Posted on 05/23/2010 5:25:34 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
When Rand Paul, the victor in the Republican Senate primary last week in Kentucky, criticized the Civil Rights Act of 1964, singling out the injustice of non-discriminatory practices it imposed on private businesses, the resulting furor delighted Democrats and unsettled Republicans.
Mr. Paul hastened to state his abhorrence of racism and assert that had he served in the Senate in 1964, he would have voted for the measure.
On the surface Mr. Paul’s contradictory statements might seem another instance of the trouble candidates get into when ideological consistency meets the demands of practical politics. This was the point Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, made when he said, in mild rebuke of Mr. Paul, “I hope he can separate the theoretical and the interesting and the hypothetical questions that college students debate until 2 a.m. from the actual votes we have to cast based on real legislation here.”
But Mr. Paul’s position is complicated. He has emerged as the politician most closely identified with the Tea Party movement. Its adherents are drawn to him because he has come forward as a kind of libertarian originalist, unbending in his anti-government stance. The farther he retreats from ideological purity, the more he resembles other, less attractive politicians.
In this sense, Mr. Paul’s quandary reflects the position of the Tea Partiers, whose antipathy to government, rooted in populist impatience with the major parties, implies a repudiation of politics and its capacity to effect meaningful change.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. He correctly predicted that this bill would lead to ever expanding control over the lives of private citizens. It basically is where political correctness lodged itself into the fabric of American life.
Prior to this bill Americans could behave in a fashion guaranteed to offend the social justice crowd. That’s one of the hazards of a free society- some people will discriminate in ways that others don’t like and find grossly unfair. Politicians decided in 1964 that this was way too much freedom for individual Americans to have, and so this law gave government the power to reign in the riffraff and keep them from abusing their freedom. It’s been a Brave New World ever since.
I think the message is “you have to get rid of them in order to defend them.”
Me thinks you are a McAmnesty Rino.
As a self-identified Tea Partier, I'd say I've had just about enough of the "meaningful change" provided by the political class.
Paul has the same problem that plagued Gingrich.. Neither can speak “SOUNDBITE”.. which the MSM will use against them.. just like they did to DAN QUAYLE!!
Well said.
I'd trade one for all of them, but realize the downside risks with a full on Libertarian positioning on multiple issues. This is what happens folks, when a newbie happens upon nationwide public scrutiny on a variety of issues and the exposure of "get gov't out of everything."
I hopes he advances his ideological purity to victory after devestating victory!
Given the irrelevance of your comment, methinks you are a newbie troll.
More like... Rand Paul shares a characteristic of a McAmnesty Rino.
Oh No. Fraid not.
I’ll take the tactical gaffs all day long. There is no way to ‘win’ these people. We are their enemy, and I know I am theirs. We should illuminate the difference. This is something that main line RINO, GOP/RNC types don’t do, and thus there is in the minds of the masses, no distinction save what the Democrats make.
When your image is weak, the enemy can burn a false one brighter. Reagan was successful with sturdy, direct, firm confrontation. As opposed to middle of the road, mushy, RINO’s
Looks like RINOs didn’t get the Bennett message. The ear of ‘dear Senatorial colleagues’ is over. Either fight or get out. I don’t care how, how well. And, don’t have any spit swapping, rump rangering relations like Hatch/Kennedy.
I totally agree.
The entire debate boils down to which should take precedent the owner's right to property or the person who is denied service's right to dignity.
There are legitimate arguments for each side, even though it is widely accepted that one's right to dignity take precedent over another's right to use his property to serve only those whom they chooses to serve.
The clumsy way in which we resolve it has devolved into political correctness run amok. I would venture to say that our society should have grown up enough that it could resolved in some other way-- such as requiring an establishment post a sign outlining the types of people whom they will not serve, hire, etc.
People thus affected would then be free to take their business elsewhere.
Just as an example, when I lived in Japan, places seeking workers would often specify gender and age range. They would also specify native Japanese or invite foreigners to apply.
In some cases, it was quite offensive and the age/gender/nationality thing had no meaningful bearing on the job advertised. But it was also helpful as people using the advertisements could avoid wasting time skipping over the ads for which they didn't meet the specification.
Contrast the openly discriminatory Japanese system to the subtly discriminatory American system-- few of our corresponding "Help Wanted" ads are clear, although you can get some clues with key phrases such as "great part-time job for a housewife" or "women and minorities strongly encouraged to apply." You know darn well that if you are, say, a 50 something non minority male, you would be wasting your time applying for such jobs. But there are many more who do not use these code phrases and would simply find some other excuse not to hire the age/gender/color which they are NOT targeting. How much better it would be if they simply had the freedom which the Japanese enjoy to specify it outright!
But it is complicated. You have states rights in there as well. It’s not really discussed much, but it’s there. Some views of the US Constitution have the Democrat Jim Crow laws as ok, due to states rights / 10th. I don’t think that’s Rands view, but I don’t know. You also have 14th in there. Plessy v Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education. There are a lot of themes in there. You have property rights. And freedom of association. So it’s not quite as simple as The Constitution. Yes, The Constitution is the basis of his argument, but there are a lot of different threads.
The enemy (Paul) of your enemy (NY Times) is your friend.
Sure...in this case, that is likely to be true.
As a victim of U S Government sponsored discrimination (Affirmative Action) I tend to agree with Ron Paul. Discrimination is wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right.
If you are a strict constitutionalist, this area is not addressed as an area in which the Federal Government has prime jurisdiction. The "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence only addresses equal opportunities.....not equal outcomes.
“The entire debate boils down to which should take precedent the owner’s right to property or the person who is denied service’s right to dignity.”
Larry Auster makes the case that non-discrimination law could be applied to public accommodations without creating the vast intrusion into the private sphere that the rest of the 1964 Civil Rights creates:
“He doesn’t even touch the specific issue of Title VII, which outlawed discrimination in private employment, and which was the part of the law Paul said he thought was unconstitutional. Unfortunately Paul messed up the Title VII issue by defending discrimination in a restaurant. A restaurant is a public accommodation. If, as he says he does, he supports the part of the law outlawing discrimination in public accommodations, then restaurants are a part of that. Discrimination in private employment is distinct from discrimination in public accommodations, from governmental discrimination, and from Jim Crow laws which require discrimination against blacks. The writer doesn’t present any constitutional justification for the federal government’s intrusion into the private decisions by employers as to whom they hire. In my view, outlawing Jim Crow and outlawing the exclusion of blacks from public accommodations were both arguably justified under the original 14th amendment, the purpose of which was to assure the fundamental rights of the freed blacks without which they could not carry on the normal activities of life. By contrast, there is no constitutional justification for Title VII—it is a revolutionary, lawless expansion of federal power. It is the fountainhead of the anti-discrimination tyranny under which we now live.”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016540.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.