My Son: Klan Reformer

[eques]

http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html

Ah, my son, my son . . . .

He's 40 years old, and really needs to change careers.

When he was 20, he joined the Ku Klux Klan, because he was concerned that the Klan was getting too big, too aggressive. In those days, they were lynching some poor man every week, which he felt was wrong. He felt that the Klan should limit itself to a lynching every month, and that things were getting waaaay out of hand.

I've spent my life arguing that the Klan should be abolished, so I had mixed feelings about his decision. Without a doubt, I would rather the Klan lynch someone once a month rather than once a week, so I was somewhat tempted by his "work from the inside" approach, but I had some significant doubts that it could work.

"But dad," he said, those many years ago, "I can get the word out that the Klan should only be lynching someone once a month, rather than once a week, which will be a step in the right direction, right?"

"Well, I'm not sure," I said uneasily. "Won't people be getting the message that lynching is good, rather than that lynching is bad? You're legitimizing the principle."

"But I want to reduce the number of lynchings, dad!" he replied. "In an ideal world, sure, there should be no lynchings at all, but I'm going to bring that number down, which is a step in the right direction, right? I mean, it's better if fewer people get lynched, right?"

I was uneasy, because something just sort of – seemed wrong with his approach, but I couldn't put my finger on it.

For the past 20 years, my son has been notorious in the Klan. He draws a paycheck, goes to meetings – and has been given control over his very own district of Klan loyalists.

To his credit, whenever the Klan Council votes on whether to have a lynching, my son usually votes "no." Often he's the only one casting a negative vote.

Still, since he joined the Klan with the goal of reducing lynching, lynching has gone up and up and up.

Now, the Klan that 20 years ago only lynched a man a week is now lynching a man a day.

And my son's district? Has he been able to reduce the lynching in the area he has control over?

No. In fact, the lynching in his own district has actually gone up over the years.

When I ask him about this, his answer is always the same: "Sure, dad, but I don't have that much control over who gets lynched in my district. I oppose it, of course, but there's not a whole lot I can do."

A few months ago, my son came over and told me he was running for Grand Wizard.

"If I become Grand Wizard," he said, "I will be able to veto most of the lynchings that come up for a vote. Then I'll really have the power to reduce the number of people getting killed or beaten up."

"But son!" I exclaimed in horror. "People – other than you, let's say – only join the Klan so they can lynch people. If all they want to do is lynch people, why on earth would they vote you in? And if you somehow got in, the moment you stopped them from lynching, they'd just toss you out! If you stop the Klan from lynching, it's not the Klan anymore!"

"No," he said earnestly, "it's still the Klan – it's just a smaller Klan that lynches less!"

"Twenty years ago," I said softly, "you said that in a perfect world, there would be no lynching at all . . . ."

"Sure," he said, coloring slightly. "But I can't talk about that. About there being no lynching at all. I mean, that would be mad – I'd never get elected Grand Wizard!"

"Right, so you're on a 'pro-lynching' platform, you just want less lynching."

"Yes," he said, nodding vigorously, immune to irony.

"So it's wrong to lynch a lot, but it's right to lynch a little."

"Well, ideally, there should be no lynching at all . . . ."

"But that's not what you're telling people. You're telling people that the right thing to do is lynch less."

"Sure – because less lynching is better than more lynching."

"But no lynching is better, right?"

"Yes, in an ideal world . . . ."

"So why don't you tell people that? That you want to take over the Klan in order to abolish it!"

He laughed. "Oh, I don't think that's the right idea. Right now, we need the lynchings. We need the Klan. It's just gotten too big."

Round and round we went, from pragmatism to principle, back and forth . . . . It was most exasperating!

After a public debate where my son roused a real ruckus by openly stating that the reason that certain minorities hated whites was because of white support for the Klan that lynched them, his numbers shot up from somewhere near 0% to around 3%.

He came right over, ecstatic. "I'm really getting the message out, dad!"

I grimaced. "Well – I hate to say this, son, but I think you just shot yourself in the foot."

"Wh – what?" His voice hardened instantly.

"You say that minorities hate the Klan because of the lynchings, right?"

"Right!"

"But the number of lynchings has gone up like five or six times since you joined the Klan – and the number of lynchings in your district has also gone up!"

"But I vote against most of the lynchings!"

"But son! You are in the Klan! You support lynchings! How can you say that the Klan is immoral?"

"Because, as I've said about ten thousand times over the past 20 years, dad, there's too much lynching!"

"So you think that minorities will love you now? When you say they have every right to hate the lynching that you support less of? My God, son – when did it happen that the best possible outcome a good man could hope for was to present himself as the lesser of two evils?"

"Because change has to be gradual, dad!" he cried out. "Has your podcasting and scribbling stopped even one lynching? At least I'm out in the real world trying to get something done!"

"And what, after 20 years, have you achieved? You said to me, long ago, 'Dad, I'm in this to reduce the numbers of lynchings. And you've been taking Klan money and hanging out with these thugs for decades, and what is the outcome? More lynchings. More Klan power! So what have you achieved?"

He jumped up. "Well, yeah, sure, there are more lynchings now, but can you imagine what would have happened if I hadn't joined the Klan? Instead of just one lynching a day, there could be two or three!"

"How do you know that? That's just something you tell yourself, so you don't feel that you compromised your principles for nothing. There's no evidence of that!"

"I've voted against most of the lynchings!"

"And the lynchings happened anyway! And still you stay with these thugs!"

Suddenly he changed tactics. "Why do you care so much what I do? We're both for less lynching, we're both on the same side of the fence, we shouldn't be fighting each other."

"But you are fighting me," I said softly. "Don't you understand that?"

There was a long silence. Our mutual anger was spent.

"What do you mean?"

"Son, you think that lynching should be reformed, I think it should be abolished. It's like slavery." I sighed. "In the 19th Century, a lot people were very uneasy about slavery. Deep down, they knew that it was wrong. But they also were afraid of real change.  And there were two groups: the reformers and the abolitionists.  The reformers promised people that slavery could be made more humane, that the slaves could be treated better, beaten and raped less – and so slavery did not have to be eliminated. They worked to pass laws against the extreme mistreatment of slaves, held rallies, raised money – an enormous amount of time, energy and resources were wasted trying to reform slavery. And, as they worked and worked, for decades and decades, more slaves got beaten and raped, conditions got worse and worse, and – the worst thing in  my view – people uncomfortable with slavery were given the comforting illusion that it did not have to be abolished.

"The abolitionists, on the other hand, knew that slavery could not be reformed, that it was evil through and through, and that it had to be abolished. And their most dangerous opponents were not those who were unabashedly pro-slavery. Their most dangerous opponents were the reformers."

He rolled his eyes. "So – you're saying that I'm your enemy now?"

"No, because we've never had this conversation. And for that I'm sorry. But what you're doing, what you've been doing for 20 years, is telling people that the Klan can be good if only the right person is in charge. You're giving people false hope, because the Klan can never be good. And so they shrink back from abolishing the Klan, because that seems extreme, because here's this smart, well-spoken person who's been in the Klan for 20 years, who's saying that the Klan is good and necessary, and all we have to do is put him in charge of it. So when I come along and say that the Klan is immoral, and needs to be abolished, you know what people say to me? They say, 'Nahhh, I'm going to support your son, he has great plans to reform the Klan, I agree with a lot of what he says, there is too much lynching – we don't have to abolish the Klan, that's too extreme.' And that's been going on for the last 20 years, son. You're giving people a false choice that helps them avoid the necessity of change, from confronting the evil in their midst. And you legitimize the Klan by claiming to be a good man and being part of it. I'm telling you this from the bottom of my heart, son: if you did not exist, the Klan would have to invent you."

There was a long pause.

"All right, dad," said my son eventually, raising his eyes to mine. "I'll drop my run for Grand Wizard. On one condition."

"Anything!" I cried out, overjoyed.

"You drop your support for Ron Paul."

[Kat Kanning]

Good one!

[Dreepa]

Many anarchists should see a huge opp in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul (in my opinion) is the last hope for National Politics.... if he fails there will be hundreds of supporters who will have no where to turn.  Now is the time to meet them....greet them and maybe teach them.

Could be 1000s of 'new recruits'.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Jim.  I don't know in what form your NH activism takes place, but, I wouldn't spend one electron criticizing it or trying to talk you out of it.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Get ready to embrace 'The Disaffected'

[dalebert]

Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He's a constitutionalist. He doesn't view the government as the Klan. He sees a difference between constitutional acts of government and unconstitutional acts (most of them), much like some see a difference between aggressive force and defensive force. In his eyes, one is acceptable and the other is not. He's among the vast super-majority of people who havn't yet been able to view how the world could work without a state. He's not perfect, but he's also not a hypocrite and that's where your analogy comparing him to the son running for the Klan falls apart.

[Kat Kanning]

No one said Ron Paul was an anarchist.  The author of the article is.

[lildog]

Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He's a constitutionalist. He doesn't view the government as the Klan. He sees a difference between constitutional acts of government and unconstitutional acts (most of them), much like some see a difference between aggressive force and defensive force. In his eyes, one is acceptable and the other is not. He's among the vast super-majority of people who havn't yet been able to view how the world could work without a state. He's not perfect, but he's also not a hypocrite and that's where your analogy comparing him to the son running for the Klan falls apart.

Exactly.  Ron doesn't see the government as evil and unnecessary.  He sees it as used incorrectly based on the rules established by those who founded it.

[Quantrill]

That article was kinda silly.  One difference between it and the 'real world' is that people actually do have a chance at reducing, even *GASP eliminating many programs, taxes and public jobs.  Didn't FSPers work together to get the Homeschool laws changed?  Didn't people help to fight REAL ID?  If everyone who packed up and moved to NH for more freedom decided not to vote or get involved in the political process then the state would forever be turning into a 'less free' place to live.

Personally, I'm working to make it 'more free' in the hopes that it will someday 'be free'.

[lordmetroid]

He also reads it in one of his videocasts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdxuxufAKY
It certainly made me realize that supporting Paul would make more damage to the cause of liberty and removal of the state. Just like supporting slave law reformers would hurt abolishement of slavery.

Ron Paul isn't an anarchist. He's a constitutionalist. He doesn't view the government as the Klan. He sees a difference between constitutional acts of government and unconstitutional acts (most of them), much like some see a difference between aggressive force and defensive force. In his eyes, one is acceptable and the other is not. He's among the vast super-majority of people who havn't yet been able to view how the world could work without a state. He's not perfect, but he's also not a hypocrite and that's where your analogy comparing him to the son running for the Klan falls apart.

Really? Is it only I who have heard him speak of the Evil people moving to USA and the tyranny of the state needs to crack down on these people and of course the existent of some taxation and even the state itself. Totally hypocritical to the principles of liberty. Just like an slave abolisher would say it's not okay to have more than one slaves. He might not realize it but he is acting hypocritically to liberty by just supporting the state.

[Dave Ridley]

i like all articles that have the word 'ron paul' in them

[lildog]

i like all articles that have the word 'ron paul' in them

You'll enjoy my latest then:

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/calling-all-independents.html

[dalebert]

No one said Ron Paul was an anarchist.  The author of the article is.

Right, that much is clear. The point I was making is that he's trying to compare Ron Paul to the son in the article but it doesn't fly. The son in the analogy story is an anarchist, which is made clear when he admits to his father that no government (comparable to lynchings in the author's eyes) is the goal. The son in the story is clearly a hypocrite, preaching things that he doesn't really believe in order to get elected, presumably in order to get less lynchings. That's not Ron Paul. Now if someone convinces Ron Paul of the anarchist position instead of a constitutionalist position and he continues to run on a position of constitutionalism, then yes, he'd be a hypocrite.

In the meantime, I'm not going to assume that everyone who supports any kind of government is evil. Most of them are ignorant slash brain-washed. Trying to preach no statism to a public school indoctrinated-all-his-life socialist is practically speaking in a foreign language. I went from Democrat to Republican to Libertarian to being against all aggressive force.

My own path toward the realization that all aggressive force is wrong was one of incrementalism so I know it can work. I think that's why these arguments about the futility of incrementalism fall flat with me. I'm a living example to the contrary. This is just an emotionally charged (via the comparison to lynchings) rehash of the same tired old argument about the tactics we each choose in order to achieve true freedom.

[Dreepa]

i like all articles that have the word 'ron paul' in them

You'll enjoy my latest then:

http://www.nhinsider.com/richard-barnes/calling-all-independents.html

I liked it so much I put it here:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Calling_all_Independents

[eques]

Jim.  I don't know in what form your NH activism takes place, but, I wouldn't spend one electron criticizing it or trying to talk you out of it.

Lloyd,

I much prefer "James."  "Jim" is my father's name. 

I don't agree that we should be entirely uncritical of each others' attempts, especially if those attempts seem to be ultimately counterintuitive.  I'm not necessarily advocating a centralized front, but certainly if each individual is open to criticism, then said individuals have the ability to refine their technique or alter it entirely if necessary.

That said, I think you just burned a few electrons on me.

I may as well mention the fact that I'm no longer a FSPer... though that shouldn't matter one bit.  What should matter is, does the above article make a salient point?

That said, I was debating whether I should post this or not.  I did consider putting it in "Ron Paul 2008," but even I thought that would be tweaking people's noses a bit more than I felt comfortable with.

Furthermore, I decided to do it because I think that it's a very important point for those who are serious about achieving liberty.  Support him, and vote for him, and it's support and a vote for the system that allows him to exist in the first place.  It's a step in the wrong direction.