or if you're any of the other candidates. I'm sure there are LOTS of donations flying around out there, that maybe the people who donated aren't really the nicest people you'd want to associate with.

I don't think this is something to seal the deal, when it comes to deciding who you're going to vote for. You said you love the constitution, disdain globalism, think the middle class is overtaxed, and want to know a helluva lot more about what actually happened on September 11th.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are collectivists who campaign on platforms of expanding taxation on the middle class, increasing America's entangling alliances around the globe, and they will never put any energy into investigating what really happened Sept 11.

I bet they have received some contributions from racists and sexists, too.

seth

I know that what I'm about to type will be immediately dismissed by its intended audience, yet I've got ten minutes to kill before I rush to the post office...

Benj, you will be a much more effective individual when you reduce your stubborn adherence to idealism. Practicality trumps idealism so frequently that it's an expensive gamble to marry the latter. When you rationalize your boycott on voting because the parties are run by money, the electoral college is corrupt, etc. Dick Cheney laughs with deep satisfaction. As do the current numb-nuts on Austin's city council.

Seth

smack

If all the "ooh, I'm so detached" dudes I know who are considering voting for Ron Paul because they're fucking clueless idiots who think they're being different went to that gun show over by the flea market on Lamar, I think their minds would be changed.

And also their irony-dar would break.

savaro

Exactly, heyzeus. I can sum up my problem with Ron Paul in two words too, and they just happen to be the last two words of your post.

heyzeus

"Paul is clearly committed to expanding personal freedom."

Except for reproductive freedom.

nebby

"All that nonsense about stopping the war on drugs, etc. is just a smokescreen..."

So stopping the War on Some Drugs is nonsense?

If you say yes, I can safely ignore you because you are a moron.

If you believe Paul did not really mean he would make every effort to end the drug war, I would have to ask for some backup. The guy has been a tireless ant-drug war crusader for decades now. Whatever your opinions on the national sales tax, or a VAT tax like the one in Europe, Paul is clearly committed to expanding personal freedom.

The writer of this article did not really talk about the real race problem Paul has developed. The $500 is a non-issue. I applaud Paul for publicly rebuking the group and then using its money to fight for freedom that would include many elements the KKK would tear their hair out over (see Drug War discussion).

The real problem was Paul allowed his newsletter to be taken over for a couple of years by Lew Rockwell. Rockwell proceeded to write some really stupid race stuff during the LA riots and thereabouts. No one informed on the matter thinks Paul himself is a racist, but he was stupid enough to not monitor what was going on. Paul's lapse of judgment in this matter is the best argument against a Ron Paul candidacy.

davetx

Kenneth's exactly right, and points out the too-often-unspoken dirty secret behind the national sales tax.

misssteak

oh man you just poked a cave fulla snakes....i predict at least 50 comments from RonPaulites.

kenneth1

Ron Paul fans love to portray him as the "candidate of the people," fighting the good fight against government control and corporate media. Pure B.S.

Ron Paul is the candidate of wealthy white people who don't like taxes, period. That's all libertarians stand for. All that nonsense about stopping the war on drugs, etc. is just a smokescreen to hide their true motivation. They want to abolish the IRS and institute a national sales tax, which would be a tax increase on working people & a huge windfall for the wealthy.

Benj

Correct.

Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean is, in actuality, the Blood Lady.

Both women were, relatively speaking, hesitant to join the dog and pony show.

...Or, at least had understandable difficulty wrangling with the preternatural beast of public politics.

Elizabeth S.

When you say "Howard Dean (and his wife, the Ketchup lady)" you're illustrating how mixed-up the media leaves us, right?

(Because Kerry is the one married to the Heinz family.)