Already Rand Paul is running into trouble in interviews by people who challenge his libertarian views when applied to such things as civil rights vs private property rights.
He told Laura Ingraham that he regrets doing the interview with Rachel Maddow. This incredibly smart, feisty former Rhodes Scholar knows how to hone in on a point. She stuck with it for almost 15 minutes, giving Paul plenty of time to explain his comments about the Civil Rights Act that he disagrees with. And his hole kept getting deeper and deeper.
Yes, his opponent is wrong if he claims that Paul wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. He said very clearly that he fully supports 9 of 10 articles in the act that regulate public institutions, and he would not try to repeal it. But he objects and would have worked against including the 10th article that regulates civil rights in private businesses and organizations. He feels that government should stay out of private business and leave it to the market place.
But that means we could still have segregated lunch counters, hotels, and drinking fountains. Blacks could still be forced to sit in the balcony of movie houses. Libertarians do not accept that as "public accommodations," even if privately owned, they are subject to civil rights laws.
Libertarians have a valid argument about the role of government. Paul tried to defend that position by stating that he is himself totally opposed to discrimination, and that the argument is about the role of government in regulating the private sector. Rachel kept pointing out the results of such lack of control. Paul kept saying she was bringing up "abstract situations," which was funny since she was talking specifically about the students who were beaten for trying to desegregate lunch counters in the 1960's and to get him to own up to opposing the regulations that brought down that type of segregation.
Paul wanted to defend his libertarianism in the abstract; Rachel was making him face the practical consequences.
This is exactly why Democrats were so happy that Paul won the Republican primary. His extreme views are now going to be viewed and dissected, and he will have to face the specific consequences of "getting the government out of our lives" philosophy. He will lose much of the moderate and independent votes that his Republican primary opponent might have gotten in the general election. Will the votes of the fringe right and his fellow libertarians be enough? I don't think so.
So the Democrats have a better chance now to pick up a senate seat in Kentucky.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your point [and Rachel's] are well made. In some ways, the Libertarians are more rational than their Conservative Republican counterparts who seem to simply be bought business lobbyists. I would hope that having Rand Paul out there having to address the "practical consequences" might have an impact on Libertarianism itself. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and profess abstract principles. It's much harder when you're exposed to the likes of Rachel the Magnificent. I wonder if he'll stay on the fringe, or bring his [their] views more into reality. But at least it's more interesting than listening to the Republiclones [and a Democratic Senator from Kentucky would be delicious]...
ReplyDeleteI just watched the whole Maddow Paul exchange. I had just seen a short piece. That boy of Ron's is going to have to learn a few things about being interviewed. His counter-point about carrying guns into restaurants just ain't going to garner many votes...
ReplyDeleteObviously, the gun comment won't garner liberal votes, but it will give the white racists the illusion they have a legitimate reason to pretend discrimination isn't racism.
ReplyDeleteMaddow is an incredibly underrated interviewer. But there are few reporters out there who are that good.
I agree with all the negative assessments about Paul, but I also think his answers are going to play well with the base who will pass the criticism off as liberal media attacks and overkill - and the coverage is a bit too much, given all the other, more monumental, problems facing the U.S. at the moment.
As gleeful as those of us on the left are at Paul getting caught out, let's not forget that it's still a stretch to assume that Kentucky will actually vote for a certified liberal in the general election.
Paul's comments don't play well with people of our generation. But those 40 and under could care less because, as one pundit pointed out, it's a younger generation that has never witnessed the type of discrimination that led to the necessity of laws being passed. So they don't see it as an important issue.
I am hoping the combination of tea party base, die hard republicans, and self-interested independents doesn't propel Paul to the Senate. I doubt his comments will have any real affect on voting in Kentucky in November.
richard
But Rand may have just sunk his campaign with his new comments about Obama being "too tough" on BP.
ReplyDeleteIs there anyone left, besides Rand and Limbaugh, et al, who doesn't recognize this was a preventable disaster?
richard