Register Now!
 
LOG IN  |  SIGN UP
16

Rand Paul Either Believes In The Right To Discriminate, Or He Really Doesn't Like Answering Questions

By Lindsay Cutler on May 20th, 2010

Maybe it bores everywhere to point out "Hey look at that idiot on the cable news show," but if you saw Rachel Maddow last night you would be like "Hey look at Rand Paul on Rachel Maddow, he is an idiot and probably a bad person, too." The Republican Senate primary winner for Kentucky (gooooo Kentucky!) made it known that he feels private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against race or sexual orientation last night. And he did this by repeating "I think racism is wrong" over and over again, and then by giving us history lessons in nothing so we all know that Rand Knows His History, and then by refusing to answer Rachel's ONE question directly, and then by invoking the First Amendment so we'd all be distracted but impressed with his taking-a-stand-ness. (And he talks really, really slowly so it took just about forever). The fact that he refuses to directly answer, "Do you think [private businesses] had a legal right to do so, to put up a 'Blacks Not Served Here' signs?" pretty much speaks for itself. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  

Note Rand's confused grunting at 9:25 and the pity in Rachel's eyes pretty much throughout. You can see the whole thing here.

Comments ( 16 )

man, everyone's talking about this today. it's easy to dismiss rand i think, but he also has an interesting point if you're a libertarian- which is the civil rights act did in fact legislate private business and property. of course, civil rights had come to such a crucial impasse that the government had to step in and i think rand would be wrong to not admit that. but i kind of wish everyone would stop writing him off as a dumb racist bigot because he has an interesting point- the civil rights act was an unprecedented use of the government's authority and power over private property

letsgomathias commented on May 20 10 at 1:10 pm

"All Things Considered" very own Robert Siegel grilled him on this yesterday afternoon. He asked RP if he thought the federal governments were overstepping their bounds with the ADA act and the Civil Rights Acts, to which Rand said it should have been a states issue. Go to the ATC page on NPR and check it out. Painfully uncomfortable.

SR commented on May 20 10 at 1:54 pm

By Rand's reasoning, all employee protection laws should be considered a mistaken use of Congressional power (e.g., mandatory overtime, minimum wage, etc.).

VoR commented on May 20 10 at 1:54 pm

Come on. Paul is indeed raising some serious philosophical questions here. To immediately suggest that he's dumb or a racist is to dumb down the conversation. He's not advocating discrimination of any sort. He's not a racist. But he is arguing that any kind of government mandate—in regard to speech, industry, religion—is tricky business. He's suggesting that when you give the government an inch they take a mile. Specifically, in regards to the Civil Rights Act, he's saying the bill was EXACTLY the sort of regulatory intervention that challenges the idea of free speech and free enterprise. And it does. It says: "you must run your business in X fashion."

Regardless of how pure the motivation for such a regulation is, it is still a regulation, and Paul is fighting regulation of any kind. Whether or not you think this goes too far is a separate question to which I agree: opposing the Civil Rights Act on these grounds is a bit extreme and Constitutionally strict. I think the bill WAS WORTH the limited industrial freedoms it sacrificed, but to say he's a racist because of this? I don't think so.

Ignorant bigotry exists regardless of how many congressional bills you pass and Paul knows you can't fight ignorance by hampering free speech. I know I'll probably face a slew of racist accusations for this, but can we leave leave the race card in the bag for once? It's effectiveness as a weapon is rapidly dwindling.

TwL commented on May 20 10 at 2:24 pm

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Those are the ends. The means are what the rest of the constitution entails. The founding fathers understood that times would change and that the constitution would be ammended, but that the ends should always remain.

So based on that idea, the Civil Rights Act did things like establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote general welfare. I think it was constitutionally within the federal governments bounds to establish CRA was the means to the overall end.

SR commented on May 20 10 at 2:47 pm

I agree: the Constitution is not a living document. It is dated, just as the Bible is (much more absurdly so). But it is still a pretty amazing accomplishment for its time and it should be respected as such. It is not the law of nature and I think the founding fathers would agree. But it should be considered as the most preeminent guiding document on American governance. Also, I'm not a strict free-market absolutist. I believe regulation is necessary; I'm merely trying to outline Paul's position (which I can respect, but do disagree with) for all the surprisingly simplistic knee-jerk, race-card-throwing reactions that have been launched at him in the wake of this interview.

TwL commented on May 20 10 at 2:50 pm

It's clear that Rand Paul is as big an idiot as his namesake Ayn, as is TwL. If you think anything he is saying is a "serious philosophical question" than you really need to read more.

I don't think Rand Paul is necessarily a racist, but I live in Kentucky and I can assure you a great deal of his followers are and he conveniently provides them with "philosophical" cover. And for the record, Maddow said nothing about free speech. It's not free speech to allow a restaurant to refuse to serve blacks or gays.

MeanMrMustard commented on May 20 10 at 2:57 pm

I know you're mean, Mr Mustard, but this was a really civil discussion until you started calling people idiots. Until that point, I was overjoyed that people could debate such a hot button issue in a respectful manner, without resorting to name calling

Hooksexupsystem commented on May 20 10 at 3:07 pm

Look, I did not say I agree with him (Paul). I'm merely trying to point out that nothing he has said or done is racist. He is not advocating discrimination; there is a serious disconnect (abstract) between discrimination and adhering to constitutional principles of free speech, freedom of religion AND free ENTERPRISE. The Civil Rights Act, to which I have said I agree was righteous and socially ethical given the circumstances, is an example of when these two concepts overlap. You have a mandate in which the government is forced to step in and tell you how to run your business. And on the other hand, you have certain other people who are bigoted assholes and abuse that freedom of enterprise for segregational and ignorantly hateful purposes. Rand Paul and free-maket zealots like him are not arguing FOR discrimination. They're arguing against any and all forms of regulation. I have said I DISAGREE with this level of extremism, but everyone's reaction has been quick to pull the race card and bring up a touchy subject so as to quickly and efficiently vilify him, just like MeanMrMustard is trying to do to me by calling me a "big idiot." So I say to you Mustard head: I do read, quite often. I've read some Ron Paul AND Karl Marx. I've read Ayn Rand AND George Jackson. I've read Kafka AND Doestoevsky. Challenging a left-wing theory for the sake of debate is NOT evidence of illiteracy.

TwL commented on May 20 10 at 3:16 pm

And yes, these ARE "philosophical questions." They are questions that have been at the core of Constitutional debate on free-market economics, free enterprise, and HUMAN rights since oh...1788. And just because Rand Paul has stupid, ignorant or racist followers doesn't mean HE is. Lord knows Obama had some oafs touting his election (remember the girl who thought she'd never have to worry about paying bills again? the fringe group in the midwest willing to bare arms for him?) There are dumb people in every following. Be real. And keep it civil. Debate is good.

TwL commented on May 20 10 at 3:33 pm

Good thoughts @TwL. I understand where you are coming from. I'm wouldn't label RP a racist, just misguided in his interpretation of the constitution. RP is all about less laws - he believes there are too many laws (such as the ADA and CRA) and that we should stick to the constitution. Issues such as civil equality, in his view, should be settled on a state level, not federal.

This just happens to be a philosophy that resonates well with the Tea Party. So because of that affiliation with that group the ease at which people can label him "racist" is increased. Because to many, "Tea Party" immediately drums up visions of white, mid-upper class, conservative, religious, anti-progressive, etc. - a group that some of the public already considers to have racist undertones. So labeling him a "racist" is really the path of least resistance. I don't think he's a racist, but just blinded by his misguided interpretation of the constitution to the point that it crosses a weird gray area that makes his views appear racists. Make sense?

So where do I disagree with Rand Paul? I disagree that the federal government overstepped their roles with the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act BECAUSE those acts were fundamental in upholding the ends the founding fathers established in the preamble of the constitution. It's a fundamental difference of opinion.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: Suppose during the Civil Rights era states were given the responsibility to address equality issues and come up with their own laws. Do you think Mississippi or Alabama would have passed anti-discrimination laws? No. Would New York have passed laws? Probably yes. The result would be a union that was fractured not just by culture, but then by law. It would be a digression of 100 years for this country. I would not consider that a "Perfect union" by any stretch of the imagination.

SR commented on May 20 10 at 4:15 pm

@SR. I would completely agree with what you've said. You make some good points about resulting disunity and alienation in relation to the CRA that I had not thought of. I am not taking issue with the CRA or ADA, and I have made this clear. I think the extreme Libertarian criticism of these bills is over-the-top and unrealistic. Instead, what I have been trying to argue is that this same viewpoint is not racist—to which you have stated you agree. So we both agree. Yay! : ) Isn't this fun?

TwL commented on May 20 10 at 4:31 pm

Yeah, the extreme laissez-faire position of Rand Paul and his type is bogus. These guys want nothing short of pure invisible hand capitalism which, in a perfect world would be great, but is not realistic in reality. Their argument that CRA & ADA was a disruption of the mechanisms of capitalism is bogus.

Even in Adam Smith's vision of capitalism, it was all set against the context of a healthy and dynamic society, and the relative ability of individuals to exercise sound judgement. If it had been handled how Rand Paul believes it should have and states had been able to determine their own civil liberties laws, our society would not be the healthy and wise context required for the perfect Adam Smith model.

SR commented on May 20 10 at 4:43 pm

Well, I call them the way I see them. Rand Paul is an idiot. There is overwhelming evidence of this. I shouldn't have called TwL an idiot (sorry bout that), but sometimes people (especially in this day and age of Fox News and Tea Parties ad infinitum) give too much credit to people like Rand Paul who spout a lot of BS they read from people like Ayn Rand and L. Ron Hubbard and they use relatively benign philosophical musings to justify really anti-humanist and downright anti-human things. Sometimes an idiot needs to be called an idiot. The deregulation pushed by these same free-market libertarians (Alan Greenspan was a member of Ayn Rand's little "collective" of chosen geeks) is what opened the door for the financial crisis real Americans have had to deal with for the past several years. Trying to pass off this philosophy now is like saying the solution to the oil spill is flying helicopters over the gulf and pouring more oil over the spill to contain it. A lot of the words Paul uses when he dances around the racism issue is code tailored to people who feel that the white man is the true victim of racism in this country. And as a white man, believe me, we're not.

MeanMrMustard commented on May 20 10 at 5:18 pm

I don't think "Rand Paul" (what a ridiculous name) is an idiot, but the clear signal of his abiding racism is the fact that he is unable to simply utter a negative answer to a question that he knows is about racism. He's avoiding, avoiding, avoiding, and it's not because he's so keen to fill us with his knowledge of obscure civil-rights heroes, it's because he cannot answer the question honestly without alienating his racist base. That is racism. And "libertarians" are just republicans by another name -- and anyone who identifies as republican in this day and age can suck a dick.

PO commented on May 26 10 at 6:45 am

Worst thing that ever happened to this country was giving women the right to vote.

TFT commented on May 27 10 at 12:12 pm

Leave a Comment