Are Ron & Rand Paul Racists?
Does saying that they would have voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act had they had the opportunity make the libertarian father-son tandem of Ron and Rand Paul racists?
Before I offer my answer to that provocative question, let’s note that except for more overt examples like denying blacks the right to vote or refusing Latinos service at a pancake house, racism is very much in the eyes of the beholder. That, more than any other reason, is why charges of racism are thrown around with such abandon.
One more divergence: Is Rush Limbaugh a racist or an entertainer who blows big smoke by making racial references? In this case, racism is in the eyes of the beholder.
And another: Is opposing health-care legislation that levels the playing field for the poor, including minorities, and affords them pretty much the same access to care as the rich an act of racism? Again, racism is in the eyes of the beholder.
The Pauls have stressed that voting against the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with the law’s intention, which was to end institutionalized discrimination, and they hasten to add that they never would have voted to continue the Jim Crow laws that the act was designed to quash.
Their opposition is based on their assertion that the law imposes unfair rules on private business owners. They acknowledge a consequence of that view is that, as distasteful as it may be, these owners would be free to discriminate if they wish.
So in this instance are the Pauls racist? No, but to say that their libertarian priorities are screwed up is something of an understatement.
64 Responses to “Are Ron & Rand Paul Racists?”
I don’t think Ron or Rand Paul are racist, nor is it really germane since neither of them are campaigning on overturning civil rights laws. Unfortunately what we have here is a lot of media hysteria creating controversy on a hot-button topic. I for one am glad that we live in a country that can elect a black president.
In the case of Ron Paul, he is campaigning on ending the wars immediately, bringing home the troops and saving enough money by cutting spending on the militarism abroad so that we can take care of people here at home. He has also promoted ending the Drug War and pardoning all non-violent drug offenders, which would be disproportionately helpful to minority communities. I think that these are sensible policies and much more relevant than his views on a 50+ year old law.
Is your job perfect? Economical job placement assistance. http://www.jobwaltz.com
Somehow, Ron Paul’s hate of the drug war, because it has been harder on African-Americans than any other group, seems to have been missed. That seems to be a bigger problem right now, but not one that gets a lot of press. Maybe that’s because it would show many Democrats support effectively racists policies than Paul.
Prof, now this is just intellectually dishonest, in a number of ways.
First, the whole argument here is whether or not ideological purity is the goal, or racial issues is the goal. Most who like Paul are giving Paul the beneifit of the doubt, saying that his goal is the most freedom — ideological purity toward objectivism or libertarianism — despite the fact that repeal of the Civil Rights Act (or if it had never been enacted) would be absolutely disasterous for people of color in this country. You don’t now get to turn around and say that he supports the repeal of drug laws because he <3′s the black people. If we were going for the goal of helping black people, he would support the Civil Rights Act. (note that the argument does not work the other way around, necessarily).
Furthermore, in what world is the ability to take part in the basic activity of interacting with the businesses in a community less of a “big deal” than the drug war? You’ll get no argument from that the war on drugs is rooted in anything other than stupidity and racism, and of course it’s a huge, huge problem in communities of color. However, the right to go into a store and buy what you need, or to access the services you want, is so basic that maybe you have forgotten what it means to be denied such a right.
And beyond that, sorry Prof, but while the Democrats have certainly done their best to be “tough on crime” and all, the whole War on Drugs thing is pretty standard right-wing fare. It’s a Reagan thing, if you recall, and the majority of those who support the repeal of the drug laws are on the far left, not on the right. So I’d suggest you just go back and re-evaluate your last sentence there.
Rudi — as I explained …
Roro — you probably are misunderstanding given all the false things you have been saying. I don’t believe you made it all up. As for emotionalism concerns, again I’m limited to speculation.
Prof: Part of the problem is that libs and Dems (including the media) believe that they “own” certain issues or positions on issues — and of course, that they “own” certain special-interest and demographic, shall we say (ahem), groups.
I know you are limited in that respect, DLS. I wish you would trust others on such subjects.
As for my “false things”, I guess I appreciate that you don’t think I’m making it up, but it would also do you well to look into what I’m saying. You might find that not only am I not making things up, but I actually occasionally know what I’m talking about, at least as much as one of the dreaded lefties can know anything at all.
I wrote the following yesterday but decided not to post it BUT since DLS continues to pretend that he explained anything regarding his remark on rudi’s comment I can’t let it go…
- – - – - – - unposted comment from yesterday – - – - – - -
Here is how DLS actually “replied and explained satisfactorily what [he] found wrong with what Rudi wrote.”
No need to bother with the DLS’s silly link… it will take you to a picture of an ocean freighter lying on it’s side.
* * * * *
What DLS actually did in his comment was to accuse Rudi (and “other liberals”) of being ignorant and vicious… And then he attacked TMV for being a “farther-left site.”
Now it certainly is too bad that DLS feels he’s been put in a box he doesn’t think he belongs in BUT he doesn’t hesitate for a monent to put others in hateful boxes… Actually he does it in nearly every comment he posts.
“ignorant viciousness by Rudi, like that of other liberals” and other personal attacks are DLS’s M.O. but for some reason he sees it differently when mildly rebutted and he expects apologies.
Good god DLS, your tap dancing looks (& sounds) like glossolalia.
No, roro80, I’m coming from a completely different angle altogether. You’re talking about motivations and philosophy, I’m talking rubber-meets-the-road real world effects. I don’t care why we have dumb, destructive laws, or what the lawmakers, or advocates, or detractors, or the diplomats in Iceland were thinking when it happened. The jails are just as full, the cemeteries are just as full, the states are just as strapped, and our rights are just as weakened.
I also don’t care if Democrats are quiet on the subject because they sincerely agree with it, or if they’re secretly yearning to end the drug war, but are just too scared to admit it, because either way nothing changes.
(I don’t know if you’ve read “Hitchhiker’s guide to the Galaxy”, but there’s a part where a couple of cops are shooting at Arthur, while explaining how tender and gentle they really are.)
For the same reason, I don’t care that he wouldn’t have voted for it, because it’s not up for a vote. No one is trying to repeal it, not even Paul. The whole discussion is a big pile of navel contemplation.
Prof — Same coin, different side. In real, rubber-meets-the-road terms, the Civil Rights Act was a really, really good thing, and was in no way a “dumb, destructive law”. The *only* objection should be the philosophy. The Pauls are, indeed, talking philosophy and motivations (or, if you aren’t giving them the benfit of the doubt, they’re just blatant white supremisists).
And your point about Democrats? Totally would believe you if you said “Democrats and Republicans”. You did not. You specifically called out the Democrats, as if they are the ones most invested in it. Let’s not pretend you’re just above the bias because you like libertarianism instead of straight-up Republicanism.
And sure, it’s not up for a vote; totally entirely beside the point. You don’t think during the hypothetical presidency of Ron Paul that something would come up that is somewhat similar? Something in which real-world (“rubber meets the road”) issues with wide-reaching consequences bump up against his BS philosophy? Sorry, but those issues come up all the time. Pretending like the Pauls’ problem with reality vs libertarian wanking isn’t really a problem is…well, it’s super meta. Pretending you don’t have a problem that you’re pretending you don’t have a problem is a problem.
I was talking about the drug war. The drug war is a dumb, destructive law. Right now, it just so happens it’s hurting African-Americans more than whites, but it’s provably destructive to everyone.
You’re the one who brought up Democrats because they aren’t doing any thing about the drug war. That’s supporting something that, in its effects, is far more destructive than a law that isn’t being challenged, and indeed wouldn’t have even come up if people weren’t looking for ways to read his mind. I find that funny considering that Paul has a platform that he’s been pushing for decades, regardless of what the latest opinion poll has come out.
You’re divining for water in a lake — you’re looking for subtle, hidden clues that he’s going to hurt blacks while ignoring blatantly obvious, indesputable results of policy.
Prof, Go look at your comment 53. You brought up the drug war. You brought up the snark about Democrats. I am not arguing that the drug war is good, and I am not arguing that its implementation isn’t totally racist (I think it is). I am not looking for anything “subtle” at all. I’m pointing out the giant gaping holes in your comment, in which you try to make some sort of connection between Ron Paul’s position and his being a champion of black people. He is not. Theoretically we are talking about Ron Paul, the subject of the post, and how his policies intersect with race? As opposed to general ways to solve racist policy?
I’m really a little taken aback that you think there is anything subtle or hidden in the (to use your words) blatantly obvious real-world consequences of the Civil Rights Act. That you contrast that with the pretty pernicious (meaning fairly well hidden) racism involved in US drug laws is just bizarre. I know you love Ron Paul and all that, but your reasoning isn’t making sense, Prof. I understand your point that one is ongoing and one is settled law, but my point is that Ron Paul’s ideology far outstrips his desire to deal with the real world. That his ideals happen to match up with things that would have arguably good consequences in some cases doesn’t mean that they are somehow consequence-driven in his mind. He’s going to follow his ideology whether those consequences are good or bad, and that is illustrated by these two issues perfectly. Yes, the war on drugs is bad, and racist. His ideology says no war on drugs, so he says no war on drugs. The Civil Rights Act is good, with very good consequences. His ideology says it’s bad, so he says it’s bad. The common thread is *not* whether the policy is good or bad, it is whether it fits with his ideology. That is what it means when people say that libertarians don’t think about the awful consequences that would transpire if their desired policies were enacted. And they would, indeed, be awful in many, many cases. That is not living in the real world.
Okay, now we’ve got a completely different point, which is whether libertarian ideas would work over our current ones. We’ll have to save that one for a different thread.
I will note that, with our current deficit/debt situation, I think we’re going to be moving from discussing whether libertarian ideas are good, to discussing how to best transition to them. We’re coming to the end of the kind of money that allowed us to have conservative (global policing, drug wars) and liberal (SS/Medicare) policies. To balance the budget this year would have required a 75% tax increase, or a 45% cut (est. $3.82T total spending vs. $2.17 total taxes, according to Wiki).
Don’t you think it might be a good idea to assess whether libertarian ideas would work better than current ones *before* deciding how to transition to them? Because I think it probably *is* a good idea to do that assessment, and not just trust the magic bootstraps of Ron Paul, who seems to be full of it on so many things, and therefore might be equally full of it on the best economic policies as well.
Yes, I have. I’ve put a lot of thought into these things, read up a lot, and looked at history. Being trusting isn’t my long suite.
A racist is someone who treats people differently because of their race. Affirmative action treats people differently because of their race. Therefore, affirmative action is racist. QED – don’t they teach elementary logic in school anymore?