Rand Paul: The Cancer That (We Hope) Kills the GOP

So: Rand Paul, the day after winning the Republican primary for Senator from Kentucky, went on BOTH Rachel Maddow and NPR and said that, had he been in Congress at the time, he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the grounds that private businesses and individuals should have the right to discriminate.

Fair enough- at one time I held the same view, before I was persuaded that, without stripping that "right" away, then official discrimination likewise would never leave. Bruce Bartlett actually put it very well:

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

. . .

If Rand Paul were saying that he agrees with the Goldwater-Rehnquist-Bork view that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court was wrong to subsequently find it constitutional, that would be an eccentric but defensible position. If he were saying that the Civil Rights Act were no longer necessary because of the great strides we have made as a country in eradicating racism, that would also be defensible. But Rand's position is that it was wrong in principle in 1964. There is no other way of interpreting this except as an endorsement of all the things the Civil Rights Act was designed to prohibit, as favoring the status quo throughout the South that would have led to a continuation of segregation and discrimination against African Americans at least for many more years. Undoubtedly, changing mores would have broken down some of this over time, but there is no reason to believe that it would have been quick or that vestiges wouldn't still remain today. Indeed, vestiges remain despite the Civil Rights Act.

So: I was wrong then, and Rand Paul is wrong now, but at least it's a matter of principle, right?

Um... no, no it isn't. Today, while Rand Paul blamed Rachel Maddow for twisting his words, his campaign office released a statement to the effect that Rand Paul does support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposes repealing it, and would indeed vote for it if he had been there.

GOP leadership is suspiciously silent, either while they get their story straight or in order to avoid pissing off their racist base. Jim DeMint has broken the silence just long enough to say, "I'm going to talk to Rand about his positions."

But... is this racism? Maybe not... but Talking Points Memo reminds us about how Rand's dad Ron Paul, who Rand worked for in his various election campaigns, routinely played footsie with the most radical racist elements in America. There's the fact that Rand Paul employed an openly racist spokesperson for months during his campaign, until a liberal blogger blew the whistle and forced his resignation.

And then there's this tidbit from the past, in which Rand Paul argues that discrimination is a necessary evil to have a free society.

For my money? A racist, and a fairly idiotic one, too. By initially endorsing the right of private clubs, businesses, etc. to be bigoted, Rand Paul pissed off liberals, most moderates, and any conservative who thinks of themselves as NOT bigoted. Then, by flip-flopping, he pisses off the racists... AND the tea-partiers who want their candidate to stand on principle.

And the initial silence of the GOP, especially the predominantly Southern leadership, shows that they also are either racist or afraid to offend their racist voters.

But even if Rand Paul is nothing but a libertarian standing on principle to the absolute last extreme, he's wrong. As I said before, I also once thought that, in order to be true to freedom, you had to let bigots be bigots in their business dealings. This TPM reader sums up why I was very, very wrong:

I do not think it's possible to be a libertarian in the mode of Paul and believe in civil rights. Paul may well believe that discrimination is wrong, and that minority members have some kind of moral right to sit at any lunch counter they choose, but he evidently does not believe it is a civil right, because he does not support legislation to enforce it. As the Supreme Court once understood, there can be no right without a remedy. To say that you support civil rights but not civil rights legislation is nonsense.

You don't have a right to be treated as an equal citizen unless you can make it stick. That requires the law.

Rand Paul, in opposing the law, opposes equality- and thereby opposes freedom for at least part of the population he seeks to represent in the Senate.

And the more this becomes apparent- and the more it becomes apparent that his brand of conservative is all the Republican Party has left, the racists, the teabaggers, and the corporate anarchists, the more the Grand Old Party will self-destruct.

Two months ago I was predicting a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress.

If Rand Paul, and the chicken lady in Nevada, and various other *cough* shining lights of the Republican Party keep up as they are, that might be another point on which I was just plain wrong.

I can only hope.

Rand Paul: The Cancer That (We Hope) Kills the GOP

So: Rand Paul, the day after winning the Republican primary for Senator from Kentucky, went on BOTH Rachel Maddow and NPR and said that, had he been in Congress at the time, he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the grounds that private businesses and individuals should have the right to discriminate.

Fair enough- at one time I held the same view, before I was persuaded that, without stripping that "right" away, then official discrimination likewise would never leave. Bruce Bartlett actually put it very well:

As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn't have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn't work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

. . .

If Rand Paul were saying that he agrees with the Goldwater-Rehnquist-Bork view that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court was wrong to subsequently find it constitutional, that would be an eccentric but defensible position. If he were saying that the Civil Rights Act were no longer necessary because of the great strides we have made as a country in eradicating racism, that would also be defensible. But Rand's position is that it was wrong in principle in 1964. There is no other way of interpreting this except as an endorsement of all the things the Civil Rights Act was designed to prohibit, as favoring the status quo throughout the South that would have led to a continuation of segregation and discrimination against African Americans at least for many more years. Undoubtedly, changing mores would have broken down some of this over time, but there is no reason to believe that it would have been quick or that vestiges wouldn't still remain today. Indeed, vestiges remain despite the Civil Rights Act.

So: I was wrong then, and Rand Paul is wrong now, but at least it's a matter of principle, right?

Um... no, no it isn't. Today, while Rand Paul blamed Rachel Maddow for twisting his words, his campaign office released a statement to the effect that Rand Paul does support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposes repealing it, and would indeed vote for it if he had been there.

GOP leadership is suspiciously silent, either while they get their story straight or in order to avoid pissing off their racist base. Jim DeMint has broken the silence just long enough to say, "I'm going to talk to Rand about his positions."

But... is this racism? Maybe not... but Talking Points Memo reminds us about how Rand's dad Ron Paul, who Rand worked for in his various election campaigns, routinely played footsie with the most radical racist elements in America. There's the fact that Rand Paul employed an openly racist spokesperson for months during his campaign, until a liberal blogger blew the whistle and forced his resignation.

And then there's this tidbit from the past, in which Rand Paul argues that discrimination is a necessary evil to have a free society.

For my money? A racist, and a fairly idiotic one, too. By initially endorsing the right of private clubs, businesses, etc. to be bigoted, Rand Paul pissed off liberals, most moderates, and any conservative who thinks of themselves as NOT bigoted. Then, by flip-flopping, he pisses off the racists... AND the tea-partiers who want their candidate to stand on principle.

And the initial silence of the GOP, especially the predominantly Southern leadership, shows that they also are either racist or afraid to offend their racist voters.

But even if Rand Paul is nothing but a libertarian standing on principle to the absolute last extreme, he's wrong. As I said before, I also once thought that, in order to be true to freedom, you had to let bigots be bigots in their business dealings. This TPM reader sums up why I was very, very wrong:

I do not think it's possible to be a libertarian in the mode of Paul and believe in civil rights. Paul may well believe that discrimination is wrong, and that minority members have some kind of moral right to sit at any lunch counter they choose, but he evidently does not believe it is a civil right, because he does not support legislation to enforce it. As the Supreme Court once understood, there can be no right without a remedy. To say that you support civil rights but not civil rights legislation is nonsense.

You don't have a right to be treated as an equal citizen unless you can make it stick. That requires the law.

Rand Paul, in opposing the law, opposes equality- and thereby opposes freedom for at least part of the population he seeks to represent in the Senate.

And the more this becomes apparent- and the more it becomes apparent that his brand of conservative is all the Republican Party has left, the racists, the teabaggers, and the corporate anarchists, the more the Grand Old Party will self-destruct.

Two months ago I was predicting a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress.

If Rand Paul, and the chicken lady in Nevada, and various other *cough* shining lights of the Republican Party keep up as they are, that might be another point on which I was just plain wrong.

I can only hope.