Tweet
In 1964, the United States enacted the Civil Rights Act outlawing discrimination in all public facilities, whether privately owned or public. Kudos to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for displaying the language of Title II, which establishes as the law of this land, enforceable by injunction, the following fundamental human rights:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities and privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion or national origin.
Notwithstanding the members of the Texas School Board and the sensibilities of libertarians, every American should read, understand and cherish these words. They establish the basic democratic principle — still not complete — that America will demand our businesses and government institutions treat all of us fairly. I don’t know how you can have a democracy worth defending without that principle.
Despite claims of principle, Rand Paul does not appear to accept this core American value. His opposition is not principled, though he would have you believe so. When pushed to explain his real beliefs, whether with local press, CNN, or Maddow’s show, or even in politically dictated clarifying statements, he has repeatedly evaded the central question, changed the subject or distracted the questioner with some irrelevant point that just so happened to be more dog whistles to his fanatical supporters.
Paul has been asked at least a dozen times whether he agrees with the core principle that America’s businesses should not be allowed to discriminate. But instead of saying "yes," he’s told us he’s not racist himself, though no interviewer has made that charge. He’s said he doesn’t approve of discrimination and wouldn’t join a private club that discriminated, but that was never the issue. He’s said we should worry about gun rights, though no interviewer made any connection between the 2nd Amendment and the core principle of non-discrimination. And he’s tried to go off on free speech, when that has nothing to do with whether or not he supports using government to end discrimination in accommodations.
It’s appalling enough that Rand and his supporters would reopen an issue whose history of violence and inhuman treatment remains an indelible stain on who we’ve been, and who some would remain. But Paul’s views are not merely unAmerican and dangerous for that reason.
I don’t know and don’t care whether Rand Paul thinks of himself as racist or favors discrimination. The danger he represents is that in legitimizing governance views that should have been buried with Jim Crow, he’s trying to fool everyone about who he is. He apparently doesn’t have the integrity to explain clearly what he believes. Perhaps he only wants to keep signaling to his Tea Party fans that he’s one of them, while hiding the implications from everyone else.
As others have noted, there is more here than the philosophical libertarian view that government should not impose even a collective American value about non-discrimination upon private businesses, which after all, are created — licensed — by the state, not handed down from the gods. The larger principle is whether American government can insist privately owned businesses meet standards of acceptable conduct, deemed reasonable and necessary for the public welfare, as we the people define it through our chosen governments. That’s as American as apple pie.
So if Rand believes the answer is "no," then let him stand before the voters of Kentucky, with his Republican Party behind him, and explain to them why not just the corner drug store but major pharmaceutical and chemical corporations should be set free to harm people and damage the environment merely because they’re private businesses.
Because that’s the de facto operating principle we’re seeing on our Gulf and in our coal mines and on Wall Street and the executive suites of our health insurance companies and mega-media monopolies. It’s the belief that government should minimize its interference in how businesses behave even where their activities can cause great harm.
That view is strangling America, though don’t expect Paul to explain that to his Tea Party followers or Paul’s critics to apply that to their ongoing tolerance of corporate America’s capture of too much of our government.
Added/edits Friday a.m.
Update: More wisdom from Dr. Paul:
"What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’" Rand said in an interview with ABC’s "Good Morning America." ”I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Other views:
Salon/Joan Walsh, Rachel Maddow demolishes Rand Paul
Digby, Who’s his daddy?
IVB/Chad Peace: Rand Paul toasted by even-handed Maddow
Ezra Klein: Rand Paul may not be a racist, but he is an extremist
Crooks & Liars/Dave Neiwert, Paul hurriedly tries to back away . . .
108 Comments
I’m somewhat ashamed of some on the left that are calling Rand Paul a racist over his opinion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The man is not a racist. And again, as someone on the left I do understand where he’s coming from. His idea is that forcing businesses not to discriminate limits their freedom of speech; this is a limitation of freedom argument, not a racist one. Any counter-argument needs to understand the tenets of the argument from which it spawns; otherwise the conclusions are completely irrelevant. I reiterate, Rand Paul is not a racist.
For example, I support the right of KKK members to freely assemble and speak, even though I am completely against everything they have to say. Supporting their right to free speech does not make me a racist.
While I understand his argument, I still disagree with it. The reason being is that allowing private discrimination impinges upon the freedom of others. He wouldn’t answer Rachel Maddow’s question regarding whether or not he supported the right of restaurant owners to ban blacks from sitting at their bars. If you boil this issue all the way down, even if he argues this way to support freedom, segregation in some businesses is a very plausible and possible outcome. The fact that he was uncomfortable outright stating “yes I support their right to ban people” means that even he is uncomfortable with the ramifications of what that kind of freedom would bring.
While it would allow business owners greater freedom of expression it would drastically damage the freedom of just about everyone else. As such it goes beyond freedom of expression: this would enable businesses to limit the freedom of others and that argument is untenable.
You say Paul isn’t a racist, by which I assume you mean something like he is indifferent to racial matters personally. As I see it, if he is willing to let other people act in a racist fashion, it doesn’t matter what he personally feels. The outcome is that he acts in a racist fashion himself. I don’t know and don’t care what might be in his head. I care about behavior. Act like a racist and you are a racist.
It’s easy to tell he’s not a racist. Just look into his eyes…you know…through the eye holes he cut into the starched white sheet. /s
Well played.
1,000 thread count (picked) cotton all the way. Nothing but the finest for this guy.
“I’m somewhat ashamed of some on the left that are calling Rand Paul a racist…”
That’s just too fucking bad.
This is nonsense. Just because this clown defines “forcing businesses not to discriminate” as an abridgment of “freedom of speech” doesn’t make it so. Freedom of speech does not cover banning blacks from a lunch counter that serves the public. Demanding that my counterargument take seriously his ridiculous proposition — to ensure that my counterargument is “relevant” — is ludicrous.
Once again, the way to force these clowns into a corner is to use concrete examples (like Rachel did) that every American can understand. That’s why the lunch counter — or whatever today’s equivalent is — is such a compelling argument that reveals this little asshole to be the racist that most people will think he is, once he is forced to follow through with the example.
Hey Rand, does government have a role in ensuring the water at the lunch counter is clean? the food safe? the building fireproof? the establishment protected from crime by adequate police? and on and on. Let him say no — if he has the courage — to any of these. And then let him tell Americans that they’re on their own in these regards. That they have to “test” to see which lunch counter they should frequent. That they have to trust “the market” and “savvy businessmen” to prevent poisoning of their kids, or their asses getting set on fire, or getting mugged.
Force this little asshole to admit that he needs government to ensure all this, but thinks the lunch counter owner should be able to ban blacks — so that he can express his “freedom.”
While the racial implications of this little jerk’s “philosophy” are clearly repugnant, Ds would make a big mistake using only that argument against this weasel. His so-called “philosophy” would produce a world that even the teabaggers would not want to live in.
So draw him out on ALL of it by using concrete examples that scare the piss out of sentient Americans.
Perfect. Spot on.
CONDUCT is not “speech” — similarly, “freedom to associate” ends when one holds oneself (and one’s business) OUT TO THE PUBLIC, as available to all, in order to make a profit from interstate commerce. [See, e.g., the 14th Amendment, and the Privileges and Immunities clause, here.]
Look, Mr. Paul, those words all have deep meaning in our constitutional jurisprudence. Mr. Paul cannot select only one or two phrases, and rely on those, alone. The Constitution must be read as a whole.
Of course, that would turn all his “dog-whistles” into bright yellow warning-signs, bull-horn screes, or burning crosses, if one prefers.
I will not assume he is a racist, himself — but I will assume he certainly means to court the segregationist vote, with his dodging and dog-whistling. He plainly knows better — he’s shown his understanding of the framers’ intent — that much is certain.
नमस्ते, to all of good will.
Excellent points.
“His idea is that forcing businesses not to discriminate limits their freedom of speech; this is a limitation of freedom argument, not a racist one.”
OK, but it is a legitimate limitation of freedom.
1) People on the left shouldn’t be doing that, because;
2) They don’t know if he’s a racist — and neither do you.
The issue isn’t racism, it’s ideological extremism.
I personally think Rachel was on a witch hunt and front loaded the question to obtain a response that she could call racists. This was a cheep shot at Rand Paul and further an attempt to brand the Tea Party movement. What most people forget is that there are two documents that are the hierarchy of the United States. Both were approved by Congress and both stand as the law of the land. The first is the Declaration of the United States, the Second is the Constitution (following the failed articles of confederation). I think Rand Paul’s comments were centered around this framework which is where the Libertarian party stands.
If people don’t think what Rachel terms discrimination occurs in business on a daily basis, they are short sighted fools. If a business caters to Chevrolet automobiles, is it discriminating against other automobile owners? or If a business sells only big women’s clothes isn’t it discriminating against short or slim women? What about a business call the Mens factory warehouse, isn’t that discrimination against women? How about a business which sells only motorcycles, isn’t that discrimination against those who like automobiles? What about a business which sells only books don’t they discriminate against those who adore electronic media? Businesses must and do cater to specific customers. Business in its very definition causes discriminatory practices to occur.
The Declaration is sufficient if properly administered to support equal opportunity as its statements imply, “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” Forced positions through the use of government never work, and this continued use by the press of labeling people racist only serves to increase the chasm between the various sects of peoples.
Point to any portion of the interview in which Rachel accuses him of being racist. You’ll find the central question she was asking is about his views of the proper role of government — a perfectly relevant question to ask someone running to be a US Senator. Paul wanted to answer that he is not racists, but she never asked him.
Prior to 1964 white supremacy was legal in the United States. Despite the fact that no one could define whiteness, states and local governments routinely passed laws permitting people not to hire or rent to the Irish, Jews, Italians, Native Americans, Spanish, and the descendants of the slaves.
I support Ron Paul regarding Auditing the Federal Reserve and the halt of nation-building with U.S. combat forces in the Middle East.
Sorry to see Rand backing constituencies that are so transparently allied with white supremacy.
yhm :D
Thank you.
“This was a cheep shot at Rand Paul and further an attempt to brand the Tea Party movement.” He shot himself, right in the foot. The teabaggers defined themselves as the modern-day Klan long ago. We pretty much know what you are, too – starts with “racist,” ends with [edited by moderator]. Take a hike, wingnut.
[Mod note: Debate is encouraged but please do not insult other commenters. Thank you.]
I am so tired of this segregationist argument. The problem is not discrimination. It is discrimination based on irrelevant categories, especially categories like skin color, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation that one can’t change. Or religion, which under the First Amendment to the Constitution one shouldn’t be required to change.
There is one founding document in law in the US and that is the US Constitution and its amendments.
The 14th Amendment says:
Libertarians, like the Dixiecrats before them are on weak ground Constitutionally with their arguments.
The problem is that 134 years ago the Republican party in the south and their politicians in congress allowed Reconstruction to end without exacting anything from the losers in the civil war. Sure they passed a couple of amendments but they were cosmetic like Obama’s health care “reform” and the just completed financial “reform.” As far as they were concerned, and some probably still are, the 15th amendment doesn’t exist at all.
As soon as they could southerners began testing the determination of the federal government to ensure the rights of blacks and they got their answer real quick: freedmen were on their own. The supreme court’s decision in Reese gave them some hope that the 14th amendment wouldn’t be applied to the states and after they succeeded in massacring more than a hundred blacks in Louisiana with Washington refusing to send adequate troops and the attorney general himself refusing to provide guidance, all that was left was for Cruikshank to basically nullify the 14th amendment.
What the tea baggers and the right wing want is to do away with any vestige of constitutional protection for individual minorities (and that includes poor whites) while extending those protections to corporate persons (as created by Santa Clara in 1886) AND to finally finish off whatever remains of the New Deal, most particularly Social Security and unemployment insurance. Once these trivialities are addressed the demise of Medicare will be a foregone conclusion.
It’s like one big Wal-Mart ad campaign, Roll Back, Roll Back, bring us back to the good old days when southern trees bore strange fruit and even some white people knew and kept to their places.
Wow, bobbyhawk. That could be the stupidest argument in support of Dr. Paul I have yet to encounter. An effective reductio ad absurdum depends on analogies that actually make sense.
Sorry I come in late to this. But since no one else has done so yet I’d like to point out to bobbyhawk and others of his turn of mind that the Declaration of Independence – which he calls the Declaration of the United States – is not at all the same as the Constitution in terms of having the force of law. The Declaration is a statement of general principles, not a set of laws and not “the law of the land.” It is not and never has been “administered” as actual laws are, as bobbyhawk states. And it obviously was not sufficient to support equal opportunity for over a century and a half of US history – if you exempt the period when slavery was legal (though I don’t see why you should). The Jim Crow laws flourished for a hundred years in the teeth of the Declaration.
It may seem odd to others who frequent this site to have to explain this. But as one who lives in a depressed rural area of Upstate NY, I’ve learned that in an appalling number of cases people’s ignorance of US history and government is practically boundless. Many people around here I’m sure believe and applaud everything Rand Paul says, and if you try to educate them they just turn you off.
I applaud Scarecrow for this post and for his/her explanation of how important an issue this is. The “forces of ignorance” mentioned by Clarence Darrow, “are ever busy.”
Lastly, I cannot resist: Cheep, cheep, bobbyhawk. (Sorry about that.)
Really lame examples.
“a business sells only big women’s clothes” — find a big women’s store which won’t sell to any man or woman who comes in with money to buy goods in that store, then we’ll talk.
“a business call the Mens factory warehouse” — ditto. I’m absolutely certain that if I, a woman, walk into the local Men’s Factory Warehouse store to buy their products they will serve me. And they’ll probably completely ignore that I’m mixed race.
“a business caters to Chevrolet automobiles” — are they responding the the invisible hand of the market that libertarian-types claim to embrace, or are they discriminating based on gender/race? It really appears that the concept of discriminating against humans based on attributes they were born with is beyond you if you can’t see the difference between this and serving a market niche.
As for waving the Constitution around to justify Paul’s position: that document includes a Preamble which states the premise under which the citizens of these United States chose to establish a social compact:
It is not justice when people are denied access to goods and services based only on attributes acquired at or before birth. It does not assure domestic tranquility to continue to deny such justice, it interferes with achieving a common defense, and it in no way promotes general welfare, only specific. We operate under a compact which seeks liberty for all, not merely those who have the ability to finance their own businesses; it’s only a forced position when one rejects this fundamental social contract, that we are ALL of us equal under the law and to serve and be served in the same manner.
None of the so-called “discrimination” cited hurts anyone. The question I keep coming back to is this: should government prevent harmful discrimination by business where that activity has a harmful impact on important values, e.g., fundamental fairness and decency to people. No one believes that a store for women’s clothes harms anyone.
Is this Sarah Palin substitute? What a worthwhile topic.
I don’t know anything about Paul’s chances in the general, but given that he’s running for a seat in the US Senate, and given that he won pretty big in the primary, I think the subject merits a bit of discussion. As for “Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods,” she is, for some strange reason, quite popular in certain circles. Accordingly, I expect her various word salads (however insipid, repugnant or merely plain-vanilla stupid) to have some effect on the election – this year and in 2012. So she probably merits a few mentions, as well.
My problem with Rand Paul’s defense of corporate culture is that if corporate culture conflicts with corporate profits, culture gets tossed out the window in a heartbeat. As the Japanese say: “Duty is heavier than a mountain, life is lighter than a feather.” Corporate culture, when compared to profit, is instantly disposable.
Corporate culture is nothing but a facade, fancy window-dressing to placate the worker bees. As you say, if push comes to shove, all that crap goes right out the window…before and/or after the knives come out.
Hmm. I was thinking of corporate culture more in terms of “what the boss says, goes” but in porno, there are, well, they’re not unions, but there are women who are “on the side” of the female performers. Corporate culture tolerates this violation of the usual “chain of command” because the in-between group makes the performer feel safer and more comfortable, thus the performer delivers better performances, therefore the corporation makes more money (people like watching happy people much more than they like watching people who feel miserable and oppressed). Corporate money-making is thus in conflict with the corporate culture of authoritarianism and so authoritarianism gets chucked in favor of money-making.
I take your point but would suggest that it’s more the exception than the rule, particularly in large organizations. Hence, I always look with suspicion at corporate touchy-feely, happy-talk bullshit.
Corporate culture is based on the Divine Right of Executives. So its differences are very much like the differences in 17th and 18th century courts. Some monarchs see being hardnosed to their advantage and values. Other pursue a milder approach. The key words are “to their advantage” — the financial condition of the enterprise is secondary.
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. There are differences in the “culture” of different corporations, but as you say according to “divine right” they’re based on the particular personalities of executives and CEOs, just as the culture of Elizabeth’s court in the 16th century was very different from that of her contemporary, Philip of Spain. Reasoning from this, the basically feudal atmosphere of private corporations in which so many Americans work is at odds with our sociopolitical culture of a society of laws, not men. The tensions arising from this inherent conflict were first apparent from like the 1830s and have never been satisfactorily resolved. We live with the fallout from that failure.
You are so right about that.
Obama was a member of the racist TUCC group for over 20 years, so Rachel Maddow supports racism or is a total moron…probably both.
I think this is the problem with libertarianism in general.
Everyone has the right to do what they want as long as it doesn’t affect someone else.
But how can it not.
If I buy property next to a $500,000 house is it my right to move my mobile home onto my land?
You could say, “No, we need zoning laws, it’ll bring down the property values [to have an undesirable move in next door]“.
Be careful.
actually, if you buy a propery you are signing on to the local rules by virtue of that sale
so no, if there are zoning laws you have contactually obligated yourself to those regulations
Libertarians don’t think there should be zoning laws either – until the guy next door decides to do something with his property that they don’t like.
(Don’t use a mobile home as an example, use a pig farm. Or a plating company. Far less desirable as neighbors.)
and that’s the point isn’t it, they refuse to acknowledge the contracts they willingly enter with the government but want the government to force others into honoring the contracts that help them acquire wealth
and people actually fall for their crap
Thanks, I’ve lived near pig farms, I agree.
I was trying to go the “White” trash route so as not to offend.
Yes, this is an example of how, like it or not, we are all woven into the fabric of society. Not to mention that when you buy your property and erect your castle on it, you drive your SUV to and from it on government built and maintained roads, receive electricity from gov’t regulated utilities,etc. and are protected from thieves by gov’t maintained police forces, etc. etc.
You’ve put your finger on a profoundly important point. The problem with libertarianism is that it atomizes a population into a lot of little independent fiefdoms. Really its view of how societies should work has never been true and is quite unworkable. It’s better to think of a society as a fabric of interwoven threads of many colors. For many years now, as I’ve watched so many Americans disappear into their gated communities and into their SUVs like moving castles supposedly safe for their riders but lethal for other cars on the road, it has seemed the already fragile fabric of our society has had more and more rents torn in it.
Good Morning Scarecrow and Firedogs
am late to the party this morning, has everyone seen his latest, um, statement ?
nicely said scarecrow;
rand does not understand (if he is a moron) or refuses to acknowledge (because he is a corporatist);
to do business in america (or any government) you MUST rely ongovernment subsidy, water, electricity, roads, the court system are ALL government subsidies
and once you a busines relies on the government the government can create the rquisits they want
one thing libertarians make believe they think govenrment’s pupose is, “emforcing a sanctity of the contract”
what they refuse to acknowledge is that by virtue of doing busines in america you have a set of regulations, if you don’t like those regulations don’t sign on to your contractual obligations
Wow, this post sure brought out the wingnut trolls, LOL!
Funny how the ignorant country bumpkins carry such a big chip on their shoulders that it falls off on its own and they get all defensive about racism and shit.
LOL LOL LOL
Racism isn’t a psychological condition; that’s called racial prejudice. Nor is it an action; that’s called racial discrimination. Racism is capitulation to the traditional American cultural norms that assert that whites are more valuable than anyone else. Paul’s hemming and hawing and libertarian smokescreen show that he knows and is uncomfortable with the fact that he is indeed capitulating to the background racism in American life. And in doing that, he just helped Conway’s GOTV campaign. There is going to be no intensity gap with African-Americans in Kentucky in November. Unless Conway refuses to exploit this gift.
Rand Paul’s mythical businessman would have a problem when a typical American work party goes to eat at his restaurant–one that includes whites, Asians, women, African-Americans, and Hispanics. And his mythical restaurant would have to have alternative businesses who do not discriminate, which if Paul had his way would not be easy to find in a lot of small rural Kentucky counties.
Would Rand support Corporations refusing to sell Whites Guns?
Tea Party Patriots support reason, accountability, vision, pluck, and the Constitution. Ran Paul is our Man.
Rancid Maddow and the Jazi MSM support a “more controlled society … one dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values” (quote ZBrez)
So, of course, they sandbag Ran Paul.
Big deal.
Rachel’s approach was not unduly confrontational, nor was she on a “witch hunt” for the opportunity to call someone a racist. Her segments, both the interview with Rand Paul and her deconstruction last night, showed that Paul’s objection to the Civil Rights Act was indeed principled, though (IMHO) grossly misguided: that government should not have the power to tell private businesses or individuals not to discriminate. His libertarian position touches every aspect of government interaction with business (regulation, anyone?) and is a critical part of his political worldview. Kudos to Rachel for a penetrating and nuanced look at this look at the Animal Farm right.
It’s interesting that any discussion of Rand Paul brings the trolls scurrying out from underneath their bridges… Me? I won’t feed ‘em.
Freedom of Speech for Racists trumps Freedom of going to a restaurant and ordering food, of renting an apartment, of the best man getting the job vs the White guy.
Freedom of Speech should not include the Freedom to advocate taking awy an other’s God Given Rights.
Freedom of Speech should not include Hate Speech that incites Murder after all without the Right to Life all other Rights don’t matter.
You have to be alive to enjoy all other rights.
Yes, the point is that all rights are relative and when one conflicts with another the balance is weighed between them, as in the yelling fire in a crowded theater example.
I think the issue here is whether the store specialized in larger sizes of women’s clothes allows those with different colors of skin or hair texture to try on the clothes before making a purchase.
One of the harsher realities of pre-public accomodation days (before 1964) was that Black Women of any size were not allowed to take clothes into fitting rooms in department stores, and try them on, see how they fit and looked, before making a transaction. It may seem a small matter, but it was enforced, even in parts of the North. Just imagine not being able to tell whether your party dress or easter outfit fit, or looked good on you, until after you parted with your money and took the goods home.
The Libertarian Argument falls simply because the freedoms and liberties one argues one wants to protect come at the expense of others. In the case of access to the fitting room, the “right” to enforce such discriminatory ways of doing business, probably was based on irrational notions that darker skin was dirty or contageous or both, came at the expense of other’s freedoms and liberty. The legal changes resulting from the 64 act didn’t really change your right to believe such irrational clap trap, but it did outlaw your right to act on such beliefs.
“And he’s tried to go off on free speech, when that has nothing to do with whether or not he supports using government to end discrimination in accommodations.”
Arguably, the right of free association, being able to select one’s friends, colleagues, etc. is in play here. The right to assemble in the First Amendment often stands as a proxy for this right and it is referred to as a freedom of speech issue because I express my views by the company I choose to keep.
This one sentence stood out as a misinterpretation of what Paul is doing. That said, all of the remaining dodges stand. He is closest to coherence when he claims much of the Federal Government’s power comes from an overly broad reading of the interstate commerce clause.
I want, very much, to be a Libertarian. Unfortunately, every time I spin out the thought experiment my Hobbesian view of mankind’s inherent evil leads to an ugly Social Darwinism (survival of the richest because, obviously, they are the most deserving since God (Mother Nature, karma, whatever) let them win).
Just wanted to pick that one nit. Now I can go back to work refreshed.
The “right” of association has been expanded by recent conservative court rulings to allow private groups to ban individuals they want to exclude — e.g., the Supremes allow the Boy Scouts to bar gays. It’s a troubling trend. But even today’s court has not (yet) said that demanding a business not discriminate on invidious grounds (e.g., race) violates the owners’ freedom of association.
Mr Scarecrow, you have mail :D
New campaign slogan: Rand Paul – “Yes, We Klan!”
Love it!
Get the bumper sticker machines rollin’….Ha!
To say the GOP has a problem in Mr. Paul is to put it mildly. Now that it’s embraced the Tea Party, politically if not philosophically, it runs the risk of alienating large swaths of the electorate regardless of their party affilation. Here’s why:
Most people (D, R or I), regardless of race or ethnic background, believe in fairness and decency. With Mr. Paul as the GOP’s standard-bearer, his beliefs become harder to reconcile with the Republicans’ “big-tent” message. To overtly say government has no place in regulating business opens large fissures of contradiction and hypocrisy that the GOP would prefer remain covered up. That runs counter to people’s sense of “American fair play.”
So the GOP has a choice to make. Continue to embrace Mr. Paul and remain under the impression that somehow he’ll deliver million of Tea Party voters in November or distance itself and run the risk of alienating those same voters. Either way, it’s not looking good for the Grand Old Party.
Thank you, Scarecrow. Stellar post.
New post up top…
LBJ – he was a bastard…maybe that’s how he got things done. In any event, he was the last liberal president we’ve had who wasn’t harassed continually by small minded, bought off totalitarian bigots.
What have we got now? a black man pretending to channel Saint Ronnie… and doing a very creditable job.
At first thought, my reaction was just let this guy keep on talking and let him hang himself. After a little reflection I realized there are a lot of nuts out there. Washington Journal discussed this very subject this morning and a number of callers said businesses have a right to discriminate. With all the anti-immigration, anti-anything but white evangelicals fervor that is sweeping the country, I find it sad and dis-heartening that this is taking up so much of our public discourse with so many really serious problems and very little solutions.
Phew, finally! Someone found a way to bash Obama on a thread totally unrelated to the President.
Kudos!
Yeah: wtf??? dumb
I think the comments today illustrate how racism continues to be embedded in the fabric of American society, and how folks are willing to bend logic to defend it. Dr. Paul’s comments were a good thing, as it forces discussion of these issues. I am against murder. However, if I stand idly by and watch a murder committed and take no action, I am complicit in that murder. Seems pretty simple to me.
I deliberately watched RM & KO last night to see how they handled this situation with Rand Paul. Trolls notwithstanding, I found RM’s approach to Paul to be respectful, and her questioning to be emminently reasonable given that Mr. Paul has made his own choice to run for public office (and apparently announced his intentions to do so on RM’s show!). A cliche that comes to my mind is: “if you can’t stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.”
Those who wish to see Mr. Paul as some kind of non-biased, non-racist purist business guy: fine. But then why are you so incredibly defensive about the questioning that RM did? You know, not so long ago, that kind of really intelligent questioning was the NORM in our political debate, and we had newscasters, like Walter Cronkite who was so venerated when he died recently, who routinely asked questions like what RM did.
What some commenters here apparently do not realize is how very dumbed down (deliberately by the corporate owned media) most so-called “nooz” shows have become, and how very low-level the questions asked of pol’s have become.
What RM DID, in fact, was engage in, GASP, *intelligent* debate with Rand Paul. If you don’t like the outcome, then rather than *attack* RM, why aren’t you *questioning* what Mr. Paul said???? That’s the other issue I have is that, as soon as it got hot in the kitchen for Mr. Paul, the corporate-owned rightwing media *immediately* – and quite predictably – went on the attack against the “looney left.” Please. What a load.
Grow up. If Mr. Paul cannot handle the questions, then he shouldn’t be running for office. Period.
I thought that the deconstruction that went on last evening on both RM and KO was very good. Both of them behaved like adults discussing a very serious and important issue. I thought that Senator Clyburn, who was on KO, made very intelligent and cogent arguments against what Rand Paul was proposing – not only in terms of the “racist” angle, but also in terms of the very, very real issues about the chimera (imo) of so-called libertariaism, whereby the market and all the honest “business folks” out there will *miraculously* self-regulate to ensure that we all get to drink clean water, be safe from criminals, drive on maintained roads, and so on.
Grow up. Wake up. We can argue until the cows come home about how Mr. Paul *may* or *may not* be a racist. But what he’s proposing STINKS to high heaven, is patent b.s., and definitely, yes, *appeals* to white racists. Give me a break. And RM and KO did excellent jobs last evening in presenting rational, intelligent, adult discussions about a very important subject.
Spotlight Scarecrow to Dancin’ Dave. Based on past performances, Dancin’ Dave obviously needs help with his research.
This entire subject seems fairly simple to me. Isn’t it called “equal protection under the law?” Paul has gotten himself caught in a buzz saw and the Rs are running for the hills. I wonder how far they are willing to go to let the wingnuts destroy their party.
Michael Whitney has a fresh cross-post available for us: Debacle of BP’s Live Feed of Pipe a Microcosm for this Whole Clusterf@#k
For Obama supporters honestly hoping for a post-partisan politics, a focused and de-radicalized tea party, working together with conservatives to solve problems, and political disagreement based in difference of values instead of Orwellian arguments about facts, Rand Paul is exactly what this country needs. For those who value heterodoxy, whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, Rand Paul should be a welcome addition to the U.S. Senate.
Rachel Maddow’s contention that Paul supports racism because he believes private businesses should be able to discriminate, is like saying that anyone who supports states’s rights supports slavery.
http://www.theinductive.com/blog/2010/5/19/a-victory-for-heterodoxy-in-kentucky.html
Anyone who supports states’ right to allow slavery supports slavery, dude. Anyone who supports states’ rights to allow discrimination by race supports racism. Get it?
That’s not true at all. You’re missing the point of libertarianism, which goes beyond trying to force everyone to do what I think is right. You wanna know why nothing ever changes in America? It’s because people think politics is about getting their ideas to win, when it’s actually about giving people the maximum control over their lives. After the ADA was passed, people stopped holding doors for people in wheelchairs, people stopped giving up their seats for the elderly in trains, because everyone can just foist responsibility onto the law. This is what libertarianism is about: changing culturally, not legally. It’s the same as believing in the afterlife. If I believe that being a good person gets me a reward, am I really a good person? Or am I just a child? The fundamental reason why libertarians occasionally make “outlandish” comments, and why they have no success politically, is because people don’t understand them, and they don’t understand people. Libertarians make the mistake of assuming that everybody else is as generous, kind, upright, stoic, and intelligent as they are, and not to give them the opportunity is insulting. Perhaps liberals are right that people are stupid and cruel and need to be herded and threatened with external force in order to do the right thing.
Irrelevant. Address Mr. Paul’s actual words. Leave the rhetoric at the door. Tell me how you defend Mr. Paul’s ACTUAL statements — not the theory of libertarianism.
नमस्ते, to all of good will
Paul never actually said anything definitive. Maddow just kept trying to get him to fail the litmus test so she could embarrass and ridicule a Republican. As I said before, it’s like saying that anyone who supports federalism supports slavery. So, I’m not really sure what you want me to defend? Rand Paul’s mumbling? His statements that he hasn’t read the bill since it’s from 1964 and irrelevant to modern Kentucky politics? Or should I just start banging a tuning fork?
Again — see mine at 69:
He said it directly. He thinks that any business that is not “owned by the public”, should be free to discriminate on invidious grounds.
He justified it by point to the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” clause, and implied that he would also find support in the “freedom of association” clause.
If you’re versed in Constitutional law — as Mr. Paul plainly is — his words were unambigous, clear and plain. He would say the First Amendment trumps every other clause in the Constitution.
It simply. . . doesn’t.
Explain that, christophercarr.
नमस्ते, to all of good wil
If politicians just gave us straight answers we wouldn’t have to try to figure out what they mean, although it seemed to me that Paul was fairly honest; he thinks it okay to discriminate.
DING! Ring the bell.
Exactly.
नमस्ते, to all of good wil
This really opens a window (or seems to) on where many libertarians are coming from. It is sad that in so many ways common courtesy of the kind you describe and the Golden Rule in American society have been weakened to such an extent. But consider that there are times, such as the period of the Jim Crow laws, when the culture of a society has gotten cruelly out of hand and government has to step in and right wrongs. At such times it is beyond the power of individuals of good will to uphold their principles all by themselves.
It is sad that in so many ways common courtesy of the kind you describe and the Golden Rule in American society have been weakened to such an extent
I’m a Southerner myself, and have to openly wonder how what was done to Emmett Till showed any application of the Golden Rule and courtesy back in that halcyon earlier America.
The evidence from anthropology is clear: societies which have a high degree of economic equality have a high degree of political equality, and *also* express a high degree of respect and courtesy towards everyone (hunter-gatherer societies come to mind right away, where the leaders don’t dare openly criticize anyone by name and lead by example or platitude). Equal societies are polite societies and respectful societies. Highly unequal societies, are the cultures that live by the rule “if you got it, flaunt it” and where it’s considered the norm to be able to rub someone’s face into the dirt.
I agree America has become a far less polite society over the past 50-60 years. But I place the blame on that on the culture created by Reagan in the Age of Reagan. The cure for the disease is not more of the same medicine.
StewartM
Not necessarily. This liberal believes that the very type of people that capitalism rewards (or at least the unbridled type favored by libertarians) and gives economic and political power to, is the “stupid and cruel”. Unbridled capitalism creates a heartless, dehumanizing culture where you have to turn “off” one’s empathy and learn to ignore the pleading of people begging for food while you step over the bodies of the homeless who died during the night in your way into work every morning.
The culture created by capitalism is like that created by slavery in the antebellum South in a way. Under the ethos of capitalism, the goal of every wage slave should be to become a capitalist himself, to aspire to play dictator one day over his own workforce, just like the poor white farmer was told that with luck and pluck he too might become a slave-owning planter. You’re supposed to perpetuate the inhumane system instead of destroy or reform it.
StewartM
Unfortunately for your argument, Paul (and his father) do associate with people who advocate the return of slavery, as well as stoning, and other return-to-the-dark-ages stuff. (It’s all those theocrats, whose views would have us all under the rule of wealthy white conservative males, with no dissent allowed.)
Given Paul’s evasiveness and refusal to clarify what he says or to admit to the logical extension of his statements (as so eloquently described by Scarecrow above), focused is hardly what comes to mind. How can you solve problems when you dance around them instead of facing up to them? He also seems either abysmally ignorant or else contemptuous of core principles of our way of governance. He would be a great detriment to the Senate at any time, especially so in its present beleaguered state.
Rand Paul channels Blanche DuBois!
That’s their lot.
Good analogy!
Huh? What’s “Orwellian” about disagreement over facts? The biggest problem in the US is that the right wing (and libertarians) are so fact-challenged, so provably and obviously fact-challenged.
I think you have the situation exactly backward. We can disagree and reach consensus when the argument is over facts, over reality. That is because we have a mode of discourse (science) that allows people to have knock-down drag-out arguments as long as they have to make arguments using empirical evidence and present their arguments in a way that–ideally–if their facts are refuted then *they themselves* must admit fallacy in their position. Science and scientists have to do this all the time–every famous scientist has been, from Einstein to Newton to Hawking, has been forced to admit they they were wrong about something, famously wrong about something, and famously wrong about something relating to an aspect of their chief area of study.
Scientists do this as a matter of course. But religious fanatics and ideologues (and I for one think libertarians are as ideologically straightjacketed as any Maoist or Stalinist) never do this. Their arguments are in essence always dogs that forever chase their own tails, they place all or parts of them beyond empirical refutation. So, I might add, are discussions based upon “val-yews”.
And when you have a political dialogue based upon values or religion or such ideology, it easily turns to violence, as there is no way to reach consensus. If you say homosexuality is wrong and homosexuals should be executed “just because” your ideology or religion or “values” say so, then how is one to reach agreement? One might as well argue about the number of angels who can dance on the proverbial pin. To argue against homosexuality in politics, one has to construct arguments based upon empirical criteria showing that somehow, someway, homosexuality intrinsically results in demonstrable, measurable, empirical harm to someone. That the opponents of gay rights cannot do, which is why they prefer arguments based upon “values”.
But that’s why I believe the First Amendment strives, in essence, to declare governance from such a perspective out-of-bounds. Sadly, we’re far from that type of political dialogue yet.
StewartM
Some advice to Mr. Paul and his supporters; When someone asks you, if you support one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed into law, you say; Yes. Period. Don’t equivocate. Just say, Yes. Should you do otherwise, people might get the wrong idea about you. Or they might just think you’re the biggest fucking idiot to ever slither out from under a rock.
An easy way to look at this is that Paul supports the rights of businesses over those of people. He can frame this about business owners, but it is really that of the business.
Since as far as I am concerned, businesses are not people and do not have any rights, it is a moot argument for me. For those whose life is about profits, it is a big deal. There can be no protection for employees, no discrimination rules for dealing with customers. If you think that gay boy might scare other customers away of course you don’t want to have to serve him. That black woman has probably been on welfare and would steal from you, of course you don’t want to hire her. Expand the bathroom stall so you can hire that disabled man – well no one should be able to force you to do that.
And frankly that is what so much of what we are battling right now. The idea that business and profits trump people. And that means that Paul isn’t racist, he just thinks all people are tools and pawns – no matter their color, religion, sexual orientation or health.
Ok Rand Paul’s rationale for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was clumsy.
So what are his opinions on the Afghanistan and Iraq invasion, the Audit the Fed (watered down) legislation and TARP. I mean, these topics are relevant in 2010.
You know Bobby Kennedy is an icon to a lot on The Left and he supported (wholeheartedly) our “police action” in Southeast Asia.
Just sayin’.
Right on.
And Rachel Maddow and MSNBC had their production team working all day to sift through anything they could use against him. I can no longer watch this liberal propaganda, no more than I can watch the conservative propaganda.
Even something as fundamentally “good” as the Civil Rights Act has its flaws. Why do we have to put it up on a pedestal? Why can’t Paul have an un-PC opinion, which has merit in a principled/abstract way, and perhaps in some practical ways too? So tired of the liberal witch-hunting. And anyway, we are not living in the 1960s any more. Paul’s not advocating for it to be thrown out. So how about we start tackling today’s problems?
No one is actively and overtly trying to overturn Roe V. Wade either but it’s being slowly chipped away. That’s the way it’s done now and Paul would do everything he could, quietly of course, to undermine the Civil Rights Act.
If I hadn’t had my fill of playing the antagonist yesterday, I’d ask what evidence you have to support that statement.
But seeing as how I’m exhausted from yesterday’s Maddow discussion, and I think you’re probably right, I won’t bother to quibble over details.
-Edit: I certainly agree that Roe V Wade is slowly being destroyed, my reference to your statement was focused on Paul doing things to undermine the CRA. Which I believe he will do. I just don’t think we have much hard evidence of that, yet.
No we don’t have evidence yet, but doesn’t it logically follow from what he has said? Of course it may just be dog whistling as someone said.
But the logical consequence of what he says would lead to throwing the Civil Rights Act out. We don’t have to put it on a pedestal, but it forms one of the pillars of democratic action in this country and we disregard it at our peril. PC is a term conservatives invented in the 70s or so to ridicule and disarm liberals and their principles. It’s just so tiresome, upholding liberty and justice for all, not just our own tribe.
I must admit, I don’t get it either. Maddow didn’t get Paul to say anything definitive, yet she ascribs (sp) all kinds of specific, definitive ideas, positions, etc. to him.
If she wanted to criticize him on specifics, she should have done her job as interviewer and get specifics. Not make them up.
Again,
Joe says, “I’m not certain it’s going to rain tomorrow.”
Maddow headline, “Joe ignores science, says the weather cannot be predicted.”
Did you even watch Mr. Paul’s responses, in their entirety?
He said it directly. He thinks that any business that is not “owned by the public”, should be free to discriminate on invidious grounds.
He justified it by point to the First Amendment’s “freedom of speech” clause, and implied that he would also find support in the “freedom of association” clause.
If you’re versed in Constitutional law — as Mr. Paul plainly is — his words were unambigous, clear and plain. He would say the First Amendment trumps every other clause in the Constitution.
It simply. . . doesn’t.
See at least 200 years of SCOTUS holdings.
नमस्ते, to all of good will
i guess the issue that make some progressives defend him is that if he were a war hawk republican or conservadem and had the same insensitivity to civil rights Rachel and the corporate media would ignore him as they presently do even more vile neocon republicans.
While I respect and understand his point of view he is obviously immature about what it was really like here in the sixties. If you allow businesses to discriminate as a form of free speech because they are privately owned, then what’s to stop a restaraunt from refusing to maintain sanitary standards based on that same principle?
RAND PAUL IS A RACIST! While Rachel never said that, he’s pushing the right of others, Private Business Owners to discriminate! I don’t know how anyone could attempt to defend this and not see that thers is no distinction! You paul fans should pull your heads from your asses! I can’t stand that dwarft or his crazy ass father! His father reminds me of Ross Perot! A straight up fucking wingnut and clearly the turd doesn’t fall far from the asshole!
Am I also a racist becomes I am pushing the right of Neo Nazi to express their freedom of speech? And please give me a yes/no answer no explanation needed.
Yes, he present real atributes. Military own big jets. Why worry?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUp962diPF8
Paul’s argument about guns is a ridiculous strawman. You can’t leave your skin color at home or in the car.
What I’d like to see is his boot not only on the throat of BP, but straight to the ass of Wall Street and the HC and military complexes. To name but a few.
@econobuzz #59:
Uh, no, I don’t. What about abolitionists like Thoreau and Lysander Spooner, who supported secession and argued that it should be used by abolitionists to fight slavery?
@playfyte #76
What about black author Zora Neale Hurston, who supported libertarian ideas while living in the 1950′s South and opposed the Brown vs. Board of Education decision?
Incidentally, out of curiosity, do you feel that the Danish software company Specialisterne is being discriminatory for only hiring people who have autism? This is not a charity, it’s a business, and they feel that autistic employees can do this particular job better than others. Or maybe you feel that this is a form of affirmative action. What about blacks who reject affirmative action because they don’t like being seen as a charity case and used as a statistic to meet a quota? Just asking.
As an African American, I wish Rachel Maddow could have presented a more balanced coverage of this issue.
“What about black author Zora Neale Hurston, who supported libertarian ideas while living in the 1950’s South and opposed the Brown vs. Board of Education decision?”
What about her? African Americans are not a monolithic bloc but surely have had in all times an array of different opinions. Not sure what you’re getting at. I don’t know the details, but African Americans in the 50s and 60s were engaged in vigorous debate among themselves and others as to the best course to take over a whole range of issues. Some criticized Rev. King for taking on the Vietnam War instead of focusing on civil rights.
As for the Danish company preferring to hire autistics, is has nothing to do with affirmative action. No one (well almost) advocates preventing companies from looking for employees with particular characteristics they think will be most beneficial. We’re talking about characteristics – gender, race, ethnicity, religion – that have nothing to do with the work companies need done by their employees.
Ok, let me get this straight…
So according to Rand Paul, it is “Unamerican” to hold Business accountable for the damages they do to others – and it is wrong for Government to regulate Business in any way – the “Market” will do all the regulating necessary, so legislating what can and cannot be done by Business and all oversight of same should be abolished?
So Rand Paul is fine with child pornography?
Believe me, I am no grammar police but that post was very hard to understand. But I can answer your last question and the answer is NO for the same reason he supports the right of a business to discriminate. Yon do not own a child even your children, your children own themselves so you watching child porn(even if u didnt make it) is akin to using a stolen VCR if though u did not steal it
Child porn is directly harms the child and hes obviously against that. Btw whats Jane Hamsher’s opinion on this whole situation? i would love to her her 2cents on this case
I think that it’s simple: RP played it right. He understands that a “yes” would sink him with the racist confederates. He’s running in KENTUCKY- mint juleps, tobacco, plantations, descendants of our proud ancestors’ slaves causing trouble. It was a non-whistle dog whistle and harms him with very few of those who might vote for him.
Ah – yet more baying from the uninformed but opinionated.
It’s really too bad that Scarecrow didn’t choose a video capture just a few seconds later in Maddow’s show – the one where the banner underneath the NAACP president read, “Spokesman: Paul supports govt. blocking businesses from discriminating”.
But I guess that would have undermined one of the main points s/he was trying to make.
Watching Maddow used to be fun and enlightening, but now it’s more an exercise in disgust. She has an agenda and doesn’t let the truth interfere with it – or with what she considers good theater.
A particularly egregious example of this came near the start on Thursday, when she made the unequivocal statement that “Dr. Paul said last night on our air that the Courier Journal never endorses Republican candidates. That is not true…” followed by a scrolling list of a few Republicans that paper had endorsed as direct and damning evidence of Paul’s prevarication.
The problem is, it was Rachel’s statement that was not true. On Wednesday night Paul said, “When the Courier Journal does not endorse a Republican that’s not something very unusual in our state. They typically don’t endorse Republicans…”
It wouldn’t be so bad if most of those here simply didn’t know what they were talking about and were just chiming in for the fun of it. But some people here have actually attempted to enlighten them and gotten summarily dismissed for their efforts.
That’s the kind of behavior I’d expect more at a Tea Party rally (at least according to the common stereotypes) – but I guess that Sturgeon’s Law applies as much to the self-professed left as it does to the farish right.