Is Rand Paul a Racist?

[bishopnl]

Recently, there's been a lot of hubbub over Rand Paul, the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who was recently elected as the Republican nominee for retiring Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning's Senate seat.  The recent furor has been about comments Paul made to the Courier-Journal, and then defended on Rachel Maddow's show, concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and desegregation.  Paul said that of the 10 areas of concern the Civil Rights Act addressed, 9 dealt with segregation in the public sector.  He said he would have discussed modifying the 10th area, which concerned segregation in private businesses.  Although he didn't say so directly, he made it pretty clear that he believes private business owners who receive no government funding should be allowed to adopt racist policies if they so choose, reprehensible as they may be.

Predictably, the media is slobbering all over themselves calling Paul a racist, stating that he wants to return the country to the days of Jim Crow.  Rachel Maddow herself became increasingly frustrated when Paul wouldn't give a direct yes or no answer on his views, choosing instead to explain himself *gasp*, and so she ended by essentially implying that Paul condoned violence against minorities.

Most people are not intelligent enough to understand the complexities of freedom.  They cannot grasp the principle involved with being against a behavior while supporting a person's right to engage in that behavior.  They know that racial hatred is wrong, therefore, the solution must be to use government force to make people stop hating.  For obvious reasons, it hasn't worked, but never mind that.  Instead, Maddow tries desperately to get Paul to just say "yes" to her questions about whether he supports segregated lunch counters or private school prohibitions on interracial dating.  Because no one would bother to watch his full 20 minute interview, or his continued explanation of his stance.  All they would pull out would be the "yes" answer Paul gave, because we live in a society of lazy, uninformed people who can't be fed more than a few sound bytes.

Racial segregation is wrong, and Paul makes no bones about it.  But why should government power be used to force a business free of any public funding to adopt a certain moral position?  As long as the business is not deceiving or cheating the public and is operating above board, shouldn't they have the freedom to decide what patrons they want to serve, regardless of how despicable their decisions are?  Discrimination is immoral.  Moral people would immediately stop patronizing that business.  But the government should not choose for a business who it wants as its clientele.  True freedom is the freedom of association...the freedom to decide who we want to socialize with, live beside, and sell to.  Paul has no apologies to make.

[Melody]

Lazy I think is the bottom line.  See if the government doesn't force people to be "moral" then that means average people would be more accountable in their everyday lives to interact with others in such a way that would affect what was permissible and what wasn't.  They would have to stand for something, and then that would automatically cause them to be introspective and not hypocritical.  Subconscienciously, I think it is too great a burden for most.

Boycotting such a business would do a whole lot fast. 

[bishopnl]

Well, the new tactic is if you can't get him to commit to a yes/no answer, just make it up.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/05/22/rachel-maddow-show-busts-new-york-times-misquoting-rand-paul
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/135280#comment-1444223

And now James Clyburn is out whining that if Paul gets elected it will be a turn back 50 years.  Really?  It's pathetic, really, how abhorrent freedom and choice are to politicians.  Lindsay Graham is quoted as saying the Supreme Court "properly used" the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is a laugh, because since the 1930's the Supreme Court has trampled all over the interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, grossly distorting it in every sense of the word.  Of course, Lindsay Graham is a George Bush Republican, and they cringe at the "out of the mainstream" libertarian Republicans like Rand Paul.  The Lindsay Graham Republicans see government as a hammer to enforce its will on anyone who doesn't fall in line, unless, of course, you are a big business donor to the GOP.