"Conservative"* media figure David Horowitz and others who post on the NewsReal blog have a jihad of their own running against Ron Paul and anyone who supports him.** There's a lot of provocative name-calling by the bloggers and Horowitz, which we won't repeat because it is a provocation, a gateway into a mindless, emotion-directed ad hominem debate, which results in a sort of quest to become the ape that wins the fight and can beat his chest at the end of the argument. This is exactly the type of non-issue driven debate people should avoid. The issues and facts are what matter. Ideas, especially, are relevant in any discussion on Ron Paul, who is driven by his. There are at least 5 smear attacks scheduled against Ron Paul per month, it seems. The bloggers are trying to get people to dislike Paul.
Their objective, it seems, is not to draw anyone slightly sympathetic to Dr. Paul to their way of thinking since they so mercilessly libel Ron Paul's followers. (It is funny that they totally ignore Ron Paul's intellectual supporters and focus solely on truthers and a few random white supremacists.) The objective seems to be to give affirmation to the thoughtless skimmer who will take for granted the veracity of all the bloggers' slurs, quotes taken out of context, uncharitable arguments, straw-men attacks, and outright calumnies.
If they can get conservatives to early on associate Ron Paul solely with the likes of Jimmy Carter, et al, then they can get them to block out everything Paul or his supporters might say--even if it is truly conservative. Their method of proselytizing is geared toward fostering allegiance or enmity with people, not ideas or values. But the nature of the anti-Paulite articles is downright laughable at times--to the point where one wonders whether the authors are real people being serious. There's no charitable attempt to represent beyond caricature Ron Paul's beliefs. And we thought we here at the NuPo could be biased...
Moreover, the overall focus of the blog, by accident, distracts people from the nation's monetary and fiscal woes (and thus Ron Paul's platform) by concentrating on Mohammedans doing bad things, how bad Obama is, and the perils of multiculturalism. Because the readers' consciousness is totally removed from Ron Paul's platform, when Ron Paul speaks in the debates and doesn't drone on about terrorism the whole time, talking instead about the Fed and the debt, the people may be confused.
In a recent article, Horowitz himself labels Paul a "Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American." The disingenuous nature of the article in which he calls him this is fleshed out by the fact that Horowitz neglects to mention that Ron Paul's proposal to cut aid to Israel would also cut all foreign aid, including that designated for Israel's rivals such as Egypt.
The funny thing is that Horowitz's reasoning can be used against him. Horowitz opposed Ron Paul's bill which would have cut aid to Israel's rivals. Is Horowitz anti-Israel and therefore a vicious anti-semite (or racist) too? He would be if he used his own reasoning. Moreover, Ron Paul wants to take away aid from predominantly Christian (Catholic) nations too. Is Paul anti-Catholic? This is the exact same thing liberals do when they say people who oppose the welfare state don't like black people because they may, on the aggregate, use it a little more. Sadly, Horowitz was once respected here for his opposition to this sort of hysteria, which is often invoked in cases of political correctness. Now he is prime producer of it.
A writer for NewsReal blog defended Horowitz, saying that the body of Ron Paul's foreign policy work, etc suggests that he an anti-semite. This implies that it was therefore alright for Horowitz not to explain that Paul's bill would cut foreign aid to all nations. So, if someone is thought to be bad a priori, then telling half the truth about their actions to make them look worse is justified. This seems like a "means justify the ends" ethic. If Horowitz were to use such an excuse, then it may be the ethic of his communist past creeping into his present discourse. Moreover, Ron Paul contends that necons practice this ethic in his book Liberty Defined. For the record, the blogger's premise was mistaken: Ron Paul is not an anti-semite, and this is not a widespread belief.
Horowitz is an intelligent man, having received a graduate degree from Cal Berkeley. Unless he is totally blinded by his hatred of Ron Paul or something, then it is safe to assume that Horowitz knows full well the nature of what he's doing.
Nor does Horowitz provide a charitable explanation of Ron Paul's belief that foreign aid "takes money from poor people in rich countries to give it to rich people in poor countries"--a belief that has many scholarly followers. Paul believes foreign aid in principle is socialistic and wrong. I would have liked to see an argument against this principle rather than an empty smear of Ron Paul.
Since Paul already believes foreign aid is wrong, cutting all of it would only be fair. Therefore it is not "anti-semitism" per se on which Paul acts. In other words, the policy in not anti-semitic. Moreover, if Paul ever has opposed any actions of the Israeli government, the question for NewsReal blog is whether said government is the same as the entire aggregate of Jewish people. If it is, then Horowitz may be on to something! But Horowitz doesn't engage in debate on any of these issues in his post.
If Paul is anti-semitic, someone had better tell Walter Block and Peter Schiff. Also, someone had better tell Paul that his entire Austrian Economic philosophy was developed predominantly by two Jewish men, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Indeed, the NewsReal bloggers either live under a rock or think their readers do.
So the trick is to somehow reach the people Horowitz is getting to hate Ron Paul based on straw-man representations of him. But this may be very difficult, and many who might derive pleasure from such posts is probably not seeking the truth anyway but rather somebody to direct their already existent malice toward.
In sum, all of us make mistakes, the NuPo and Ron Paul included. We may be mistaken in our attitudes about things as well. That writers for the NewsReal blog have not been honest in their presentation of a fellow conservative Ron Paul does not mean they are locked into their hatred for him forever. They are free to change. A cool-headed dislike for RP's policies may be understandable if one has certain values, but the hysterical calumnies are not.*** It is hoped that Horowitz especially will issue an apology for his smears and his bloggers' stacking of the deck to find every single bad person on Earth who has ever supported Ron Paul.
*We put the moniker Conservative in quotations because the NewsReal blog upholds Newt Gingrich who has ever been a conservative in terms of his favored policies. By "upholds" we mean that the site featured an ad on top of the main webpage featuring Gingrich along with Palin and another neocon. Palin ran up debt in Wasilla, supported the bridge to nowhere initially, and now supports more expensive recreational wars, so she is not a solid conservative.
** We expect attacks on RP to continue on the Front Page Mag, where Horowitz now writes.
***Maybe we're being to harsh on Horowitz...he fits right in with Jefferson and Adams!