Tweet
Pictured: a mainstream Republican.
In the wake of Rand Paul’s comments about the 1964 Civil Rights Act and BP, I keep reading some variation of this — and it’s dead wrong.
It’s not surprising that there should be tension between Republican officials, who want to guide Mr. Paul closer to the center, and libertarians who have said Mr. Paul’s criticism of the Civil Rights Act is in line with the doctrine.
Please. Republicans have zero interest in guiding Randy “closer to the center.” They just want him to STFU, because he’s clearly articulated what they really think.
Randy’s reluctance to embrace the CRA stems from his sincere belief that government shouldn’t be able to regulate private businesses. This is news? No, it’s the central premise of the entire modern “government is the problem!” GOP.
I admit it. My first reaction to the Randy/CRA story was to point and laugh, along with everyone else. But let’s not forget: Tom DeLay got into politics because he was pissed that the gubmint could regulate his poisons.
Before he ran for public office, Tom DeLay was in the pesticide business. In that business, he came face-to-face with “big government interference,” when the Environmental Protection Agency told him that he could no longer sell or use such pesticides as DDT. This regulation, the result of many years and millions of dollars of government sponsored scientific research, benefited song birds, birds of prey, and oh yes, young children and other vulnerable critters. At the same time, this “big government decree” was a damned nuisance to the chemical industry and to pest controllers such as DeLay, who came to refer to the EPA as a “Gestapo.”.
What business is it of “big government” to tell Tom DeLay that he can’t poison his neighbors and the ecosystem, as he goes about his business of eliminating “pests”?
Conservatives hate the minimum wage. They hate affirmative action. They hate the Fair Pay Act. They hate cap and trade. They hate the SEC. They hate OSHA. They hate the EPA. They hate corporate taxes. They hate hate hate everything that inhibits businesses from doing whatever they want. It’s not the high-tax, big government 1950s they romanticize — it’s the 1920s, or even better — the 1890s.
But they usually don’t get quite so explicit about it. They know saying Wal-Mart should be able to pay its workers whatever they want won’t win elections, and they’ve gotten very good over the past three decades about keeping it a little more abstract, i.e., “we’ve got to keep government out of the way so that businesses can create jobs.”
Make no mistake, Randy is not being shunned by the GOP because they think his views are abhorrent — he’s being embraced. They’re just a little peeved because he went off script and got way too analytical and specific. In short, he represented their beliefs too accurately and too honestly.
Let’s stop pretending Randy’s “extreme libertarianism” is any different from the views of practically every Republican in Congress, shall we?
90 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Rand Paul is Just Saying Out Loud What Republicans
Have Believed for YearsHave Always Believed.He’s a regular Versailles Gaffe Machine — because, in DC, a gaffe is when someone tells the rubes the truth. And the GOP really can’t have its race-tolerant mask stripped away. Look, over there! Michael Steele! Shiny!
Thank you, BT, terrific post.
When Jim DeMint said he ‘needed to talk to Rand about his views,’ you are absolutely right: what he meant was ‘we will have a chat with him about how to speak in our code.’
They hate anything that inhibits their pursuit of $$’s!
Randy’s reluctance to embrace the CRA stems from his sincere belief that government shouldn’t be able to regulate private businesses.
True. But I’m confused. How does that make him a racist?
While it’s generally true that business can often create jobs it’s also true that big corporations with their influence “over” government tend to stifle competition. Once they put something on the market they do everything they can to stop the average entrepenuer from developing improvements. They also tend to end up stealing other people’s ideas.
Ms. McConnell must be having seizures and hissy fits all over the place. Poor old Rand – bless his heart (southern style).
I’ve seen a few headlines at a couple of the Kentucky papers: “State GOP to Rand: Please be Quiet” or “Paul feels the love from GOP”
He is a Republican of today, that’s for sure.
If Rand Paul can’t prove once and for all that Republican ideals are terrible for society, I’m not sure what can.
Conway and every other Democratic institution needs to hit him daily and very hard on all of this.
Independents and even Conservative Democrats should be left with no more wiggle room. They should be left feeling disgusted and abhorrent towards the views of the Republican Party.
There needs to be no blurred lines. The choice needs to be stark, frightening, and crystal clear.
Terrific read BT, thanks!
Outing Rand Paul, Ron Paul and the so called ‘libertarians’ for what they are is always a joy.
Now to stop them. AND their pale cousins in the GOP.
No one called him a racist.
But his view that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race enables racists.
If the lamestream media would quit with the gotcha questions, I’m sure Rand Paul would be just fine — Sarah Palin, happy to share the spotlight with another loon. Also.
I’ve tried really hard (honestly) to tease and parse out what the difference is between what is being identified these days as “Libertarian” and what is called “Republican.” Quite honestly, I don’t see any difference. It just seems a new cover for the same old book, which essentially is about how to rip people off in a zillion different ways.
The Meat Industry (or whatever official title they go by)got very good value from Republics at limiting the FDA’s ability to protect citizens from mad cow disease by regulating esp how ground meat products for fast food restaurants are produced – just one article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/health/05cow.html
Just like DDADeLay, Republics don’t give a crap about human life; they just want to make money fast & lots of it.
Citizens who whine about the evils of “govt intruding in our lives” are usually the first to pull the lever in the voting booth for politicians who will limit citizens’ rights in terms of abortion, gay marriage and the like. Yet these same voters happily and gleefully vote for pols like DeLay, who want to poison them in order to make money. Go figure.
I found Mr. Paul quite fascinating, and I honestly thank him for his bold honesty and willingness to go on RM’s show. It was simply GREAT to have a real look at “the man behind the curtain” and refreshing to have Mr. Paul speak with the honesty that he did. I don’t agree with him in the slightest, but I salute his brief burst of honesty on the public stage. Kudos! Wish there was more where that came from.
Yep, Mr. Paul, like Sister Sarah, has been yanked off the main stage so that he can get a little edumacating from the big boyz about how to tawk to the newzies. We won’t see that much honesty again, until the next newbie gets elected somewhere.
I certainly don’t expect any Demorat anywhere to “take advantage” of this golden opportunity, more’s the pity. They are in collusion and none of them want us serfs to see the real “man behind the curtain” either. So my expectation is that Dems, with the possibly exception of Conway in KY, will gloss this over, nervously laughing, and go back to the business as usual of colluding with the corporations to rip off citizens.
Interesting, though.
No, we shall not.
“Here’s Maddow, brandishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as though this is the only matter worth considering in the forthcoming race between Rand Paul and the Democrat, an awful neo-liberal prosecutor, Kentucky’s current attorney general, Jack “I’m a Tough Son-of-a-Bitch” Conway. Between Conway and Paul, which one in the U.S. Senate would more likely be a wild card – which is the best we can hope for these days – likely to filibuster against a bankers’ bailout, against reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, against suppression of the CIA’s full torture history? Paul, one would have to bet, and these are the votes that count, where one uncompromising stand by an outsider can make a difference, unlike the gyrations and last-ditch sell-outs of Blowhard Bernie Sanders. Liberals love grandstanding about what are, in practice, distractions. You think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to come up for review in the U.S. Senate?”
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn05212010.html
to say nothing of a committed anti war stance that would cut the Pentagon budget in half…
If you think Jack Conway is going to have any problems campaigning, rest easy and watch this.
You’ll note a) I never called him a racist; and b) I’ve written previously saying it was pointless to call him a racist.
Only Rand Paul knows if he’s a racist.
Wait ’til I get through with this asshat and the whole “libertarian” schtick.
http://randpaulooza.blogspot.com/
Look, who the heck cares if Rand Paul is a racist in his heart? I sure don’t. I care that he supports policies which are bound to enable racists to do their racist thing. That is what Paul supports: he thinks businesses should be free to be racist pigs. I flatly disagree.
Beliefs don’t matter as long as they stay in your heart, and are not put into action. Paul wants to put racism at the core of the nation, free as a bird to be its ugly self.
It is hard to imagine how a non-racist could hold these views that so easily enable racists to discriminate, but I too take Rand Paul at his word that he’s not a racist. No one can know except mindreaders.
But enabling racism throughout private organizations, even if one never patronizes or belongs to them, is not the path a completely non-racist person would take, is it? I mean, part of being a non-racist, for me — or aspiring to be one, at least — is ensuring I do nothing to enable or permit racism or racist speech and actions in my community.
So how could a non-racist possibly hold views like Dr Rand Paul’s? We can’t know his mind, but we can ascribe from his actions. He’s certainly not a non-racist, not in the way I define non-racist for myself and those around me.
Before you get all cocky, remember Strom Thurmond started out as a Democrat.
Joe Biden: QUOTE: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy… I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Harry Truman: QUOTE: “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.” [In a letter to his wife in 1911]
It isn’t just a Republican problem.
Isn’t there a rub with constitutionalists vs. NAFTA? And isn’t this also a wedge between the Chamber of Commerce and the anti-immigrant types?
Yes, exactly. That was my immediate reaction. His beg-offs are a Red Herring. You don’t get elected to then advance your own views, properly. You are elected to represent the views of your constituency.
I have zero worries about Jack Conway. Based on what I’ve read and heard, I would love to have a caucus full of Jack Conways.
I am just saying that everyone on the “sane” side of the aisle needs to be hitting Rand Paul for this. Needs to be asking every single Republican what they think of Rand Paul and his views.
It needs to go on the public record and the entire country needs to know what the views of these people really are.
OK, hypothetical. What if there were no minorities in the US and just classes? Because to me, Paulism/Republicanism more about class than race. It’s about protecting the interests of the powerful.
I freely admit that classism in this country leads to racist outcomes (see Reaganism) — I just don’t see the value in ascribing the word “racist” to someone unless they tell you they’re a racist.
Yeah, a ninety-nine year old letter sure indicts the Democratic president who ordered the armed services racially integrated 47 years later! You got us.
Yeah, when Democrats in the South were often more conservative than Republicans elsewhere.
Times have changed, and the Strom Thurmonds are all Republicans. That’s because the Democratic Party pushed through Civil Rights, and all the Stroms jumped ship.
I’m so disheartened by the scoundrels in the Democratic party that I haven’t thought much about the other side. We have Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh and corporate asses of the like; not to mention the goings on in the White House. With the rightward veer of both political parties, the last sane Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, would not be welcome in either party today.
The worst is yet to come as our electorate is so goddamn stupid that a majority cannot even name the three branches of government.
I have to disagree.
They actually write it down.
Oh, I agree that no one can no another’s mind without direct testimony.
I’m only saying that his actions — enabling the racism of others — surely exclude him from my personal definition of how a non-racist person acts. While I cannot say that he is a racist, I can testify from observation of the outcomes of his views (and actions, were he permitted to implement his views) that he is no non-racist.
Because non-racism is not an internal view like racism, it is an externally exhibited behavior, speech, and action. One can be both a racist (internal views) and a non-racist (external actions) as perhaps some of our great leaders were due to their upbringing.
But Rand Paul is not among them. His external views (and actions) are not those of a non-racist.
And before anyone gets all cocky, let’s also remember that St Ronnie started out as a New Deal Democrat too!
Right. The New Deal kept food on the Reagans’ table. Then he became a typical “screw you I got mine” wingnut.
Heh.
Blue Texan,
You mentioned DDT. While the US and Europe used it to eliminated malaria and typhus in the US and Europe, the worldwide ban has condemned millions of people in Africa to sickness and death from malaria.
“The ban on DDT,” says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, “may have killed 20 million children.”
Fortunately the the WHO has changed it’s policy to some extent.
When the government and Congress act, it affects the lives of millions of people. In the case of DDT it caused the deaths of miilions of children. Usually Congress acts to give special favors to corporate-statist type institutions and to create new cartels like the new “health care industry cartel, the Federal reserve cartel, the FDA big Pharma cartel, etc.
Basically most politicians, both GOP and Democrats, think up new way to rob the poor and middle class. Not that it has to be that way, just that it has always been that way throughout US history.
The view that libertarians have is that each individual owns his/her own body, i.e. his/her own private property, and each own what the work for.
This youtube film from 1975 has some interesting discussions:
The Incredible Bread Machine Film, color version
This longer B/W version has an interview with Milton Friedman after the film:
The Incredible Bread Machine Film, longer b/w with interview
P.S. If nothing else it’s interesting to see how people thought in 1975. Not much different than now.
“If Rand Paul hadn’t been so preoccupied with winding up for what he plainly thought was his knock-out punch, concerning Maddow’s posture on the right to bear arms in every restaurant in America from Joe’s Diner to Le Cirque, he could have turned the tables easily enough, just by saying that this ritual flourishing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t have too much to do with what has happened to blacks since that glorious day, from an appalling school system, to blighted housing, constricted employment possibilities, shriveled share of the national income and most recently the greatest transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators, given free rein by Democrats and Republicans.”
-ALEXANDER COCKBURN
onitgoes,
See this film for what it means:
This youtube film from 1975 has some interesting discussions:
The Incredible Bread Machine Film, color version
This longer B/W version has an interview with Milton Friedman after the film:
The Incredible Bread Machine Film, longer b/w with interview
You beat me to it, but it was only 40 years later; 47 years would put it about into Ike’s second term. At the point that he did that, Truman realized that his own views were no longer the way for the nation to be. It was greater for him to do that than if he had been an abolitionist.
As far as the southern Democrats go, they were only Democrats because they were opposed to the Republicans. As the Republicans became the party of big business and the Democrats under FDR became more liberal, the southern Dems became the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats couldn’t appeal widely, but the Repubs opened their arms and the Dixiecrats responded. Now both parties are totally corrupted by the $$$ of big business and, thanks to the SCOTUS, we will now have the Senator from Halliburton, etc.
In the Civil Rights Act, it is simply a case of privately owned businesses who do business with the public not being able to discriminate. These businesses can reject people for “no shirt, no shoes,” but not simply because they are a different color. Demanding the right to be able to eat at any lunch counter or shop in any store does not necessarily mean that the person protesting wants to or will once the right is recognized; it is simply getting the right recognized.
Gee! Do we realize what this Country would be like if Randy and those like Him made the rules.
People other than whites wouldn’t stand a chance, and workers would be at mercy of their employers.
Business’s could just make their own rules and do as they pleased. Not just on who they served, but who and what they charged different prices to.
Throw out the rules the rules, and the Wild West would be tame.
Yes we would again have people chasing people out of their business’s with guns.
Duh, What do you think the FDA is there for? To help the people? Yeah right.
I know that sounds cynical but how long and how many people did they let die before they removed Vioxx from the market?
The FDA is there to help it’s cartel just like the other cartel agencies.
I’m not up on this topic, but a number of pups (plus folks like Matt Taibbi) are saying it’s the next thievery bubble. So, while righties are against any restrictions at all, there ought to be better solutions than CnT.
Maybe he’s not a racist. But that’s sort of like saying, “He doesn’t believe in violence! (but he’s not going to protest if some guy walks up and blows your head off with a .44 Magnum.)”
And @fuckno @14, I don’t understand the logic that would support a guy who makes noise about being anti-bailout, etc., but who is GUARANTEED to turn right around and fight for the rights of corporations to do whatever they want, however they want and to whomever they want. I see no difference in the end result.
Isn’t it amazing the way “Maionstream” journalist keep saying “He’s not realy a racist.”
HE IS A RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And he doesn’t care much for people with disabilities.
Just wait till the revisionist get a hold of that narrative…
We need to start calling quotes such as:
what they really are: dog-whistle politics to oligarchs.
My apologies Texan. I am in agreement with your post. I was baiting those who are calling white racism on Paul based on his view of the Civil Rights Act.
And he wouldn’t mind seeing Medicare bite the dust – except in the case of payments to doctors.
I wonder why?
Book Salon a couple of flights upstairs with Malcolm Nance’s An End to al-Qaeda: Destroying Bin Laden’s Jihad and Restoring America’s Honor hosted by Matt Duss
Wow, the chattering incompetents are at it yet again. Since I got criticized for being late to the party before, I’ll make sure to jump right in this time.
“Randy’s reluctance to embrace the CRA stems from his sincere belief that government shouldn’t be able to regulate private businesses.” That’s a good start: if you’re going to make an assertion, accompany it with a credible reference. Because he sure as hell didn’t say ANYTHING LIKE THAT on Maddow.
What he said was that he had issues with the specific provisions of Title 2 (and ONLY Title 2) of the Civil Rights Act – specifically, that THIS PARTICULAR infringement on private business bothered him and that he would have tried to ‘tweak’ it had he been present when the Act was drafted. Not completely eliminate Title 2, just attempt to change its wording to achieve the same goals without such complete infringement of the business owner’s rights in the process (you know, kind of like Roe v. Wade tweaked the concept of murder to balance the rights of the woman with the rights of the fetus, rather than come down hard on either side of the issue).
So you’ll have to look elsewhere to find a statement by Paul that demonstrates “his sincere belief that government shouldn’t be able to regulate private businesses”. C’mon – if it’s THAT clear-cut, it should be easy.
“I admit it. My first reaction to the Randy/CRA story was to point and laugh, along with everyone else.” Isn’t group-think wonderful? Welcome to the Tea Party world of politics: no need for actual thought, just a big group hug at someone else’s expense. And by all means don’t pay any attention to anyone who tries to interfere with your little party by bring inconvenient facts to it (fuckno got the expected response above).
As for racism, do you consider anyone who supports the First Amendment to be racist? Because that allows (as validated by the courts) exactly the kind of ‘hate speech’ which is the vocal equivalent of the kind of discrimination that you’re blaming Paul for worrying about being curtailed. Exactly why is it considered reasonable to defend the right to voice even abominable sentiments (as long as they don’t actually threaten public safety) but completely unacceptable to defend the right to make similarly abominable business decisions (as long as they don’t threaten public safety)? Exactly why is someone a stalwart liberal for defending the right to speak even obnoxious sentiments but excoriated as a racist (or at least a racist-enabler) for suggesting that something similar may apply to business owners operating their private businesses and therefore be worthy of consideration when drafting legislation?
Paul has even stated that he DOES support Title 2 as legitimate legislation which should be honored: he simply would have tried to achieve a better balance had he been present when it was written.
If you don’t appreciate having your party rained on, by all means try to refute what I’ve said (while you’re at it, you might also consider refuting fuckno’s observations: they’re quite relevant as well). But do be SPECIFIC, and do include specific (VERBATIM) references: that’s how actual debate works, if you’re up to it.
It’s all about the Southern Strategy. The GOP stopped being the Party of Lincoln before I was born, and I have gray hairs on my head.
, blue texan at 24.
The current bankruptcies include all races and a non-discriminatory spread of lower to middle incomes.
Still waiting for you to actually anything BT wrote about or linked to. You know, like this:
Speaking of Michael Steele, he got in trouble with his fellow Republicans recently for openly admitting that the Southern Strategy, far from being something that was born and died with Richard Nixon, has been part of the GOP playbook for the past four decades:
Those defenders include Michael Zak, Bruce Bartlett and various personages over at RedState.org.
As Lee Atwater said back in 1981 when describing the implementation of the Southern Strategy:
And that is that.
Now remember, the leaders of the biggest TP group, Tea Party Nation — they’re the ones with the big media blitz and the buses and Sarah Palin speaking for them — have set down as part of the group’s rules that Tea Party candidates must agree to uphold the Republican Party platform or forego funding. So when we’re talking Tea Partiers, we’re really talking about the very heart of the Republican base.
I still think it’s a lack of understanding of the mission statement of the nation: “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”.
Do we finally need to clarify “all men” as meaning “all mankind” or all Human Beings?
Further discrimination by holding as separate women, people of color, or transgendered seems time-consuming and counter-productive.
“Still waiting for you to actually anything BT wrote about or linked to.”
If the word you omitted above was ‘refute’, then I guess your reading skills need a lot of work.
I’ve refuted several of the statements BT has made in his 3 or 4 previous incompetent posts on this topic – perhaps you missed those. He’s said less about Paul this time, but I did challenge him to substantiate one specific assertion above (since nothing remotely like it was said on Maddow, where he appears to have gotten his earlier misconceptions).
My own disgust with most of the contributors here arises from their persistent braying about things they claim Paul said on Maddow’s show which a revisiting those shows on Maddow’s blog proves that he in fact did NOT say. I’ve refrained from comment on anything for which any other source was claimed, since before last Thursday I knew nothing about Paul and since then have only been working with the material that Maddow provided (as, to most appearances, most others here have as well – just not very accurately).
Since you seem interested, why don’t YOU attempt to come up with a verbatim reference indicating Paul’s “sincere belief that government shouldn’t be able to regulate private businesses” (note the general quality of this assertion: just coming up with some SPECIFIC area where he may believe this won’t cut it, since even a staunch liberal could doubtless have doubts in SOME cases). If he really does believe this generally, how hard can it be? While I don’t know what he believes in this area, it would surprise me a bit if that general statement were true – and given the quality of commentary here I’m certainly not going to take it on faith.
And if we were still using it as it was being used before it was banned, we have killed off a lot of birds and insects and be regretting it now.
Wholesale poisoning of the environment is not the answer.
Go [Edited by Moderator], please.
You’re talking to people who have been following this crap for years – literally.
The regulatory agencies may have been co-opted by the businesses, but that wasn’t always true, and if you think we’d be better off without them, go read about the way it was in ‘the good old days’. Meat that was literally rotting, food additives that were actively harmful (not merely ‘limit your intake’ like HFCS), machines with no safety features so people were killed or injured at work, 12 hour days (if you were lucky, only 10 hours), no minimum wage, no minimum work age, no retirement age, no licensing of doctors and dentists … and guys like Paul think it would be great to go back to that.
You’re clearly confused about that mission statement. Leaving aside the fact that it absolutely did NOT reflect complete inclusion at the time it was written (slaves? nah. women? nah. Indians? I don’t think so. probably others as well), even in our more enlightened times it refers to how people are treated by GOVERNMENT, while reserving the rights of individuals to decide how they choose to treat others (save in cases where public safety is actually threatened).
That, for example, is precisely what the First Amendment makes clear in the realm of speech: no matter how odious, save where public safety is threatened even the nastiest speech is protected as a right. While some countries are more politically correct in this area than ours is, the courts have affirmed that right as near-absolute here – precisely because it is so clearly defined.
Property rights aren’t as clearly defined, but are in many ways similar (and similarly treated). While the Constitution does (IMO) provide considerable latitude in that area for legislation, debate over exactly what balance between individual rights and the common good is appropriate is entirely legitimate and not a Constitutional issue (at least until such time as an amendment is passed that makes it one). You could suggest that even established law is not a suitable subject for discussion, but that’s definitely a double-edged sword to apply in any general sense.
Paul’s concern is about the fact that Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act reflects not a balance between individual rights and that common good but complete rejection of individual rights in favor of the common good in that specific area. He supports it as established and Constitutionally-legitimate law, but not without questioning whether a better balance could have been created that would still have achieved the Act’s goals. One need not even agree with the need for such questioning to be able to respect its legitimacy in principle.
Then they should have no problem at all coming up with specific citations to support their specific assertions, right?
Unless, of course, they’ve been following it incompetently.
more longwinded [Edited by moderator. Do not insult other commenters].
Say what you mean, but if you want to write a fucking essay, write it on your own post.
Late to the post, so this may be redundant. Libertarians have usually supported decriminalization of drug use and a woman’s right to choose and abortion.
Yes, the Southern Democrats were always more closely allied philosophically with the Republicans. That is why the “Southern strategy” worked so well.
No they don’t. Rand definitely doesn’t – he’s a garden variety con.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html
BF, I don’t get it. How could RP have been more clear that he believes private business have the right to discriminate. If he believes it is wrong for the government to pass laws prohibiting discrimination by private business, than he necessarily believes such discrimination is permissible. Logic 101.
Interesting, as when I was first seduced by Libertarianism, they clearly supported decriminalizing drug use and supported abortion rights. If, philosophically, they have abandoned that, you are correct they are nothing more than conservatives.
Note: It did not take me long to figure out that libertarian ideas only work in non-corporate states/nations.
You don’t have to use it in that large of an amount. Besides
“The ban on DDT,” says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, “may have killed 20 million children.”
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature1/text4.html
That’s 20 million children that died cause of the ban!
That’s an example of how the actions of governments and politicians have caused the deaths of millions of children.
Maybe you should enlighten me by pointing to a link that shows government regulatory agencies, otherwise known as “government enforced industry cartels”, weren’t always that way.
I don’t think agencies are corrupted after they are created. They are created for that purpose, to enforce the cartels.
Where have you read or heard him express that view?
Hmmm – for some reason (perhaps it’s the edits which you’ve just suffered) I don’t think that you’re in any position to dictate that.
The proper place to confront falsehoods is where they occur. And since there are so many here, it does require some detail to confront them properly.
If you don’t like that, you’re of course free to read something else.
false equivalence. cobbling an innocuous Biden quote with a 60-year-old Truman quote hardly reveals a present-day “problem.” Thurmond left for the GOP because Southern Democrats had by the ’60s become a de facto third party. The GOP welcomed the racists as part of the Southern Strategy. It’s how the GOP rolls, now, today, and it is not how the Democratic Party rolls at all.
And they typically mealymouth their libertarianism when it comes to seeking public office as Republicans or in endorsing anti-libertarian stances of the Republican Party. I refer to any op-ed page of the Libertarian-owned (until the bankruptcy) Orange County Register. Any op-ed page, any day of any week of any year. Libertarians care about one thing: money.
This is one of the sad things about modern Republicans.
It USED to be that the Republicans were the party of civil rights, and the Democrats generally AGAINST. This is when the Republicans were a Northern based party.
In the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as a matter of example, New Jersey’s entire Congressional delegation–both Republican and Democrat–voted in favor. It was not considered unusual, but I tend to wonder if the same vote taken today would produce a similar 13-0 or 15-0 result.
Labels are the biggest impediment to understanding.
“Libertarian” as used by modern pols is a bastard combination of two philosophical views of morality that were polar opposites for hundreds of years. As with most modern labels used in the political realm, “libertarian” has been distorted into something very different from its original meaning.
For everyone here who reflexively starts foaming at the mouth whenever you see the word, I heartily recommend reading the seminal essay on the subject, On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. It can be read in less than two hours, and I daresay that very few of the regulars here will find anything objectionable in it.
Back then my parents and their families were staunch Republicans, but I wasn’t old enough to vote until 1968 (after Goldwater had dragged the party so far to the right) and thus have always been a Democrat (though haven’t been a satisfied Democrat since 2003).
Massachusetts Republicans actually maintained that principled behavior well into the ’70s (I was particularly proud of Elliot Richardson’s resignation when ordered to fire Archibald Cox during the Watergate ruckus).
Good post!
And your proof is?
Meanwhile, I think we can see how much the Cons fear the exposure of the fact that the Tea Party Nation exists to herd Republican base voters back into the GOP fold (and the fact that Rand Paul’s views are those of the GOP base) by the fact that this thread’s been targeted for oh-so-friendly visits by glibertarians.
If you believe that there business owners should be able to bar customers because of their race alone, isn’t that literally being a ‘racist-enabler’? And how is that similar to tolerating offensive speech? Speech can be rejected, ignored, or rebutted by the offended listener with no enforceable penalty attached.
If I try to go into your store and I’m turned away as a matter of law because I’m Black, I can’t reject the action once it’s happened without the owner calling the cops and me possibly getting my head busted open (it’s actually happened to Black people! Go figure!). I can attempt to rebut or ignore it by boycotting that store or entreating others not to shop there, it’s very true. But honestly, these are battles that have been addressed after much deliberation, suffering and literal bloodshed and I don’t see the dissatisfaction with this part of the CRA as trivial or a distraction. It’s another dogwhistle to those who want to turn back the clock.
I think most people understand exactly what’s at the heart of this type of thinking and aren’t fooled by the argument that this is a ‘principled’ stance.
They’d bring Slavery back if they thought they’d be able to get away with it.
Rand Paul advocates a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion – even in cases of rape or incest. How in the world does he square that with his “Get the government out of our lives,” mantra?
While Republicans do seem to have many common traits, the inability to experience cognitive dissonance seems to be a core requirement.
Modern slavery is post-racial, and the megacorporations are in the process of implementing it, and are probably ahead of schedule in their efforts.
Banning abortion is not a true libertarian position.
Then you think wrong. Thinking whatever you care to think is your right, but claims about about the motivations of others are nothing more than unfounded opinions (unless you can find statements on their part to support them).
By contrast, I KNOW what my own motivations are, so can certainly understand why Paul’s may be similar (even though I can’t claim to KNOW them).
You obviously still can’t wrap your mind around the idea that offensive speech and offensive conduct have significant similarities. They can even both cross the line into areas that DO threaten public safety and hence clearly merit regulation – but equally they can fall on the other side of that line. The main difference between them is that the Constitution protects one very explicitly and not the other – but it in no way suggests that reprehensible behavior in business that does NOT threaten public safety SHOULD be regulated, it just leaves that up to the legislature.
I could (though do not) legally denigrate someone because of their race with impunity due to the First Amendment: do you support that right even though you would find its exercise repugnant? I suspect (without being familiar with the law in this area) that I could (though do not) legally refuse entry to my home to someone with impunity due to their race (to give you an example that is NOT so explicitly protected), with no ability for that person to “reject the action once it’s happened without the owner calling the cops and me possibly getting my head busted open”: do you support that right, even if you would find its exercise repugnant? Why is it such a stretch to consider the possibility that refusing entry into a privately-owned business property (which could even double as residential property) solely on the basis of race might be worthy of similar protection?
That, as best I understand it, is Paul’s point: that HAD HE BEEN PRESENT while Title 2 of the CRA was being written he would have tried to discuss less draconian alternatives to removing such an individual right ENTIRELY, in an attempt to balance the right of the individual owning the business to behavior (even reprehensible behavior) that did not threaten public safety with the needs of society. Because that’s what we DO in a mixed-capitalist system: balance individual freedom with social needs rather than let one or the other dominate (I suspect that those extremes may be anarchy and communism, but I’m by no means an expert in such designations).
As far as I know (certainly there’s been no evidence here to the contrary), Paul has no interest in ‘turning back the clock’ in this area – he’s just been forthright about his reservations about this particular choice of ‘balance’ (or lack thereof), while vigorously supporting all the other provisions in the CRA and even supporting THIS provision as legal and established. Are there no existing laws that YOU disagree with in some detail, even while accepting their legitimacy?
What I see here is political correctness run amuck, without regard (and in many cases directly contrary) to what Paul has actually said (at least in the context of Maddow’s two shows – I literally know nothing else about him save that he’s Ron Paul’s son, and know very little about Ron). I’d have hoped for better here.
A few understand. Details are hard lol.
Indeed – just checked on both him and his father in this regard. I would not have guessed this about people who profess to be a libertarians, but then it’s been a long time since I knew what libertarian stances nominally were.
Thanks for contributing actual substance to this discussion rather than simply regurgitating false impressions. It’s about time I found something to learn in these threads, even if it concerns a politician in whom I’m not particularly interested.
Well, actually I have read On Liberty, and it is in my bookcase. In a mostly agrarian society, where it was possible to boycott one of the two local merchandizers, it made a lot of sense. In the age of corporations it makes no sense at all.
An anecdote that is relevant here. About 1967 I was privy to a conversation at the tennis court of Prairie Dunes country club by the wives of Ace and Dick Dillon, who were the principles in Dillon’s food stores (parent company now Kroger). They were talking about how stupid their respective husbands were being in changing the produce department such that all the produce would be on trays and covered with plastic wrap. Apparently the marketing department thought that was a good idea. I remember Betty saying “women want to be able to pick-up and feel the tomatoes.” Now, if CEOs are unwilling to listen to their wives on relevant issues, what real chance does the consumer have?
a true capitalist
americans love capitalism
now they have it lock stock and barrel
now they whine
even the progressives love capitalism.
it must self destruct
but not before it gives americans third world status.
reagan economics gave to americans the trickle down theory and they lined up to vote for it. gotcha good didnt they.
Your comment doesn’t make sense. You first sentence would imply cognitive dissonance.
Typical glibertarian: Someone beats you in an argument and your response is to pretend it never happened.
I find the argument presented in your last para to be very much less than compelling.
I would point out, however, that On Liberty was not intended as a prescription for an economic system, but rather as a philosophical analysis of the nature of personal human freedom.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/LL/wfl1.html
LILY-WHITE MOVEMENT. The “lily-white” movement began within the Republican party after the Civil War. From the first days of Reconstruction, a fight developed not only in Texas but across the South between white and black factions for control of the newly formed party. As white GOP leaders sought “respectability” among Southern voters and a conviction grew that continued “black and tan” involvement thwarted expansion of the party, the lily-white Republicans began an organized effort to drive blacks from positions of party leadership. Though Texas blacks appealed to Northern party managers to halt the movement, lily-whiteism flourished because Republican presidents after 1865 wanted approval from the Southern white masses. The term lily-white apparently originated at the 1888 Republican state convention in Fort Worth, when a group of whites attempted to expel a number of black and tan delegates. Norris Wright Cuney, the black Texas leader who controlled the state party from 1883 until his death in 1896, promptly labeled the insurgents “lily-whites,” and the term was soon applied to similar groups throughout the South.
Thanks, P!
Oh, and for all those who wonder if Rand Paul’s message isn’t tailored to appeal to bigots: Stormfront’s a proud supporter of his.