By completely ignoring the historical role of racism in American society, and the diminished but not insubstantial role racism by whites continues to play in our society, and focusing criticism only on advocates of "diversity," (even, apparently, when they advocate only voluntary, non-governmental action to achieve diversity), the Paul campaign is appealing to the Pat Buchanan (and beyond) wing of the "Old Right", while trying to preserve some plausible deniability on race to its more tolerant libertarian constituency.

That's not to say that personally Paul isn't really against racism; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that he is. Rather, the point is that his campaign seems to be taking the same unfortunate position that Goldwater did in 1964; condemning racism in general on principled libertarian grounds, but providing winks and nods that support from racists for racist reasons would be welcome.

Why is it in 2007 we have a serious presidential candidate using weasel words around the subject of racism, words that any "red blooded" member of the KKK or the neo-nazi movement would gladly stand behind? This isn't some offhand statement from 15 years ago. The essay on racism discussed here is featured prominently on his campaign website under "issues."

Is someone who can't manage to tell the KKK to go fuck themselves really presidential material? Is someone who can't manage to tell the KKK to go fuck themselves a defender of freedom?

The Volokh Conspiracy - Ron Paul on Racism