A friend of mine once observed that when you take the "extreme right" and the "extreme left," the versions that the mainstream wings of the party generally try to ignore, they're not much different from each other. Ron Paul's people wouldn't have much to do with the Beatnik Party of 1960, but, really, Paul reminds me of them quite a bit.
In 1960, a group of beatniks gathered in New York to build a platform and nominate a candidate as the Beatnik Party's nominee for president.
One attendee was Joffre Stuart, a 34-year-old poet from Chicago who had been featured in "Howl," Allen Ginsberg's epid beatnik poem. Ginsberg described him as a man
In 1960, a group of beatniks gathered in New York to build a platform and nominate a candidate as the Beatnik Party's nominee for president.
One attendee was Joffre Stuart, a 34-year-old poet from Chicago who had been featured in "Howl," Allen Ginsberg's epid beatnik poem. Ginsberg described him as a man
who disappeared into the volcanoes of Mexico leaving
behind nothing but the shadow of dungarees
and the lava and ash of poetry scattered in fire
place Chicago,
who reappeared on the West Coast investigating the
F.B.I. in beards and shorts with big pacifist
eyes sexy in their dark skin passing out incom-
prehensible leaflets,
behind nothing but the shadow of dungarees
and the lava and ash of poetry scattered in fire
place Chicago,
who reappeared on the West Coast investigating the
F.B.I. in beards and shorts with big pacifist
eyes sexy in their dark skin passing out incom-
prehensible leaflets,
Leaflets were always Joffre's thing. He still passes them out today - at the 2007 Bughouse Square debates, which serve as a reunion for old Chicago bohemia, he was passing out leaflets promoting the idea that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy by "Jewish chauvanists."
Back in 1960, the party convention fell into two factions - responsible and irresponsible - Stuart became the leading voice of the irresponsible beatniks. They opposed actually nominating someone at all. "Like, only squares really nominate someone," said Stuart. Eventually, they agreed to allow for someone to be nominated, on the condition that the candidate not be bound to the platform. After all, as Stuart noted, "only finks play to win."
The beatniks then set about coming up with a platform. A few things were eventually agreed on: they were for peace with all nations (because "all beatniks are cowards"), and opposed to atomic energy, sex laws, work (the cry of "abolish work" was heard loud), and, of course, squares.
No official slogan was picked, though several were bandied about, such as "We have nothing to lose, we're already beat!" and "Trust us with the peace - we're too cowardly to fight."
When it came time to pick a nominee, Stuart raised his hand. "Is there a bastard in the house?" he asked. He felt that since this was an ANTI-candidate, a bastard would be appropriate.
About four people raised their hands. All but one, the hand of Jimmy the Greek, eventually dropped when Stuart asked them to be honest.
"All right!" said Stuart. "I nominate Jimmy the Greek!"
The convention went through four ballots - making it, in the words of one reporter, "the only convention of the year that wasn't rigged." Senator Kennedy was one of seven men on the first ballot - he tied with Jimmy the Greek at three votes - but it was then ruled that only people present could be nominated.
Votes were then confined to Jimmy the Greek, Tom Condit, "Big Bill," or WIlliam Lloyd Smith, owner of Maury's Beatnik Bookstore in Chicago, who was representing the responsible wing. After a bitter floor fight, the nomination went to Smith.
Smith selected Stuart as his running mate, which made for a balanced ticket - not geographically, since both were from Chicago, but in terms of race (Smith was white, Stuart black) and responsibility. Smith was a "responsible" sort, or, anyway, he seemed to be. "Bill knew more about politics than I did," Stuart said years later. "But he was a total anarchist."
His two part plan for the county was something to behold: as President, his first act would be to dissolve the government. His second would be to resign.
Not even Republican VP candidate Barry Goldwater, who was well known for anti-federal government posturing, could top that.
Nearly 50 years later, I ran into Stuart in Bughouse Square. Up until about 1960, Bughouse Square, on the lower North side of Chicago, used to be a popular place to go to make speeches. On nights when the weather was good, upwards of 3000 people would cram into the park to heckle the soapbox orators, which ranged from hobos to famous lawyers and politicians of the day. The park is quiet now, but once a year the adjacent Newberry Library hosts "The Bughouse Square Debates," where they sort of re-enact the park from its glory days.
Having long been familiar with the park from its appearances in novels by Daniel Pinkwater, and having more than a passing familiarity with bohemian Chicago history, I went in 2007 with an audio recorder to make a podcast, and figured Stuart for a regular old-timer. I asked him who he remembered from the park, and he mentioned Bill Smith. I asked if that was the guy who ran for President, and Stuart grinned. "Yes, he did! And I was the vice presidential candidate. Or anti-candidate, anyway….we were a blip on the history of electoral politics."
The official topic that day was immigration, and Joffre's own brief speech was a little tour de force. "The framing of the question is false!" he declared. "The borders which separate us from one another were created by an illegal war brought on by the people who brought my significant ancestors over from Africa….down with the state! Revolution!" He shouted the last word with a flourish.
Had Joffre been running for president that day, he could have vaulted to the front of the primary opinion polls - particular if it was one of those years where the only "not-frothing-at-the-mouth" candidates were too boring for anyone to get excited about them.
But as soon as he finished talking, he went right back to handing out leaflets alleging that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy of "Jewish chauvinists."
It's difficult now for me not to compare Joffre to Ron Paul. His anti-government logic was tight and attractive, and you had to admire a guy for sticking to his guns no matter how many feathers it ruffled. You had to admire his passion.
But what about those newsletters and leaflets?
If you haven't followed the news, it seems that in the 1980s and 90s, Ron Paul had a series of newsletters that cost $99 bucks a year to subscribe to. They were full of weird conspiracy theories, the occasional racist rant, and other things that no one who actually expected to get elected could say out loud in the 21st century. You can read an 8 page letter he sent out to drum up subscribers here and many pdfs of examples here.
If Paul hadn't plugged them on TV, I would doubt that they were real. As it is, I have many questions:
1. That letter is from 1995. Desktop publishing was not new or unusual then. The Star Wars fanzine I put out in 1994 looked better than this.
2. Who in the world would pay $99 a year to subscribe to something based on a letter like that?
3. How could Paul not have known about these? His claim is that not only did he not write them, but he didn't even know about them until years after the fact. Wouldn't he have heard from a handful of crazy people? I get crazy letters from people about ghost stories all the time. If these newsletters were as widely-circulated as has been claimed (he apparently made a lot off of them), how come no one tracked him down and confronted him over this stuff?
4. I know he's for free enterprise and all, but wouldn't you prosecute someone who put stuff like this out under your name without your knowledge?
5. If he really didn't even take a casual glance at these things, how in the world can he be considered responsible enough to run a country?
Everyone who runs for office has skeletons in the closet - a bad business deal, some investors with shady pasts, attending church services where the pastor was a maniac, getting involved with a weird group or two. But you have to own up to it before people can move on. The more of these I see, the less I'm inclined to believe Paul didn't approve of them, or even that he didn't write at least some of them. Many of the conspiracies here are fairly common talking points that come up when I argue with libertarians; most major players in the party know that they appeal a lot to this sort of people (as one of the last groups that will actually argue against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and most of the things it accomplished), and surely a few of them have tried to get ahead by appealing to those people.
Joffre Stuart made a fun "fringe" candidate in 1960. But even if, by William Lloyd Smith came back from the dead and he and Joffre somehow became the democratic nominees, they couldn't get past those newsletters and leaflets of Joffre's in the general election. And I don't think Ron Paul could, either. He can poll up to about 25% in some primary polls, and that MIGHT be enough for him to carry a state or two as long as the field remains crowded with other candidates, the weather is bad enough that only die-hards come out to the caucus, etc. But that 25% is right about where his support tops out. It'd be interesting to see how the GOP at large reacted to him winning the primaries, but I think it's safe to say that they wouldn't take it sitting down. His policies have about as much to do with the regular GOP than the Beatnik Party had to do with John F. Kennedy's.
I believe it was PT Barnum who once said it was morally wrong to let suckers keep their money. I won't be voting for Paul under any circumstances that I can imagine, but what I'd like him to do us say "look, I'm not proud of those letters. But I thought I was done with electoral politics, so it didn't matter what I said, and I found that there was good money in ripping off hillbillies. If they didn't give it to me, they'd just give it to someone worse."
