I doubt this is news to anybody, but a book Paul wrote in the 80s, without ghostwriters or anyone to blame it on, has resurfaced and contains passages like this:
“Every year new groups organize to demand their ‘rights,'” he continued. “White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.”
“Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity,” Paul wrote. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.”
Can you get a better example of someone completely unconscious of his privilege? The first passage is like asking, “Hey, why isn’t there a feminism for men?” The second is victim blaming of the ickiest kind… or else a complete failure to realize that jobs are not so easy to come by, and if you have ambitions that involve specific firms and specific partnerships, you should not be forced to curtail them because someone’s abusing his power. Besides, what’s your guarantee you won’t run into sexual harassment in the next place? I know it’s way above tiny minds like Paul’s, but see, this is why the onus to correct wrongdoing needs to be on the asshole who’s doing wrong. What a concept, huh?
As for the comment on race, it’s certainly true that everyone should have the same rights, and that’s what all his fans are hiding behind in the comments (don’t read them – it’s mostly his fans demonstrating their usual weird levels of ignorant devotion). But he put this in a context of assuming that everyone already has the same rights, and minorities are asking for additional rights. That’s typical of people who lack the vision and imagination to see the world from any POV but their own. Really not presidential material.
There are a couple of good comments in the thread, though:
His basic philosophy seems to boil down to “might equals right”. This guy would throw the rape victim into jail for tempting the rapist. Of course, he would also throw the rapist in jail and tell us that they “both bear some responsibility”.
To save money, he would put them in the same cell.
I have nothing to add to that.
Here’s the problem with what Paul is saying about minorities: on the one hand he’s claiming that everyone should be treated equally in our society, but on the other hand he’s also saying that there shouldn’t be interference from “social do-gooders” when problems with equality are identified. How could you possibly provide equal treatment in society if you also claim you should never do anything about it when it’s been identified? It’s a ridiculous point of view.
Yes, but a point of view that makes it almost sound fair to dismiss minority complaints. And that’s a rationalization that appeals to a lot of fools online.
But maybe we’re being unfair. Maybe Paul has learned something in the past twenty-some years. When asked about his views in the book that AIDS sufferers were victims of their own lifestyle and shouldn’t expect anyone else to pay for their care:
Asked about the comments on “Fox News Sunday,” Paul said: “I don’t know how you can change science.” Sexually transmitted diseases are “caused by sexual activity,” he said, and “in a free society people do dumb things, but it isn’t to be placed as a burden on other people, innocent people.”
“Why should they have to pay for the consequences?” he said.
Unfortunately, his “science” was even more wrong in the 80s than it is now. Back in the 80s, every thinking person knew there were three major ways to get AIDS:
- Sharing needles.
- Sexual transmission.
- Blood transfusions.
Sharing needles is definitely a lifestyle issue. In the 80s, some people thought HIV mainly only happened to gays, which made it (in their minds) a lifestyle issue. But at no point ever did anybody think that getting a blood transfusion as you bled out from car accident injuries was a “lifestyle issue.” And people were terrified that every bag of blood had HIV in it, because the blood banks weren’t really up to screening it yet.
Now they are, and no one’s too worried that blood transfusions mean instant HIV anymore. So it would actually be more tenable to argue “lifestyle issues” now than it was then – so long as the sexual lifestyle you’re worried about is “having sex with men”, since we know women can get HIV through nice wholesome reproductive intercourse as easily as gays get it through anal intercourse.
Speaking of anal intercourse, I can’t be bothered to waste anymore time on this, and will just finish up by saying: what an asshole.
Edited to correct where WordPress somehow duplicated sections.