Regardless of what David Weigel writes in "Rand Paul, Telling the Truth" about Rand Paul not being a "racist," one really needs to deconstruct Rand's discourse, especially in the interview with Rachel Maddow which, if he proved anything to me, he proved he was less a racist and more a functional illiterate. I admire the fact that Weigel could actually separate the Randian philosophy from the non-sequiturs in Rand's ramblings especially when he started to digress historically about William Lloyd Garrison as a way of circumventing Maddow's yes or no question: "Was the Courier-Journal right? Do you believe that private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people or gays or any other minority group, as they said?"
Maddow's question was about as clear a question as Maddow could ask so why the equivocation, if not the painfully embarrassing digression? He might as well have answered why Louisville Sluggers are made in Louisville. Besides the fact that he started no fewer than 10 sentences with the word "Well" his repetition of the word "racism" (repeated no fewer than 8 times) or "discrimination" (repeated no fewer than 7 times) was always related to a particular kind of racism or discrimination: namely, governmental racism or institutional racism. Though he kept repeating his mantra of being against racism he could never articulate a solid argument as to why. If, as Weigel suggests, Paul has a philosophical issue with it, then he certainly didn't make it clear to anyone. At least to me. I've had an easier time reading Hegel in German than listening to Paul in English. He made it abundantly clear that he's against any kind of racism or discrimination perpetuated by the federal government. As he said, "In the totality of it, I'm in favor of the federal government being involved in civil rights and that's, you know, mostly what the Civil Rights Act was about. And that was ending institutional racism."
To Maddow's equally articulate question:"In terms of legal remedies for persistent discrimination, though, if there was a private business, say, in Louisville, say, somewhere in your home state, that wanted to not serve black patrons and wanted to not serve gay patrons, or somebody else on the basis of their -- on the basis of a characteristic that they decided they didn't like as a private business owner -- would you think they had a legal right to do so, to put up a "blacks not served here" sign?" Paul answered: "Well, the interesting thing is, you know, you look back to the 1950s and 1960s at the problems we faced. There were incredible problems. You know, the problems had to do with mostly voting, they had to do with schools, they had to do with public housing. And so, this is what the civil rights largely addressed, and all things that I largely agree with."
Which begs the question: What in the hell is he talking about? Is this what change is all about from the far right? Can the Teabaggers actually deconstruct what Rand is saying? The question I really wanted Maddow to ask was: "So, when then-Cassius Clay returned from the Tokyo Olympics with a gold medal do you think it was justified for the restaurant owner to kick him out of his restaurant?" I'm sure Paul would have replied (as he did to all the other questions) by prevaricating or digressing on whatever he felt he could digress on rather than answer the question. I can't begin to highlight the number of feeble attempts Rand made to substantiate an argument that Weigel wrote about as "fascinating to watch Paul stand by his philosophical and legal stance and refuse to dissemble in a way that would, you know, get people to stop accusing him of some archaic form of racism." With all due respect to Weigel, I have no clue as to how he understood Rand's philosophical stance since if it weren't for rhetorical nonsense there wouldn't be any rhetoric at all. Perhaps, that's what made is fascinating. And why the digression to "freedom of speech?" Does barring the then-Cassius Clay from sitting down and ordering a hamburger an infringement on that restaurant owner's freedom of speech? Rand may, in fact, not be a racist and I'm not accusing him of that. What I am accusing him of is an inability to articulate in any meaningful way how he can justify racial exclusion by private enterprise. His statement that if her were old enough he would have been marching with Martin Luther King must have made anyone listening who did march with King, shudder at that thought. I think one of the most ironic things about the interview was the fact that Paul, an opthamologist, just couldn't see where Maddow was coming from. More important, I'm not sure he can see where he's going.
Palin, Dobson must repudiate Rand Paul or accept his extremism
Rand Paul defeats Trey Grayson and defends himself against Democrat opponent's ...
Republicans Should Beware Rand Paul's Utopian Delusion
Rand Paul's oily defense of BP
Post-Primary Thoughts on Specter, Rand Paul and Blanche Lincoln
Otherwise, they would know that the Constitution contains a clause granting Congress the exclusive right to "regulate the commerce between the states. And that the same Constitution contains a clause setting up a Supreme Court which has repeatedly interpreted that clause to mean any trade "...that affects interstate commerce."
Furthermore, they would know that the portion of the Civil Rights Act that deals with desegregating the restaurants and motels (and The Americans with Disabilities Act and The Fair Housing Act) of their OH SO SACRED AND HOLY SMALL BUSINESS MAN was based upon the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Which is why it has withstood constitutional challenges from ignorant Attorneys General who have never read the Constitution and deeper that Rand Paul has.
Sorry, professor, but Rand Paul is a racist. Period.
Strict Libertarians live in the same fantasy world that other failed social utopians from Marx to Hitler to Mao to Pol Pot have lived in. Their philosophies are clear, and logical. Their only flaws are in failing to understand the flawed human beings who live at variance with their dogmas.
My two: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-ross/with-friends-like-rand-pa_b_584665.html#comments
Paul may not be a racist, I think the jury is still out on that, but he is definitely locked into the Utopian dogma of his father. A dogma that just won't hunt.
Point in fact: Ask 100 people how they feel about the amount of U.S. debt that China holds the note on and they'll inevitably tell you that they don't like it and think we should do everything we can to reduce it.
Ask the same 100 people what they think of the products that are made in China and sold in U.S. stores, and at least 90 of them will tell you that "it's all cheap junk and we shouldn't be buying it".
Go through their homes and you would find a virtual mountain of "Made in China" items.
Ask them if they understand the connection between their consumption of products "made in China" and the amount of debt that China holds, and they would do their "deer in the headlights" imitation.
The "Free Market" is a great concept, but it does not exist in reality. The idea that the "Free Market" would be a "great arbitrator" of any "social ill" is delusional at best.
Whatever it is he's trying to be, he's counterfeit!
To me, he epitomizes the Clintonian definition of compassionate conservatism, "I'd like to help you, I really would, but I just can't."
He's right.
1. Did Rand get any scholarship money and/or government funds of any kind during his educational efforts?
2. What schools did he attend: from grade school through medical school?
3. Does/did Rand get any government payments at his medical practice?
4. Does his philosophy of limited government mean that he is o.k. with anyone just setting up shop and trying their hand at competing with him in his chosen medical field?
Inquiring Bubba's want to know.
2. dunno
3. Yes, but he would get even more money if the government was not interfering with healthcare. This criticism is exactly like Bush asking you 'did you support the war? Then how come you're enjoying this country's securtity?'
4. I'm sure he would be ok with that, and will compete based on his ability to persuade people that they want a trained and qualified opthalmologist.
I am curious, can anyone articulate in any meaningful way how racial exclusion by private enterprise can't be justified? To be certain, most people don't want it, and I think racial exclusion would be a lasting negative for society as a whole, but is there a legally and rationally coherent way to justify the law that bans it?
In other words, you and I should decide what type of America we want to live in, not the government.
Also....
The First Amendment is one freedom our country always protects. Even hate speech is protected (except incitement). Why the KKK are allowed to march. Despicable as we might find them, the Supreme Court has long upheld their rights. We can hate them, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the same rights. It's the proper view of the First Amendment, as there is no ambiguity in the Constitution on this issue.
However, I think there's a difference between freedom of speech (a sign) and a biz owner actually refusing service. I'm sure it could be argued he would be impinging the rights of another. Maybe only a technicality, but a way to balance belief in the freedom of private biz with what we all know is right.
But I wonder, would it be worse if people just knew who the racists were? Or is it better to never be certain, such as now? Is one really better than the other?
Anyway …. All that being said, this is a purely academic discussion. We're never going back.
In your comment you suggest to "Jackanddiet" that "you and I should decide what type of America we want to live in, not the government", which completely misses the point. Our Government IS "you and I, and all the rest of us". There has never been, and never will be, a unanimous vote on ANYTHING the United States has done. There is an understanding that we must accept "majority rule", which means that we never have a "you and I" situation, but always an "all of us" majority. You can dissent, that is your right, but you must accept the will of the majority of your fellow citizens. That's how it works.
You may find my take on Randian thinking of interest http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-olmsted/people-and-property_b_584111.html