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.