Is Rand Paul, Libertarian/Republican, following the teabaggers lead and showing some racism with his statement on the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Can you imagine if the problems with segregation, the horrific acts of hate against minorities, were left up to the states and there was no Civil Rights Act? I truely believe some states in our country would be conducting business as if it were 1950. Racism is alive and well in the USA.
I think Pauls extreme Libertarian views are far from main stream and Democrats will have no problem winning the Senate race in Kentucky come November. Teabaggers think they are on a roll, but I think otherwise.
Ezra Klein from The Washington Post says this....
It's safe to say Rand Paul's first few days as the Republican nominee for the open Senate seat in Kentucky are not going well. When you can't answer the question "Should [the] Woolworth lunch counter have been allowed to stay segregated? Sir, just yes or no," it's fair to say you're off-message.
Over at Right Now, Dave Weigel offers up the generous and, I think, correct interpretation of Paul's opposition to the parts of the Civil Rights Act that desegregated private businesses. "Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses." And Weigel is right that this is not an unknown belief among conservatives: I've had this argument with some of my libertarian friends, and libertarians occasionally have this argument among one another.
So I take Paul at his word that he's not a racist. What he is, however, is an ideological extremist. He is so categorically opposed to public regulation of private enterprise that he cannot even bring himself to say that the Woolworth lunch counter should've been desegregated. Instead, he falls back on the remedies of the market: "I wouldn't attend, wouldn't support, wouldn't go to," a private institution that discriminates, he told Rachel Maddow. But he would let them discriminate. And in the segregated South, that would've been a perfectly viable business model for many, many very important institutions.
"I think what you've done is you bring up something that really is not an issue," Paul said to Maddow, "nothing I've ever spoken about or have any indication that I'm interested in any legislation concerning." That's actually wrong: Paul isn't likely to get the chance to modify Title IX of the Civil Rights Act anytime soon. But he will have to vote on quite a bit of legislation that uses the commerce clause to regulate private businesses. And that's why this matters.
Paul's defense of himself is that his take on the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with race and so he is not a racist. But by the same token, the fact that Paul's view on the Civil Rights Act is so dominated by his libertarian ideology that he cannot even admit race and segregation into the calculus is exactly why this is relevant to Paul's candidacy, why it's an issue and why it's among the best evidence we have in understanding how he'll vote on legislation that comes before him. If this isn't about race, then it is about all questions relating to federal regulation of private enterprise. As a senator, Paul will be faced with that question frequently. And his views on it are clearly very, very far from the mainstream.
YOU WERE WARNED:
-
* Heather Cox Richardson: *
* Heather Cox Richardson is a political historian who uses facts and
history to put the news in context*
*There are a numb...
5 hours ago
34 comments:
I used to be a libertarian for several years and am pretty familiar with the ideology. I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The problem with libertarians isn't racism, the problem is that they operate on a completely abstract level divorced from what the real-world consequences of their ideology would be.
I saw libertarian arguments against public health codes for restaurants, for example, on the grounds that business owners should be able to set their own standards and the free market would drive any really bad restaurant out of business. They object to things like the minimum wage on similar grounds. Some of them argue for completely unlimited immigration -- the government has no right to stop anybody who want to from entering the country and settling here. It's fairly obvious what would happen in the real world if we did things that way.
Paul is just more of the same. He might be a racist too for all I know, but he sounds like just another typical libertarian.
Infidel I find the Libertarian views to be extreme, and Rand Paul is a good example of that. Thanks!
There's even a small number of super-extreme libertarians who consider any kind of acceptance of government, or participation in it, unacceptable. I actually once saw someone argue that the act of voting is so immoral that it would be wrong to vote, even if you had a chance to cast the deciding vote to prevent Hitler from coming to power. Of course, most libertarians don't go anything like that far (and the ones who do, obviously don't become politicians).
I have come across a few bloggers who can be considered hateful extremists. I would love to call out one such woman from Georgia, but I'll be a lady! :-)
I am just waiting to see how many of the GOP leadership jump on the Rand Paul bandwagon. Mitch, the bitch, sure isn't saying much. And how about the Boner? Let's hear him support Paul's extreme views.
I hear the GOP collapsing as I write.
McConnell is probably saying "I told you so". He supported Paul's opponent in the Republican primary.
The teabag-addled primary voters went with Paul instead, who is now revealing himself to be an un-electable nutjob.
Tee-hee. Damnit, I LOVE it!
Actually several Republicans did criticize him, including DeMint. DeMint said he needed to have a talk with Paul. The Louisville Courier Journal editorialized that they would not endorse him or his opponent.
TNLib: Actually several Republicans did criticize him,
Yes. They've just realized, "Oh, $#!T, we've just nominated a doomed loony who's already circling the drain." Tee-hee indeed.
JC: And how about the Boner? Let's hear him support Paul's extreme views.
Boehnhead is probably reserving judgment until he finds out whether Paul favors legal discrimination against orange-skinned people.
There is a fine line between extreme naivete and ignorance. Rand Paul has his feet planted solidly on either side.
Did you read the 10th thing she was badgering him about or are you just on board like the deceitful health care bill and Arizona law that no one knew what was in it like every other grand standing
issue the democrats take?
Like Financial overhaul that excludes the pink elephant in the room Fannie and Freddie or
Like the phony hate crime law. If you beat someone with a bat it's only a crime if you called them a fag or a Ni!@@$$ while doing it,otherwise what is it called a misdemeanor?
By the way how many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act and not "Hypothetically" either
Reaction like this is the reason we cannot have a debate of ideas in this country.
Paul is technically correct, but the other side also has a valid point in that if the CRA had not been passed, we would probably still be where we were in the early 1960s, and that would indeed be a bad thing.
I do ask you to look at his point of view. Government told private businesses they cannot discriminate. Fine. A great good came from that.
Where does government's power to tell people what to do with their private property end?
In Connecticut, they took the woman's property to build a shopping mall (which subsequently went bankrupt). Here in Colorado, the government has banned all smoking in any business.
Can the government restrict you to only two drinks at your favorite bar? Can they regulate food portions and tell you when you've had enough?
Trivial matters compared to the civil rights of all human beings, but can you at least see the point?
Where you stop is important, but you can't stop if you never start. The impression I get is that Paul never wants to start when it comes to private property. There's the problem.
SF: Reaction like this is the reason we cannot have a debate of ideas in this country.
Oh, yes, we can. We can make fun of silly things some of the time and have rational debates at other times. I see both going on in this very comment thread.
The gist of your comment is a slippery-slope argument. I don't accept slippery-slope arguments because, carried to their logical conclusion, they would prevent us from ever changing anything at all, since for any desirable change, it can be claimed that it could later be used to legitimize an undesirable change.
In the real world, we depend on people (in government or out of it) to have the sense to know where to stop. Sometimes they get it wrong, but that does not mean it's impossible to get it right.
Abuse of eminent domain is a bad thing (in fact, I generally think eminent domain itself is a bad thing). But here I don't see how the slippery-slope argument even applies. If segregated lunch counters had remained legal, I see no reason to think that abuse of eminent domain would be any less likely today.
"In the real world, we depend on people (in government or out of it) to have the sense to know where to stop."
That is the problem. And this is a slippery slope argument concerning the commerce clause. Actually, we're already down the slope, so the argument is lost.
When the government is controlling your thermostat for the public good, remember this conversation.
That's what the republican party is all about, keep the status quo.
If a man owns a diner, sure it's his property, but it's not private. He opens his doors to the public. Americans have the right as Americans to be treated equal, not to be looked at and treated any different because of skin color or disability.
No, I do not see the point SF, I don't see your point or Rand Pauls. He has dug his grave now it's time to jump in it...
We all have seen the effects of less government intrusion and less regulation, I'm all for the government protecting me and my rights.
He has dug his grave now it's time to jump in it...
No the shit stirrer dug up a 40year old law to play the stupid "gotchya" game the democrats play so well.
Why don't we ask Robert Byrd how he voted .
a 40 yr old law?? Thats how you see this very American piece of legislation? You are a moron lisa!!! AND the idea that some voted against it is not even a point of discussion! The point is Rand Paul has extremist views and is a danger to our civilized nation!
Unlike the President ....Wright?
No the shit stirrer dug up a 40year old law to play the stupid "gotchya" game
So if an interviewer discovers that a politician wants to bring back slavery, that's even more irrelevant because slavery was banned 145 years ago? The point is, RP is hopelessly behind the times.
As for Robert Byrd, we all know he held evil views in the past. If he openly still held those views, then I'd consider him beyond the pale, too. The point about RP is that he apparently still believes today that private businesses should have the right to discriminate.
Finding that out about a person who is running for an office of considerable power is not "gotcha". It's what journalism is supposed to be about.
Oh, and Silverfiddle, I don't believe that the government is ever going to be regulating people's thermostats -- and again, I don't see why desegregating lunch counters would make that any more likely than it would have been otherwise.
Sue: "If a man owns a diner, sure it's his property, but it's not private"
That is incorrect. To say otherwise is to admit that the state controls everything. We are already there in some places like NY, where Bloomberg has declared a war on salt, of all things.
-- Jaque le Merde
Jaque le Merde = "Jack Shit" -- seems appropriate somehow.
Another slippery-slope argument. The fact that property can be regulated does not equate to "the state controls everything". If I own a house in a densely-built neighborhood, I don't have an unlimited right to store huge amounts of high explosive in the basement. If I own a car, I can't disable the brakes or drive around with the windshield painted black. If you own a restaurant, you can't use rotten meat and let roaches have free run of the kitchen. If you own a lunch counter, you can't exclude black people.
None of that equates to "the state controls everything", nor can a society do without such regulations.
the diner is open to the public, therefore it's not a private establishment. The diner owner has to be lawful and allow all who enter to be treated equally. Is there a problem with that? Can we not be a civilized nation and treat each other with respect and equality? Unfortunately there are still some in this country who do not believe in equality, therefore they should be called out and like Infidel said if you are running for higher office we should find out all there is to know about you, Isn't that how the republicans like to do it?
A republican strategist was on TV today and said Paul should not have gone on Rachel Maddow. So I guess he believes dirty little secrets should be kept secret? Rachels line of questioning was very fair. Paul hurt himself, she did not have to help him do it.
Looking at this comment thread, it's hard to believe it started with a politician saying he disagreed with the government prohibiting businesses from discriminating against blacks.
If we stop lunch counters from refusing service to blacks, somehow that leads inexorably to a totalitarian state where the government dictates every detail of private life.
It goes back to what I said in my first comment. The problem with libertarians is that they operate in a fantasy world of bloodless abstractions and absolutes which has no connection with how human beings actually behave in the real world.
slow day at work Infidel? :-)
Thanks for adding to the conversation, always enjoy having you!
I've got a nasty head cold and am just trying not to sneeze all over the computer, yuk!
Thanks, it's an interesting post and Rand Paul is one of the more bizarre figures in mainstream politics right now.
Can't resist passing along a comment I saw over at Oliver Willis: "Rand Paul is a man who steps in shit, then promptly sticks his foot in his mouth."
bizarre, yes. Glad you left the libertarian wackos behind Infidel. I think they are wackier then the extremist righties.
Several Demococrats voted against the Civil Rights Act. When it passed, they left the party and became Rebublicans in protest. They now form the base of the GOP.
As for Rand, he's extreme even for a Libertarian. He has strong links to Christian Reconstructionism.
Rand Paul's version of libertarianism (and I am not so sure it is an extreme view) is the ultimate corporatist view. Let private business do whatever they want.
exactly Jerry, which is why we are in the midst of some horrific "accidents" and "missteps"
TC, Rand Pauls primary win is a good thing for the lefties in Kentucky, and for the country. We have some interesting times ahead of us, if we can keep him talking! lol
TomCat: As for Rand, he's extreme even for a Libertarian. He has strong links to Christian Reconstructionism.
Christian Reconstructionism, also called Dominionism, is a whole huge subject in itself. It's the ultimate extremist wing of the Christian Right. I recommend this posting on it.
Thanks Infidel, I would be interested in hearing from silverfish if he dared to read this post on Rand. I'd like to see Rachel Maddow do some investigative work on the Rand Paul story!
Thanks for the linkage, Infidel, and the comment at PP, Sue. Rand certainly has some strange bedfellows. For people who claim to be pro-life, they are certainly in love with death.
Post a Comment