Rand Paul and the Zombies
The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed.
Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action, since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical way to prove one has not been “discriminating.” One might also object to the law on constitutional grounds, or on the grounds that (as has indeed happened) it would lead to legally protected classes whose members simply cannot be fired, since their employers know they will be hit with groundless but costly and time-consuming litigation. (Incidentally, black employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.)
As the Left sees it, none of these reasonable concerns can be the “real reason” for opposition to the 1964 Act. The real motivation is (what else?) a sinister and arbitrary desire to oppress blacks and other minorities for no good reason. The Left’s opponents are always and everywhere wicked and twisted people, who spend their time wondering how they can cause gratuitous harm to black people they have never met. Don’t believe me? Read the comments to this Politico article. These people have never in their lives deviated from what Official Opinion has demanded they believe. Without federal guns, we’d be back in the Dark Ages. The Left has its bogeymen and the neocons have theirs. The outcome is always the same: more power to the monopolists with the guns, and the unshakeable conviction that peaceful remedies are impossible.
Fantastic article Tom. Regarding the Politico comments, I will leave you with 2 words of advice:
1. Never read the comments section on mainstream, partisan liberal, or neo-con websites. They will ruin your whole day.
2.Many of those comments are CIA or paid RNC/DNC Party hacks.
It is difficult for those on the left to believe in free market or free social forces for some reason. I guess it probably has a lot to do with the fact that their public education materials were laced with the notions that government saved us from all the wicked and twisted people in the country.
The right is also blinded by similar beliefs. They don’t believe we will be a safer society if we were less meddlesome in foreign affairs.
I am truly exhausted Tom of talking to such narrow minded people on a daily basis. All us Austrians should recolonize elsewhere….
Nice try. the dude is toast. Please do argue that in the debates and all the news stations
[...] certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed. The American Conservative Rand Paul and the Zombies That about sums it up. __________________ "There can be no truly moral choice unless that [...]
Glad to see one of the zombies stopped by. The “dude” is “toast” for slightly questioning a sacred cow. Nice.
The zombies are everywhere, Tom. We have to accept the fact that there are people in this world who will never wake-up to the truth.
I wonder how much the CIA is paying him.
Rachel Maddow is a General Electric war-pig. It should be no surprise she is attacking the peace candidate. Her paymasters are making a bundle killing brown people.
I’m really getting tired of the Left portraying everyone who opposes their agenda on racial issues as “racist.” I’m not a freaking racist! I’m a libertarian, for christ sake. I don’t give a crap WHAT race you are! Obama could be white as snow for all I care, and I’d still oppose him.
I’m also tired of them trying to control every debate on racial issues. STOP IT! That’s disgusting. Just because I’m white and not a liberal doesn’t mean I CAN’T have a point of view on these matters. These folks seem to forget that “freedom of assembly” is in the First Amendment they hold so dear, the same one that has the Establishment Clause.
The problem with the term affirmative action is that is has two distinct and mutually exclusive meanings. As defined by Civil Rights Act of 1964 it means equality of opportunity. As defined by the Supreme Court in Griggs v, Duke Power, it means equality of outcome.
To support either objective, opportunity or outcome, is to oppose the other. Yet to publicly the later will result in opposition to the former. Like the term legal and illegal immigration, liberals willfully conflate the two concepts.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Tom Woods for making the obvious point all conservatives who genuinely believe in the Constitution should still stand by, but no longer do. At NR these days, which are filled with neocons (former self-righteous AND self identified LIBERALS like the Abby and Stefan Thernstrom duo among others) who rejected the idea that freedom of association, as a PRINCIPLE, whether for noble purposes or not, was ever valuable and part of our Constitution, such an idea has been banished from polite society, or more bluntly, CONCEDED TO THE INTOLERANT STATIST LEFT. Hence, people are unaware of what the original controversy was about. They simply assume like the Left, (and like the not so deservedly sainted MLK Jr. accused Goldwater of being) that it was all racists in black hats on the Right naturally, and virtuous beams of light persons on the Left who were the only ones allowed to care about discrimination towards black American citizens. It’s BECAUSE of the NR and the modern “cons” at the Weekly Standard crowd and all the other house organs of transplanted neoconservatism who never had a problem with unconstitutional federal statist “solutions” to human problems in our republic, that correcting this fallacy, this historical LIE is now such a high hurdle, and why getting people like Paul Jnr. elected will be tougher than it should be. But Truth, as always, is the only solution.
(It’s magnificently ironic, though, isn’t it, that the Buckleyite position of the late 1950s went much further than that, and THAT position, HIS opinion, has been adduced to the average intelligent conservative’s opposition to the Civil Rights Acts of the time. That’s pure sophistry. It is merely the historical whitewashing of Buckley’s faulty reasoning THEN, as it would have been in any time, by the Goldbergs, Brookhisers, and others who are more interested in protecting their “brand” and it’s Creator, than in telling the truth about what the honorable conservative opposition wanted, then and now. Buckley in that infamous unsigned editorial from ’57 or ’58 chalked it all up to blacks’ inherent inability to govern themselves, at least in the present moment of 1950s America. That didn’t make him Hitler; it DID show him to be susceptible to ill-considered, (and fashionable!) reasoning of the era among intellectual class New Right conservatives, who were wary, or perhaps more accurately and incorrectly imagined that they SHOULD BE wary, of the tribalisms and prejudices of southern white males.)
All that said, Paul could have/should have handled that better, way better in the Louisville-whatever paper editorial board meeting. If they’re a major paper, they’re leftists and statists. Period. They probably hate his guts. He should already be planning for his answers to these questions, and they should be addressed with the Truth, unapologetically. The Kentucky TV debates with the Dem. will undoubtedly try to bury him as a closet, racist, freakazoid, potential mass-murderer. (Even though he’s opposed to the State! Somehow it all makes sense to the average person who swallows such Leftist propaganda, don’t ask me to map it out) His response should be an unequivical “No.”, when asked whether he would have voted for it, and then be ready to calmly explain why, and much more importantly, why, like so much of history that the Left have tried to distort, the conventional wisdom on how the Acts courageously defeated racism (which is why we didn’t hear anything about racism in the ’08 election; thank God we’re beyond all that now) are neither wise nor true, just conventional leftism. This may sound Pollyannish; I submit it’s not. The serious student of history is often surprised at how quickly the masses view of historical events, when that view is built on nothing but the quicksand of lies, can shift and become receptive to the truth. It happens more frequently than you think, precisely because the Truth is a weapon, and constructed false history is a shaky tower of babel. But he has to be ready and jumping to engage, not susceptible to saying, “but, and you knew there’d be a but…” in his attempt at explaining his nuanced position, as if he needs to be defensive with these idiot prick leftist newspaper writers who don’t care what the truth is anyway. That’s not a game plan, Rand. That’s suicide against a revving up as we speak national media machine that will want your blood. And the establishment con movement? Ha ha! If you win, they’ll say they were behind you all the way; if you lose they’ll join the Left in calling you a racist for not applauding the great C.R. Acts that finally made us moral as a people (yes, that IS what the Left thinks, except we’re still not moral now and never will be, really) . They’ll then spend months pleading with the Left to see reason at how you were such an outsider and it’s so, so, sooo unfair for the noble experiment of “conservatism” (that they define, thank you very much) to be tainted with your horrible reactionary troglodyte rightism, or something. And, maybe that Frum was someone we should’ve listened to, no?
For if you lose, the real conservative movement will be damaged more than if you hadn’t run. Not your fault, but tough noogies. So put on some armor (intellectual armor), Dr. Paul, and start barricadin’. THey ARE comin’ after YOU.
Tom,
You make some excellent points here that are worth talking about.
But referring people to the comments of an article on a blog (as if those comments represent an entire “side” of an argument) does not rise to your usual standard of scholarship.
“Keyboard Commandos” and trolls don’t deserve your attention.
Cheers,
RHM
“Nice try. the dude is toast.”
Why? Because all the Republican voters in KY are fretting about being PC? News flash: the VAST majority of Blacks in KY are already going to vote for the Democrat anyway.
Great points Mr. Woods. They are rigid in their beliefs that have been planted in them. Its not like they have free minds to go beyond the insults and look at the truth. Maybe….But its so much easier to criticize and insult than to deal with reality. Favoritism (collectivism) is the disease in America.
Reading this article I am truly amazed. From 1776 to 1964, 188 years had passed before African –Americans could truly benefit from all the rights and protections afforded by the Constitution. And from 1964 to 2010, minorities and women, enjoyed only 46 years of constitutional equality. Minorities had to fight in order to fight in the great World Wars. The Tuskegee experiment proved that Black Americans could do the job white pilots could do, and BETTER. (FACT) Out of all the bomber escort missions they flew, they lost not one bomber. Today, I agree there have made great strides to right the wrongs of slavery and segregation, but I am unwilling to stand idle and believe minorities were at a better advantage then, than what we are today. It is very easy to state facts blindly: (Incidentally, black employment statistics saw far more progress in the one year before the 1964 Act than in the two years after it.) This FACT does not take into account that blacks did, what was recently stated and repeatedly by conservatives: “THEY ARE DOING THE JOBS AMERICANS DIDN’T WANT TO DO.” They were made to work the worst hours and receive the worst pay. Yes it may be true blacks saw some progress in employment but it was FAR from equal. I would like for the author to spend time with the elder surviving generations of my family ranging from the ages of 69-99 years of age and tell them you were better off then and it is only today they are truly oppressed. I also would like him to touch the scars my children’s great grandmother has on her body and listen to her explain to a 4 year old, “Baby, that was a long time ago.” Please, please don’t revert to the point: “everyone was enslaved at least once.” That may be true, but it was white men, holding the same philosophy of this author, that did this in the United States, and the laws they wrote made these acts easy to overlook and legal. It was these laws that enabled the scars to be laid across her back.
Another one? After the Gates affair and the blatantly dishonest Tea Party smears, you’d think the PC thugs would back off to let the charge of racism recover from its abuse. The number of people taking seriously charges of racism dwindles by the day.
I like 98% of Rand Pauls Philosophy and would have voted for him if he were in South Corlina. But how do I take him now that he is endorsed by someone who’s biography reads as such: Mr. Woods FOUNDER
The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization, headquartered in Killen, Alabama, whose ultimate goal is “a free and independent Southern republic.”[1] The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy.[2] While political independence ranks highly among the group’s goals, it is also a religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditional, conservative Protestant Christian-oriented Southern culture. The organization is labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
RHM, if you can direct me to that segment of the Left that is prepared to have a rational discussion of an issue like this, I’d love to see it.
J. Baker: Oooh, the Southern Poverty Law Center! Anyone concerned about that bunch of winners could not possibly “like 98% of Rand Pauls [sic] Philosophy.” Nice “biography” of me, by the way. I guess my life ended 16 years ago. The Southern Poverty Law Center is itself a hate group (if we want to use a creepy, Orwellian term like that), since it thrives on fomenting divisions between otherwise peaceful Americans.
The 1st thing wrong with your reasoning is ‘a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds.’ Rand Paul’s opponent in the primary accused Tea party of intimidating voters. Same thing happened in Massachusetts when Senator Kerry had to admonish over zealous people making rude unwarranted remarks. The same fringe element, the one’s you know are there in the otherwise well-intentioned Tea Party, would pressure each business to do the same. The good ole boy network is alive and well in America. Just ask Michael Steele.
“That may be true, but it was white men, holding the same philosophy of this author [Woods], that did this [allowed slavery] in the United States….” Really, J. Baker? Slaveholders were anti-state libertarians who believed in 100% self-ownership for everyone?
“Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds” is one of the most absurd statements in recent memory. I can’t improve on “leftist statist” David Frum’s comment:
“For over twenty years conservative constitutionalists have held up Senator Kennedy’s tirade against “Robert Bork’s America” as the pinnacle of left wing political slanders of the right. How dare he say that conservative constitutional views would return us to the days of segregated lunch counters?
It is too bad that the senator did not live to see Rand Paul, Kentucky’s Republican nominee for the Senate on the Rachel Maddow show. As it turns out in Rand Paul’s America, an America where the original Constitution (as Paul understands it) has been restored, we would in fact still live in a land of segregated lunch counters.” Anyone who thinks such a restaurant wouldn’t survive, let alone prosper, probably also believes government oversight of offshore oil drilling isn’t required because after all, oil companies have an economic interest in not allowing oil spills. This is libertarianism run amok.
[...] mean it as it sounded. Possible… Here's what Tom Woods had to say about Rand Paul's comments: The American Conservative The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly [...]
It’s incredible how similar they are. They smear, they bring up red herrings, they bring up their shibboleths and scream bloody murder when you say the name. Remember when Glenn Beck smeared Debra Media over 9-11? It’s the same thing. And they don’t even know it.
Pesky, if you believe in such a wide-ranging conspiracy against nonwhites, whereby at the first opportunity whites would successfully begin exclusively white establishments — if you are really living in a dreamworld like this, in which accusations by Trey Grayson and claims of bad behavior from Tea Party people that have since been exposed as phony are your indicators of broad social trends — then I assume you are against immigration. How, in good conscience, could you encourage people to move to the U.S. when after decades and decades of government and school efforts to eradicate “racism,” it’s still so bad that whites are just dying to open white-only restaurants?
This is serious, serious paranoia.
Of course, someone might have objected to that Act on the grounds that it would of course lead to affirmative action, since racially proportionate hiring is the only practical way to prove one has not been “discriminating.”
Yes, heaven forbid we try to stop an incredibly onerous and oppressive form of discrimination lest we accidentally give rise to a much less onerous and oppressive form of discrimination.
Tom, thanks for writing this post. Rand has a good friend in you.
I am somewhat surprised to see a decent amount of defense for Rand on this issue across the blogosphere, from sources I didn’t expect.
If there is one thing people in Kentucky do not like, it is being called “racist,” as they are sick of that tired, old canard. The DNC might try, but that dog won’t hunt in Kentucky.
Dr. Wood
I am not concerned about The Southern Poverty Law Center and its amazing how you can say I don’t believe nor support 98% of Dr. Paul’s views without even knowing my background and how I draw MY conclusions of people. Dr. Paul holds true convictions in his beliefs and I can only respect him for that. You on the other hand, I was just curious about your life’s view. This led me to wiki your biography and the more I read, the more my interest peaked. I know it’s just be a snap shot of your life and may not portray who you truly are, but I can’t help but to wonder what is true equality and fairness? I don’t troll conservative sites to provoke arguments. I really want to know how people draw conclusions. I would like to think I attended one of the most conservative schools in the South. The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina and I’ve served honorably in The United States Military. Hence, I’ve immersed myself physically, emotionally and socially in cultures outside of the black race. My sense of fairness and equality has been shaped by firsthand interaction. This leads me to this question: When you and I die, hopefully in Christ, will heaven share your view that blacks oppress themselvestoday and are enslaved to their views and were better off prior 1964?
I hope Dr. Paul gets through this, and not get smeared by one view. I’m sure he treats all people in his practice and he sees his people as patients, nothing else. Dr. Wood I’m at a loss. The Souther Poverty Law Center must have really done something bad too you.
J. Baker, you can see why we call SPLC the “Tolerance Mafia” here, http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/may/01/00027/ .
Thanks for the words Tom! I totally agree that Rand made himself very clear, that he is anything but racist, and that he is taking a well principled and workable solution to the problem of racism. Rand Paul is a great candidate and should be supported!
The “Faces of MSNBC” looks like the early 1960′s Woolworth’s Lunch counter:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080263/
So maybe some group should stage a sit-in and integrate that and see if they call in the modern “Bull Connors” to kick them out.
My problem with Rand (which I have tried getting a response in multiple ways) is the statement “I believe we try the terrorists captured on the battlefield in military tribunals at GITMO. I do not believe in trying them in civilian court.”
If you already know they are terrorists (psychics? quija board? water board?), what purpose would a tribunal serve? If not, why not try them locally like the Geneva Conventions say. And what of coerced or secret evidence (“we can’t tell you who or how, but see, this one unredacted line proves he’s guilty”)? No, he won’t answer. He wants to be NeoConLite. He doesn’t want to try them like the first WTC bombers were – where they were found guilty and are in prison, instead he prefers the judicial black hole? The suspension of Habeas Corpus. The torture. Why not just shoot them all – why not just nuke the entire islamic world if guilt or innocence is of so little importance?
Sad. This article claims that society (and we’re talking about the South) is so decent now that racially-discriminating businesses would not survive, so there’s no reason for the legislation that was the spear-tip in wrestling that same society out of its barbarous ways, so there!! Genius. Typical hardcore libertarian pablum. OK, yeah, right, that works. In your white head.
Go ahead, please: what’s else you got?
This magazine is usually a challenging and worthy read for thoughtful liberals, but this whole page is just RedState-level infantry noise and too-earnest self-defense.
HuffPo-style “lib” comment sections annoy me, too, by the way.
Mr. Woods,
I can relate to the Libertarian ideal of not infringing on property rights. However, the idea that things would have changed for the better in the jim crow south without government coercion is wishful thinking. Bruce Bartlett makes the case here better than I could.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1734/rand-paul-no-barry-goldwater-civil-rights
If you think it preposterous that businesses would discriminate if allowed, then you should spend some more quality time in the rural areas of the South you so love. I spend a lot of quality time in my hometown (89% white according to Wikipedia) south of the Mason-Dixon where the N-Word and racism in general are all too real and widespread.
With regard to the League of the South, you really cannot blame anyone for taking your claims with a grain of salt after participating in the founding of a secessionist organization that advertises confederate flag items on its home page. Instead of attacking the SPLC, you could perhaps explain your interest in creating such an organization and how your views may have evolved after 16 years.
[...] Rand Paul and the Zombies The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why, Rand Paul secretly wants to repeal it, they say, which means we’d have segregated restaurants all over again. Now any non-hysteric knows a segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence within ten seconds, but we’re supposed to fret about fictional outcomes from the repeal of a law that will never be repealed. And certainly we cannot question the 1964 Act, since our betters have decided the matter is closed. [...]
SouthtoNorth, have done so 50 zillion times, but no one cares. All they care about is the b.s., not my easily available archive of writing.
Japanese Americans were rounded up into concentration camps during World War II. The U.S. went to war with Japan. Had the U.S. gone to war with an African country, THAT would be the excuse: of course blacks can’t prosper without antidiscrimination law: people still hate them from the war, when they killed many American kids. Yet Japanese-American households were earning the same incomes as their white counterparts by 1959, and one third more by 1969. That is supposed to be impossible according to the standard mythology.
Japanese Americans were never subject to the same level of discrimination as were African Americans – not even close.
I’m sure Rand Paul is sincere in his abhorrence of racism, but his stance (and he has now issued a statement of support for the Rights act) illustrates what’s wrong with libertarianism: you need to ignore things like human nature and the historical record in order to be a libertarian. The record is clear. Blacks were systematically discriminated against, violently discriminated against, in a way that no other ethnic group in this country experienced. There is no reason to believe that this would have changed without federal intervention, and no reason not to expect that those subject to discrimination should not have demanded, did not have the right to demand, an end to that discrimination by force of law.
And you do not have to be PC to realize that racism still exists. Sure, chains like Subway and McDonald’s would never allow their franchises to discriminate. The backlash would be devastating. But would, for instance, a local apartment complex subtly make it known that it was whites only? I have no doubt of it.
Yes, it’s all the fault of the blacks and the liberals. Of course. More genius.
Yeah, unwiseguise, it’s still a raging hotbed of whitey racism, then, is that it? Do you have any actual evidence this is so? Because others, I seem to remember have convincingly shown the opposite is true, with, like, you know, actual empirical observational evidence and dang such; I seem to remember even Bill Bennett, (!), not exactly a southern con known for his tolerance of Lincoln criticism to say the least, admitting somewhere, in his 2 volume history maybe?, that self segregation is FAR WORSE in northern university lunch cafeterias today than it is in southern ones between blacks and whites specifically! It’s actually not hard for anyone who knows how to separate the wheat from the bull**** about the south to believe.
J. Baker-Before any formal invitations go out for all of us to start placing our hands inappropriately on the bodies of any nice old grandmothers, maybe you could step back and exercise a little reading comprehension? And a little honesty? Tom Woods can ably defend himself, but where exactly did he (or anyone else) ever come close to even insinuating that “you people were better back then”, whoever the “you people” are supposed to be? Or that his “philosophy” consists of any acceptance of APPROVAL of racism or racial discrimination of any kind? I’ll tell you where, NOWHERE. Yet you and the rest feel casually free to try and viciously slander him, here, on a conservative comment board where leftists come to troll without any desire to be taken seriously. (I’m sorry but it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe you were aywhere close to giving an honest listen to a honest man like Paul if you have the chutzpah to cite the lying, leftist, (and YES, quite racist) Gramscian, Alinskyite bunch of hacks that the MSM pretend are serious known as the SPLC. No, you don’t like 98% or 2% of his philosophy, and you DON’T hope he gets thru, just so long as Woods, the real racist is punished. DON’T BLATANTLY LIE on a public www comment board, Baker, otherwise nobody will be inclined to give a s*** about your grandmother.)
And as for pesky, the idiotic Winston, and anyone else who is PRETENDING not to understand honestly the point Woods was making, you can fly a kite, too. Maybe some of you are brainless, maybe not, but that terminally frowned-up with concern talking head pundit who has her own t.v. show, Maddow, is supposedly a Rhodes scholar (I know, can you believe it?), so I’ll assume she speaks for all these self-righteous commenters here and is simply lying when she pretends to not see a difference between the minority of racists who liked seeing blacks get refused at lunch counters on the one hand, and the MAJORITY, on the other hand, yes even back then, even among only protestant white southern males I’d wager, who recognized no matter how enlightened they were or were not on seeing the “negroes” as their equals, that empowering the federal government to crush the citizen’s freedom of association in private business relationships in order to unconstitutionally solve an admittedly terrible problem was one BAD IDEA, bound to be forever extended, (as it is now by the Left in the name of “gays” to crush religious liberty) bound to lead to more statism, and even totalitarianism for all, irregardless of race. So, I’ll assume little concerned Rachel gets the distinction between how the value of a principle that can and will be exercised immorally by some is not the same as approval of the immorality. I mean, it’s hardly some deep difficult Aristotlean argument, is it, impossible to decipher? And she was a Rhodes scholar. So I’ll just assume she’s a liar and doesn’t give a fig about the current race-based discrimination the State enforces as happy sounding “affirmative action”, self-segregation between the races now, whew, thank God the State came in to make us integrate, otherwise…..nor even about enforced racial discrimination then which was sometimes violent, which could have been solved with more of an eye towards the future harmony of American citizens irregardless of race and without behaving unconstitutionally, and not as some crusade, described as Christian, but in reality statist. I’ll just call Rachel Maddow a racist bigot, after that interview with Paul, and assume the same about all these lefty trolls here: pesky, winston liberbooboo, Baker, etc. I mean, that’s fair isn’t it?
Thank you for your sincere defense Mr. Woods of Dr. Paul. I agree with what he said and I hope that Jack Conway feels what we call blowback on November.
@mrmtrowest: I think Tom’s point was that Japanese-Americans became successful—even surpassing whites in many respects—despite having been very clearly discriminated against (by the Federal Government, I might add). This fact calls into question the standard myth that discrimination necessarily renders any particular group helpless in society.
Now, on the broader point, I think you are the one ignoring human nature. The history of racism/discrimination in America is not a good one for the Federal Government. Conversely, there were countless private Americans who fought relentlessly for the cause of equality (opportunity). If racism is so ubiquitous, as you seem to think it is, then it stands to reason that it will find itself into government. The only difference between the government and the private sector in this respect is that, in the case of the government, you will have the entirety of government force behind the racism (as in WWII internment or Jim Crow). It is, AT BEST, a wash. So please, get off your high-horse.
Well, it’s unfortunate that he listened to his advisers, according to his appearance on Laura Ingraham and from what the always predictably politically expedient Rich Lowry says. It could’ve been way more than a teaching moment. It could’ve been a revolutionary stab in the front chest of the Left in, as I said above, shifting some of the ground that these Lincoln-worship, Hamiltonian, statist-excusing lies, falsely in the name of justice rest upon. Admitting he wouldn’t repeal the Act? How ridiculous to even answer such a question rather than directly challenging the myth that it “solved” all racial tensions, and “guaranteed” happiness forever for black southerners. Lowry calls it the last battle of the (then) 100 year old War; does he wish it were still going, so 100 year old Jaffa could do live reporting from the burning march to the sea? He links to 3 yr. old hackery dismissals rather than arguments from the intolerable (and world class intolerant) James Taranto, on Ron Paul’s interview w/T. Russert. Really. The late Tim Russert.
This was a teaching, potentially Constitutional moment; I’m disappointed Dr. Paul didn’t trust his gut and fight. But it shows, as much as there is to admire in both father and son, they are RAW, not seasoned at all in the Game of Perception that is politics. Yes, of course, that’s admirable in what it implies; but if admiration alone won us donuts we’d have banished the idea of centralization of power and leftists of all stripes to Europe by now out of their own voluntary desperation. It was beyond stupid for him to have seen any upside to going on Maddow’s show; the Louisville newspaper lefties would’ve tried to make hay out of his editorial interview comments anyway. Now, Ed Schultz is ranting on, onward and upward on my telly encouraged, not appeased, the way the idiotic Lowry seemed to think was likely when he finished his post by hoping Paul can put this behind him after agreeing, more or less, with the left’s starting point that opposition to the Acts was racist. Schultz has got Sharpton on for his 3500 viewers, Fox will cover it and tomorrow’s Ny Times will feature it on the front page, guaranteed. Paul looks weaker for even conceding what he’s conceded; if they convince him to go further he’ll damage himself, even in a more Constitutionalist state like Kentucky. Good luck, Dr.
Sadly, this may get uglier for everyone involved. I am sure that even those of us who are supporters of Dr. Rand would rather that we were talking about what’s the quickest way to reduce the size of this overgrown government, or about which foreign base would be #1 on the list of Most Inconseqential to our Nation’s Defense.
Yes, this is a ‘teachable moment.’ Yes, Rand has a principled and Constitutional point, but one which doesn’t go over well in our ‘there outta be a law’ culture.
I am reminded of a saying that Dr. Laura is fond of quoting to her callers when they bring up an argument they had with a spouse/friend/relative. She’ll say, “You have to decide: Is this ‘really’ the hill you want to die on?” Do we really want to see Rand lose an election because of an argument over a law that he has no intention or desire of working to overturn? I vote “No” to that.
Peace be with you.
There is also the other side. A church with a white supremacist doctrine now can go to the same lunch counter in their “expressive clothes” and those same waiters are forced to serve them because they cannot discriminate based on religion.
The Neo-Nazis marched in Skokie – the civil rights act extends this to private businesses.
Government cannot be allowed to discriminate (The states shouldn’t be allowed to have dissimilar laws – but they too couldn’t force “separate but equal”). But when Government is employed to force persons or businesses, the results are often not what was intended.
A libertarian knows the difference between private property on which you build your home and private property used to run a business.
At least a libertarian with the I.Q. of a Chimpanzee.
This was a major disaster.
@brett
I understood Woods point perfectly well … better than you understood mine. The point, again, is that Japanese-Americans were not subject to discrimination over the course of generations. To my knowledge Japanese were never bought or sold in this country, nor were they the target of pervasive, malicious legislation in certain parts of the country that systematically denied them basic civil rights. You cannot reasonably equate the Japanese experience of discrimination in America with African American experience, making the observation about Japanese achievement vs African American achievement silly.
Your remarks about the record of the federal government not effectively combating racism are fanciful and contradicted by the historical record – take the effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example.
Both sides are looking at this issue incorrectly. From the right, the 1964 civil rights act is a constitutional abomination is further distorted the meaning of the commerce clause. It is this distortion of the commerce clause that threatens our federalist system and encourages a continuing expansion of government. From the left, the 1964 civil rights act ignored the very constitutional solution to the problem of segregation in places of public accommodation; expressly prohibiting public officials from enforcing criminal trespass laws in places of public accommodation that segregate. By removing the government security subsidy on segregation, private owners would need to hire security to remove “trespassers.” Many places would have to change their policy or go out of business because it would be too expensive to employ their own security force to keep their establishments. In addition, because private citizens can only use “reasonable” force to remove trespassers, segregated establishments would face increased risk of litigation and litigation expenses. In short, when proprietors face the full brunt of segregations cost, they either will be less profitable or have to abandon segregation.
“that advertises confederate flag items on its home page”
Oh no! Confederate flags! Oh the scandal!
Hurry up someone and burn those thought criminals at the stake.
I am a proud card carrying member of the League of the South, As a Southerner I think “political independence” for the South is a laudable goal although I don’t think the country is there yet. And as a conservative Christian I certainly think a “religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditional, conservative Protestant Christian-oriented Southern culture” is laudable as well. The PC Gestapo who have shown up on this post may not agree, but please spare me the feigned outrage.
Rand has the same problem Obama has, sometimes he forgets to lie.
I agree very much, cfountain72, that it may unfortunately get uglier, and that it’s a hill that can never be won in the short term, and that the “masses”, even in KY., are overly susceptible to the lies of the Leftist-controlled state. (I used to be one such individual of the masses when I was on the left by default without thinking about anything). And on reflection, I was perhaps overly harsh in my last few sentences with accusations of “conceding” at Rand Paul. He didn’t concede his basic unassailable and historically accurate point that the one provision of imposing on private businesses and citizens a law of enforced nondiscrimination, however much such racial discrimination was wrong and immoral, and admittance of anyone was a very, very troubling trapdoor that was opened in our Constitution, blatantly violating the 9th and 10th amendments, and setting the stage for a new superhighway for further statist control over the American citizen for the indefinite future. But much of politics is semantics and perception and the push and absorb pliability of “moving” the center to where either Left or Right thinks it should be.
My point is this: what can be gained from Paul, and by extension, the libertarian, constitutionalist, paleoconservative, Old Right, genuine conservative movement (who are, remember outside of power in the “conservative” movement, not just the GOP!) even hinting at a concession he misspoke, or was misunderstood, or any other untruth? Not only nothing, I’d say worse than nothing. The cat was already pulled out of the bag by the LCJ “reporters” (it’s almost cute, isn’t it? In a sickening way). And Paul’s advisers must have gotten goosebumps when watching his amateur reaction of describing his support for the public places enforcement of nondiscrimination, and then trying to leave it at that, waiting for the journos to begin their “but…” Paul then began, ‘but’, and smiled as he acknowledged “you knew you were going to ask a but..” Come on! He knew his position was honorable and principled and he knew they knew his position, but did he honestly believe there was a man or woman in that LCJ interview who was susceptible to his message? Who wasn’t fishing for a Gotcha! moment which they’d just caught? If he didn’t, he should have, and that’s unexcusably dumb politics. Know your enemy. He should have had his answer ready for such a question, and been willing to take as long as he needed to explain himself in his own words that the Constitution mattered, that freedom of association mattered, that “virtuous” solutions that can be wrought immediately by the power of the State may seem seductively harmless when innocent black Americans were getting screwed politically in the South, but that, long-term, that “virtue” can, and often will disintegrate into vice, a vice of massive strength that once it is done, not only can it not be undone, but it is a vice that has been deliberately hoped for and falsely described as virtue by the Left all along! Then, he could’ve sat back and watched, as after Tues. night’s returns rolled in and the national leftist goon squad that is our pathetic American mainstream “journalism” profession started to roll through the video, trying in vain to selectively edit it just so, he would’ve had the satisfaction of knowing that the whole uninterrupted clip of his explanation would’ve been intelligible to the average honest American (and not just the honest average white American, despite the Left’s endless quest to convince the Right, the minorities, themselves, the world that some people can’t think for themselves and need a little paternalistic “guidance”), and he would’ve been in a position of high ground advancement with the Tea party behind him, waiting, begging to be called racist again for the 16,000th time. Instead, the Left separated HIM from the tea party with his carelessness, and he’s undeservedly on his heels a bit, yes just a bit, but a bit is a bit, and his advisers are probably screaming “Containment! Containment!” at him, while McConnell, that profile in courage, is getting phone calls from NR/WS/AEI/Heritage/Commentary/whatever-central screaming at his quivering spine not to get too close to the kooky opthalmologist who just spanked Greyson by 20, 25 points?, can’t even remember. All in all, not a great way to spend the first 72 hours after such a primary triumph.
Even a hint he may have been misunderstood, or misspoke, will only feed the flames of Olby, Maddow, Matthews, Schultz, Blitzer, King, Couric, Williams, Lauer, the names go on and on. They’d know to keep talking about it, the Times, which tells all these little pavlovian dogs which pellets they’re supposed to eat on which day, seven days a week, would keep writing on it, and..what? Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham and Levin and the Corner and those walking talking imbeciles O’Reilly and Scarborough would try to “get the facts out” about Paul’s nuanced argument? Um, no. They wouldn’t because they couldn’t. Only Buchanan on mainstream T.V. would try; didja notice by the way he had the day off Thurs. morning Joe? Always seems to be missing when the rest of them ‘want to really get to the heart of it all’ with that clown, smiling joe, the only one there who’ll be uncomfortable, but not capable of expressing the proper conservative position that is being purposefully ignored, despite his reported law school training. (I heard it was Alabama, not Harvard i guess, like that geostrategic genius, David Frum, but it is a good school and why does Morning Joe always seem so Morning Dopey when it matters the most?)
In short, this was a stumble, from where he stood before they tried to manufacture this controversy, right after when he said “The Tea Party has a message, we’re here to take our government back!”, and all the little statists probably felt a nice cold wet chill go down their spine. But it could’ve been averted at the getgo in the LCJ interview with more careful language and deliberate purpose. Obviously, I don’t wanna sound apocalyptic, this thing is very, very winnable, but any wish that Paul can now “put this behind him” is, i think, frankly, delusional. The Dem candidate (can’t even think of name), all the talking heads, all the print press, all of the statist-worshipping mindless elite enemy will do everything possible in the next more than 5 1/2 months to keep Paul off message with the subject. And the neos will patrol the sidelines, anxiously biting their fingernails, waiting to see if they can join the victory parade and slobberingly suck up all the punch themselves, or if they’ll need to write their “sad, but true” encomiums of how now w/Buckley dead, the cranks our taking over again, why-oh-why-weren’t-we-listened-to narrative. I’ll puke if the latter happens, and for the former to happen, Paul will have to advance and thrust, baby, with the Tea Party behind him. (That’s another obvious one to predict, btw, look for LOTS and LOTS of crazy sounding racist white people at all Paul’s speaking engagements henceforth, who we’ll know before the first syllable hits our ears are little rent-a-thug leftist plants and moles. Paul will have to have a cadre of his own counterrevolutionaries (except we’re the revolutionaries! The constitutionalists! Don’t think they don’t know it either, the leftists, down to their green-with-envy shoes) to expose and remove these hacks.
It will be a tough, tough fight, but it is VERY winnable.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/no_cheers_for_rand_paul.html
A.C., you’re a smart guy, right? Try turning off the cartoon in your mind. I hope that when you think about big societal problems, you think to yourself, “it’s complicated; the causes are many, and so are the answers.” Newsflash: white racism still exists, is still very powerful. It exists in other groups, too! It’s true! Black people are often prejudiced! Asians, too! Guess what? All types are also big on self-inflicted wounds! Yeah for humans!
No, “lefties” aren’t trying to make a perfect world, although rhetoric the often goes there. It’s rhetoric. Wanna critique a religious sermon? Or a wedding vow? Or some Founding documents?
Lastly, when you write that, “empowering the federal government to crush the citizen’s freedom of association in private business relationships in order to unconstitutionally solve an admittedly terrible problem was one BAD IDEA, bound to be forever extended, (as it is now by the Left in the name of “gays” to crush religious liberty)” — it sure seems like you see ending Jim Crow laws AND SUCH as perhaps not worth the TERRIBLE inequality you currently face under the current regime. Glad you can at least bring yourself to “admit” that Jim Crow was a bad “idea.”
Publius Cato – That’s an interesting, boyish, crazy proposition. Good luck with your newsletter.
I’m hamstrung and demoralized by the limited vcabulary we share for describing the sort of racial and otherwise human insensitivity your worldview seems to transmit. But at least you’re a nerd for the Constitution, so bully for you and grab the flag!
Liberty includes the freedom to be an arsehole in the eyes of the majority or it means nothing worthwhile. A man is within his rights to discriminate on his own property against anybody for whatever reason he sees fit, or for no reason, and others are free to judge him by his behaviour.
That said, of course the USA is not a country that generally values liberty other than as a misunderstood and empty political slogan, and it seems obvious this issue can damage Mr Paul considerably by the time his enemies have finished distorting and exaggerating it. Seems to me he will have to back away from it.
Such is the fate of principle in a democracy. Unless, as cfountain 72 puts it above, it is a hill he is prepared to die on (which seems unlikely to me).
Stevej:
A libertarian knows the difference between private property on which you build your home and private property used to run a business.
At least a libertarian with the I.Q. of a Chimpanzee.
With respect, imo you are simply incorrect on this point. There is a legitimate libertarian argument about large joint stock companies (big business), but there is no coherent libertarian position that distinguishes between premises used by an individual or small group for business purposes as against residential use (absent particular contractual agreements within a lease, or similar).
The idea that once you open a shop, or a bed and breakfast, or whatever, you acquire some duty to serve everyone equally is not a libertarian idea. It is a distinctly statist elevation of coerced good manners ahead of basic personal and property rights. It is widespread in modern western societies because the concept of liberty is not widely understood or properly valued.
This was a major disaster.
Politically speaking you are probably correct. That in itself is evidence for my assertion above, that the USA is not a nation that understands, or particularly values, liberty.
Mr. Phillips,
There is no feigned outrage here. You know darn well what reasonable people associate the stars and bars with. Where this Southerner grew up, the people flying the battle flag were racist rednecks. When the Klan marched in my hometown years ago they carried it front and center. If you wish to promote that part of your “heritage”, then feel free. Just don’t expect reasonable people to take you seriously. This isn’t being PC, it’s common sense.
It would be amusing were it not so pathetic. The tired accusation of “racism” against anyone who isn’t a hardcore left-statist remains as pervasive as ever.
Perhaps too many individuals are forgetting that if this deficit continues unabated, arguing over whether or not Rand Paul is guilty of an Orwellian-style thought crime and secretly desires the return of Jim Crow will be completely irrelevant if spending and our foreign policy is not brought under control.
If one wishes to witness and experience political and personal chaos continue electing Tweedledee and Tweedledum to office while ignoring those the mainstream media either ignores or attacks. Financial ruin will not be long in coming as a result. Want to continue to ignore it? Good luck. you’re going ot need it.
It is instructive here to consider the experience of the Jewish Americans here (though I am well aware that there are differences in the Jewish and Black American experiences).
Jews were widely and openly discriminated against in the 1st half of the 20th century. They were not hired by many WASP law firms, doctors not allowed to join hospitals, excluded from fraternities etc. What did they do? They created their own law firms, Jewish hospitals, fraternities, etc. Eventually, they were fully accepted into American society, well represented in the professions, and it became unnecessary to have these Jewish-sponsored institutions.
Yet somehow when the lefties look back upon the plight of blacks in America, they are convinced that only heavy-handed actions from the federal government could have ended the abhorrent practices in the south. And of course these same lefties refuse to acknowledge how the welfare / drug war / government schools have screwed over the inner city black population in horrific and ongoing ways.
I didn’t realize the 1964 Civil Rights Act was up for debate again in the U.S. Senate. Why would this issue even come up?
[...] Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language: The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights [...]
Stevej:
Jacob Hornberger is good on the libertarian principles relating to this issue:
Rand Paul, Civil Rights, and More Liberal Hypocrisy on Race
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1005f.asp
He’s a bit harsh on conservatives for my taste: “For a time, conservatives opposed the liberal movement toward socialism and fascism. Thus, many of them opposed FDR’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society as well as Johnson’s 1964 Civil Rights Act ban on discrimination by private businesses.
Over time, however, conservatives threw in the towel on all counts. Fearful that they would lose credibility, respectability, and, most important, political power, they ended up abandoning the principles of economic liberty and embracing the principles of socialism, interventionism, fascism, and big government. As part of that process, they ended up embracing liberals’ socialist welfare-state programs that came with FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society and the federal control over private businesses that came with LBJ’s 1964 Civil Rights Act. ……… Conservatives, fearful of losing political power, have embraced the entire liberal agenda and are especially dead set on fortifying the warfare state in America, leaving themselves with nothing more than their old 1950s irrelevant and hypocritical mantra “free enterprise, private property, and limited government” that they use in their speeches, on their stationery, and on their websites.”
Since I see myself as being a libertarian of a conservative disposition, that seems a little harsh to me, but I suppose it’s pretty fair as far as the majority of so-called conservatives are concerned.
“I didn’t realize the 1964 Civil Rights Act was up for debate again in the U.S. Senate. Why would this issue even come up?”
Because we’re repealing it all when we get back into power!
1890, here we come!
(corrections made)
Why didn’t they also ask him, “so when did you stop beating your wife?” for good measure?
I do not actually believe this issue is relevant to what’s going on in 2010.
Yet, for the sake of argument, let’s imagine that this issue were actually up for debate. Let’s imagine the Congress somehow were to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Who actually believes that in the year 2010, we would revert to Jim Crow? Who actually believes (especially in these hard times) that white businesses would voluntarily drive away customers, black and white alike?
I don’t, because I’m not a paranoid. I do not see racists under every bed. Rather, my fears actually correspond to observed reality. I’m a lot more afraid of government supremacists than white supremacists because the former enemy is still active – and stronger than ever. The worldwide number of people oppressed, enslaved and murdered by centralized collectivist governments just in the last century exceeds those oppressed by slavery and segregation by orders of magnitude.
By the way, it is a different world from the world of 1964. So many public accommodations now are owned by blacks or by people who are closer to black than white (try to find a Motel 6 or 7 Eleven owned by whites) that this issue is beyond irrelevant. Yet even if I found myself barred from some elitist establishment due to race, that only tells me I wouldn’t want to be there anyway. With very few exceptions (such as hospitals), it just wouldn’t matter to me whether I got to mix with the racist snobs.
Also, a lot of us have realized that forced integration was not the be-all and end-all. In many ways it drained a lot of the best and brightest, along with a lot of capital — financial and moral – out of the black communities in hopes of advancement in the “white world.”
Very importantly, folks need to understand that history is more than what gets written up in newspapers or reported by trusted icons (such as the news icon back in 1964, Walter Cronkite, communist sympathizer and proponent of world government). Official History omits most of the really important facts. The fact is the coverage of the Civil Rights era — and to a significant extent, the events themselves — were manipulated to produce the outcome desired by the federal supremacists. “Racism” was purposely provoked and invoked in order to discredit and crush the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution for the united States of America. You can call it “conspiracy” or you can call it “covert operations” — doesn’t much matter. It happened and it is on the record.
William Jasper of The New American writes (in Agents Provocateurs Fuel Anti-Right-wing Propaganda):
think outside the cage.
You point out that the statists always give more power to the monopolists and they believe that peaceful remedies are impossible.
Following that line of thought, what do you think their ultimate goal is for people who think like yourself or Dr. Paul?
What happens to freedom if its only defenders believe in the non-aggression principle?
[...] unpopular speech; freedom of association has to protect unpopular associations. As Thomas Woods notes, in this day and age any "segregated restaurant would be boycotted and picketed out of existence [...]
…and the supreme court is going to reverse Brown v Board of Ed in favor of Plessey v. Furgeson? OMG this is absurd.
Nobody:
What happens to freedom if its only defenders believe in the non-aggression principle?
There is a clue in the name of the “non-aggression principle”. We aren’t talking about pacifists here, in general.
The idea that government would make racism go away because it forces business owners to serve someone a cheeseburger doesn’t even reach up to the level of stupidity. To my leftist statist friends is this the same Civil Rights Act that Senator Al Gore Sr. voted against or Senator J. W. Fullbright of Arkansas who Clinton referred to as his mentor also voted against? To my neocon friends, is this the same Civil Rights Act that Goldwater and Reagan opposed? Yes.
Even Rich Lowery acknowledged that there is an “honorable” libertarian tradition in opposing this Act.
My only criticism is that Rand should have answered the answer directly. What hurt him more was not what he believed but how he answered whathe believed. He needs to be bettter prepared.
I dont need or want the governement to help us poor “minorities”. They have done enough damage.
“There is no coherent libertarian position that distinguishes between premises used by an individual or small group for business purposes as against residential use.”
With all due respect, that is news to me. A business depends on PUBLIC PROPERTY (roads, sidewalks, city services, etc.).
In addition, when a group of them act in concert, that is, they create and institutionalized situation, i.e. collusion, in a way that INTERFERES with the free market, you no longer have a free market, and ALL of society must bear, to some extent, the costs of that obstruction to the free market.
Identifying collusion or institutionalized intervention of the free market should be done very carefully and in a limited manner — something liberals do not do. But if you didn’t have institutionalized intervention in the free market in the segregated south, then where do have it?
“Please, please don’t revert to the point: ‘everyone was enslaved at least once.’”
But this point is worth belaboring for conservatives because it undermines the radical leftist orthodoxy that Europeans are singularly evil creatures and everyone else gamboled guilelessly about, careful not to commit so much as a minor slight against one another for millenia until they were corrupted by Columbus et al. This is not to condone slavery or imperialism, but such deeds were (and are) not the exclusive province of rapacious Europeans, those supposed serpents in the garden. Knowing that all races also engaged in imperialism and slavery–often amongst themselves–gives the lie to that leftist canard that Europeans are the virulent cancer of mankind (I guess the Mongols and their campaigns were a mild fever for humanity). Acknowledging this fact is also the only meaningful way that Eric Holder’s conversation about race will ever make it past the prefatory bromides. Once this conversation is embarked upon, we might yet discover, in the words of that sage Slick Willie Clinton, that “It has to begin by people accepting the fact that they can be proud of who they are without despising who someone else is.”
Thank you, Mr. Woods, for defending Dr. Paul. These pompous, self-righteous Leftists who attack Rand Paul for questioning parts of the Civil Rights Act have no respect for the Constitution, no respect for private property rights, and no respect for anything but their twisted, pro-government ideology.
I myself am a colored person – an American Indian, in fact. I may have been affected by segregated schooling had I lived back in the Civil Rights era. Yet, I vehemently oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history. There is absolutely no authority for it under the Constitution, and it infringes on private property rights to an extent that would make the Founding Fathers roll in their graves. It gives the Establishment an excuse to vastly centralize power so they can leave Americans in a state of eternal subordination. In the name of “equality,” we become slaves to our government masters.
I’ve read much of what you’d have to say about the Civil Rights Act, both in articles and in books, and I have to say I agree with you. I also agree with you about American Indians and how the Leftist, race-obsessed PC crusaders’ lies about the Indians being “environmentalists” who thought “land belonged to everyone” are lies used for political gain. I also learned some scary things about Martin Luther King, Jr. that I never would have learned had it not been for you.
Forced integration didn’t work as well as the Establishment wanted it to. In fact, it created more racial animosity than it alleviated. As President Eisenhower said, you can’t force people to like each other. He was called a “racist” for that, but it’s the truth. You can’t force racist attitudes out of people through the barrel of a government gun. Attitudes only change by changing peoples’ most deeply held values and beliefs, and the only effective way of doing so is through peaceful, voluntary means – persuasion, education, books, music, art. After all, it’s a lot more beautiful and compassionate than silencing dissent and locking people up.
While my relatives continue to drown in victimology and blame all their problems on the “white man,” I will depart from feeling sorry for myself and, instead, refuse to let my race define every aspect of my life. Our real oppressors are the teary-eyed Leftists who seek to portray us as poor little children who can’t take care of ourselves. THIS is what keeps minorities from reaching their full potential. Instead of blaming their failures on their own mistakes and seeking to better themselves, they blame “racism” and “discrimination” to rid themselves of any personal responsibility for their problems. Liberation starts from within, and until my Indian brethren realize this, they’ll struggle forever more. Thank God we have people like you, Mr. Woods.
Here’s the question for Americans: Do you want a senator who is a serious student of philosophy, is widely read, and considers the ramifications feel-good measures on our liberties found in the Bill of Rights, or do you want someone who’s a mere rubber stamp of conventional thinking, with no ability to learn from history?
Rand Paul is an ardent supporter and advocate for justice and equal rights under the law and said so repeatedly in his appearance on the Rachael Maddow show. He would have marched with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. But like the ACLU, which on principle defends the rights of those with viewpoints they find despicable, Rand pauses to consider whether some elements of the Civil Rights Act in fact violate our fundamental right to freely associate with whom we wish.
The unleashed torrent of criticism and feigned outrage (his enemies are happy, believe me) is not only devoid of philosophic content, it is a partisan assault on the tea party for which Rand has become a proxy. The assault is almost wholly Democratic but Republican elites, though sitting on their hands, are beaming with satisfaction. Neither group wants the tea party to succeed. It would be very bad for their grand plans.
J Baker’s comments are super weak. The Southern Poverty Law Center is a joke. It’s creepy, divisive, inflammatory and in itself hateful. They are cheap heat artists whose primary ammunition is baseless smears.
Rand Paul, if he was to express his reservations over any aspect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, ought to have set his sights on affirmative action. In order for the act to pass, LBJ had to ally himself with Republican Everett Dirksen in exchange for an amendment that proscribed racial quotas and, hence, affirmative action. The illegality of quotas was flouted by legal activists in the EEOC and their disobedience was in time enshrined in the Griggs decision, heralding the era of positive discrimination and protected minorities. Paul should have addressed the original intent of the law and its subsequent subversion by legal/ judicial activist chicanery. AA is a topic of much relevance as it is the pervasive quota mentality–exemplified by the CRA and EEOC–that has wrought so much economic chaos.
[...] But what if private businesses were allowed to discriminate against somebody based on their race? Well, as best selling author Thomas Woods points out, not only would they be willfully throwing away the business of many people who are of that race to their competitors, that business would be picketed out of existence in about ten seconds. [...]
I think the League of the South ought to succeed in its bid to secede. Then they can have Rand Paul and any other pinheads they choose to elevate. And the modern, productive parts of the country wouldn’t have to put up with their backwoods antics any longer. The North would have to absorb a lot of black refugees trying to escape the reinstatement of slavery, along with other assorted sane people, but it would be worth it.
[...] Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language: The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights [...]
@mtraven Net black migration has favored the South to the North in recent years, and it is in the South, not the North, where a majority of blacks polled say they feel they are being treated equally. Take your idiocy somewhere else. If anything, it’s the big government you love so much that’s reinstating slavery through the form of heavy taxation, crippling debt, unlimited spending of the peoples’ money, excessive regulation, infringement of private property rights, vast reductions in personal liberties (free speech, gun rights, etc.), and a central bank that is destroying the currency through severe inflation. If anyone wants to bring back slavery today, it’s the State.
Why wouldn’t most Americans disseminate against minorities if there wasn’t a law? Because most Americans are good people, and because discrimination is bad business.
Those attacking Rand Paul believe the opposite.
[...] written here, here, and here about the Rand Paul/Civil Rights Act situation, but the grand prize goes to Jacob Hornberger. As [...]
I know a lot of people in the freedom movement are concerned about Rand’s ’64 Act Incident, but honestly, just look at posts above mine from ‘mtraven’; could you, in all honesty, take seriously their comment? To me all this media-created “scandal” is proving is how utterly DESPERATE the Left is in retaining power and significance. The Right’s buzzword of “terrorist” still has some vigor in it, I would say 2/3 honestly are afraid when it’s invoked by the regime, but it hasn’t even had a full decade of life for it to be overused to the point of absurdum, though it is getting there. But compare that to the Left’s buzzword of “racist”, this has been the raison d’etre since Marxists overthrew the Old Left in the 60′s, and is now roughly HALF A CENTURY old. Plenty of time to make it self irrelevant through overuse.
I know it’s hard to believe it right now, but the Left, and their enablers in the media, are digging their own graves with this non-scandal.
My view on this is exactly the same as Rand’s. The CRA was NECESSARY, because what needed to be ended were the Jim Crow laws – institutional racism. Forcing businesses to serve people (ironic) is the part where I disagree. Institutional segregation was the true endeavoring evil of the time, and I think these days people assuming that getting rid of that one part of the CRA would result in mass segregation because, apparently, they believe a significant number of white business owners are itching to kick blacks out of their establishments…is completely absurd.
What people seem to forget is that defending the right to do something does not constitute an endorsement of the same.
One can defend the right to deny the Holocaust without endorsing Holocaust denial.
Once upon a time, there was a massive migration of blacks to Northern states, where the jobs were. Now you have Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, such wonderful places to live that white people are fleeing in droves and have been for years.
I often wonder how many of those who wail about the perpetual injustices against the black community and bigotry of those who don’t embrace the wonders of diversity are the same people who segregate themselves in majority-white neighborhoods.
Just like the same leftist hypocrites that cry crocodile tears about the decline of our school system and lack of funding but send their kids to private schools.
If you think it’s so great to live around minority groups and that people who wish to segregate themselves do so out of “racism,” why don’t you be the first limousine liberal to practice what you preach? Move to a black neighborhood. Send your kids to school in that neighborhood. Patronize the businesses in that neighborhood. Get back to us in a year and tell us how great it is.
It’s a generally accepted economic tenet (by those who actually get it anyway) that if a group of people (think women, blacks, other prisoners of the so-called glass ceiling) is paid lower wages for the same quality of work, it will be a boon to competitors to hire them at that lower rate to take advantage of their productivity.
Competition for the labor of this underserved group should drive up wages. The fact that this does not happen is telling. Perhaps these people really don’t bring the same qualities to the table. Unfortunately it’s verboten to discuss this. Feelings may be hurt, and we don’t want that. And God forbid we actually assign blame for a problem where it belongs.
Rand Paul isn’t the problem.
[...] Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language: The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights [...]
Rand Paul – The Senator from British Petroleum.
SouthtoNorth, why are you such a self loather?
First of all, the “stars and bars” refers to the First National Flag, not the Battle Flag, so to start you should get your facts straight.
Second, it is only fairly recently in our history that the Battle Flag has become controversial. It has become the latest target in the advancing march of the Cultural Marxist PC Gestapo thought police whose intention it is to undermine Western Christian civilization. Why are you acting as their good little foot soldier?
Read this and learn. Maybe it will help you get over your obvious self-loathing.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson3.html
No one has the right to use force or coercion against someone else. This applies to both governments and individuals. If we would just adhear to this principle and embrace free markets ( VOLUNTARY exchange) with a government whose sole purpuse is to protect those rights then we would all be better off. That is the libertarians mantra. It’s the true message of peace.
I understand why the average poorly educated person believes we need the federal government to solve every problem. I was a liberal in high school because I was given liberal books and mostly liberal teachers taught me. I didn’t have intelligent parents at home to make up for the indoctrinating that was taking place every day at school. If it wasn’t for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign I would still be a dope smoking liberal that blames everybody but myself for my problems.
MTRAVEN your a sheep man I live in western NY I would join the League of the South, Vermont Secession movement or the Free State Project in New Hampshire. I didn’t know people in Vermont or New Hampshire were racists. Call me a Racist…..why though just because I want my friends and family to be truly free from an Overbloated Corrupt Central Government. Any state that secedes from the United States today would probably go through a GOLDEN AGE. FREEDOM IS POPULAR!!!!!!!
nardon, Rand OPPOSED the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a terrible violation of individual property rights in the public accomodations and equal employment sections and she
also opposed the 1968 Fair Housing Act for the same reasons. It was NOT necessary legislation to strike down
legal segregration which was being abolished with every
court decision. You are really confused, your position is
not the same as Rand’s. Civil rights laws are the flip side
of Jim Crow laws and slavery. This is what Rand Paul should
have said, instead he grovelled and blew it. Not a chip off his
Dad’s block.
…and Rand still leads the Democrat by 25 points. Liberal hysteria is hilarious in its absurdity.
Thanks, Tom for your thoughtful article. Of course there is a logical argument against the CRA, but I don’t think Rand articulated it particularly well. Somehow, I think Rand’s dad would have handled these questions much more skillfully, but he has had a lot more time to sharpen his interview chops. I believe this issue will not go away and it must become a teaching moment if Rand’s candidacy is going to avoid being overwhelmed by the left’s epithets. I hope he can collect himself and become a calm, compelling, insighful voice for liberty like you, Lew Rockwell, his dad, and the rest of the folks at Mises. We need all the help we can get!
“The “dude” is “toast” for slightly questioning a sacred cow. Nice.”
And what happens to those who criticize AIPAC? The only difference is that Paul has a Jim Crow view of America. Toast? Not my term.
Meat!
[...] written here, here, and here about the Rand Paul/Civil Rights Act situation, but the grand prize goes to Jacob Hornberger. As [...]
Businesses or people don’t do things out of being “nice,” or concerned about others, even about the consequences of their actions. So laws stand for the moral good of the society as well, for what we will and won’t stand for. To leave “mobs” to enforce what a private business does, ie, picketers, puts the moral compass on “use of force” and who perhaps, has the biggest guns. Not really workable.
Many of our laws are there, even the simplest ones (for example, speed limits on roads, or building codes requiring railings on steps) because the actions of businesses and people cost or may cost the government or others money.
For example, the police probably would have to respond to a call from someone concerned that the so-called picketers at the hypothetical discriminatory business and their opponents may or are getting aggressive and violent. Perhaps the picketers block traffic and other businesses lose business. Another pundit said that it could be as simple as perhaps the ‘unwelcome’ person enters the business and refuses to leave. The police would be called to remove the person.
In the absence of many laws, in out modern world, insurers could then become the arbiters of what people do. Not a great alternative.
As far as lawsuits against employers go, they cost upwards of $20,000, and very few plaintiffs prevail (at EEOC level, it’s 3-4% at an agency that so is overwhelmed with complaints, it can’t investigate most; in the courts, plaintiffs only win about 20% of the time). Fears about employers not being able to fire people are unfounded.
Please do some research.
Etc.
[...] Eric Dondero at http://www.libertarianrepublican.net – Tom Woods at the American Conservative, who minimizes people’s legitimate concern and disagreement with [...]
[...] Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language: The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights [...]
[...] Tom Woods, who has contributed to Ron Paul’s best-selling books, addresses the smear campaign using concise and eloquent language: The Left is going after Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights [...]
[...] The American Conservative Rand Paul and the Zombies __________________ A man with an experience, is never at the mercy of a man with an argument. [...]
Well, now, it’s settled. I don’t even need to speak facetiously like I did in my post above. We KNOW Maddow and MSNBC are bald-faced liars with their ridiculous attempt to put words into Paul’s mouth and issue a dishonest transcript, which, as I said, the NY Times copies in a front page story and all the other little pavlovian lefties copy in their news reports. When asked if private establishments DID have the right to discriminate, they fictionalized him saying “Yes”. He didn’t. He was obviously, if you look at the Youtube link from Lewrockwell.com, merely muttering “yeah’ in an acknowledgement that he’ll try and answer the question if Maddow will shut up and stop talking over the satellite delay. This is the kind of shit the MSM got away with for DECADES before the internet and youtube. But we’re supposed to believe Rachel Maddow is a) a left-winger, not representative of the MSM, even though they all copy what she and MSDNC did in standing by this forged transcript of what Paul actually said, and b) Paul’s opinions are so obviously outside the mainstream and we (the MSM) are just trying to inform the people about how dangerous he is….which is why we have to lie about what he said. Right.
It’s gotten to the point where, generally speaking, politics is now a more noble profession than journalism. Plenty of pols are crooks, but at least we have the benefit of history of knowing not to trust politicians since the time of the Greeks. People who still trust anything journalists are telling them, aside from the few openly ideological and polemical ones like here for instance, are simply absolute suckers. There are a lot of them out there, unfortunately.
The neos will probably ignore this, btw, as opposed to the freakout they’d have at NR et al, if Liz Cheney said something like “we MAY have to bomb Iran into the stone age” and MSDNC released a doctored transcript of her saying “We WILL bomb them”
What is wrong with some people? No one has a right to discriminate in the way Rand Paul suggested (no private business canNOT discriminate). The First Amendment guarentees free speech, not the freedom to bring discriminatory speech into actions – therefore someone can say all the racist/sexist/bigoted crap they want, they can even call for discrimination, but they CANNOT ACT on that discrimination and do things like deny service.
Just to point out before the name calling, I’m one of the majority of Americans – a moderate. USA is a centered moderate country – not conservative rightie and certainly not liberal leftie.
Like a lot of so-called “centrists”, your position is rather incoherent. So, a bunch of Klansmen have the “right” to demand service in a black-owned BBQ joint, even when they’re “saying all the racist/sexist/bigoted crap they want”? Such imaginary “rights” would have astonished the founding fathers, and it’s a recipe for MORE enmity among the people. Leaving it up to owners themselves to exercise their private property rights as they see fit and live with the consequences of their choices is not only the constitutional way to deal with bigotry, it would lessen bigotry over time more than the govt. trying to impose any notion of fairness or peace.
A libertarian calling someone else’s position incoherent? Wow. Klansman or otherwise, you can go into any restaurant you want and expect service. However, you have no right to behave in an obnoxious manner. Restaurant and bar owners have every right to insist that a patron’s behavior conform to acceptable standards for their establishment, and they do, which is why you frequently see very large people called ‘bouncers’ stationed by the entrance to these establishments.
As for the magical, unsupported by reality notion that boycotts would have ended discrimination – in what time frame? Geologic? There wasn’t much progress in ending discrimination for several decades after reconstruction, a situation unacceptable to the victims, and to anyone not in thrall to the religion of libertarianism.
Sounds like the libtards are all out in force cause their loosing ground. Mr. Paul you stick to your guns because I’m one who believes and stands beside you. The civil rights act is a mute cause said and done . I’m glad racism ended but the cockroach libtards can’t find anything to scavenge so they try assanine backdoor ways to keep their agenda going. If I own a business, I produce my product on my dime, I also might pay my employees if I’m large enough to have them to package and move my product. Who gives anyone the right to tell me who I hire who I sell to and how much I pay my employees. Libtards with their agenda of being fair for all. Govment needs to back off and maybe our small business’s will thrive and that put’s People back to work. What a fantastic idea but, that’s not enough. They’ll take and take until there’s no one to hire We The People. Now how simple was that to understand. It’s simple A is A. Now if I hire the best people at what I want done I prosper and so does my business and also my employees. If I make a mistake by being a racsist and don’t move my product who fails not just me, my whole company. Myself and my employees. One other thing if my employees don’t like my rules they don’t have to work for me but they also shouldn’t share in something they had nothing to do with!!!! Making a business and the product of this business takes time. You can’t have my pie and eat it too!!!! BACK OFF BIG GOVMENT!!!!!
AC, you’re screwing up my position. If a bunch of Klansmen went into a African American owned restaraunt and started saying all the racist/sexist/bigoted crap they wanted to – that is causing a disturbance for the employees and other customers – kicking them out for their actions would not be discrimination.
As a former of that dreadful statist-collectivist zoo that you named after, I want to say that you are brainwashed statist zombie.
Businesses are scared to death of discrimination suits and bend over backwards to hire and not fire incompetent blacks
and women. Your glib stats have to do with day to day objective reality. That horrible piece of Civil Wrongs legislation
has produced a reign of terror in the workplace.
Your simpleminded rationale for all laws reminds me of the JFK libs in the 60s who would dismiss complaints of infringement of individual rights with the We Are The Government bromide. Which disappeared after Vietnam.
Proud Centerwinger, you have nothing to be proud of, your ilk is totally responsible for all the ills in the world. Of course everyone has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It’s called freedom of choice and the alternative is state slavery. The only entity that can’t discriminate is the government because we are all forced to support it. The center doesn’t hold and never has.
As Ayn Rand put it in We The Living, a long string zeroes amounts to zero.
Left out “resident” in the first line of my last posting.
Also the word “a” between “are” and “brainwashed”
in the same first line.
One more word I left out in my first line was “are” between “you” and “named.” Sorry about that.
“Resident” should have been between “former”
and “of”‘ in the first few words of the sentence.