Why Ron Paul is NOT an Ally to Minorities
First of all, I’m not even going to address his ties to white supremacist organizations, the newsletters, etc., because I’ve found that his supporters will just deny, sweep under the rug, deny some more, and claim irrelevancy until they turn blue in the face. So this post will not be concerning Paul’s personal character, but rather his policies.
Let’s start with the big one: he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He has said that “the rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.” He holds the right to private property above the right to not be treated as a second class citizen, the right to discriminate above the right to not be discriminated against. This is not obviously not in the interest of those being marginalized, especially because the majority of private property will naturally be held by the group in power, i.e. those doing the discriminating.
Similarly, Paul has written that victims of sexual harassment in the workplace should just find new jobs. Women aren’t a minority, but they are the main victims of this behavior and a marginalized group in general, so I’ll include them here. This stance reflects the same zeal to protect the oppressors rather than the oppressed as his opinion on the Civil Rights Act.
Paul’s defense of the right of the powerful to crush the powerless continues in his economic policy. He’s awfully fond of the free market for someone who supposedly predicted the housing bubble, which was caused by the lack of regulation of derivatives and lack of consumer protection against predatory lending. Capitalism without government regulation works to the benefit of the haves at the expense of the have-nots and leads to the concentration of wealth in the empowered group. Paul also supports phasing out social and entitlement programs and believes that those who can’t pay for medical care will find a way to “work it out” based on the altruism of others. He doesn’t believe in protecting the lower classes from the modern bourgeoisie, and he doesn’t believe that the government should provide them assistance, because obviously kind-hearted doctors and the like will take pity on them. Right. Now, neoliberalism is detrimental to the people of middle and lower classes regardless of whether they’re minorities, but the majority of people identified as minorities fall into those brackets, so it does harm them, although not exclusively.
Related is his lack of support for workers’ rights. Paul wants to abolish the minimum wage, because that will totally lead to better standards of living for the poor and not the complete, unchecked exploitation of them, right? He voted to zero-fund the Ergonomics Rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is the part “assessing those work-related factors that may pose a risk of musculoskeletal disorders.” He doesn’t believe in protecting the working class against exploitation and harm imposed by employers.
Basically, Paul’s policies would be disastrous for the lower and middle classes, into which most members of minority groups fall. On top of that, he opposes anything protecting such marginalized groups from further discrimination.
Supporters of Paul are quick to cry “But he’ll end the War on Drugs!” Yes, that is true, and the War on Drugs IS terribly racist and also pointless and a waste of money. I agree that it should be ended. But Ron Paul’s support for the end of current drug policy is just a drop in the bucket as far as minorities are concerned. This ONE policy of his would help some members of minorities, yes, but his overall platform would be incredibly harmful for all members of oppressed and disadvantaged groups.
P.S. Paulbots: If you’re going to respond, do it off of anonymous. Either that or have a REALLY good, relevant point that I haven’t addressed, because I won’t be responding to anons with questionable reading comprehension skills.
