Honestly, I don't care if Rand Paul has issues with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or not.
If you asked me what would be guiding my choice in Kentucky - which is not off the consideration set for places I might yet choose to live - the "R" attached to Paul's name would be Reason #1 not to vote for him; "crazy libertarian views on government's role in our lives" is really much further down the list (with "would work with Mitch McConnell on stuff I don't like" well ahead of it).
In all the dudgeon over what Rand Paul might have thought in 1964, had he been a Senator, the hypotheticals stretch to the sky and back... and really, most of it is wildly irrelevant. Which, really, is the difference between savvy candidates and the kind of campaign operatives who exist, mainly, to steer their bosses away from messes like Paul dug himself into: it's neophytes like Paul who don't know well enough to say "Rachel, that question is way too hypothetical for me to get into; right now, I'm focused on the needs of Kentucky, and the people I will represent."
But, you ask, don't you find the idea of government taking a hands-off approach to private discrimination concerning?
Kind of, yes (don't worry... Mom is roundly appalled); but I think Paul has a point, one which defies all our best efforts to deal with - and fail to deal with - racial issues, among others, in our culture.
Of course, on one level, Paul is surely wrong: the question of whether we think, as a nation, that government has various powers to regulate and supervise "private" non-government transactions is well established. Libertarianism, with it's naif-ish quality of enshrining freedom over all else has a kind of simplistic appeal, but it just isn't able to cope with grown-up complexities that we actually face. The ideas of regulating, say, food safety or prescription drugs are not really up for much debate. And once you start agreeing that, in a reasonable way, government has a role to play in protecting and assisting citizens, the pure libertarian argument has already lost.
Still, Paul's point in his argument with Maddow was a fairly layered one - one the one hand, he suggested that government could go further to address public discrimination (as David Sirota, of all people, noted, Paul's argument is a throatier endorsement of, say, busing than many white liberals would ever endorse, these days). On the other, Paul does make a fair observation: in private, we discriminate. And really, does the government have a right to intervene? And do we actually want that level of intervention?
Many liberals, naturally, bristle at suggestions that discrimination exists, or is, in any way, acceptable.
They often do this while, say, packing up the kids for private school.
The idea that we live in a society, or want one, free of the ability of individuals or businesses to limit contact with others - discrimination - is belied in nearly every sphere where we actually live our lives: the places we live, the schools we set up, the businesses where we work, the social activities we pursue often have, in some form, limitations on the access of others. Some are economic. Some are class based. Some are gender based. And on and on, including, yes, race.
Liberals and progressives concoct this notion that, ideally, we stand for non-discrimination (or, less nobly, anti-discrimination: I don't do it... but if it just happens, oh well). I like to believe it myself: I am broad minded, accepting; I expect the same from others close to me. But there are things I could do to be more broadly accepting and involved. I live in one of the whitest areas of one of the most upscale counties in the country (indeed, my life has been defined by my residency in pretty much only the wealthiest counties and city enclaves of the northeast). The idea that discrimination doesn't happen around me, legal or otherwise, is a lovely fiction to get me through most days; but in reality, I know what's out there. I know the way people around me think, and feel, about strangers, outsiders, and class differences. And that leads, however casually, to discrimination.
You can argue, literally, that what Rand Paul advocates is government sanctioned racism; that, on many levels oversimplifies a libertarian point that's valid: as big government liberals, we advocate a notion that government can serve as an enforcer of moral standards (it's why the real argument with social conservatives that most liberals really have is not whether you can "legislate morality", but which morality we prefer). And Paul and other libertarians have a point: the kind of moral standard we want to see is a social, personal standard that comes from individuals and their personal choices. Government can't, really, fix that; and it's intrusive and troubling to insist, too much, that government should try. I don't want to encourage, tolerate, or allow government to look the other way when confronted by blatant discrimination. Of all sorts. But that hasn't ended discrimination. Of all sorts. And too often, too many liberals try too hard to hide from discriminatory ideas and practices that we do, day in and day out, that we claim, piously, to abhor. And we're not, actually, especially keen on the government doing what would actually be required to stop it.
As I said... who cares if Rand Paul has problems with the Civil Rights Act of 1964? He can't repeal it, and he won't, really, ever find a substantial protion of the public to join him on even a limited crusade to roll back inrusions into "private" businesses and how they operate. But the illusion he undermines most, really, is the illusions we continue to hold to: that the Civil Rights Act, you know, fixed this country discrimination problems. Or its race problems. The easier thing to do... is marginalize Rand Paul. And continue to quietly pursue our discriminating tastes.
Comments