I'll take Rand Paul at his word. He's opposed to racial discrimination.
However, he obviously supports allowing businesses to engage in racial discrimination with impunity. Evidently, if the government says it's against the law to run a whites-only business, this is a bridge too far for Rand Paul.
Congratulations, Republicans. The man you chose to run for the vacant U.S. Senate seat from Kentucky and the man who delivered the highest profile political victory for the tea party movement has turned out to have some very twisted ideas about civil rights and race.
On the Rachel Maddow Show last night, Paul suffered an epic meltdown -- more or less admitting that he doesn't support the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." In other words, Paul implied that the First Amendment allows any business to be "white-only" if it chooses and the government isn't allowed to interfere.
But he's against racial discrimination. He said so.
Rand Paul's extremist position on the Civil Right Act underscores a major flaw in libertarian ideology, and it further cements the connection between the tea party movement and race.
Libertarianism, which both Ron and Rand Paul famously embrace, suggests the free market is a significant and vital component of liberty. Private businesses are capable of accomplishing everything, and government can't interfere or regulate those businesses in any way. The free market will police itself. Just leave it be.
Private industry can pave roads, educate children, put out fires and protect our streets from drunk drivers. It can shuttle our kids to corporate schools and back, it can provide clean water to our homes and they can guarantee our meat and vegetables aren't contaminated with diseases. And by the way, in a nation that's 70 percent white, private businesses can choose to do all of these things for white people only. Private businesses can provide everything we need, but only offer those services to white people.
And these businesses, according to libertarian ideology, can form monopolies if they want to. As we're all painfully aware from the health care debate, monopolies occur even in our current government-regulated system. Imagine what would happen in a totally unregulated free market.
So, in Rand Paul's utopia, not only can Woolworth's prevent black people from sitting at its soda stand if it wants to, but a private, free market police corporation can set up shop in a community, buy up any competing police corporations and announce that it no longer serves black people or Jewish people or Hispanic people or gay people -- any minority segment of the population.
Or, when public schools are eliminated, a free market education franchise can form a monopoly and ostensibly can choose turn away non-white students, potentially excluding minorities from receiving an education. And all of these businesses are allowed to consolidate with each other, forming larger monopolies, and the ability of the people to effectively fight back simultaneously decreases as unregulated corporation's financial and market power increases.
Of course these free market mega-corporations might not admit that they're engaging in discriminatory practices. Bad PR. They could lie and say that all are welcome, but then create unseen rules that prevent minorities from enrolling. No wheelchair ramps, or prohibitively expensive tuition for poorer students and so forth.
Who would hold them accountable for their lies? Who would have the financial and organizational wherewithal to take on too big to fail corporate franchises like, say, the Halliburton Police Department? Or the Bechtel Water Corporation? Or the News Corp School System?
Most libertarians claim to oppose racial discrimination, but they ultimately support a system that utterly ignores it as a business practice. Put another way, it's like being opposed to cancer, but in favor of asbestos. Rand Paul, to say nothing of a long list of other Republicans, subscribes to this free market libertarian philosophy. And he's also become a champion of the tea party movement.
A gaffe, they say, is when a politician tells the truth out loud. Rand Paul revealed that there is, in fact, a strong racial component of the tea party movement. I don't know if he realizes it or not, but Paul actually helped to vindicate anyone who has pointed out the tea party's connection with race.
Where there's racial smoke, there's racial fire. And the preponderance of evidence points to a large and serious racial aspect of the tea party. Rand Paul just happened to conveniently let it slip out, as did tea party leaders Dale Robertson and Mark Williams, who recently said that Muslims worship a "monkey god."
I can understand a movement based around smaller government and lower taxes, as long as that movement is honest and consistent (this one hasn't been, as evidenced by its eight years of virtual silence). But the positions on race held by Rand Paul and others lead me to believe that smaller government and lower taxes are merely cosmetic -- disguising uglier positions and serving as code language designed to rally certain crowds who hear these concepts and think "welfare queens" and "lazy free loaders."
Small government, in the parlance of tea party leaders, now includes allowing businesses to discriminate against minorities. Lower taxes, meanwhile, only means lower taxes for upper middle class and wealthy Americans. (When the allegedly anti-tax movement learned that 47 percent of Americans didn't pay federal income taxes in 2009 due to tax cuts, they were outraged.)
The Republican Party, for its part, continues to engage in Southern Strategy politics. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's empirical fact. The Republican Southern Strategy is real and it inextricably binds the party to the exploitation of anti-minority bigotry for political advantage. Arizona's anti-Hispanic law is the most recent example in a long history including the "Harold! Call me!" commercial, Lee Atwater, Jesse Helms, Pat Buchanan and the Nixon White House. Therefore the Republican Party has a considerably large racial -- even racist -- component that's in operation today. Right now. If it exploits white racial prejudices a wedge for political gain, how can there not be a bond between the two? How can it not be a component?
Likewise, it's become crystal clear throughout the past year or so, going as far back as Sarah Palin's "community organizer" dog whistle during the campaign, to the wide variety of racially insensitive protest signs and all the rest of it, that the tea party isn't just about smaller government and lower taxes. It's also about race. And with a candidate for Senate like Rand Paul straddling three racially unfriendly political worlds -- the GOP, the tea party and libertarianism -- hopefully this ugliness will be taken seriously now by mainstream Americans and help to discredit large chunks of the tea party movement.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog
Listen to the Bob & Elvis Show on the iClips Network
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Eddie Glaude, Jr., Ph.D.: The Souls of Some White Folks
Some will argue, as many have, that Rand Paul's comments about Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were consistent with his libertarian principles. However, freedom-talk without justice-talk is empty and, potentially, dangerous.
priceless vitriol CynAnne
stormfront, and Don Black's son. Read the article. It is very enlightening.
Rand Paul and his dad aren't racists. Yeah, and I just listed the Mackinac Bridge for sale.
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rand-pauls-base-neo-nazis-white-supremacist
Even if you use physical force yourself, you need the government to protect you from being charged with (or sued for) assault, by recognizing me as a trespasser and enforcing your property rights against me.
My point is only that this idea that "government should not be involved in any way" is, if not dishonest, at least misleading. Laws prohibiting private discrimination are an expression of the public's choice that, in this context, civil rights are more important than property rights; that the government will enforce the former over the latter.
Now, it's perfectly fair to believe that property rights -should- trump civil rights, and that the former should take precedence. It's fair, albeit legally incorrect, to see no distinction between "private property" such as a home, and an establishment open to the public, such as a restaurant, store or hotel. The real question is not whether the government should "interfere" with private business; the question is, why should the government enforce property rights over civil rights (or vice-versa)?
Let's say you're the owner and I'm a person of an excluded minority.
This "right" that you claim to have, derives from the very "government force" that you so deplore. Because, if I come into your store or restaurant, how are you going to get me out? How are you going to keep me from coming in? That's right; you're either going to use force or the threat of force yourself, or you're going to call the cops (or sue me for trespassing) and thus use government force. So, basically, you're saying that the government should protect your -property- rights, but not my -civil- rights (i.e., you recognize the former but not the latter). You're also saying that it's OK for -you- to ask and expect the government to protect and enforce -your- rights, but not for anyone else to enforce -their- rights -against- you.
"Empirical Fact", seems to be a concept that Teabaggers and Libertarian Republicans just can't accept.
For so many right wing Americans, "Empirical Fact" does not encompass their Religious beliefs.
Faith is more important than truth.....as evidenced by the so called "Evolution Debate"
There's a sign outside a Church near me that states: "Evolution makes a Monkey out of you",
and Cincinnati has it's "Creation Museum".
So much for "Empirical Facts", or rational thought.....just believe and you will be saved....
THIS YEAR THE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT ON IS NOT CIRCUMSTANIAL,IT'S OUT OF
THEIR REPESENATIVES OWN MOUTH! I'M SO SICK AND TIRED OF THESE PEOPLE
TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION,
WHILE THEY ARE DOING A GREAT JOB ALL BY THEMSELVES.IF THE FOUNDING
FATHERS WERE THE CHRISTIANS THEY CLAIM THEY WAS,THEN I'M VERY,VERY
SURE THE;"FREE SPEECH" THEY ADDED WAS NOT MEANT TO BE USED AS IT'S
BEING USING IT TODAY!
By the way, mouth-breeders form the family of South American fish Chichlidae that protect their progeny by sucking them into their mouth when danger arises. Could it be the "mouth breathers," are doing the same thing so their wee wittle white ones never hear or see the reality about to bite the butts off?
In the name of constitutional purity, they propose a great undoing. Not just the undoing of Obamaism. Undo Medicare and Social Security. Undo the expansive American global commitments that proceeded from World War II and the Cold War. Undo progressive-era economic regulations. Undo the executive power grab that preserved the union. Undo it all — until America is left with a government appropriate to an isolated, 18th-century farming republic.
The teabaggers and Rand Paul”s proposals is for time travel, not a policy agenda. The federal government could not shed these accumulated responsibilities without massive suffering and global instability — a decidedly radical, unconservative approach to governing.
Exactly. They are radicals. But this is exactly where the right is today — and not just the teabaggers.
Look at Paul Ryan’s plan to scrap Social Security and Medicare. Jim DeMint at CPAC, suggested that the federal income tax is unconstitutional. Listen to Mike Huckabee, calling for the United States to withdraw from the UN. Look at Steve King’s efforts to repeal labor laws like Davis-Bacon. Consider the right’s decidedly unconstitutional zeal for torture. And remember, the John Birch Society was one of the sponsors of CPAC this year.
These aren’t fringe players in the Republican Party — they’re its leaders. And it’s a scandal that the national media still treat these people like they’re perfectly reasonable, responsible members of the opposition.
-Paradigm
www.belatedtruth.com
the converatives like barry goldwater and william buckley are rolling in their graves by the way the
conservative movement of today has been hijacked by haters and the likes of a movment like the tea party express who roots are founded in the aryan nations,the white peoples party, the minute
men boarder thugs.
these groups are presenty are on the list of the FBI and the NSA.
where were all you patriots when the cheney//bush/rumsfeld crowd pissed on the constitution,started
two wars for profit,treated our returning service peopole like second class citizans.
broke the geneva convention rules regarding tourture.
I have yet to read or hear anyone in the bagger movemet take a stand for our service people.
make a commitment that this nation will never face an administration like that of the rethugs
who disgraced this nation.
enlighten us lefties
the same market that gives health coverage for viagra but not for birth control in a population where the ratio of men to women 50:50,
how that market will combat racism in a population where the ratio of Whites to African Americans is 9:1?
The race card is the most common symptom of the disease of left-wing epistemic closure.
The argument by extreme reflects left-wing , epistemic closure, an inability to engage in meaningful discussion of the failures of big government, resulting in a series of straw man arguments and extensive hyperbole meant to marginalize those who disagree.
How about insurance for Viagra but not for Birth Control?
How about no insurance for pap smears?
How about "accidents happen .... in offshore drilling ... in coal mines"
How about the market will self regulate?
Should we have warning notices against smoking, should we have traffic laws?
Why not leave the school bussing to private business, and who needs safety belts?
Source please...and a Rand Paul quote is insufficient evidence to make a broad statement about Libertarians, so don't even attempt it.
> How about insurance for Viagra but not for Birth Control? UNIMPORTANT
> How about no insurance for pap smears? SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT
> How about "accidents happen .... in offshore drilling ... in coal mines" HOW ABOUT THE WORLD ISN'T READY FOR SOME MAGICAL SCIENCE FICTION SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS. IT WOULD BE NICE IF IT WERE, BUT THAT'S NOT REALISTIC.
> How about the market will self regulate? REASONABLE REGULATIONS ARE A MUST. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT COMPETENT ENOUGH TO RUN COMPANIES. I AM A SARBANES-OXLEY AUDITOR SO I'M HARDLY AGAINST REGULATION
> Should we have warning notices against smoking, should we have traffic laws? OF COURSE. EXTREME EXAMPLES, SO NOT COMPELLING.
> Why not leave the school bussing to private business, and who needs safety belts? AGAIN, EXTREME EXAMPLES.
Agreed. This is why the left gets all cranked up when Black people attend tea party rallies or run as Republicans. With every defection, their fall back position of firing off racism accusations gets more and more ridiculous (if one can imagine that).
-Paradigm
www.belatedtruth.com
-Paradigm
www.belatedtruth.com
Is there anyone intelligent enough to admit this? It doesn't mean that you agree with the view. You may very well think that the government (especially federal) should make laws that make people act (or think) the "correct" way. But you can still admit that someone believing this type of government action will make us all worse off isn't because they believe in the actions being limited, just in the authority of the government to limit.
Is every progressive in the school of thought that "People who want to get rid of the Department of Education don't like education"? Is there at least one open mind, i.e. having the ability to see the argument for things you may disagree with, amongst you?
Secondly, we're specifically discussing Paul's refusal to embrace the necessity of requiring private businesses to allow integration. Plainly and simply, that at least condones racism, and I would contend directly participates in that behavior. Paul's verbiage is no different than what was used fifty years ago to defend Jim Crow. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.
Lastly, the goal of the Department of Education is to better provide for the education of our children. I've never heard anyone make a believable case that this is not a worthwhile goal. You're welcome to try.
True, but I call into question the left's lack of emphasis on Blacks steering one another to Black businesses ( http://www.blackbusinesslist.com ). That would not be treated with any manner of good will if the URL was whitebusinesslist.com . And, don't tell me there would be any call for civil rights investigations if whites were being made to feel unwelcome in those establishments. AND FINALLY, if whites avoid those businesses, they'll be called racists, which would certainly be utter bologna in most cases.
-Paradigm
www.belatedtruth.com
Mr. Paul's refusal to embrace the federal government's unauthorized control of private privated doesn't condone racism in the least (any more than it condones radical veganism). His stance allows vegans to refuse meat-eaters the ability to use their property. He is condoning radical veganism as well as racism? Is calling segregation and racism abhorrent the same language they used 50 years ago to defend Jim Crow Laws? Can you provide some quotes?
The goal of the Department of Education was to pay off (politically that is) teacher's unions for their support of Jimmy Carter. The consequence is that power is extracted from local school districts and given to federal bureaucrats which results in less education for more money. Very worthwhile.
-Paradigm
www.belatedtruth.com