Ron Paul Would Free the Most Black Men since Lincoln

In light of the recent events of TNR contributor James Kirchick's article concerning Ron Paul, and his raising of the "racism" spectre, it is important to closely examine what exactly it is that Congressman Paul is suggesting, and perhaps to consider Mr. Kirchick's motivation for the article in question.

First, lets consider a point that was not disclosed in Mr. Kirchick's piece. James Kirchick has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president.(** as a contributor of National Review pointed out to me, Mr Kirchick didn't explicitly state an endorsement. I contend that his article soliciting an endorsement for Giuliani amounts to an endorsement res ipsa loquitur. ) On December 5th of this year, Mr Kirchick wrote a piece entitled Cabin Fever where he states:

"The gay and lesbian organization Log Cabin Republicans has decided to sit out the
Republican primary by not endorsing a candidate. Why aren’t they backing
Rudy Giuliani, the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history?"

Further, and in the same style of solicitation.

Giuliani still says he supports domestic partnerships that ensure the same legal rights for gay couples. Add his regular participation in New York City’s gay pride parades, his appointments of openly gay people to city offices, and his having lived with a gay couple after his wife kicked him out of the house -- plus a dearth of gay-supportive Republican rivals -- and you have a no-brainer of a Log Cabin endorsement.

In the immediate aftermath of the Iowa caucus, the blogosphere was churning out the results and what they indicated. One of the most popular results was that Ron Paul beat Rudy Giuliani by a margin of two to one in Iowa. Here's an example from the Huffington Post. Ron Paul Beats Arch-Nemesis Giuliani 2-To-1 In Iowa

Ex-mayor Giuliani retreated by claiming he hadn't campaigned there, he was waiting for Florida, he hadn't spent money. But in fact, he made more campaign appearances than Ron Paul, and only three less than John McCain. Money spent in the fourth quarter has yet to be disclosed.

This is the environment in which Mr. Kirchick released his dubious article. On the day of the New Hampshire Primary. The reader can determine on merit if they believe the article to be objective journalism.

For me, the true test of character regarding Paul, and indeed all of the candidates this year, is what effect we can expect from the realization of their proposed platforms, and how it relates to the issue of race, as it's being discussed by Mr. Kirchick.

Here, Paul vindicates himself admirably. No candidate excepting Ron Paul has promised to tackle the ineffectual war on drugs. In fact, Paul has promised to pardon non-violent drug offenders, as well as restore the voting rights of those pardoned, and work to end federally mandated minimum sentencing. What would the results of this action be?

The ACLU released a study in 2006 regarding the drug war and the prison population.

America has approximately 262,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges, more than 70 percent of which are black or Latino. That means over 183,000 black and Latino citizens are serving time for non-violent drug offenses.

What makes this a racial issue? Here's a bit more from the ACLU.

" Recent data indicates that African Americans make up 15% of the country’s drug
users, yet they comprise 37% of those arrested for drug violations, 59%
of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison for a drug
offense."

One can argue with the cause, is it racial, is it socio-economic? But what you can not debate is the reality. Black Americans are incarcerated disproportionately to White Americans for drug crimes. No candidate other than Paul is even discussing this issue.

Lincoln's Proclamation freed the slaves not under control of the Union. A Paul presidency is offering to free a quarter of a million Americans incarcerated for a victimless crime, 70% of them being black or Latino.

So which will it be? Substance or innuendo? Freedom for 183,000 blacks and Latinos that have been herded into the state prison system? Or a hat tip to the politically correct among us while we ignore a generation of what amounts to political prisoners? Should we fight the existence of racially destructive legislation, or should we delve into decades old newsletters who's author can not be attributed, written by a journalist that supports another candidate?