More Ron Paul Reconstructionist Ties


Warren Throckmorton reveals something that I’m surprised I didn’t know (or perhaps I did at one point and forgot about it), that Gary North used to work for Ron Paul. Gary North is the son-in-law of RJ Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, and probably the most prominent living advocate of that barbaric ideology.

Second, Ron Paul ties to Christian reconstructionism go back a long way. Prominent Christian reconstructionist, Gary North, worked for Paul in the 1970s and periodically writes in glowing terms about Paul. North also favors the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery and other offenses listed as warranting death in Mosaic law…

Earlier this month, North a suggested speech for Ron Paul’s inauguration in 2013. It is clear that North, a consistent reconstructionist, believes Ron Paul is promoting a message which resonates with reconstructionism. The message now is essentially the same message now as when North worked for Paul in the 1970s. ..

North was briefly a staffer for Paul when Paul was first elected to Congress and wrote his newsletter (I wonder if Gary North knows anything about those Ron Paul reports). Given this background, Kayser’s endorsement is really not at all out of the ordinary for Paul. I could be wrong, but I think Paul’s views are shaped and driven by a belief that central government is the enemy of freedom and prosperity. As I understand him, Paul wants all politics that matter to be local, allowing states and local governments to decide how to handle matters of private conduct, such as sexuality, drug use, marriage.

I think this rejection of a strong central government is what brings Paul and reconstructionists together, and has for a long time. Paul apparently believes laws criminalizing homosexuality are faulty but he defends the rights of local jurisdictions (e.g., Texas in the Lawrence v. Texas case) to determine via legislation how to handle such things. Reconstructionists, such as Kayser in Omaha, want freedom from the central government to apply biblical law to willing local jurisdictions. Apparently, that is ok with Dr. Paul, unless of course, saying it out loud hurts him politically. In that case, the endorsement just goes away.

That does not mean that Ron Paul is a Reconstructionist, of course; I highly doubt he is. But the Reconstructionists clearly do feel that if Paul were to succeed in overturning the 14th Amendment and ending the enforcement of the Bill of Right against state and local government actions, they would be able to create theocratic governments at those levels. I have no doubt they are right about that.

Comments

  1. nmcc says

    “…they would be able to create theocratic governments at those levels. I have no doubt they are right about that…

    …However, as we Americans are so freedom-loving and freedom-exporting and free, we’d jolly well put a stop to that – pronto! I mean, as if a handful of religious loons could take away our freedoms. This is America, for goodness sake. Not just any old country”

    Surely that’s the proper ending to that sentence?

  2. MikeMa says

    Reversing the 14th amendment would be no easy task. Appointing SC judges who would ignore it might prove easier but in the long term (one hopes) a monumental failure. Might set us back as a nation by 20-30 years though.

  3. raven says

    Gary North is the son-in-law of RJ Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, and probably the most prominent living advocate of that barbaric ideology.

    Rushdoony was a psychopath. His biblical law theocracy would end up killing around 99% of the US population.

    What kept Rushdoony from being one of the biggest mass murderer monsters in history is real simple. No one sane bothered to agree with him.

    Except a few wackos like Gary North. IIRC, Gary North does things like try to determine how disobedient a child has to be before you stone it to death because that is the penalty in Deuteronomy.

  4. raven says

    I really wish those xian Dominionist freaks would find a theocracy somewhere and join it and leave us alone.

    Of course, there aren’t any xian theocracies. They never worked and no one normal wants to live in one.

    They could always move to Somalia, Iran, or Afghanistan, the current leading theocracies left in the world. In two of those, running water and electricity are scarce, lifespans run around 45 years, and violent death is common.

  5. says

    Warren Throckmorton reveals something that I’m surprised I didn’t know (or perhaps I did at one point and forgot about it), that Gary North used to work for Ron Paul.

    I’m pretty surprised you didn’t know that. I figured it was general knowledge.

    I think this rejection of a strong central government is what brings Paul and reconstructionists together, and has for a long time. Paul apparently believes laws criminalizing homosexuality are faulty but he defends the rights of local jurisdictions (e.g., Texas in the Lawrence v. Texas case) to determine via legislation how to handle such things.

    The anti-government thing is a big reason, but not the only reason. Not many people know this, but the reconstructionists are stridently anti-war and anti-torture. (In order to understand how reconstructionists can oppose torture but support stoning, remember that stoning is a punishment inflicted after a person is convicted of a crime. Rushdoony ardently supported “innocent until proven guilty” and opposed any form of harm done to someone to punish them without a trial or just to get information out of them. It’s a rather bogus distinction, but the reconstructionists are pretty consistent in upholding it.)

    Another factor is that reconstructionists are huge conspiracy nuts. Rushdoony himself argued for an explicitly conspiracy-based historiography and believed that all history is conspiracy. He drew a lot of his conspiracy ideas from the John Birchers of his day, and anyone who follows Ron Paul knows that his followers continue to perpetuate a lot of those conspiracies to this very day.

  6. g says

    We know you can’t support Ron Paul, but it would be interesting to do a post comparing Ron Paul to Romney or Rick Perry, who you also wouldn’t support, to say who you would vote for if you voted in the Republican primary. Though Huntsman might sweep in from the side and win that one…

  7. dingojack says

    g – Mittens support as nominee is firming at around 75.6%, The Ambibian is at around 5.8% and dropping, Mr Frothy is neck and neck with Paul at about 3.9%.
    In a head-to-head with Obama, Mittens is trailing by over 15% (assuming Evangelicals hold their noses), the rest would only get about 5% of the vote (at best).
    Personally I’d go Lil’ Ricky, I like a landslide, me.
    :) Dingo

  8. exdrone says

    So a strong federal government is “the enemy of freedom and prosperity”, but a multitude of strong local governments are not? Or does Paul believe that, if it’s not subject to federal jurisdiction, it’s not my problem?

  9. harold says

    Ron Paul is a right wing, creationist nut who talks about “individual liberty” but attracts a revealing amount of support from authoritarians.

    As it happens, he is an elderly, curmudgeonly right wing, creationist nut, who has some individuality, whether it is intentional or merely due to being out of touch with current fashion. Therefore, he is one of the few right wing nuts who doesn’t support useless constant war or insane drug policy.

    In this way he deviates from the obsessive fetish of total ideological purity that characterizes almost all other Republicans and people who self-characterize as “conservative” (I said “almost”, so if you’re reading this and you’re another rare exception, that’s irrelevant.)

    The tragedy is that our society is so fucked up that merely not supporting these things makes him look good, as most politicians in both parties support them at least implicitly.

  10. dan4 says

    @7: “In a head-to-head with Obama, Romney is trailing over 15%…”

    Citation needed. Every Obama-vs.-Romney poll I’ve seen shows a neck-and-neck race.

  11. slc1 says

    Re dan4 @ #10

    Mr. Dingo is talking about a 15 point difference on Intrade, not public opinion polls.

  12. juice says

    Ron Paul is a right wing, creationist nut who talks about “individual liberty” but attracts a revealing amount of support from authoritarians.

    You say that the support he draws from authoritarians (like your average TV pundit? average politician?) is revealing. What to you does it reveal? That Paul isn’t really what/who he says he is? That he has a secret evil plan to turn the USA into the new CSA? What?

    The tragedy is that our society is so fucked up that merely not supporting these things makes him look good, as most politicians in both parties support them at least implicitly.

    And that’s why you should support him, creationist John Bircher or not. But you’ll vote for Obama and the status quo will continue. It’s inevitable.

  13. Chris from Europe says

    And that’s why you should support him, creationist John Bircher or not.

    Are you delusional? What is the result you expect?

  14. Chris from Europe says

    Okay, but what would voting for Paul accomplish? The media will never draw the desired conclusion. It’s more likely that they conclude that taxes on media broadcasters are too high.

  15. says

    If these jokers want a theocracy perhaps they can try Africa. They seem to want to help the Africans impose some of the more nasty ideas of Christianity on themselves. Of course there’s the problem that Uganda and Zambia are run by black people, but perhaps a nice coup would change that.

  16. D. C. Sessions says

    Rushdoony was a psychopath. His biblical law theocracy would end up killing around 99% of the US population.

    Only if it were applied consistently. I hope nobody here is innocent enough to think that that would happen.

    For only one example: the prescribed fate of false prophets.

  17. raven says

    Only if it were applied consistently. I hope nobody here is innocent enough to think that that would happen.

    For only one example: the prescribed fate of false prophets.

    If they were really consistent they wouldn’t even exist. Hypocrisy is one of the fundie’s main sacraments.

    The penalty for being a false prophet is death by stoning.

    That would take care of all their leaders and the vast majority of their ministers. I’m sure three time loser Harold Camping, Hal Lindsay, Pat Robertson, Armstrong and the usual hoards of failed Rapture predictors would be long gone.

  18. raven says

    And that’s why you should support him, creationist John Bircher or not. But you’ll vote for Obama and the status quo will continue. It’s inevitable.

    This is really stupid.

    If Paul was elected the status quo would look like a cross between heaven and the Golden Age.

    Paul is a Dark Ager wannabe. By the time he was done, the USA would be lucky to still exist.

    George Bush, without even trying, set us back a generation. There is little evidence right now, we will ever recover. One more Tea Party moron and it won’t happen in my lifetime for sure.

  19. says

    And that’s why you should support him, creationist John Bircher or not. But you’ll vote for Obama and the status quo will continue. It’s inevitable.

    No thanks, I’m thinking Gary Johnson.

  20. Michael Heath says

    raven writes:

    George Bush, without even trying, set us back a generation.

    I’m concerned we lost a century due to his tenure in office, though we need to parse some of that blame on Republicans in Congress and their voting base and possibly – their financial constituents.

  21. Chris from Europe says

    No thanks, I’m thinking Gary Johnson.

    In respect to his civil libertarianism, he seems respectable. But on social programs and economic policy he sounds like a wingnut.

  22. says

    The result I expect is that Obama will win a second term and nothing will change.

    If nothing changes, it will be (and is) because Republicans, including Ron Paul, mindlessly and adamantly oppose everything the Democrats try to do to make things better, and are still actively trying to enact policies that have already made things worse than they’ve been in a LONG time. Pretending Ron Paul is part of the solution, when he’s spent his entire career being a willing part of the problem, is typical of the stupidity of RP’s supporters.

  23. freemage says

    juice: Actually, the revival of the CSA (or rather, as many steps in that direction as a President Paul could get away with, up to and including the nomination of SCOTUS justices who would be just fine with that, thank you) is exactly what I would expect from an RP presidency. Meanwhile, the drug war would continue, it would simply be shifted to the states to make sure that it was conducted in an even MORE racist and classist manner.

    Ron Paul would turn the U.S. into the Baskin-Robbins of tyranny: 50 unique flavors of oppression.

Leave a Reply