Obviously, I agree with all of today's criticism of Rand Paul about his extremist position on the Civil Rights Act. However, let's be very clear here: Many Democrats (and, of course, most Republicans) support our system of laws that lets employers and private businesses discriminate against employees and customers for all sorts of other, non-racial reasons.
Let's stick for a moment to employment, as just the best example. Today, there is only one state in the nation that is not technically an "at-will employment" state (Montana). But everywhere else, unless you have a private party or union contract that says otherwise, you are an "at-will" employee, which means that your employer can fire you at will for any reason not explicitly protected under state law or in the Civil Rights Act (the federal protected classes are listed here).
So yes, as outrageous as it sounds, it's true: right now, many if not most Americans can be fired if their employer doesn't like the sports team they root for. Or if their boss doesn't like their choice of tie on a given day. Or if their boss hates their new glasses. Or, in many states without non-discrimination statutes, if their boss doesn't like their sexual orientation. You get the point.
Obviously, I don't think this reality is a good thing at all -- but I am saying that Paul's position*, while offensive and extreme, is merely an extrapolated position of many "mainstream" so-called "pro-business" Democrats and Republicans in Congress who would call "just cause" legislation (ie. mandating that an employer have a "just cause" for firing you) "radical." As just one example, here in Colorado, leading Democrats in 2008 lined up to oppose a "just cause" ballot initiative.
Considering they haven't used their congressional majorities to expand the Civil Rights Act, Democrats have basically decided to draw the line in the sand on protected classes at the status quo (race, gender, age and religion -- all of which, let me reiterate, should and must remain protected classes). And that's certainly more than you can say for Rand Paul and the libertarian movement he represents. But when you start really looking at employment/discrimination law, you find that by omission, those same Democrats expressing outrage at Paul's position are perfectly fine with a largely deregulated labor market that lets employers fire and discriminate against you for all sorts of preposterous reasons.
This is the unspeakable taboo in the whole discussion about Rand Paul in the Democratic-aligned "progressive" media -- taboo because to acknowledge it is to admit just how owned by corporate interests "mainstream" Democrats and Republicans really are. Again, Paul is extreme and offensive in his extremism, but he's just degrees more extreme than so many "centrist"/"pro-business" lawmakers of both parties.
* Oddly enough, while Paul's libertarianism led him to such extreme criticism of the Civil Rights Act, he also said "we did some very important things in the '60s that I'm all in favor of and that was desegregating the schools." This could be construed to be an interventionist position that some Democrats still don't fully embrace, because when they hear language like that, many of them hear "busing." Now, it's true: we can't know whether Paul's reference to "desegregating schools" meant specifically cross-geographical busing. But it is weird to hear him take such an extreme position on the Civil Rights Act, but also using language that raises the prospect of busing.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
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.
I disagree with David in that as I read his article, he is saying that the Civil Rights Act would have to be amended to achieve a universal 'for cause' work rule. Under the same Constitutional clause that gave Congress the right to desegregate restaurants and motels, the Commerce Clause, Congress could, if it really wanted to, could pass a totally constitutional 'for cause' law. It could create within it a protected class just as strong as the Civil Rights Act has. It just takes the will to buck the corporations and their campaign contributions. I'm not sure Congress or the President have the backbone for that.
I do find his association with the Tea Party to be troublesome, however he does not seem to espouse the hate and bigotry that seems to be common among them. Hopefully he is just using this label to bolster his votes locally.
No. No we don't! At least no Democrats I've ever met!
Those rules contributed to the downfall of the steel industry, the auto industry, and the rail industry.
Rules that prevent companies from reorganizing workers ultimately make companies less efficient and can drive the out of business. That hurts all their workers.
How's about: Many PEOPLE " ... support our system that lets employers and private businesses discriminate against emplyees ..."
How do you suppose the Dems and Repubs in congress got to Washington (or their state capitals), military junta? They were all voted in by people who apparently absolutely accept the idea of the "boss" or owner of a business as "god."
How do I state that with such confidence? If it weren't true, the system where employees serve at the whims of their "masters" would have been changed a long time ago.
Changed how? At the voting booth of course.
•By its very nature, the much-ballyhooed ethnic economy is a racist structure whose hiring practices are in massive violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ethnic nepotism and racial exclusion are two sides of the same coin.
•Network hiring is a device that employers use to prevent blacks from even getting their foot in the door. This is racism, plain and simple! It is a working-class variant of "the old-boy network" that affirmative action was designed to counteract. In other words, network hiring is a mechanism of discrimination, and indeed one that employers use precisely because it insulates them from allegations of racism since they are not directly implicated in the recruitment of workers.
Read the whole essay by Stephen Steinberg here: http://newpol.org/node/254
Very interesting. Thank you for the link.
Democrats are only marginally less dominated by the corporatist overlords than the Republicans, who as well all know, are completely owned.
The Democratic Party needs to continually be pushed in a more liberal/progressive direction, but no matter how weak they are on matters of importance to us, always remember that the alternative only allows the Republicans take over again, and that's an unacceptable proposition.
This is precisely why the latest jobs bill "failed".
At first I was taken aback by your headline. After reading what you said, I have to agree with you. The at-will crap is a foot in the door for the Corporations to exercise arbitrary discrimination that can only be fought one case at a time and most victims don't have the time and resources to do so. As an ADA protected person I have fought it and win. It was a long,gruelling process but victory takes away the sting.
I wonder how many of those undocumented workers have disabilities? How'd they get across the border in wheelchairs or with crutches and take those skilled worker positions from you?
But you say that you don't have any leverage? That illegal immigrants are competing for your job, and have decimated the wage base? Blame the radicals at HuffPost. Their views are at least as shocking and improvident as Rand Paul's.
But thanks for the credit anyway.