Rand Paul

So Rand Paul, claiming he has a TEA Party mandate, won't say whether or not he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

"What I’ve always said is, I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would have -- if I was alive at the time, I think -- had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, ad I see no place in our soc for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.

"You woul have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?" asked an interviewer.

"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what’s actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I’m actually in favor of I’m in favor of -- everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights -- and indeed the truth is, I haven’t read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I’m going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."

This has lefties howling with glee.  This is the chance they've been waiting for.  Matthew Yglesias headlines his post on the subject Freedom as White Supremacy.

It seems that yesterday US Senate candidate Rand Paul let the cat out of the bag and admitted that under his brand of libertarian conservatism he can’t support the 1964 Civil Rights Act or other non-discrimination legislation as applied to private businesses.

I won't be surprised if it turns out hat Rand Paul has crippled the TEA Party movement.  Democrats, leftists, and their media allies have been working for over a year to slap a racist brand on the TEA Party movement, and here comes Rand Paul to hand them, gift wrapped, their best opportunity yet.  Paul suffers from a typical libertarian overactive naivete.  He imagines free market forces to be a cure all.

Market forces are capable of enforcing the efficient allocation of resources, nothing more.  They will not prevent, nor even discourage, racial discrimination, the prevention of which is legitimately within the realm of the democratic lawmaking process that gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Free markets had no affect on the overt racial bigotry that the Civil Rights Act outlawed, and outlawing discrimination posed no threat to free markets.

But Rand, with his insistence on libertarian purity, seems to think it did.  I don't mind that he's just made himself irrelevant.  I suspect he and his father Ron Paul will amount to footnotes in the history books, if that.  Unfortunately he may be killing the best chance for government reform in decades by creating smear opportunities against the TEA Party.  Moron.

Comments

[GW]

Someone who is competent, and pursues many of the policies Rand Paul advocates, would be of great assistance to the ailing Republican Party.

Unfortunately, Rand Paul went on the Rachel Maddow show within 24 hours of winning his primary and made a major idiot out of himself....

Libertarians know the difference between private property on which you build a home and private property on which you run a business.

Libertarians, that is, with an I.Q. above a chimpanzee.

Which excludes Rand Paul.

[Solomon]

Glad to read this on a libertarian blog. I was concerned that the more extreme libertarian views were beginning to be associated with the Tea Party, and I'm glad to see even some libertarians are concerned with that. The Pauls have some interesting views, but some is poison.

[PJ Smith]

Don't forget that CRA '64 helped redefine interstate commerce in a way that gave the Federal Government a precedent for all kinds of intrusion in places it doesn't belong. The end, however noble and correct, was attained through a foul means.

That said, Paul's father stands accused of publishing a racist newsletter, so the suspicion of racial animosity on the part of the son could have traction.

My impression of the law, as a young man, was that the newly found government power was troubling. At the time, I hadn't even heard the term "libertarian" let alone formed a political identity. I grew up in the northeast, so I was unaware of the reality of entrenched racism in the south. In retrospect, something had to be done to force progress. It would have been better if an alternative could have been found. None has ever been suggested but the corruption of the commerce clause surely wasn't the only path to follow.

I suspect Rand Paul is a bit too purist in his libertarianism and too naive to understand what the leftist press will do with his words. No-one has designated Paul or anyone else as the spokesman of the Tea Party movement. The press will fail if they try to burden the movement with Paul's public philosophizing.

[Tom Bowler]

The press will fail if they try to burden the movement with Paul's public philosophizing.

That won't prevent them from trying, and they will have traction with some, particularly those on the left. It will be a problem if the press decides to keep the issue front and center, day in and day out from now to November. With some of the luster having warn off Obama, I'm not sure they're inclined to mount that kind of a campaign on his behalf. But they might.