Rand Paul and Civil Rights

[WestVirginiaRebel]

Wall Street Journal:

Rand Paul was 1 when Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now 47, he is the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Kentucky, his first ever foray into politics. To his evident surprise, the hypothetical question of how he would have voted in 1964 has been drawing a lot of attention.

Politico's Ben Smith characterizes as "evasive" this response Paul gave when asked the question by National Public Radio (we've corrected Smith's transcription errors):

"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, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism," he said in response to a first question about the act.
"You would 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."
In an update to his post, Smith notes that it wasn't the first time Paul was asked the question:

Paul articulated his view on the Civil Rights Act in an interview with the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal. . . .
Paul explained that he backed the portion of the Civil Rights Act banning discrimination in public places and institutions, but that he thinks private businesses should be permitted to discriminate by race.
"I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that," he said. "I don't like the idea of telling private business owners. . . ."
Smith is not the only commentator to accuse Paul of being "evasive" or refusing to give a "straight answer." This criticism is absurd. The politically wise answer would have been "yes"--a straight answer in form, but an evasive one in substance. Answering the way he did was a rookie mistake--or, to put it more charitably, a demonstration that Paul is not a professional politician.

Taken at face value, the question itself--How would you have voted if you had been in the Senate as an infant?--is silly. It is a reasonable question only if it is understood more broadly, as an inquiry into Paul's political philosophy. The question within the question is: How uncompromising are you in your adherence to small-government principles?

Paul gave his answer: Pretty darn uncompromising--uncompromising enough to take a position that is not only politically embarrassing but morally dubious by his own lights, as evidenced by this transcript from the Courier-Journal interview, provided by the left-wing site ThinkProgress.org:

Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be OK for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?
Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part--and this is the hard part about believing in freedom--is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example--you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.
Again, Paul could have given a "straight" answer to the question--a flat "no"--that made clear his personal disapproval of discrimination while evading what was really a question about his political philosophy. Far from being evasive, Paul has shown himself to be both candid and principled to a fault.

We do mean to a fault. In this matter, Paul seems to us to be overly ideological and insufficiently mindful of the contingencies of history. Although we are in accord with his general view that government involvement in private business should be kept to a minimum, in our view the Civil Rights Act's restrictions on private discrimination were necessary in order to break down a culture of inequality that was only partly a matter of oppressive state laws. On the other hand, he seeks merely to be one vote of 100 in the Senate. An ideologically hardheaded libertarian in the Senate surely would do the country more good than harm.

It's possible, though, that Paul's eccentric views on civil rights will harm the Republican Party by feeding the left's claims that America is a racist country and the GOP is a racist party. Certainly that's what Salon's Joan Walsh is hoping. Here are her comments on a Rand interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow:

You've got to watch the whole interview. At the end, Paul seemed to understand that he's going to be explaining his benighted civil rights views for a long, long time--but he seemed to blame Maddow. "You bring up something that is really not an issue . . . a red herring, it's a political ploy . . . and that's the way it will be used," he complained at the end of the interview. Whether the Civil Rights Act should have applied to private businesses--"not really an issue," says Tea Party hero Rand Paul.
It's going to become increasingly clear that the Tea Party movement wants to revoke the Great Society, the New Deal and the laws that were the result of the civil rights movement. Paul may be right that his views are "not really an issue" with his Tea Party supporters, although I have to think some of them won't enjoy watching him look like a slippery politician as he fails, over and over, to answer Maddow's questions directly.
When Paul says this "is really not an issue," he is speaking in the present tense. It is quite clear that he means that the Civil Rights Act, which has been the law for nearly 46 years, is politically settled; there is no movement to revoke it. In this, he is correct. Walsh's assertion that this is what the tea-party movement seeks is either a fantasy or a lie.

It's a curious role reversal: Rand Paul is a politician; Joan Walsh is a journalist. He is honest, perhaps too honest for his own good. She is playing the part of the dishonest demagogue.
________

Of course the MSM is using this as an excuse to hang Tea Partiers with the "Racist!" label.

[righteousmomma]

Just saw the following on Newsbuster:

http://tinyurl.com/2c6t32z

 

Senatorial candidate Rand Paul appeared on Friday's Good Morning America and aggressively fought back against former Democratic operative turned journalist George Stephanopoulos. The ABC host repeatedly touted liberal spin, prompting the Republican to mock, "Where do your talking points come from? The Democrat National Committee. They also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC."

 

Paul appeared in the wake of his guest spot on MSNBC, Wednesday. There, host Rachel Maddow interrogated him about the 1964 Civil rights Act and whether his libertarian leanings would lead the Kentuckian to tolerate bigotry. Stephanopoulos, playing the role of opposition Democratic researcher, quizzed Paul on that, whether he opposes the Fair Housing Act, supports overturning the minimum wage and abolishing the EPA.

 

After reading from an old Paul quote on housing accommodations, Stephanopoulos pressed, "So, if you feel someone doesn't want to sell their house to someone, based on the color of their skin, that's okay?" The politician first laughed and then retorted, "Well, [the quotes] really come up in the context of the Democrat talking points. For example, I've been trashed up and down one network that tends to side with the Democrats."

 

Paul's reference to being "trashed" was directed towards MSNBC. As first reported on NewsBusters, the cable network devoted eight segments totaling 37 minutes to the subject on Thursday.

 

Every question from Stephanopoulos could have been taken straight from a researcher at the DNC. And while journalists should be tough on politicians, GMA and Stephanopoulos have not been so eager to pull old quotes from Democrats such as Barack Obama and demand they respond to them.

 

Instead, ABC used the opportunity to link Paul to bigotry. In an introductory piece just prior to the segment, reporter Jon Karl critiqued, "The controversy has revived suggestions by Tea Party critics that there are racists in the movement."

 

At one point during the contentious interview, the senatorial nominee sarcastically wondered, "When does my honeymoon period start? I had a big victory. I thought I got a honeymoon from you guys in the media."

 

A transcript of the May 21 segment, which aired at 7:35am EDT, follows:

 

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senate candidate, Dr. Rand Paul joins us now. Thank you for joining us again, Dr. Paul. And let's get right to it. On the Civil Rights Act, you say now. I wouldn't repeal it. I wouldn't voted for it. I'm against discrimination. But it comes against the background of similar views you have expressed in the past. I want to talk about the Fair Housing Act, which prevents discrimination in selling or renting of houses. You wrote in your local paper, that the Fair Housing act doesn't recognize the distinction between private and public property. "Should discrimination be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individual's beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities, such as a church, a bed and breakfast, a retirement neighborhood that doesn't want noisy children? Absolutely not." And you went on to write that a "free society will abide unofficial private discrimination, even when that means allows hate-filled group, to exclude people on the based color of their skin." So, if you feel someone doesn't want to sell their house to someone, based on the color of their skin, that's okay?

 

RAND PAUL: Good morning, George. Good morning, Robin. When does my honeymoon period start? I had a big victory. I thought I got a honeymoon from you guys in the media.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Uh, well, you know, we're asking questions that come in the context of this campaign. And, sir-

 

PAUL [Laughs]: Well, they really come up in the context of the Democrat talking points. For example, I've been trashed up and down one network that tends to side with the Democrats. For an entire 24 hours I've suffered from them saying, "Oh, he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act." But, that's never been my position. So, really, this is a lot about politics. This is about, you know, look. We're up 20 points in Kentucky. Democrats are going to have a tough time winning down here. So, they're going to make up a lot of stuff and go forward with that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I just showed your own words up on the screen. I'm just asking if you still believe them.

 

PAUL: Right. What I say is that I'm against repealing the Civil Rights Act. I'm against repealing the Fair Housing Act. I've never campaigned on that. It's not part of our platform. And so, what these are red herrings that people are trying to bring up because the Democrats are way behind in Kentucky and are going to have a tough time beating us down here. You know, I mean, if you want to bring up 40-year-old legislation, why don't you bring me on with Senator Byrd. And we'll talk about how he filibustered the Civil Rights Act. You know, make him, call him to task for something he actually did, as opposed to calling me to task for something that they insinuate that I might believe that is not true.

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sir, I haven't insinuated anything. I'm reading from a May 30th, 2002, Letter you wrote to your local newspaper, The Bowling Green Daily News where you said-

 

PAUL: Right and I just answered you, George. Yeah, but I just answered you, George and said I don't believe in repealing the Fair Housing Act. So, the thing is, what's going on here is an attempt to vilify us for partisan reasons. Where do your talking points come from? The Democrat National Committee. They also come from Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. You know, I've just been trashed up and down. And they're saying things that are untrue. And when they say I'm for repealing the Civil Rights Act, it's absolutely false. Never been my position. And something I think is basically just politics.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I haven't said that. I'm reading from The Bowling Green Daily News.

 

PAUL: I know and I've answered you. I've answered you that I'm not for repealing the Fair Housing Act.

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on. Got it. Fox Business Network, January 2nd, 2010. You talk about government regulations and what you think should happen with government regulations. Take a look.

 

[clip]

PAUL: Get rid of regulations. Get the EPA out of our coal business down here. Get OSHA out of our small businesses. We need to restrain government to let small businesses and business men and women create jobs.

 

[clip ends]

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, I want to see how far you would push that belief. You know, the front page of The USA Today this morning, we've been talking about it. "EPA Tells BP to Use Less Toxic Chemicals." Do you believe the EPA should not be allowed to tell companies they cannot use chemicals to enforce safety regulations on the rig out there?

PAUL: No. What I was referring to with the EPA is I find it particularly galling that the EPA puts out a press release and says that if Congress doesn't do anything about greenhouse emissions, that they will. I think that's a regulatory commission run amok. And I think we need congressional oversight. I don't think regulatory agencies should write regulations without approval of the people through their representatives. And I stick to that. And that's absolutely my point of view.

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, you don't want to get rid of the EPA?

 

PAUL: No. The thing is, that the drilling right now and the problem we're having right now is in international waters. I think there needs to be regulation of that. It always has been. I think there's hundreds of pages of regulation. What I don't like from the President's administration is this sort of, you know, "I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP" I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business. I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill. And I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that, it's always got to be someone's fault. Instead of the fact that, maybe, accidents happen. I mean, we had a mining accident. And I've met the miners and their families. They're very brave people to do a dangerous job. But, then, we come in and it's always someone's fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.......

 

.........

STEPHANOPOULOS: Should the federal government be able to set a minimum wage?

 

PAUL: It's not a question of whether they can or cannot. I think that's decided. I think the question you have to ask is whether or not, when you set the minimum wage it may cause unemployment. You know, those who are at the lowest wages, if you raise the wage to a certain rate, if it's above what the employer deems that their labor is worth, they won't get hired. So, the least-skilled people in our society have trouble getting jobs, the higher you make the minimum wage. And it's one of those things where you see on the surface. You say, "Oh. All these workers at McDonald's got raised 50 cents an hour." But there were 21 workers. And now, there's 15 workers if you raise the minimum wage too high. You know, if it were a good idea to raise the minimum wage and it worked, why don't we raise it to $20 an hour? Or $30 an hour? Obviously, there is a point where you get to that you cause unemployment. And I'm not sure the government's always the smartest in the world as far as economic decisions.

 

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you wouldn't repeal it?

 

PAUL: Repeal the minimum wage? No. I think the vote comes up a lot of times to raise it or not. And I think what you have to ask yourself is, do you create unemployment by raising the minimum wage too high? But, I think it's a good example of how people with good intentions- You know, many Democrats say, we want to help people. They have good intentions. And I take them at their word that they want to do what's best for people. But what happens is, they don't think through the ultimate consequences of it. It's sort of like all of the things we're doing, by having such a massive debt in our country, they're doing it with good intentions. But what's happening now, is we are in danger, as a country, of going the way of Greece if we're not careful. Moody's has talked about knocking our AAA rating down to AA. So, I mean, we have to watch what's going on and begin to reform our spending or we're in a world of hurt as a country.

............................................

-So far I like Rand Paul (Even if he is Ron Paul's son )

[Sanguine]

Let's hope he has really, really thick skin.