Baltimore, the police, and murder charges

[kenberg]

Good article. Naturally, I suppose, I picked up on this:

 

 

It seems to me that until we make sure that there are good paying jobs available again, nothing will help.

 

Agreed, certainly, but will it be enough? Directly after this quote we see

 

"A lot of people around here got caught up," said Harlee, noting that his addiction to crack cost him his family and a series of good jobs — as a corrections officer, a firearms instructor and a long-haul truck driver. Harlee went to prison for five years for slamming his truck into a car and killing the driver after an all-night crack binge.

 

Assuming that this account is correct in its timeline, the man had a good job, he got into crack and he lost a good job, all in that order. Along the way he also lost his marriage, presumably he lost his self-respect, and he lost his freedom.

 

So in his case it did not go lost his job and turned to crack, but rather turned to crack and lost his job.

 

 

Still, I certainly don't see how there can be progress without the availability of decent jobs. What I get from the above, as well as much else, is that it is more complicated than that Rouse was not a head in the clouds idealist, so he no doubt realized that there had to be jobs. Why did they not materialize? And for that matter, in what sense did they not materialize? Sometimes there really are no jobs but that's a bit rare. Often it is not quite a yes or no matter.

 

The young need to be introduced to possibilities. In my case I never had any trouble finding work and I fully understood that I was to grow up to be self-supporting. My lack of knowledge was at a more advanced level, for example a friend was applying to Stanford and I asked "Where's Stanford?". But some young people have no experience with what is out there. Hence my bicycle idea, which is more like a metaphor than a serious plan. I want young people to get up close to something that is not at all like what they see when they get up in the morning and say "I like that, I want to live that way".

 

Added: In fact I grew up on Wellesley Ave, a block from Stanford Ave and two blocks from Berkeley Ave. I was an adult before I realized these were colleges. Not that it matters. But i often astounded people with my ignorance.

[Winstonm]

Agreed, certainly, but will it be enough? Directly after this quote we see

 

 

 

Assuming that this account is correct in its timeline, the man had a good job, he got into crack and he lost a good job, all in that order. Along the way he also lost his marriage, presumably he lost his self-respect, and he lost his freedom.

 

So in his case it did not go lost his job and turned to crack, but rather turned to crack and lost his job.

 

 

 

 

Too simplistic, maybe? From what I understand, long-haul trucking is not all that great a job and many drivers turn to speed-type drugs, i.e., crack, methamphetamine, etc., to help them drive longer and earn more money. Perhaps if the drivers had better wages and conditions the drugs we be less rampant within that industry.

[y66]

The $12+ billion, shrink-wrapped "pallettes of cash" that we sent to Iraq didn't help much either. I don't think that tells us Iraq is f****d for eternity. It tells us that throwing money at problems doesn't work.

 

I see that Manna, Inc received the James Rouse Award last year which recognizes "the most outstanding urban non-profit organization that best promotes fair and equal access to credit & capital and/or contributes the most in its community toward promoting wealth building in traditionally underserved populations".

 

My wife lived in a group house with a bunch of Manna people. They were all pretty savvy ex-Peace Corps types who understood construction, project management, financing and the wisdom of changing the world one house, one family and one block at a time. They are a small but important part of DC's thriving comeback from the 1968 riots. Not saying Baltimore is the same as DC. For one thing, DC has a strong economy. But what works in DC can also work in Baltimore.

 

The idea that West Baltimore and the people who live there are doomed is absurd. F****d for decades, yes, self inflicted, mos' def, but down for the count? Not even close. Okay, maybe close.

[kenberg]

Too simplistic, maybe? From what I understand, long-haul trucking is not all that great a job and many drivers turn to speed-type drugs, i.e., crack, methamphetamine, etc., to help them drive longer and earn more money. Perhaps if the drivers had better wages and conditions the drugs we be less rampant within that industry.

 

Well, I was addressing the issue of no jobs. This could be an unending discussion.

The problem is that there are no jobs.

There are jobs

The problem is that being a tuick driver is a hard job

OK, but he is the one that was interviewed.

 

 

Becky was tutoring a truck driver. He was hoping to read well enough so that he could participate in the readings at church but he became seriously ill (He is in his 60s at least). He is married, put two girls through college, has grandchildren, and took in a couple of young boys in foster care with some success. Of course one case proves nothing or doesn't prove very much, but at some point we really have to hope that maybe the person can cope with what admittedly might be a tough life. Being a mathematician is great but my understanding is that some people would much rather drive a truck if those are the only two options. Actually I am pretty sure that this would have been my father's view.

[kenberg]

The $12+ billion, shrink-wrapped "pallettes of cash" that we sent to Iraq didn't help much either. I don't think that tells us Iraq is f****d for eternity. It tells us that throwing money at problems doesn't work.

 

I see that Manna, Inc received the James Rouse Award last year which recognizes "the most outstanding urban non-profit organization that best promotes fair and equal access to credit & capital and/or contributes the most in its community toward promoting wealth building in traditionally underserved populations".

 

My wife lived in a group house with a bunch of Manna people. They were all pretty savvy ex-Peace Corps types who understood construction, project management, financing and the wisdom of changing the world one house, one family and one block at a time. They are a small but important part of DC's thriving comeback from the 1968 riots. Not saying Baltimore is the same as DC. For one thing, DC has a strong economy. But what works in DC can also work in Baltimore.

 

The idea that West Baltimore and the people who live there are doomed is absurd. F****d for decades, yes, self inflicted, mos' def, but down for the count? Not even close. Okay, maybe close.

 

 

I am not just happy but delighted to defer to someone with on the ground experience in this matter. If anything is to be done, it will be by those who get fully into it.

[y66]

And by those who provide financial support to those who fully get into it. It doesn't have to be $12+ billion or even $130 million.

[kenberg]

Recapping a bit.

 

Winston asked whether anything can be done. I think, at the very least, the Rouse experience leads to an answer that it won't be easy.

 

Inevitably, some of this comes down to social philosophy. Most of us probably favor helping those whose lives are a mess, if we can. Take that as a given. Now what? My thoughts are that it is almost impossible to help people unless they actively wish for change. I would not let anyone take over my choices, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, and I see no reason to think anyone else would let me make their choices. What this means to me is that a lot of the push has to be homegrown.

 

That being said, it seems some things are clearly in need, and they are not being done. Education is the obvious example. Some sort of decent nutrition is another. And then there is this inexcusable lead paint stuff. Gray was 25. I am pretty sure that 25 years ago everyone understood that lead in paint was toxic. The level at which it becomes toxic may be better understood now, but surely it was known then to be seriously bad. Well, that part is past but it would not surprise me if there are some 2015 equivalents.

 

Even these issues are not easy. I cannot imagine myself going into that area to teach school. I just wouldn't do it. Hooray for those who would, I wouldn't and many wouldn't. And a nutritious breakfast at the elementary school works only if the kids shows up to eat it.

 

So there is much to be done.

 

I just want to say a word about blame and responsibility . I have never found it profitable to spend effort on saying who is to blame. But who ultimately bears responsibility is, to my mind, a little different. We all bear the responsibility for our own choices.Of course some people's lives are a wreck and it is not hard to see how they fail. But if a choice is put in front of them, no one else really can make that choice for them. They must choose. It's tough, but they must. Our mission, if we choose to accept it, is to improve the available choices.

[hrothgar]

This is (obviously) an extremely complicated subject.

 

I often wonder whether it is possible to do anything at the margin for the "worst of the worst" geographies.

Some locations may be so pathological that almost any attempt to deal with them are doomed to failure.

It may well be better to triage the funds and use what moneys we have to deal with locales that aren't quite so screwed up.

 

Couple quick observations:

 

1. I think that Moynihan confused cause and effect. There has been a lot of additional work on family formation over the past 50 years. The breakdown in the African American family that Moynihan commented on prestaged what is currently happening in white, working class American. Both seemed to be driven by loss of economic opportunity.

 

Brookings has a good article on this http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/01/family-structure-class-sawhill

 

2. Currently, the cycles of gentrification seem to have rich people moving into the cities and displacing the poor out into the suburbs. Not sure how long this will stay true, but I wouldn't be at surprised to see some of these areas in Baltimore fall to successive waves of artists/gays/hipsters/yuppies. (None of which will improve the lot of the folks currently living their, mind you, but you might see some urban renew)

[kenberg]

The situation is indeed complex.

Marriage, family, finances: Surely he relattion between single motherhood and lost economic opportunity needs further work. Picture a 22 year old pregnant woman with a 24 year old boyfriend. perhaps he is such a parasite that marrying him would worsen her financial situation, but usually not. Or at least so I would hope. Most of us aren't quite that bad.

 

Even in this day, being a mother and having a career is challenging, or so women tell me. Having a husband makes it worse instead of better? IN some cases maybe so, again not usually.

 

I can, sort of, understand wanting a child and not wanting a husband. But it seems to me this is tough on the finances, most especially for tose with limited finances.

 

No doubt economics plays a role, but there have been some real cultural shifts as well.

 

I suppose the financial part is that guys just figure they do not want the financial responsibility, somehow our culture is ok with that, and so the woman raises the child.

 

Otherwise pout, the economics of this work out good for the man, not so good for the woman, not so good for the child.

 

 

Added: I have been thinking more about this. When I was young, if an unmarried woman got pregnant it was almost always unintended. Although I have not had deep conversations with young unmarried mothers, I gather that this it is now often an intended pregnancy, even when it is clear that no marriage will take place. To me, this seems to put the woman at a great economic disadvantage. Perhaps I am wrong about the intentions, I really don't know. But to whatever extent I am right, I find it difficult to understand. Is it more "I want a child and I can't get a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" or is is it "I want a child and I don't want a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" ?

 

I am at a loss as to how he decision is made. Or perhaps, just as it was fifty years ago, it's just "oops, we have a problem".

 

As the coffee perks this morning, I am still trying to wrap my brain around the economic explanation for single motherhood. A woman says to herself: "The economy is bad, i can't seem to get a decent job, so I think I will have a child and raise him/her on my own" . This seems unlikely to me. I suppose sociologists have made a study of how the decision is made.

[billw55]

The situation is indeed complex.

Marriage, family, finances: Surely he relattion between single motherhood and lost economic opportunity needs further work. Picture a 22 year old pregnant woman with a 24 year old boyfriend. perhaps he is such a parasite that marrying him would worsen her financial situation, but usually not. Or at least so I would hope. Most of us aren't quite that bad.

 

Even in this day, being a mother and having a career is challenging, or so women tell me. Having a husband makes it worse instead of better? IN some cases maybe so, again not usually.

 

I can, sort of, understand wanting a child and not wanting a husband. But it seems to me this is tough on the finances, most especially for tose with limited finances.

 

No doubt economics plays a role, but there have been some real cultural shifts as well.

 

I suppose the financial part is that guys just figure they do not want the financial responsibility, somehow our culture is ok with that, and so the woman raises the child.

 

Otherwise pout, the economics of this work out good for the man, not so good for the woman, not so good for the child.

 

 

Added: I have been thinking more about this. When I was young, if an unmarried woman got pregnant it was almost always unintended. Although I have not had deep conversations with young unmarried mothers, I gather that this it is now often an intended pregnancy, even when it is clear that no marriage will take place. To me, this seems to put the woman at a great economic disadvantage. Perhaps I am wrong about the intentions, I really don't know. But to whatever extent I am right, I find it difficult to understand. Is it more "I want a child and I can't get a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" or is is it "I want a child and I don't want a husband so I'll have a child without marriage" ?

 

I am at a loss as to how he decision is made. Or perhaps, just as it was fifty years ago, it's just "oops, we have a problem".

 

As the coffee perks this morning, I am still trying to wrap my brain around the economic explanation for single motherhood. A woman says to herself: "The economy is bad, i can't seem to get a decent job, so I think I will have a child and raise him/her on my own" . This seems unlikely to me. I suppose sociologists have made a study of how the decision is made.

I suspect that very rarely does anyone make an active decision to go into single motherhood. Sometimes a father goes absent later on, but probably most often the young woman (and man) just doesn't give it any forethought at all.

 

If we could find a way to motivate them to avoid pregnancy, to make that avoidance something they really want to do, we might make some progress. The simplest motivator is cash. So how about payments for not having children? I know this is an oversimplification and likely unworkable, but it might be the right starting point for similar ideas that do work.

[mikeh]

I suspect that very rarely does anyone make an active decision to go into single motherhood. Sometimes a father goes absent later on, but probably most often the young woman (and man) just doesn't give it any forethought at all.

 

If we could find a way to motivate them to avoid pregnancy, to make that avoidance something they really want to do, we might make some progress. The simplest motivator is cash. So how about payments for not having children? I know this is an oversimplification and likely unworkable, but it might be the right starting point for similar ideas that do work.

I think the most important change that can happen in the US in that regard is proper sex-education...and I am not talking about abstinence programmes. Combine that with ready and cheap access to contraceptives, abortificants (morning after drugs) and abortion, and single motherhood will drop enormously.

 

Of course that would require actually separating church from state, and requiring that education be reality-based, not scripture-based, and in large parts of the US that would be, literally, sacrilege. We have friends who had to move to the bible belt and the stories they tell would be funny if they didn't reflect how people really think...as it is they are terrifying.

[nige1]

• The

Parenting in Scotland website has relevant information on crime, poverty, single-parent families

Of the 614,000 families with dependent children in Scotland, 54% (333,000) were married couple families, 15% (91,000) were cohabiting couple families and 31% (190,000) were lone parent families.One in five of Scotland's children is living in relative poverty, a level significantly higher than in many other European countries. In 2012/13 the proportion of children in Scotland experiencing poverty increased from 19% to 22%. This increase is in-keeping with independent modelling by the Institute for Fiscal studies (IFS) which forecasts a massive increase in child poverty with up to 100,000 more children living in poverty in Scotland by 2020.Around 27,000 children a year in Scotland experience a parent's imprisonment. 7% of children live through the imprisonment of a parent during their time at school. There are 2½ times as many children of prisoners as there are children in care. More children in Scotland each year experience a parent's imprisonment than a parent's divorce. 60% of all women in prison have children.Teenage pregnancy rates in the older age groups have continued to decline. The rate per 1,000 population for under-18s has dropped from 30.0 in 2011 to 27.9 in 2012 and from 43.8 to 41.5 for under-20s. The rate for under-16s in 2012 is the same as 2011 at 5.6 per 1,000 population.There is a strong correlation between deprivation and teenage pregnancy. In the under-20 age group the most deprived areas have nearly 12 times the rate of delivery compared to the least deprived areas (53.8 compared to 4.6 per 1,000 population).

[blackshoe]

I thought perhaps this post might be of interest to some here.

[PassedOut]

I see that Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio collaborated on explaining How to revive the American Dream. As clear and obvious as the steps they outline are, it's sobering to reflect upon how unlikely it is that they will be taken.

[barmar]

While I don't expect to see federal government policies move in the right direction, there have been a few actions by some major employers that give me optimism. Walmart is raising their minimum wage well above the federal minimum (and so have a number of states). And I heard yesterday that Starbucks is going to pay for a college education for any employee working at least 20 hours/week (it's an online enrollment at ASU -- not Ivy League, but far better than nothing).

 

So there are some CEOs who understand that what's good for the country is good for them in the long run.

[hrothgar]

While I don't expect to see federal government policies move in the right direction, there have been a few actions by some major employers that give me optimism. Walmart is raising their minimum wage well above the federal minimum (and so have a number of states). And I heard yesterday that Starbucks is going to pay for a college education for any employee working at least 20 hours/week (it's an online enrollment at ASU -- not Ivy League, but far better than nothing).

 

So there are some CEOs who understand that what's good for the country is good for them in the long run.

 

I don't know know much about the online classes offered by ASU, but the brick and mortar college is very well regarded.

 

Strong engineering program and an excellent business school.

[hrothgar]

I thought perhaps this post might be of interest to some here.

 

Here's a lovely little quote from Murry Rothbard (the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute). The quote can be found in "Right- Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement" (For any who have not read this, it is a spirited defense of the policies of Klansman David Duke

 

5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums.

 

Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go?

Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear

 

Blackshoe really might want to avoid associating himself with the view of such blatant racists, especially when discussing urban renewal....

[PassedOut]

Blackshoe really might want to avoid associating himself with the view of such blatant racists, especially when discussing urban renew....

As is his wont, he left ambiguous his own views about the reference he gave. But the main thesis of the piece he recommended seemed to be, "We're scum, but so are the democrats." Perhaps the subtext is, "Why even try?"

 

But I remember that Lincoln and both Roosevelts did try and did accomplish quite a bit.

[blackshoe]

I didn't see anything racist in the article I linked. Neither, apparently, did Hrothgar. He simply mentioned that Rothbard, who was "the founder" of the Mises Institute*, wrote an article years ago that many consider racist, labelled Rothbard a racist, and, painting with the usual broad brush, labelled anyone associated with the Institute also a racist. Unless he was only referring to Rothbard and Duke when he used the plural.

 

For the record, I was not aware that Rothbard had written that article, or that he had ever been labelled a racist. I do not know if he ever changed his mind from what he wrote. I do know that I do not agree with the policy espoused in that article of Rothbard's. I also know that my disagreement with that does not mean that I automatically disagree with everything else he ever wrote.

 

*Also for the record, the Mises Institute website says the organization was founded in 1982 by Lew Rockwell. Rothbard "headed [their] academic programs until his death in 1995".

[hrothgar]

I didn't see anything racist in the article I linked. Neither, apparently, did Hrothgar. He simply mentioned that Rothbard, who was "the founder" of the Mises Institute*, wrote an article years ago that many consider racist, labelled Rothbard a racist, and, painting with the usual broad brush, labelled anyone associated with the Institute also a racist. Unless he was only referring to Rothbard and Duke when he used the plural.

 

For the record, I was not aware that Rothbard had written that article, or that he had ever been labelled a racist. I do not know if he ever changed his mind from what he wrote. I do know that I do not agree with the policy espoused in that article of Rothbard's. I also know that my disagreement with that does not mean that I automatically disagree with everything else he ever wrote.

 

*Also for the record, the Mises Institute website says the organization was founded in 1982 by Lew Rockwell. Rothbard "headed [their] academic programs until his death in 1995".

 

Comment 1: I should have referred to Rothbard as "a founder" rather than "the founder" of the von Mises institute

 

Comment 2: While there is plenty of information about Rothbard's history of publishing racist claptrap, this is dwarfed by accusations about Lew Rockwell. (Remember all those racist Ron Paul newslatters from the 80s and 90s? Guess who was ghost writing and editting them? Lew Rockwell) The only semi convincing defense that Rockwell has come up with pretty much goes "I'm not really a racist. I just write racist literature to con money from the the crackers"...

 

for amusement value, here are a few choice quotes from the Ron Paul Newsletters:

 

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

 

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

 

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

 

Comment 3: I am glad that you agree that Rothbard wrote some despicable stuff. And for what its worth, I agree with you that this doesn't automatically invalidate everything else that he wrote. With this said and done, I do think that its important that people understand the political history of these writers because it makes it a lot easier to hear the "dog whistles" and understand the biases that they are trying to cover up.

 

Comment 4: Hell yeah. If I know that a institute was founded by a bunch of racist neo-confederate loons this is going to effect the way that I interpret articles that they publish talking about blacks

[kenberg]

I see that Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio collaborated on explaining How to revive the American Dream. As clear and obvious as the steps they outline are, it's sobering to reflect upon how unlikely it is that they will be taken.

 

There are quite a number of suggestions there, one of which is "Give every child access to full-day pre-kindergarten."

I have a suggestion.

Run Kindergarten the way it was when I was a child and then........

Let four year olds in.

 

I entered Kindergarten whe I was 4 and first grade when I was 5. Kindergarten now is taught at the level that first grade was then. So of course a kid has to be 5 to enter Kindergarten, just as we had to be 5 to enter first grade.

 

It actually has not been a great leap forward to make Kindergarten as tough now as first grade once was, and then to decide that since that is so we now need the kids to be 5 instead of 4 to take it. Of course them you need Pre-K for teh 4 year olds, with Pre-K run as K used to be.

 

True I only went to K for half a day, but that can be fixed. The main point is to bring back Kindergarten as in once was, then let the 4 year olds in, then go on to a different problem.

[y66]

And now a brief interruption to plug the The Marshall Project:

 

Mission Statement

 

The Marshall Project is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization founded on two simple ideas:

 

1) There is a pressing national need for high-quality journalism about the American criminal justice system. The U.S. incarcerates more people than any country in the world. Spiraling costs, inhumane prison conditions, controversial drug laws, and concerns about systemic racial bias have contributed to a growing bipartisan consensus that our criminal justice system is in desperate need of reform.

 

The recent disruption in traditional media means that fewer institutions have the resources to take on complex issues such as criminal justice. The Marshall Project stands out against this landscape by investing in journalism on all aspects of our justice system. Our work will be shaped by accuracy, fairness, independence, and impartiality, with an emphasis on stories that have been underreported or misunderstood. We will partner with a broad array of media organizations to magnify our message, and our innovative website will serve as a dynamic hub for the most significant news and comment from the world of criminal justice.

 

2) With the growing awareness of the system’s failings, now is an opportune moment to amplify the national conversation about criminal justice.

 

We believe that storytelling can be a powerful agent of social change. Our mission is to raise public awareness around issues of criminal justice and the possibility for reform. But while we are nonpartisan, we are not neutral. Our hope is that by bringing transparency to the systemic problems that plague our courts and prisons, we can help stimulate a national conversation about how best to reform our system of crime and punishment.

[hrothgar]

I didn't see anything racist in the article I linked. Neither, apparently, did Hrothgar. He simply mentioned that Rothbard, who was "the founder" of the Mises Institute*, wrote an article years ago that many consider racist, labelled Rothbard a racist, and, painting with the usual broad brush, labelled anyone associated with the Institute also a racist. Unless he was only referring to Rothbard and Duke when he used the plural.

 

 

I am attaching a length quote from the blog "Bleedingheartslibertarians which discussed the von Mises Institute in general.

(Its not just me who dismisses them as a racist cesspool. Even libertarians agree)

 

 

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/

 

 

As some of you might know, I’ve been stirring up quite a bit of trouble on Facebook the last few days discussing the Ron Paul newsletters story. Matt suggested I write up some of what I’ve been saying for the audience here at BHL, which I’m happy to do. First let me note that the posts by Gary and Jacob below are right on the money in their own ways. Some of what I will say below will echo Jacob in particular, but I want to explore the history of this whole thing a bit more and offer some more reasons why it should matter to bleeding heart libertarians.

 

To start, those of us who have been around the movement since the 1980s knew all about this stuff and knew that those newsletters would never go away. As Jacob says, the attempt to court the right through appeals to the most unsavory sorts of arguments was a conscious part of the “paleolibertarian” strategy that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard cooked up in the late 1980s. What’s happening right now is that the chickens of that effort are coming home to roost with large external costs on all of us as libertarians. In other words, we are experiencing “blowback,” and Ron Paul supporters of all people should understand that when you poke at sleeping dogs, you should not be surprised when they turn around and attack you, even if it takes a couple of decades. Now Paul’s supporters understand viscerally what he’s rightly argued about US foreign policy.

 

...

 

This led to the paleolibertarian strategy by the end of the decade after Rothbard broke with the Kochs and helped Lew Rockwell found the Mises Institute (originally located on Capitol Hill – right smack inside the hated beltway, it’s worth noting). The paleo strategy, as laid out here by Rockwell, was clearly designed to create a libertarian-conservative fusion exactly along the lines Jacob lays out in his post. It was about appealing to the worst instincts of working/middle class conservative whites by creating the only anti-left fusion possible with the demise of socialism: one built on cultural issues. With everyone broadly agreeing that the market had won, how could you hold together a coalition that opposed the left? Oppose them on the culture. If you read Rockwell’s manifesto through those eyes, you can see the “logic” of the strategy. And it doesn’t take a PhD in Rhetoric to see how that strategy would lead to the racism and other ugliness of newsletters at the center of this week’s debates.

 

The paleo strategy was a horrific mistake, both strategically and theoretically, though it apparently made some folks (such as Rockwell and Paul) pretty rich selling newsletters predicting the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists. The explicit strategy was abandoned by around the turn of the century, but not after a lot of bad stuff had been written in all kinds of places. There was way more than the Ron Paul newsletters. There was the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which was another major place publishing these sorts of views. They could also be found in a whole bunch of Mises Institute publications of that era. It was the latter that led me to ask to be taken off the Institute’s mailing list in the early 1990s, calling them “a fascist fist in a libertarian glove.” I have never regretted that decision or that language. What the media has in their hands is only the tip of the iceberg of the really unsavory garbage that the paleo turn produced back then.

 

Through it all though, Ron Paul was a constant. He kept plugging away, first at the center of the paleo strategy as evidenced by the newsletters. To be clear, I am quite certain he did not write them. There is little doubt that they were written by Rockwell and Rothbard. People I know who were on the inside at the time confirm it and the style matches pretty well to those two and does not match to Ron Paul. Paul knows who wrote them too, but he’s protecting his long-time friend and advisor, unfortunately. And even more sadly, Rockwell doesn’t have the guts to confess and end this whole megillah. So although I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, like Archie Bunker, he was willing to, metaphorically, toast a marshmallow on the cross others were burning.

 

Even after the paleo strategy was abandoned, Ron was still there walking the line between “mainstream” libertarianism and the winking appeal to the hard right courted by the paleo strategy. Paul’s continued contact with the fringe groups of Truthers, racists, and the paranoid right are well documented. Even in 2008, he refused to return a campaign contribution of $500 from the white supremacist group Stormfront. You can still go to their site and see their love for Ron Paul in this campaign and you can find a picture of Ron with the owner of Stormfront’s website. Even if Ron had never intentionally courted them, isn’t it a huge problem that they think he is a good candidate? Doesn’t that say something really bad about the way Ron Paul is communicating his message? Doesn’t it suggest that years of the paleo strategy of courting folks like that actually resonated with the worst of the right? Paul also maintained his connection with the Mises Institute, which has itself had numerous connections with all kinds of unsavory folks: more racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, the whole nine yards. Much of this stuff was ably documented in 2007 and 2008 by the Right Watch blog. Hit that link for more.

[blackshoe]

"The paleo strategy was a horrific mistake".

 

With that, I agree. And I can understand why that author severed his ties with the Mises Institute. But the fact that the Institute's leaders pursued that policy twenty years ago doesn't mean that the Institute is doing so now.

 

What the heck is a "bleeding heart libertarian" anyway?

[hrothgar]

 

With that, I agree. And I can understand why that author severed his ties with the Mises Institute. But the fact that the Institute's leaders pursued that policy twenty years ago doesn't mean that the Institute is doing so now.

 

 

It is certainly true that people and institutions can change. However, the von Mises institute has not.

 

The institute continues to cross hire with organizations like the League for the South.

The institute continues to publish authors like Hans-Herman Hoppe and maintains them as fellows.

 

In this case, the leopard hasn't changed its spots.