Rand Paul Announces Support for Law of Gravity

Just a day after his brilliant victory, newly nominated Kentucky Tea Party champion, Rand Paul, released a statement boldly announcing his position on a central issue in the upcoming elections: “I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Defending his position, Paul left no room for confusion about how he feels about the burning question of allowing a return of Jim Crow laws, saying, "I'm opposed to institutional racism…and I see no place in our society for institutional racism."

Paul also spoke passionately against a return to chattel slavery, and insisted that the nation should continue to observe the laws of gravity, Kepler’s Law of Planetary Motion, and the Four Laws of Thermodynamics—though on gravity he did say he was concerned that the law may need some slight reform to address complaints from “many Kentuckians and Americans [who] are frustrated with the way the current law impinges on some of their most basic aspirations.”

Rand Paul: Philosopher King or Doofus of Ideology?

No really…

Paul did lash out today at those whom he claims created the conditions in which it became necessary for him to reassure voters he was not a racist kook. "My opponent's statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false…no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points.”

Well. This either means that Paul been taking cheap shots at himself of late, or it means he is not among the group he identifies as “serious people” who don’t seek to revisit the Civil Rights Act. After all, it was Dr. Paul himself who took us all on this trip to 1964 to revisit the virtues of the Civil Rights Act when he gave a long, gratuitous, and egregious response to a simple question posed by the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal.*

The simple question was, “Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?” I would have thought the answer here was easy. But it took Dr. Paul over two and a half minutes, including three follow up questions, to finally spit out that while he opposes racism and all, and favors ending all institutional racism, he…well, here is where Paul screwed the pooch: “I don’t like the idea of telling private business owners – I abhor racism; I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from a restaurant, but at the same time I do believe in private ownership…”

?

Well, he didn’t exactly say no did he? And he did point out that racial discrimination is bad—business-wise.

But he didn’t say yes, and that’s the gratuitous and egregious part. Dr. Paul is not running for the open seat of Kentucky Philosopher in Chief. His job, should the good people of Kentucky elect him, will be to craft legislation that addresses 21st century concerns. Mucking about with how an ideology applies to 1964 legislation is only of value in an undergraduate political science class; which is to say, nowhere. I believe Dr. Paul when he firmly asserts that he is not a racist and that he find racism abhorrent. But Paul does not seem to understand that the pure and beautiful logic of libertarianism that spellbinds him and his ilk does not trump history, justice, or dignity. His goofy intellectual commitments to abstract principles blinds and deafens him to the point of moral retardation.

No one cares about the finer points of his libertarian theory that robust private markets and common sense social decorum will ultimately correct all ills (and so forth, blah and woof…). The most useful answer to any such lame question that invites relitigation of socially settled issues is a simple affirmation that one agrees with the verdict of history; “yes” is all that is required. If asked if one would have supported the passage of the 13th Amendment, only the town crank who thinks that every nuance of his pristinely logical political ideology must be expressed in a tedious review of his concerns about state rights or the questionable ratification process. The right answer is “yes.” Move on, for godsake! (Unless one does not actually agree that the 13th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act were and are ultimately just; in which case, one is entitled to one’s opinion, but one is not fit to be dog catcher in Wasilla let alone a US senator.)

Dr. Paul couldn’t help himself; he has libertarian Tourette's and thus had to explain that freedom is “hard” and often requires us to accept the difficulties of “abhorrent behavior” from some groups and individuals. Which I guess means that a black family traveling for dozens if not hundreds of extra miles to seek hotel accommodations must simply accept this as the price they must pay for freedom—the freedom of the property owner being the self-evident paramount concern of libertarians and other slack-jawed penny philosophers before which all other values of democracy and notions of justice must bow.

Rand Paul: Whiner

Dr. Paul now whines that his opponent, who went on MSNBC to say that Rand Paul supports the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, is engaging in “irresponsible and knowingly false” cheap shots. And you do have to admit that the Democratic challenger, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, did not have to spend much (in opposition research anyway) to spin Paul’s actual words into an accusation that the good doctor “would repeal the Civil Rights Act.” It’s a stretch to get from whatever garbled thing Paul did say to a willingness to repeal the 1964 law, but not a long one.

At some point in his elaborate discourse, Dr. Paul said, “I do believe in private ownership, but I think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets public funding and that’s what mostly the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.” I guess that means Dr. Paul is mostly in support of the law. But, see, here’s the thing: What the law was and is does not rely on what is in Paul’s mind; there’s an actual reality out regarding what the Civil Rights Act was about. Out of the 16,000 words that make up the Act, 10,000—about 63%--are specifically targeted at discrimination practiced by private actors: the bulk of the law outlaws racial discrimination by private owners of restaurants, bars, hotels, and other “public accommodations” against selected patrons, and racially discriminatory hiring practices by private employers.

That’s 63% of the Act; if Rand Paul wins the election with 63% of the vote, I’m betting he will think the vote was “mostly” in favor of him. So, I'm curious: If Paul would support the law under the assumption it was mostly about ending discrimination in anything publicly funded (which, by the way, as a libertarian, Paul would not have much of anyway) and not about “telling private business owners” what to do, since we can now demonstrate that the bill was, indeed mostly about what he is philosophically opposed to, is it really “knowingly false” to say that the brand of libertarian ideology that Dr. Paul espouses would, indeed, entail repealing most of the Civil Rights Act, or at least not supporting it?

Rand now pouts because (you guessed it!) the liberal media…

C'mon, does that sentence really need to be finished? Anyone paying even fleeting attention to the ongoing weeping of the Right in any public affairs discourse already knows the tune, the lyrics, the chorus, the bridge, and the beat: “These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.” Y'know, like those wild, liberal-media, dishonest smears about death panels, secret plans to take away everyone's firearms, hidden birth cirtificates...

Hey, Doc! You keep spewing your laundry list of pet musings (stuff like reinstating the gold standard, teaching flat-earth theory in schools, and investigating what REALLY happened at Area 51 and whatnot) and you’ll probably get a lot more pushback from the liberal establishment (if not a call to return home from the overlords of your home planet).

Libertarian Crackpottery

The truth is, Rand Paul, like dear old dad, is not cut out to be a public servant—because he barely believes in a public. He is more consumed with the fever dreams of a pure ideology—a set of thought toys—consistently followed to their logical conclusions. I refer you to his interview with the Courier-Journal; along the journey Dr. Paul took us on in his guided tour of his fascinating mind, he mentioned his belief that we should do away with the Federal Reserve, eliminate the Department of Education, and let the marketplace work its blessed logical magic to satisfy the needs of the disabled thus disposing of the need for an intrusive, freedom impinging, big-government American’s with Disabilities Act.

Rand Paul gets a lot of reasonableness-points in the media for his acknowledgement that Barack Obama is “not really a socialist”; I hope to score the same kind of cred with the recognition that Rand Paul is not really a psychotic in need of hospitalization.


* You can watch the video of this Randy in Wonderland interview yourself. WARNING: It’s reaaaallllyyyy looooooong. The video is studded with wonderful nuggets of libertarian jaw-drool, but the relevant part comes at almost exactly the one-hour mark; fast forwarding is highly recommended.