Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Ron Paul’s Vision: Can It Work…

December 29, 2011 by  
Filed under News, Opinion, Politics, Weekly Columns

Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

( Dr. Ron Paul is a true patriot, and his support of a different vision of the constitution needs to be debated anew, in the light of the positive and negative changes that have come with that defining document’s continuing evolution.

States’ Rights versus a strong Federal National Government is as legitimate an issue for debate in 2012 as it was in 1787. As a history buff and political junkie, I pay attention to symbolism and substance. I am a resident of Virginia, but I have lived in New York, Connecticut, Michigan, Arizona, and New Jersey. I have traveled and lived abroad. The evolution of the U.S. into a global power sustains and restrains our freedom to engage in this exchange. As nations of men and women, of peoples, leaders everywhere have made defining decisions. These decisions were not made in a vacuum. They have had far reaching effects, but we are here in this present global moment as a result of them, all of them. Perhaps, we are here in spite of them. Call them mistakes, call them self-serving, call them an expression of exceptionalism or whatever. I see America and the world’s best days in this present moment. I know about the incarceration rate of African Americans and Latinos. I also read about legislative solutions. Those solutions are less likely to come about without strong national leadership, without a more expansive view of the constitution rather than the stricter view of the national government powers.

The press and the media have been criticized in the past for not exposing racism; I will not now criticize them for raising legitimate questions about  statements written under Dr. Paul’s name in the 1990s. It understandable that when you have an affinity to a candidate that you might not want the press to pursue a particularly troublesome line of questions. But it is indefensible to criticize the press for pursuing the questions in this case. After going after Herman Cain for allegations of sexual harassment and adultery, what would we think of a national press that did not attempt to expose potential racism in another candidate for the presidency in the same election cycle? 

Is it okay that because past presidents may have been racist and the national media may not have excoriated them, that Paul should get a pass on his alleged past? Should he not have to address the issue forthrightly?  I do not believe Paul is or ever has thought of himself as racist or bigoted.  It is anathema to his philosophy.  Yet, I would like to see him address the issue and the surrounding charges in the national press.  I thought he hurt himself, taking off the microphone and running away in the CNN interview on the issue.  Let him gather his thoughts and prepare for a press conference at some point in the future so that all of us may hear for ourselves his explanation.

As a libertarian, Paul has highlighted problems that we agree are racist, wrong, and unfair. These problems still persist. So addressing concerns verbally does not end them. The majority in this country has not yet been persuaded that many of its bad laws are bad or that prejudice and bigotry has not gone away. We have to engage in this process of discourse, elections, legislation, and judicial adjudication to bring about the ideals embodied in our constitution and founding documents.

Patience is needed. Because someone fearfully screams that time is running out does not mean it is or that the suggested changes are correct ones. My senator, Jim Webb (who is not seeking reelection) has an omnibus crime bill that addresses a slew of differential sentencing issues and other inequities that I believe Dr. Paul would support. Despite the bill’s bipartisan co-sponsorship in the senate, the GOP leadership blocked its consideration, demanding 60 votes and various other legislative hurdles even though its fiscal savings are enormous and needed. Senator Webb hopes to attach this bill as an amendment to some “must pass” legislation when the time comes. It had over 56 supporters, endorsements by many states’ attorney generals and other national law enforcement associations. 

As Dr. Paul knows, under our constitution, the president can only do so much! Most of the power resides in the legislative branch and has had to be wrested from it as a result of its inherent and historical dysfunctionality.  There are political and constitutional constraints on what even the legislature can accomplish. That is the way our system is until they (or we) change it. In presidential elections the people have an opportunity to “nudge” the process forward. As the electorate, we sometimes, it seems, get it right; other times not.

I invest my energy in being an optimist. I can live with having the federal government emasculated. I do not know want to see it as impotent as Paul has suggested, but he should be debating Obama and Romney in September 2012 on their respective visions with the national electorate tuned in.  I recognize, though, that the result will not be a cure all, but it might advance the national understanding of our governmental system. 

At this moment in our national history, we need to listen to each other, learn from each other, feel and share each other’s legitimate concerns. Out of many, we need to become one. Practically, the national government needs to be restrained severely in its spending.  There needs to be shared sacrifice.  Entitlements should be on the table.  Over time the national debt needs to be reduced. The national defense budget needs to be trimmed from the level that the GOP’s finds acceptable, but it should be left sounder than isolationists might want. 

The post election solution should reflect shared sacrifice and require those who benefitted the most from and during the unpaid for wars to pay more in taxes.

The national government must adopt policies that would preserve and grow the middle class and assure their security at the expense of the oil industries, big banks and other financial institutions, multi-millionaire and billionaire chief executives, and high flying Wall Street Traders whose interests and profits have been saved and sustained by the national government, in part, at the cost of the blood, bravery, and broken bodies of our troops.

Many like what Ron Paul says about the founding fathers’ original intent in the constitution, but what about what the people want and need now and are willing to pay for constitutionally?  What would actually change under his administration?  Some think that Paul is a threat to the status quo. He is, in an odd way, but what is the status quo now? It is gridlock. What would Ron Paul bring to the table? Moregridlock? I think our politics and our economy is at a tipping point with this election. We cannot afford the “same old same old”, but neither can we afford any more unintended consequences.

Staff Writer; Rev. Victor Langhorne



26 Responses to “Ron Paul’s Vision: Can It Work…”
  1. Victor says:

    @Crazy Horse:

    The video was effective in portraying the human compassion of Dr. Ron Paul toward this white woman, who was married to a black man. He chose to treat her. While other racists may not have been sympathetic toward her, Dr. Paul was. Somehow though, it strikes me that is a rather low bar to test anyone’s racial sensibilities, especially in the 70s.

    The account documents Dr. Paul’s medical ethics and compassion for the poor, not his managerial and administrative competence which have been called into question by the newsletter hoopla.

  2. Crazy Horse says:

    search “The Compassion of Ron Paul” -Watch the video-Is this a racist ? Thou Shalt NOT Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor.

  3. Victor says:


    Wow, the link was the source of some excellent source data for all the candidates’ record on civil rights. I would not subtantially dispute the ratings. Overall that data shows candidates Johnson, Paul, and President Obama (in that order) are easily ahead of the rest on the issue of protection and respecting civil rights.

    Thank you for the link referral.

  4. Victor says:


    Dr. Paul’s heart is in the right place on pardoning; however, the president’s power to pardon can only be extended to federal drug crimes. The vast majority of convictions for drugs occur at the state level or in violations of state drug statues. Federal drug criminals tend to be big wigs not the ordinary street hustler.

    Imagine that for unintended consequences. Many of the federal pushers get pardoned while the low level addict/pushers languish in state, regional, and local prisons and jails.

  5. CallMeAnn says:

    Haven’t read all the responses to this fair article, but I did want to respond to the question of how he could end the federal drug war when it would have to go through the legislature and at the same time, the individual states would each be able to have their own laws on these matters. One thing you might factor in is that he does have the power of pardoning and he has vowed to pardon all non-violent drug offenders now in custody. This shows that more than anything else, he wants more people out of jail and out in a productive society.

  6. Victor says:


    Regarding the tabulation of the ballots, I agree with you 100%. I have participated in caucuses. Counting the ballots publicly was the essence of a caucus meeting. Perhaps Iowa GOP has very different rules for theirs than we followed in Virginia in the 1980s. We used to caucus and ballot multiple times. When we left the meeting at the end of the night, we could each know our respective county’s results. All of the local party officials would relate those results to the designated state officials. The process was noisy sometimes, but transparent and fair.

  7. Victor says:


    I appreciate you remarks.

    In taking my responsibility seriously to think critically about the racism issue, over the past two days, I have been able to research to my satisfaction that the media is doing with Paul what the media does to all candidates who reach the top tier–it give them, their supporters, and the truth seeking public plenty of grief and rumor mill grist.

    I do not believe at this point that Dr. Paul is either a racist or anti-semitic. However, it would be naive of me to conclude from his voting pattern and debates performance, which I found admirable that he would be up for job of making America better as president.

    Frankly, at this point, I respect Paul as an ideas man and as a candidate for president who is helping to move the country along in a positive direction with his candidacy based on strict constitutional and libertarian principles. How I might like him as president is questionable. I am still trying to envision a way forward for him to win and govern as a GOP president. Should he decide to run on a third party ticket for president, he might more easily win a plurality of the American people’s vote. However, taking the third party route carries its own risks. It might doom his son’s future and invite the fury of the GOP and DEM nasty machines even more.

  8. Mark says:

    Thank you for this very fair article. You’re right in that the media does have a responsibility to bring these racist newsletters to light. But at the same time, it’s also the viewer’s responsibility to think critically about the situation and to arrive at their own judgement. Personally, I’m strongly supporting him because his voting pattern and actions in debates completely run opposite to the way he’s portrayed in the media and what has been said in the newsletters.

  9. Mike D says:

    Iowa GOP explains moving vote tabulation away from HQ
    1774 precints-how does one have campaign representatives for each precint accomapny the votes to where tabulation happens? 6 candidatesx1774 precients=10,000+ individuals in the night moving the votes to a ‘location’? Won’t happen..3 people cannot keep a secret(location). So the ballots will be in the posession of the few. Will they be ‘stuffed’? Precounted and first? Locked in a box during transport? 1774 locks? 1774 boxes? Won’t happen. Will the transporters be searched first, will they be trailed, will they bemonitored in the transport vehicles, will the vehicles be search before transport and after?
    The Party is simply moving off-site-NOT SIMPLE.
    said it was only to avoid a sabotage.- When simplicty is gone..duplicity steps in.

    Those slips are collected, taken to a table, and counted in the open.- To bad people are emotional about their candidate, too bad the democratic process is some times messy, arguementative. Too bad it is inconveinent to have to deal with the basic premiss of one person one vote.

    The answer is not to avail simplicity where there can be no simple solution, the answer is to avail an open vote. Deal with it GOP. Like it has always been dealt with, infront of everybody, no secret location, no unknown transfers

  10. Victor says:

    Dear Scotty:
    December 30, 2011 at 12:57 am

    How do you think a President Paul could end the war on drug if 50 states chose to keep it going against their citizens? Remember he supports a weak national government and giving more power back to the states. Changing even federal drug laws would require 60 senators to agree on a bill that would be difficult to pass the GOP controlled House. The talk of change in this area is good, but builidng a consenus for change in the country in the face of strident religious conservatism would require decades if not centuries to forge in our states without a strong national government, which Paul opposes.

  11. Victor says:

    Dear Scott:

    I appreciated your “refreshing” and “positive” comments. Yours, like the Ron Paul Supporter’s response elevates the discussion. Thank you. Although I am far from naive about media spin, we need each other to guard against it. There were ostensibly facts of which you and others are in possession that would benefit me to review. Goodwill, courtesy, and patience while supporting Dr. Paul will benefit his cause and candidacy. Keep up the good work.

    I’d like to learn more about you envision Dr. Paul getting elected and, if elected, carrying out the duties and responsibilities of president to achieve the goals of his presidency, given the “weak” presidency and federal government that he supports and the entrenched power of the establishment and Washington lobbyists. The president proposes, and Congress disposes. Would Dr. Paul have the energy and stamina to serve two terms, to fight the duopoly of the DEMs and GOP, and help elect likeminded congressman and senators to support his agenda?

  12. Victor says:

    Dear NoTyrannyUSA:

    I have never believed Dr Paul was a racist, nor had I heard him answer “these same loaded questions over & over.” Though I had seen only the version of the CNN interview in which Dr. Paul appeared to be abruptly ending the interview, I did not conclude that he was racist. At the same time, I had not ever heard his explanation of who or how these statements came to be written under his name. I am proactively engaged in educating myself about the competencies as well as the character and vision of the contending candidates for the presidency of the U.S.A.

    Your response could be helpful in my endeavor to decide for whom I should vote. Thank you.

  13. Scotty says:

    Ron Paul answered the questions about his newsletters to my satisfaction almost 4 years ago when he ran for President. I am glad someone has already pointed out the interview was edited and should also do their research on the woman giving the interview who is married to a defense contractor whose business would suffer greatly under a Paul administration. She is also an Israeli firster, a term describing people in America who place Israels interest over our own at all costs. This term is now being called “racist”. I do not agree with Paul on everything but I do know that drug war has produced more slaves for the prison plantation than the number who were enslaved during the 1800s. That should matter to all black people.

  14. Victor says:

    Dear Ron Paul Supporter saying:

    Check out Paul Anti-Racist Encyclopedia at

    I did. I went through the exhibits methodically. They showed to my satisfaction that neither Dr. Paul nor the philosophy that he embraces should be supportive of racism.

    So, I am left with this question: Who, among his close associates, would use his good name in such an offensive manner? That is a managerial issue, an issue of competence. Recognizing that as a doctor, he was busy, how would Dr. Paul, at 76, manage the complexities of the presidency in the modern world.

  15. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan perot carter says:

    Caiaphas, Neocons, and the controlled media
    are telling us now that Ron Paul is dangerous
    ?Jesus Christ Superstar .. This Jesus Must Die?

  16. Scott says:

    Can Ron Paul’s vision work?, well, here’s what some of ThyBlackMen and Women think.

  17. Scott says:

    I’d just like to say how refreshing it was to hear from Rev. Langhorne on Ron Paul’s campaign than the completely bought and paid for posts of Mr. Earl Hutchinson. The Rev. at least puts forth a positive atmosphere of learning and sharing from each other during this frustrating time of political talk where polemica reigns. And the Rev. is right that Paul should have to deal with this issue, however repeatedly and purposely histrionic the behavior of the media is on this subject.

    However, it just so happens that CNN edited that tape to make it appear like Paul ran out of the interview. The full length version which is easy to find shows a completely different picture where Paul stood and addressed the question until the interview was over. Paul has addressed this issue ad nauseum and the truth to his answers on this topic should be obvious from a look at his social and political life that has never espoused the sentiments found in those few sentences of his newsletters. We know how he sounds when he writes, and we know that was not his voice in those sentences.

    What Ron Paul can do as President compared to what he is advocating matches up well. Paul knows that what he is promising is something that the President actually has the power to deliver.

  18. NoTyrannyUSA says:

    Once again an incessantly boring dissertation into the racism of Ron Paul…boring not because equality itself is unimportant but rather, because we have seen Dr Paul answer these same loaded questions over & over & over & then we are told he “refused” to answer! Honestly, this is just one more author proving that journalism & ethics find themselves mutually exclusive in today’s world: the description of CNN’s spin-doctored attack- by- interview proves this point, I mean is the author the only American who didn’t discover the “uncut” interview where Dr Paul not only withstood harassment but actually excused himself fairly politely! In their world, black is white, up us down, good is bad… Dr Paul scares the hell out of the establishment & it’s not because of who HE is but rather because he represents what Americans truly endeavour for. And that is why we will choose him as our next President.

  19. Tough USA says:

    From Mitts book of mormon
    That is just the tip of the iceberg; there is much more.
    Even though the Book of Mormon teaches that African Americans are inferior and loathsome, — uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind according to Mark E. Peterson — it does state that they may eventually be saved. However, even in Heaven, they will be servants to others. – Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

  20. Arthur says:

    Dear TheTruthNow,

    This site is open to the 7 billion people on planet earth to comment on any essay that it contains and to submit any essay they care to on any topic voicing any opinion that they would like to express. Therefore, you are free to continue to make snide, insulting comments. Or you can choose to express yourself in a decent, respectful manner either in a comment or a full length essay. Or you can just keep quiet. The choice is up to you. Which shall you choose?

  21. TheTruthNow says:

    I guess next you’ll start claiming Ron Paul was a drum major for civil rights with MLK.

    And he freed all the slaves!

    And he started the Underground Railroad!

    And he also traced his family alllllllllll the way back to Africa!!

    What unbelievable BS!!!!!

  22. Tim K says:

    Hey Rev, does this vision work?
    “Goyim were born only to serve us Jews. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”
    -Ovadia Yosef, 2010 (Chief Rabbi of Israel)

  23. ral says:

    Thanks for the article.

    For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see , the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization

  24. Harry says:

    “I do not believe Ron Paul is or ever has thought of himself as racist or bigoted. It is anathema to his philosophy. Yet, I would like to see him address the issue and the surrounding charges in the national press.”

    1 – This has been beat to death for YEARS now. Ron Paul went on CNN and directly answered all of this in 2008.

    2 – Ron Paul was a working doctor while the RP Newsletter was going out. This was 20 years ago. And Ron Paul has confessed, he didn’t even bother reading the thing. Since Ron Paul is endorsed by the NAACP, something you may need to research, and you agree his philosophy is not bigoted, then you, like everyone else, can conclude that he did not write it.

    3 – So what is the conclusion? The conclusion is, you caught him, you caught him red handed. 20 years ago, Ron Paul was a crummy proofreader.

    Now I know in 2008 everyone who did not vote for Obama was a “racist.” Bill and Hillary Clinton were racists. McCain and Palin were racists. Every republican was a racist. Everyone not voting for Obama was a racist. I am sure you are going to be beating this drum in 2012 like every other person who would rather call people racists than debate big government, individual liberty, state vs federal government, and non-interventionism vs interventionism.

    So beat the drum for your Fed loving president, and keep shouting everyone who does not support Obama is a RACIST because no one would actually want to cut the deficit 1 Trillion Dollars, year 1.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!