9 Responses to “Whoa, Are We Still Arguing About the Civil Rights Act?”

1. Brian Posted: May 21st, 2010 at 10:00 am

   1 Thank you. I’m not aware of this Rand Paul myself, although I do follow the small-government/libertarian political philosophy myself. I appreciate the level-headedness and effort to actually understand the position, even if you don’t agree with it.

2. Wayne Zombie Posted: May 21st, 2010 at 11:52 am

   2 I think one of the purposes of government is to try to help the country and the human race morally evolve. The human race practiced racism in many countries for millennia, some countries during that time were not as racist as others. In this country it took the force of law to try to overcome it, and for the most part, it has succeeded. Some laws shouldn’t be in force in perpetuity IF the people morally evolve, and this is one example. There shouldn’t be a need for civil rights legislation if people were smart enough to realize that contrary to centuries of claim, there is no significant genetic difference between a black person and a white person or any other color person you care to use for your example, this has been proven by the Human Genome Project. Maybe in a couple of century or two people will look back and say “What were they thinking?” and recognize that the civil rights legislation has not been used in a hundred years and that will be the point that we’ve morally evolved. One problem that I have with the Libertarians is that I don’t think we have morally evolved enough to implement a lot of their policies. We’re still too overcome with greed and how easy it is to make money through exploitation of any weakness in others, and we will make that buck whenever we can. Rand Paul is Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) son. I don’t think he’s a racist. I do think he’s a little naive if he thinks that we don’t need civil rights legislation. We need to encourage people to evolve their attitudes, but we need to continue holding that rolled up newspaper that we can whack them in the nose with just in case. I spent a week in Atlanta a few years ago and walked down to a diner for breakfast. One day I picked up a paper that someone had left behind and flipped to the OpEd section. In it was a letter that basically said “Ye haw! The South will rise again!” Definitely in need of some moral evolution and a rolled-up newspaper. And what the heck is it with Rachel Maddow? Is the trying to be another clown like Jim Cramer? Those stupid sound effect gadgets are idiotic and don’t fit her presentation style at all, in fact they detract from it. And then she talks about remembering the civil rights protests of the 60′s? She was born in ’73, conveniently on April Fool Day. Perhaps she was using the collective “we”, but she should be a little more clear there. I was born in ’61 and I don’t remember any civil rights problems in Phoenix during the 60′s, but I wasn’t all that aware of stuff like that then.

3. FmF Posted: May 21st, 2010 at 12:59 pm

   3 I end up Hearing some other of his views that don’t portray to race issue of the civil right.Namely in the case of disability’s.It pretty much consistent with his view with the race part.So no he not racist just naive.He believe business will accommodate a worker if he just ask.The 1940′s calling they want to know if your an idiot.As i see it businesses have not change from then to now they still making the quickest easiest money possible and they don’t care who they hurt along the way.

4. Dan Posted: May 21st, 2010 at 1:31 pm

   4 Jami, you pretty much nailed the thoughts I’ve been trying to formulate into something readable on the subject. The knee jerk reaction has been to dumb the discussion down and just dismiss him as a racist, which is frankly insulting to not just Rand Paul but the rest of us as well, assuming that none of us are capable of seeing what he was actually saying. The take on his comments from both the left and the right has just been attempts to score cheap political points instead of engaging in discussion on what is a valid – though wrong – argument on the role government should take on ending discrimination in businesses. It doesn’t come as a surprise considering the state of political dialogue lately, but it’s still disappointing that he just gets branded a racist. I believe there are many things the government should stay out of, but I believe there are also many things the government has a responsibility to handle, and instead of simplifying the argument to ‘large vs small’ government using political grandstanding and emotional appeals, distorting the quotes of better men, we should be actively debating what should and shouldn’t be the responsibility of the government. Clamoring that big government is always evil may appeal to a crowd, but actually treating it as such is intellectually dishonest at best, and that’s the issue I take with ‘libertarians’ lately. I believe there are valid points made by those who want to limit what government controls, but I do believe that the current idea posited that government should be in our personal lives (DADT, anti-gay marriage laws) while staying away from our businesses (those who paid attention in history class may remember the failures of the laissez-faire system of regulation) is backwards. I believe that Rand is wrong because he makes the same mistake that many libertarians make: assuming the market is a rational entity capable of self-regulation, despite years and years of evidence to the contrary. The market cannot force businesses to end segregation any more than it could force them to provide better protections for workers. Also, tying the anti-regulation message to a pro-liberty stance ignores that, in many ways, regulating business protects us from a corporatist culture in which the rights of the individual would come second to the rights of the corporation. Instead of arguing that any regulation is bad, the argument should be on how much and what kind; over-regulation is obviously as hazardous as lax regulation, and the government cannot be relied on to too great an extent. To ignore the argument about the level of government involvement and make it all about race, as so many seem content to do, is wrong.

5. greg Posted: May 21st, 2010 at 1:51 pm

   5 It is disappointing that Rand hasn’t taken the time to really address the issue, because it would do libertarians a world of good to have the various nuances of their political stances explained in such a high-profile way. For those who aren’t familiar with libertarians, or tend to only be aware of the admittedly naive “all or nothing” versions of the philosophy, here’s a pretty middle of the road libertarian explanation of how civil rights should be dealt with by the government (from The Volokh Conspiracy): The basic libertarian position on civil rights is as follows: (1) Private discrimination should, in general, be legal (this includes affirmative action preferences, btw). Many libertarians would make exceptions for cases of monopoly power, and most would ban private discrimination when the government itself ensured the monopoly by law, as with common carriers like trains; (2) The government may not discriminate. If necessary, the federal government should step in to prevent state and local governments from discriminating; (3) The government may not force private parties to discriminate, and the federal government should, if necessary, step in to prevent state and local governments from forcing private parties to discriminate; (4) The government must protect members of minority groups and those who seek to associate with them from private violence. If the state and local government won’t do so, the federal government should step in; and (5) As part of the ban on government discrimination, and to prevent rent-seeking voters from taking advantage of the disenfranchised, members of all racial groups should be treated as individuals for voting purposes, and thus members of all groups should have equal voting rights. If state and local governments don’t guarantee such rights, the federal government should step in.

6. DaVincisGhost Posted: May 21st, 2010 at 8:38 pm

   6 Personally, I don’t see how Rand Paul mentioning that (if he were involved in the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964) there would be “more discussion” on the one of the Titles of the Act automatically makes him racist. He never said that that Title should have been thrown out. Just that, if he were there, there would have been more discussion. I understand that, during that period in our nation’s history, it made sense for the government to step in and stop businesses from segregating based on race, creed, nationality, and religion for the sake of ending the unnecessary violence that was occurring. However, I personally believe that it should have been the job of the individual State Governments to do so rather than the Federal Government. As a Libertarian Constitutionalist myself, I understand how much of a tight rope walk it can be to find the balance between too much government involvement and too little government involvement. The problem is that over the last hundred years or so, the Federal Government has been passing more and more laws that should have been decided on the State or local level. Whether our economy is “morally evolved” enough to handle a greatly reduced amount of government involvement is debatable. However, to assume that our society would collapse and greed would run rampant without the government telling us exactly what we can and can’t do with our own property and possessions is insulting to our nation as a whole. /soapbox

7. Jack T Robyn Posted: May 22nd, 2010 at 1:39 pm

   7 I was actually behind Rand Paul up until the reading of the wording of article II (a place defining itself as public cannot be exclusive.) My opinion on the matter was especially changed by the final minute or so of the presentation. Quite true, laissez faire in it’s purest form results in terrible degradation over generations.

8. Geluf Posted: May 22nd, 2010 at 4:28 pm

   8 Jami, Very well put and thought provoking read. You’ve summed up pretty much everything I hate about mainstream media. The declassification and subsequent breakdown of every political and social bullet point will 10 out of 10 times miss the point entirely. Do I think Rand is racist? No. Do I still think he’s a wanker? Yes. Why? Because he is supporting less government oversight. As Dan has said, ideally businesses should want to assist the free market, but often enough turn to making money and supporting their own coffers than supporting the whole of the economy. Most major disasters of the day have been due to some oversight committee (or lack thereof) completely dropping the ball. The Gulf Oil Spill? MMS failed to impose strict engineering requirements simply because Transocean threw money at them (and a report that said “oh, we’ll be fine, we don’t need to implement these expensive potentially environment saving modifications because we’re really good”). The Credit Crisis and subsequent Mortgage crisis are due entirely to a lack of any oversight at all. all in all, Corporate America really cheeses me off.

9. Ajanhelendam Posted: May 22nd, 2010 at 4:30 pm

   9 Yes, I think we are still arguing civil rights. First it was race, then gender. Currently we’re debating about gay rights. The race rights were only secured within a lifetime and like Maddow points out this wasn’t one-sided. Who is to say there aren’t closet racists out there. Given the current cultural climate, being a racist isn’t a popular thing in the US and developed nations, but then again, the Apartheid in South Africa only ended in 1994. Which brings up an interesting fact. Where as we have sanctions against Cuba FN1 for having an oppressive economic/political regime, yet we never held sanctions against South Africa FN2 for racial segregation. Apparently, race isn’t that big of a deal? Any why do we even control sovereignty of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in the first place, but I digress. Going back to gay rights. The US is clearly divided on the issue. Separate but equal is not considered okay for race, but it does seem okay for the gay with the proponents of civil unions. The sanctity of marriage, or religious beliefs, but weren’t those arguments used in the context of race as well. But that’s different. That was raised as well as we debate gender rights. What is worrisome to me is the spirit of deregulation movement that seems to be still popular. I have yet to see any pertinent examples of too much regulation. We do have examples of what can happen when you deregulate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis is a recent one I can remember. The arguments were that deregulation would bring down prices. I can’t think of one industry where the consumer costs have gone down. Maybe if you’re a business things have worked out for the better, but I somehow doubt that it’s been the small businesses that have reaped the benefits in this case. As much as the culture portrays racism as being overtly hateful and the like, in reality it’s not so black and white. He does sound reasonable in his arguments, he’s for outlawing discrimination at the public funded level, just not at the private level. If you want to be a racist business owner it’s up to you. That’s your right, even if I personally abhor it myself. That might hold some merit if such provisions were not in TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION which precedes TITLE III–DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES which covers the public funded aspect FN3. Apparently, the framer thought addressing the “private” aspect was more important than the “public” aspect. BTW, Title I covers voting rights. And what the hell does he mean that there would be “more discussion”. I’m pretty sure the debates were lengthy and heated given the climate at the time. I seriously doubt all this was crafted as a quick response to the “recent” violence. Believing that belittles the whole Civil Rights Movement and attempts for civil rights that were made since the abolition of slavery. The violence was a response to the organized protesting which was in response to the need for “more discussion” IMHO, since mass protests are typically the result of the government dragging it’s feet. When you consider that, he would definitely have been labelled a racist if was pushing for “more discussion” back in 1964 considering the first attempt with the Civil Rights Act of 1875 FN4 (started in 1870) was shot down by the Supreme Court in 1883 as being unconstitutional in 1883. Seriously, what do you mean by “more discussion”. Seriously. However, wouldn’t seem racist now, but why even take that stance in the first place. As a politician there’s got be a reason to be public with this view on the Civil Rights Act. Big vs small, what should or shouldn’t the federal government regulate. Furthermore, if you read Title II what could be changed that would benefit private enterprise that wouldn’t involve discrimination? At the federal level it’s enforcement is triggered by a filed complaint. Meeting code and what not is all handled at the local/state level. PS – I do agree his statements don’t make him a racist; however, the context of his statements do lend credence to him being either a racist sympathizer (racist via proxy) or extremely naive, though that’s hard to believe if he’s studied the things he talking about. — FN1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba FN2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_for_Economic_Sanctions_Against_South_Africa FN3: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript FN4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875