The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Rand Paul Round Robin

Posted on | May 20, 2010 | 17 Comments

Rather than continue extending my previous “Intellectual Terrorism” discussion of the Rand Paul civil-rights controversy, I’ll link some relevant stuff here. James Joyner at Outside the Beltway:

Doug Mataconis, Oliver Willis, and I were engaged in a brief Twitter back-and-forth on this one last night.  It’s a tougher question than it sounds, especially to a 20-something liberal.

Exactly so, given that most 20-somethings — liberal, conservative and otherwise — have been force-fed a distorted history of the civil-rights era.

The narrow question that Rand Paul was seeking to argue involves a libertarian critique of government intrusion into the private sector. From a libertarian perspective, it is wrong for government to require private-sector racial discrimination (as was the case under Jim Crow) and equally wrong for government to forbid private-sector racial discrimination (as in the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

Whatever your opinion in that specific context, it cannot be inferred from the libertarian argument that the person making that argument is an advocate of or apologist for racial discrimination.

An example I like to use when explaining this problem is the authentic Chinese restaurant. Owned by Chinese and staffed by Chinese, is this restaurant guilty of harmful “discrimination” because it does not employ Mexican cooks and Swedish waitresses? As absurd as this example may seem, yet it illustrates the fundamental logic of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has been used to claim, inter alia, that Hooters is guilty of discrimination because it employees only waitresses, and not male waiters.

Dave Weigel, who spent a lot of time covering the Paulistas when he was at libertarian Reason magazine, is devoting extensive space to the controversy:

I can’t decide whether Paul has benefited or been hurt by the change of focus from the original story — whether his opposition to basically any federal intervention in business practices meant he opposed the Americans With Disabilities Act, opposed FDA regulation of food, etc. Instead, this has become a fairly tired “is candidate a racist or isn’t he?” story — one that Paul thinks he can deflect.

There should be no need to “deflect” an accusation for which no evidence exists, and yet Paul seems almost to be following the George Allen “Apology Tour” roadmap, issuing a statement that Weigel quotes:

I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation.

This kind of response cedes the premise of the liberal argument, namely that racism and discrimination are so pervasive and harmful as to constitute a persistent danger to the commonweal, thus requiring that everyone of good faith join the crusade to “end all racism in American society.”

From this crusading “anti-racist” mentality stems the kind of Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton idiocy that treats the violent dope-dealing gang-banger as less harmful to the black community than the possibility that state troopers might engage in “profiling” to arrest drug traffickers. Which is worse, that a law-abiding black citizen might incur a greater statistical risk of being pulled over on the Jersey Turnpike, or that scores of black kids are gunned down every year on the streets of Newark?

Of course, I’m not running for Senate — a political campaign is not generally a good place to debate such difficult questions — but I hate to see any conservative yield rhetorical ground unnecessarily. Hell’s bells, to any student of de Maistre,  the concept of “inherent rights” is itself suspect. If Rand Paul doesn’t watch his step, he’ll lose Paul Gottfried.

UPDATE: Erick Erickson steps up to clarify the facts, and ends by emphasizing the most important fact:

By the way, Rand Paul is kicking the Democrat’s butt.

Funny how the Left plays the race card whenever Democrats are losing. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

UPDATE II: If Melissa Clouthier already finds this argument “freaking annoying,” just wait. Next, the MSM will start playing the game of asking every Republican whether they agree or disagree with Rand Paul, to make him a litmus test, so that anyone who refuses to condemn Paul will be accused of favoring the repeal of civil rights.

Note that this game is never played against Democrats. The MSM didn’t accuse every Democrat who praised Ted Kennedy of being in favor of drowning campaign aides.

UPDATE III: Ta-Nahesi Coates declares that Rand Paul “is too ignorant to be embarrassed.” Paul is an eye surgeon and his father is an obstetrician, but whenever racial politics is debated, you can be sure that the conservative will be accused of ignorance. 

Sic semper hoc. Liberals believe that their own politics implies both moral and intellectual superiority, and thus the opponents of liberalism are always stupid and evil. And they have repeated this so often for so long, some people actually believe it.

Andrew Sullivan is inspired to offer an extremely limited defense of Rand Paul, which is about as helpful as you might expect.

UPDATE IV: Donald Douglas weighs in with an arguable assertion: “No doubt, racial equality wasn’t going to happen without the force of federal power.”

Well, (a) we are still a hell of a long way from “racial equality,” as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be all too happy to inform you, and (b) there is reason to believe that the employment of federal power in this matter has actually harmed the cause of equality.

Thomas Sowell has noted that black Americans made more economic progress in the 25 years before the passage of the Civil Rights Act than they did in the 25 years after its passage. It would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to blame the Civil Rights Act for the world of miseries (e.g., the plague of drugs, crime, fatherlessness, unemployment and educational failure) that have afflicted black Americans since 1964. Nevertheless, we cannot say that federal civil-rights legislation proved to be a magical formula for Progress.

In this context, I’m reminded of my long-ago interview Marilyn Arrington, a leading educator in Atlanta who was in charge of the 1996 Olympic Youth Camp and who had been a SNCC activist during the sit-in era. When I asked her what went wrong in American race relations, Mrs. Arrington’s answer was memorable:

“It seems to me it was around 1965 or ‘66, when Stokely Carmichael and Rap Brown and that crowd came in,” she said, referring to militants who captured the leadership of SNCC. “They kicked the white people out of the movement and started talking about ‘black power’ — everything was ‘whitey this’ and ‘whitey that.’ … It was never the same after that.”

The politics of blame, of scapegoating white America, escalated dramatically in the aftermath of passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, so that by the time of his death in 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was rejected as too accommodationist by young radicals.

Revolutions have been going off the rails like this ever since Burke entered his famous criticism of the French Revolution. At the time of Burke’s Reflections, Danton was in the forefront of the Revolution. He subsequently supported the purge of the Girondists and advocated dictatorial power for the Committee of Public Safety. And Danton’s radicalism continued unti 1794, when he was sent to the guillotine by his fellow Jacobins, some of whom eventually followed him.

Likewise in Russia, the overthrow of the Czarist regime brought to power the provisional government of Kerensky, subsequently overthrown by the Bolsheviks. Trotsky, whose commanded the Red Army in the Russian civil war, was eventually purged and fled the Soviet Union, only to die at the hands of a Stalinist assassin. Quite nearly the entirety of the original Bolshevik leadership was ultimately executed during Stalin’s purges.

Should we then be surprised that the civil rights revolution went so quickly from “I have a dream” to “Black Power” and “burn, baby, burn”? Or should we be surprised that the self-appointed civil-rights leaders of 2010 are buffoons like Al Sharpton?

No, indeed. Nor is it surprising that any sincere attempt to answer the important question, “Where did we go wrong?” leads to angry accusations of racism. Those who have gained power by playing the race card will deny that we have “gone wrong” at all, even as they decry the problems of black America as evidence of racism — and the pernicious power of racism, of course, is an argument for yet more intervention in the name of civil rights.

Any reasonable, honest and well-informed person must eventually begin to question this pretzel logic. Yet as soon as you begin asking questions, you will be denounced as a racist. Ron Paul isn’t the only one caught in a Catch-22.

Category: Kentucky, Racism, Senate

Comments

17 Responses to “The Rand Paul Round Robin”

  1. David
    May 20th, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

    “Of course, I’m not running for Senate — a political campaign is not generally a good place to debate such difficult questions — but I hate to see any conservative yield rhetorical ground unnecessarily.”

    I disagree, a Senate campaign is the perfect place to hold this debate. Get it out in the open and let the voters hear Rand Paul’s words directly instead of through the MSM lens. It won’t take long for voters to understand the principle he is upholding – that once you let Big Government in the door, he can justify anything he damn well pleases.

  2. David
    May 20th, 2010 @ 2:39 pm

    “Of course, I’m not running for Senate — a political campaign is not generally a good place to debate such difficult questions — but I hate to see any conservative yield rhetorical ground unnecessarily.”

    I disagree, a Senate campaign is the perfect place to hold this debate. Get it out in the open and let the voters hear Rand Paul’s words directly instead of through the MSM lens. It won’t take long for voters to understand the principle he is upholding – that once you let Big Government in the door, he can justify anything he damn well pleases.

  3. Count Vikula
    May 20th, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

    I’m hearing all sorts of stupid stuff now from the campaign now that Jesse Benton (campaign spokesperson and former Ron Paul campaign communications director) is making statements. Oh lawd help us all.

    From what I can tell, Paul is not backing down on the principle itself, but he is trying to put some distance between himself and the that part of the CRA by saying the courts have ruled on it, so it is settled law.

    It always bums me out when a non-politician tries to play politics and looks dumb. I am chalking this up to inexperience when thrown quickly into the deep-fryer. Clearly his people know how to campaign, but that doesn’t mean they are not gonig to have some f***-ups.

  4. Count Vikula
    May 20th, 2010 @ 2:47 pm

    I’m hearing all sorts of stupid stuff now from the campaign now that Jesse Benton (campaign spokesperson and former Ron Paul campaign communications director) is making statements. Oh lawd help us all.

    From what I can tell, Paul is not backing down on the principle itself, but he is trying to put some distance between himself and the that part of the CRA by saying the courts have ruled on it, so it is settled law.

    It always bums me out when a non-politician tries to play politics and looks dumb. I am chalking this up to inexperience when thrown quickly into the deep-fryer. Clearly his people know how to campaign, but that doesn’t mean they are not gonig to have some f***-ups.

  5. Mary Rose
    May 20th, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

    Ta-Nahesi Coates’ piece was so poorly written that I couldn’t take any of his arguments seriously. So this guy has a job writing for The Atlantic? Really?

    As for Maddow, anyone who doesn’t bow to the gender and identity politics is immediately branded a stupid redneck. I ignore these idiots. They couldn’t carry a true intelligent debate even if it had handles. Dolts.

  6. Mary Rose
    May 20th, 2010 @ 3:43 pm

    Ta-Nahesi Coates’ piece was so poorly written that I couldn’t take any of his arguments seriously. So this guy has a job writing for The Atlantic? Really?

    As for Maddow, anyone who doesn’t bow to the gender and identity politics is immediately branded a stupid redneck. I ignore these idiots. They couldn’t carry a true intelligent debate even if it had handles. Dolts.

  7. datechguy
    May 20th, 2010 @ 8:57 pm

    I suspect Rand Paul is no racist and the people who associate with him would likely agree, however as an educated man he should be able to express the answer to this question clearly.

    If he does not, if he can’t put out a clear and direct answer promptly then he is a poor candidate. In fact not only will he be a poor candidate he will be a poor candidate who puts the entire republican party and the tea party movement in an impossible situation.

    If matters not one jot if it is fair or not, life isn’t fair, what matters is if he is going to make this his Dukakis moment or not.

    It doesn’t help conservatives much if he helps us win Kentucky and helps us lose a half a dozen others.

  8. datechguy
    May 20th, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

    I suspect Rand Paul is no racist and the people who associate with him would likely agree, however as an educated man he should be able to express the answer to this question clearly.

    If he does not, if he can’t put out a clear and direct answer promptly then he is a poor candidate. In fact not only will he be a poor candidate he will be a poor candidate who puts the entire republican party and the tea party movement in an impossible situation.

    If matters not one jot if it is fair or not, life isn’t fair, what matters is if he is going to make this his Dukakis moment or not.

    It doesn’t help conservatives much if he helps us win Kentucky and helps us lose a half a dozen others.

  9. young4eyes
    May 20th, 2010 @ 9:17 pm

    A big kudos to Stacy for the jejune attempts to equate the rights of some people to eat where they please with Hooters…Yeah. That’s really intelligent stuff there.
    Yes, of course. This is a Liberal problem. Certainly not the…curious attitudes of Conservatives as to the Civil Rights Act.
    And sure, Rand Paul’s mistake was speaking to Rachel Maddow in the first place. Not that his views are warped. No, it’s all a matter of principle. I mean, we all agree that thou shalt not kill. Yet we would all resort to “killing” should a family member be threatened or our homes invaded. That’s the funny thing about principles: they are not always absolute,are they?
    So why the verbal gameplay and sophistry? Perhaps to hide some antiquated attitudes as to race issues? Certainly in principle, Paul’s argument could extend to Women’s rights and the Suffragette movement. Yet that argument never comes up,does it? Why the commitment to principles as per Civil Rights but not Women’s rights, hmmm?
    Stacy makes a plea for Conservatives to set the terms of the debate regarding racism. Seeing as Conservatives have a funny way of defining racism, limiting it to cross burning or hangings, then I believe it is a win-win for our side. By all means, Cons–redefine what racism is for us. It’s a debate we would love to have.
    Yes, allowing African-Americans to vote or buy homes without fear of discrimination is an awful thing.In principle I guess, for tea-baggers and their ilk. Conservatives will never get it….

  10. young4eyes
    May 20th, 2010 @ 4:17 pm

    A big kudos to Stacy for the jejune attempts to equate the rights of some people to eat where they please with Hooters…Yeah. That’s really intelligent stuff there.
    Yes, of course. This is a Liberal problem. Certainly not the…curious attitudes of Conservatives as to the Civil Rights Act.
    And sure, Rand Paul’s mistake was speaking to Rachel Maddow in the first place. Not that his views are warped. No, it’s all a matter of principle. I mean, we all agree that thou shalt not kill. Yet we would all resort to “killing” should a family member be threatened or our homes invaded. That’s the funny thing about principles: they are not always absolute,are they?
    So why the verbal gameplay and sophistry? Perhaps to hide some antiquated attitudes as to race issues? Certainly in principle, Paul’s argument could extend to Women’s rights and the Suffragette movement. Yet that argument never comes up,does it? Why the commitment to principles as per Civil Rights but not Women’s rights, hmmm?
    Stacy makes a plea for Conservatives to set the terms of the debate regarding racism. Seeing as Conservatives have a funny way of defining racism, limiting it to cross burning or hangings, then I believe it is a win-win for our side. By all means, Cons–redefine what racism is for us. It’s a debate we would love to have.
    Yes, allowing African-Americans to vote or buy homes without fear of discrimination is an awful thing.In principle I guess, for tea-baggers and their ilk. Conservatives will never get it….

  11. young4eyes
    May 20th, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

    Speaking of Intellectual Terrorism, I missed these golden nuggets of convolution in the post:
    “it cannot be inferred from the libertarian argument that the person making that argument is an advocate of or apologist for racial discrimination.”
    On the contrary.It is not only an apology for racism but an all out defense of it. The argument wants to establish that discrimination is a free-speech issue for the business owner.A sure winner to the Tea Party crowd.
    “Owned by Chinese and staffed by Chinese, is this restaurant guilty of harmful “discrimination” because it does not employ Mexican cooks and Swedish waitresses?”
    Well Stacy, if you should so-like you can open a White “themed” restaurant chain all over the South and you can circumvent the issue,right? Are we confusing apples with oranges here or just playing to your monochrome crowd? Anyone with half brain can see through the disingenuous arguments you wish to make.But I guess all those half-brains are your bread and butter…

  12. young4eyes
    May 20th, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

    Speaking of Intellectual Terrorism, I missed these golden nuggets of convolution in the post:
    “it cannot be inferred from the libertarian argument that the person making that argument is an advocate of or apologist for racial discrimination.”
    On the contrary.It is not only an apology for racism but an all out defense of it. The argument wants to establish that discrimination is a free-speech issue for the business owner.A sure winner to the Tea Party crowd.
    “Owned by Chinese and staffed by Chinese, is this restaurant guilty of harmful “discrimination” because it does not employ Mexican cooks and Swedish waitresses?”
    Well Stacy, if you should so-like you can open a White “themed” restaurant chain all over the South and you can circumvent the issue,right? Are we confusing apples with oranges here or just playing to your monochrome crowd? Anyone with half brain can see through the disingenuous arguments you wish to make.But I guess all those half-brains are your bread and butter…

  13. More on Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act « A Conservative Shemale
    May 20th, 2010 @ 5:48 pm

    […] nails it, not only was Paul’s answer stupid, but it was historically incorrect, meanwhile the attempts to portray Paul’s answer as some sort of principled libertarian stand continue. It isn’t, it may be a libertarian […]

  14. RES
    May 21st, 2010 @ 4:54 am

    Although correcting young4eyes could easily threaten to become a full-time occupation it behooves to observe that we certainly DO NOT “all agree that thou shalt not kill.” The actual Biblical commandment is “Thou shalt not commit murder.” I trust that even young4eyes would acknowledge the distinction.

    As for Rand, I wish he had asked Maddow whether discrimination (whether by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity) is so horrible a thing as to justify government intrusion into any and all private acts? Having thus established what Maddow is, it would then be appropriate to haggle over her price.

  15. RES
    May 20th, 2010 @ 11:54 pm

    Although correcting young4eyes could easily threaten to become a full-time occupation it behooves to observe that we certainly DO NOT “all agree that thou shalt not kill.” The actual Biblical commandment is “Thou shalt not commit murder.” I trust that even young4eyes would acknowledge the distinction.

    As for Rand, I wish he had asked Maddow whether discrimination (whether by race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity) is so horrible a thing as to justify government intrusion into any and all private acts? Having thus established what Maddow is, it would then be appropriate to haggle over her price.

  16. RES
    May 21st, 2010 @ 5:04 am

    young4eyes poses the question whether “allowing African-Americans to vote or buy homes without fear of discrimination is an awful thing.”

    First thing, we cannot legislatively eliminate a subjective state such as fear, so the state is limited to affecting a reasonable fear. Second, the state is limited by the Civil Rights act to addressing only the fear of racial discrimination. The hypothetical black family might fear discrimination based upon ability to afford a house in an expensive neighborhood, but that fear, no matter how reasonable its basis, is beyond the authority of the Civil Rights Act. So the question of whether it is “an awful thing” depends upon the extent young4eyes wishes the government to intrude, just as the awfulness of an amputating a leg depends upon whether it is for a gangrenous knee or a bruised toe. Sadly, fanatics such as Maddow and young4eyes tend to view both as potentially harmful leg injuries.

  17. RES
    May 21st, 2010 @ 12:04 am

    young4eyes poses the question whether “allowing African-Americans to vote or buy homes without fear of discrimination is an awful thing.”

    First thing, we cannot legislatively eliminate a subjective state such as fear, so the state is limited to affecting a reasonable fear. Second, the state is limited by the Civil Rights act to addressing only the fear of racial discrimination. The hypothetical black family might fear discrimination based upon ability to afford a house in an expensive neighborhood, but that fear, no matter how reasonable its basis, is beyond the authority of the Civil Rights Act. So the question of whether it is “an awful thing” depends upon the extent young4eyes wishes the government to intrude, just as the awfulness of an amputating a leg depends upon whether it is for a gangrenous knee or a bruised toe. Sadly, fanatics such as Maddow and young4eyes tend to view both as potentially harmful leg injuries.