Ron Paul and the ADL
It looks like the Anti-Defamation League is about to join itself to the chorus of voices calling on Ron Paul to return the few donations he's received from unsavory types, like white supremacists and neo-nazis, to the donors. Unfortunately, this is a problem that any political campaign can face, especially as it gains steam. Political candidates can't control who donates to their coffers, but they can control how they react to those donations.
So far, the Ron Paul campaign's reaction has been a statement that, "If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss." Putting money from bad people to good use is an intellectually defensible position, but ... well ... why? It's worth pointing out that just because a position is defensible, that doesn't mean it's worth defending.
The ADL has a long and respectable history as a guardian against bigotry. Sad to say, in recent years the group has ventured into Bill Donahue/Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights territory -- that is, its concerns and press releases have become just a bit eye-roll inducing. But the group retains a residual respectability among people who find racists gag-worthy. More than a few folks are likely to be troubled if the ADL criticizes Ron Paul for failing to repudiate unwelcome donors to his campaign.
The Paul campaign can expend time and energy defending its decision to keep the donations -- and lose hard-won momentum in the process. That position won't be a moral error, but it will be a public relations error. Or it can seize the opportunity to denounce bigotry as incompatible with the philosophy of liberty and individual rights.
You know what I'd decide if I was calling the shots.
So far, the Ron Paul campaign's reaction has been a statement that, "If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss." Putting money from bad people to good use is an intellectually defensible position, but ... well ... why? It's worth pointing out that just because a position is defensible, that doesn't mean it's worth defending.
The ADL has a long and respectable history as a guardian against bigotry. Sad to say, in recent years the group has ventured into Bill Donahue/Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights territory -- that is, its concerns and press releases have become just a bit eye-roll inducing. But the group retains a residual respectability among people who find racists gag-worthy. More than a few folks are likely to be troubled if the ADL criticizes Ron Paul for failing to repudiate unwelcome donors to his campaign.
The Paul campaign can expend time and energy defending its decision to keep the donations -- and lose hard-won momentum in the process. That position won't be a moral error, but it will be a public relations error. Or it can seize the opportunity to denounce bigotry as incompatible with the philosophy of liberty and individual rights.
You know what I'd decide if I was calling the shots.
Labels: popularity contest
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
5:37 PM
5 Comments:
Betcha almost anything it won't spend any time or money defending the decision.
Y'see, when morally upright people come under a scurrilous attack, the single best response is not to respond at all. Simply letting their integrity, message and record speak for themselves will blast away the dissenting voices.
Defending himself, either by returning the money or making impassioned speeches about why he shouldn't, would be a mistake at this point. All he has to do is shrug and smile.
As a supporter of Dr. Ron Paul I do not believe he has to apologies for anything. He has the most integrity of anyone in Washington. There is an element of the Jewish population that is going to attack Dr. Paul because of his foreign policy. Cutting of funds for Israel and every other country to save our economy makes sense to taxpaying citizens. The true motivation for this attack is quite transparent and typical of the ADL. EMCK
Who appointed the ADL as the guardian of ethical practices and moral standards?
No, it is actually responding to the allegations that would be a big mistake. The responses would be scrutinizes and fed back into the media until the accusations become the focal point of the campaign. Responses would not silence the objections - they would invigorate them with many others jumping on the wagon.
Ignore, ignore, ignore is by far the best policy.
If Ron Paul or his campaign were to waste any more time on this non-issue his enemies would pretend to be anti-Semites and donate, knowing they would get their money back. They would donate repeatedly, keeping the issue alive and wasting time that should go toward spreading Ron Paul's message.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home