If not Ron Paul, who?

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a post up today drawing a comparison between Louis Farrakan and Ron Paul:

As surely as Ron Paul speaks to a real issue--the state's broad use of violence and surveillance--which the America's political leadership has failed to address, Farrakhan spoke to something real, something unsullied, which black America's political leadership failed to address, Both Paul and Farrakhan, in their glamour, inspired the young, the disaffected, the disillusioned. 

To those who dimly perceived something wrong, something that could not be put on a placard, or could not move the party machine, men such as this become something more than political operators, they become symbols. Substantive charges against them, no matter the reasons, are dismissed. The movement they represent means more. But as sure as the followers of Farrakhan deserved more than UFOs, anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories, those of us who oppose the drug-war, who oppose the Patriot Act deserve better than Ron Paul.

So my question is, who? Who do you have, Mr. Coates? I am going to go ahead and assume you aren't an anarchist and will be voting, so pray tell me for whom? Ron Paul was involved in the publication and distribution of some henious newsletters and stands, as Mr. Coates says, "convicted of moral cowardice." Barack Obama stands convicted of far, far worse- several thousand counts of murder, to start- and the rest of the Republican field thinks he's not killing enough people. Give me a moral coward over a murderous authoritarian sociopath any day.

In this election we face a choice between a line-up of interchangeable authoritarians  (all of whom support a vastly expanded state security apparatus and the liberal application of military force abroad) and Ron Paul. I wish Gary Johnson were viable too, but he's not. Ron Paul is just barely viable, his candidacy a long-shot- but he still has a shot. I wish the Democratic left had the stones to mount a serious primary challenge to Obama, but it doesn't. We may deserve better, but we don't have any better, and faced with the actual line-up, Ron Paul is still the obvious choice for anyone who cares a whit about freedom, about peace, about humanity.

Mr. Coates also asks a few practical questions regarding a Paul presidency that I will attempt to answer:

It is not enough to simply proffer Paul as a protest candidate.One must fully imagine the import of a Paul presidency. How, precisely, would Paul end the drug war? What, exactly, would he do about the Middle East? How, specifically,would the world look for women under a Ron Paul presidency? 

And then the dispatches must be honestly grappled with: It must be argued that a man who could not manage a newsletter should be promoted to managing a nuclear arsenal. Failing that, it must be asserted that a man who once claimed that black people were knowingly injecting white people with HIV, who fund-raised by predicting a race-war, who handsomely profited from it all, should lead the free world. If that line falls too, we are forced to confess that  Ron Paul regularly summoned up the specters of racism for his own politically gain, and thus stands convicted of moral cowardice.

First, as President, Ron Paul would be well within his executive authority to pardon all nonviolent federal drug offenders and to order the DOJ and its subsidiary agencies to end all enforcement efforts. No, the President cannot repeal the relevant laws, but again- the choice is between someone who will enforce them to the hilt and someone who will not enforce them at all. Not a hard choice.

As for the Middle East, I imagine he will blow up a lot less of it. I understand that this is a problem for Establishment pundits, but based on my time over there, I suspect such a policy will prove wildly popular with the locals. Practically speaking, Saudi Arabia is hideously beweaponed as is Israel, and the latter state has a credible nuclear deterrent. Iran is, in the end, a large, poor country dependent on exporting its natural resources in order to feed its people- not an existential threat to anyone.

The world for women will, again, be filled with far fewer explosions. Shocking as this may seem, foreign women value not being incinerated quite highly. One might reply that women in Afghanistan will suffer tremendously as their newfound gains are lost. I agree that this is tragic, but I don't see any way to avoid it. Sooner or later, we will leave Afghanistan (I hope), and the culture will reassert itself.

The last two: the President actually does no management of the nuclear arsenal. The Air Force has officers who do that. This phenomenon is called "delegation." Presidents also do not lead troops in battle or captain aircraft carriers, it may surprise Mr. Coates to learn. As for his broader management skills- why, perhaps a President incapable of keeping so many irons in the fire will keep fewer irons in the fire. How tragic not to have an omnipresent, omnipotent executive. And finally, Ron Paul does not aspire to lead the free world. Wouldn't that be a nice change?


The agonizing over Ron Paul's newsletters betrays the cognitive inertia that burdens so many. A murderous, intrusive, rampaging state is simply the norm now, and Presidential candidates who want to keep the killing spree rolling are simply normal, default candidates- a Romney for the right and an Obama for the left. Supporters of either are not held to the same standard as Paul supporters. Ron Paul wrote a racist newsletter! Your candidate either has or will kill thousands and imprison thousands more. Cast the plank out of thine own eye, indeed.