The recent controversy around Republican nominee for the US Senate from Kentucky Rand Paul seems a little strange and somewhat contrived. After a year and a half of hearing from the right wing that President Obama is a socialist, that any form of government regulation is, in fact, tyranny, and that the federal government can only create problems and destroy our country, it seems a bit much for any conservative to express surprise when Paul extends these ideas to their natural conclusion by arguing that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which ended a century of post-slavery apartheid, was somehow, at least in part, a bad idea.
This sense of shock is particularly shameless coming from conservatives who sat quietly during the last 18 months, rarely even pushing back against the most bizarre right wing canards, such as those regarding President Obama's place of birth. Conservative responses to this controversy have ducked the serious issues and focused more on Paul's flaws. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of Paul's most prominent supporters, made comments indicating that DeMint was either unaware of Paul's basic views or thought that Paul needed better media training. Ross Douthat's New York Times piece on the topic was a somewhat tortured attempt to dismiss Paul as somebody too beholden to ideological rigidity. Both seem bizarrely unaware that Paul's victory is a product of months of ideological hyperbole of the kind that characterizes President Obama as a dangerous socialist. Both DeMint and Douthat conveniently, and wrongly, absolve mainstream conservatives from any blame in the matter.
The Civil Rights Act occupies a special place in the American political consciousness, not least because it was that bill, along with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that made the US a real democracy where all people enjoyed the rights of full citizenship. It is a major part of the foundation of modern American politics and something upon which we should all be able to agree, but Paul's comments challenge this. After all, why should it be assumed that everybody who rails against the federal government and regulations of any kind would think positively about the Civil Rights Act which, in addition to being one of the most positive and significant pieces of legislation in the last half century, substantially increased the role of the federal government? Moreover, if the words and views of the Tea Partiers, including Paul, are taken seriously, rather than dismissed as simply angry rantings, it can be seen as reasonably likely that had these people been around in 1964, they probably would have viewed the Civil Rights Act as a form of socialism and opposed it.
Therefore, it is hard not to conclude that Paul has made the mistake of saying what so many others in his party think. Paul's assertion that President Obama was "un-American" for criticizing BP after the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is just another example of the candidate from Kentucky saying something that is absolutely consistent with his party's rhetoric, but which is not the kind of thing more savvy Republicans say out loud.
The Paul controversy is also a reminder that issues of race are always complicated in the US; and they remain complicated in the age of Obama. One of the ways this occurs today is that, for many people the standard response to any suggestion of racial bias is not concern about real racism, but claims that race card has been played. This has led to questions about racism in the Tea Party movement, the movement of which Paul is a beneficiary, being met by its leaders' outraged and tired accusations that liberals are playing the race card, but no efforts to address the underlying issue of racism. Of course, these accusations obscure the reality that when you see racist behavior, sometimes you have to play the race card.
If Rand Paul, who may well get elected to the US Senate in November, is saying things that make more buttoned up Republicans feel uncomfortable, these conservatives have only themselves to blame. This is not to suggest that all Republicans are racists who want to return America to its segregated past. That assertion is clearly false. However, in the name of energizing the base and opposing Obama, Republican leaders have acted as enablers for Paul and others who share his racist views. Principled Republicans should have spoken out against the Tea Partiers and others as soon as this racism reared its ugly head. Instead these Republican leaders, to use that term very loosely, thought it was wiser to shield the racists in their midst and accuse their opponents of playing the race card, while keeping silent on actual racism from their allies and supporters until it became too embarrassing to ignore.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
75 Fans
Become a fan
"Nobody in charge. How brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?"
Maybe because you're a control-freak authoritarian that despises liberty?
In short, you are no better at mind-reading than a "leftist."
Has so much energy ever been devoted to doing so little (besides posturing that is)?
The opportunity lies in Paul's logic, namely that private businesses should be able to make their own decisions about how they conduct business, NO questions asked, and certainly no government interference. It's larger than just turning away blacks, gays, etc. It's the idea that business should be able to operate independent of any social or legal conditions.
If I'm a reporter, my next question to Paul is this: Do you think that private businesses should be able to turn away Jews? What about women? Paul's logic will demand that he answer the question in the same way, and thereby illustrate just how "un-American" his views are.
It is not "just" a cost as you are sarcastically trying to portray it.
The concept of liberty and a moral non-violent govt would require restitution for the accident. In other words, BP has to stop the leak and then clean up the mess. Those damaged would be entitled to compensation as well.
These requirements can be enforced in courts without the need for large Federal regulatory agencies.
Obviously the problem arises when the cost of restitution exceeds any chance of revenue needed to make the payment.
Not independent of "social" conditions or constraints. The principle is that social constraints are the only moral constraints, imposed by decisions of individuals.
Paul's views are not "un-American". In fact his point is as American as it comes. What is the legitimate role of government, especially the Federal govt, and is that role consistent with the principles of freedom, liberty and justice.
It is a simple point. If you give govt the authority to select which rights it will impose on and which it will not, you will eventually find that it has chosen to impose on most rights. That is the history of governments. The taking of more and more power.
When we seek the power of govt to address individual bad or immoral behavior then we provide that power to whomever chooses to pick it up.
Now ask yourself how many businesses would survive today by turning away all those groups as customers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg/500px-Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
AS far as the tea party, the tea party events that I have gone to have been VERY racist. Your experience may vary.
So it seems RP's comments and the Tea Party go hand in hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxibL6YYrhQ
Incorrect. Maddow asked him specifically about situations in which private businesses would turn away blacks or gays. While the context of the question lies in the Civil Rights Act, the question itself is rather straight forward. "Do you think businesses should legally be able to turn away black customers?" I'm sorry, but anything other than an immediate NO makes you a racist.
Perhaps if Maddow had asked Paul whether or not businesses should be able to turn away Jews, this debate would be framed a little differently. Your thoughts?
Please pundits, don't make this about Paul... Make it about libertarianism!!!!!!!!!! You know they way they attack "liberalism"! Now is the time to go on the attack of the whole movement for following this failed philosophy.
Anglo-American law abandoned this philosophy a very long time ago, and with good reason. One need only study the evolution and development of product-liability law, or the Supreme Court's backtracking from its decision in Lochner v. New York, to see that.
Further, I believe that most libertarians also hold that Coase's theorem to apply (and work) when it has been proven not to in market transactions.
Now...I'm wondering if there is a SINGLE libertarian here who even understands what I wrote....
You think this will blow over? I don't think Democrats are going to let this blow over as long as he is competing for a voice in our government.
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/4093/the-enemies-of-jim-crow
...and...
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7469/rand-paul-and-the-right-to-be-odious
Good references.
One key issue missing from the discussion, however.
That is the apparent conflict of "Rights" as described by the many commenting on this matter.
Bottom line is that true "Rights" can not be in conflict with one another. There really is no hierarchy of rights as put forth by some. This sets the stage for one of the claims to be false. Either "property rights" is not really a right, or the "right" to enter a private business is not really a right. Or, neither are rights. But both can not be rights.
the democrat senate leader before harry reid, and current third in line to presidency, is a former white supremacist. ignore that fact.
bill clinton thinks obama used to serve him coffee. ignore that statement too.
I am well aware of the democrats issues with race but compared to what has happened since Obama got into office in this country it seems mute to bring it up - after all, Byrd is a "former white supremacist" as you indicate.
Put away that hemp rope, it's not 1915. Iron Man 2 is the number one film, not Birth of a Nation.
Ideas are most effective when they are not made explicit.
That way we can each assume they will work out best for ourselves, if not others.
When the ideas are made explicit and aired, they don't look so good.
We should all thank Rand Paul for this, for showing us the error of his views.