Not a debate as such, but more suited for this forum than elsewhere. Mods move if you must.
It’ll be interesting to see how the state GOP handles this. This is his core belief, and (to give him some credit for candor) he’s relatively up front about it in that he would not (even today) fully support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 anti-discrimination provisions affecting private businesses.
Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.
Noted … sorry for the typo. Will see if I get a mod to correct.
Here is a decent synopsis of the impact so far.
Kentucky GOP Plans ‘Unity Rally’; Rand Paul In Civil Rights Bill Firestorm
I saw it last night, and couldn’t believe it. She tried and tried to get him to commit, asking again and again if a privately owned lunch counter should be able to deny service to blacks, and he kept dodging in circles. Finally he tried to deflect it by declaring that it was a free speech issue (for the owner). Finally, and most incongruously, he tried to make an analogy to people carrying guns into a private business, as if owner “permission” for patrons to pack sidearms was at all comparable to denial of service to a class of people. Disgusting!
Watching that interview I just wanted Rachel to interrupt him and say ‘no it isn’t interesting, I understand your argument, your argument is so impractical however it falls in the realm of stupid’
The disconnect from reality baffles me. He talks about the south taking an extra 150 years to integrate then talks about how he would like problems to be resolved locally.
Yeah sure it would be great if business resolved issues of discrimination without government interference. I really would prefer to live in a world where the government need not step into private business and force them to act fairly, but we don’t live in that fantasy land Mr Paul.
I mostly agree but I don’t like the “gotcha” journalism on Maddow’s part. IMO Maddow is trying to paint Paul as a racist because he supports free businesses, no matter how odious it is. Paul may (or may not) be naive but his position doesn’t make him racist.
It’s not a popular view, I know, but I agree with RP on this. He needs to learn to better articulate his ideas, though, and not try and dodge questions. But then, he’s running for federal office, so that’s probably asking too much…
That private businesses should have the right to discriminate against whom ever they please, for what ever reason? That is what I heard from Rand Paul.
If so, I hope conservatives will continue trying to articulate that message whenever they have the opportunity.
Yeah, if he’s going to hold that view, he needs to bite the bullet and answer the question. “Yes, I believe the lunch counters should have been allowed to remain segregated. I believe that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against customers however they wish, even if the way they wish is odious and appalling. The way to overcome such behaviour is to persuade such businesses to voluntarily change their behaviour, either by moral persuasion or by demonstrating the superior business practice of not turning away potential paying customers.” Then insert your free speech and free association analogues, etc.
I happen to think that argument doesn’t ultimately succeed, but it’s not a ridiculous position to hold. Stating it clearly is going to a lot better than a bunch of evasive answers to straightforward questions that make you look like a closet segregationist.
Very well said, Gorsnak, but I think if Paul said that the headlines would quote the following the next day:
In your opinion that would be an incorrect or misleading headline?
Done.
It would not be, and that’s the GOP’s problem. Paul is not stepping back from his views. His response was not that he was wrong or misquoted, but that it was a tactical mistake to agree to an interview with Maddow.
Rand Paul On Civil Rights Controversy: I Shouldn’t Have Talked To Rachel Maddow
As an aside, I always assumed that “Rand” was named after the infamous author of that name, but it’s actually short for “Randal”. Could still be a reference to she who must not be named, but not as directly as “Rand” would be. Oh, and his middle name is “Howard”. Coincidence? You decide!
The younger Doctor Paul can’t handle complicated discussions. From the previously cited source:
“He has 24 hours.”
No problem. We’ll get Jack Bauer to take care of Maddow.
Or, he could go on Talk Radio and read John Galt’s speech…
Yes, it is. If you can’t even quote the full sentence without including something that goes against the image you are trying to propagate ("…the way they wish is odious and appalling."), you’re being deceptive.
For example:
“The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation…”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
While he definitely didn’t handle the question elegantly, they are essentially trying to nail him with a soundbite where he says “yes, I think businesses should be allowed to discriminate against blacks” out of context. So he played it defensively. Which still sucks, since he could’ve articulated the position better.
It’s easy to trap people like this because a ton of liberals don’t understand that there’s a gap between “I think an act is wrong” and “I think the government should outlaw the act that act”. They think that “I think the business owner should have a right to run his business as he sees fit” is secret code words for “OH GOD I WISH I COULD EXCLUDE BLACK PEOPLE” when it isn’t.
I think businesses should be able to discriminate against serving anyone as they see fit, for any reason, while I would also personally boycott loudly any business that used that freedom to do something wrong.