Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Palin, Dobson must repudiate Rand Paul or accept his extremism

In three days, Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul has held at least three positions on the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

First, when asked if private businesses should have the right to deny service to African Americans, Paul responded bluntly, “Yes,” calling it a matter of “free speech.”

Second, Paul argued that he supports the Civil Rights Act because he agrees with the overall “intent of the legislation,” which was to stop discrimination in the “public sphere.” By implication, the law would have been improved by limiting its application to public institutions, leaving private businesses free to exercise their “speech” through segregation.

Third, Paul eventually endorsed the law through a spokesman: "Civil Rights legislation that has been affirmed by our courts gives the federal government the right to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race. Dr. Paul supports those powers."

So, in 72 hours, the fearless, uncompromising tea party leader has been reduced to an alternately petulant, evasive, abject, quivering mass of contradictions.

There can be no doubt what Paul really believes.

Interviewed by the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal in April, Paul explained his views at length. “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that.... 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 your restaurant. But at the same time I do believe in private ownership. But I think there should be absolutely no discrimination on anything that gets any public funding and that’s most of what the Civil Rights Act was about to my mind.”

Laws often represent a balance between contending rights. As a libertarian, Paul believes that property rights are more important than the right not to be humiliated because of your race in front of your children.

Still, it is hard to blame Paul for being surprised at his rough national reception. Even after his views on civil rights were known in Kentucky, Paul was uncritically supported by conservative leaders such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sarah Palin and Christian broadcaster James Dobson. In fact, Dobson switched his endorsement from Trey Grayson to Paul on May 3. Dobson’s statement read: “Have you ever made an embarrassing mistake? I did just that last week. I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent. But now I’ve received further information from OB/GYNs in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself. I now know that he is avidly pro life. He believes that life begins at conception. He opposes earmarking and supports Israel. He identifies with the Tea Party movement and believes in home schooling. Sounds like my kind of man.”

It is possible, of course, that Dobson and the others were unaware of Paul’s views on civil rights law when they put their own reputations on the line to support him. If this is true, Dobson has made another “embarrassing mistake” -- and he should say so in public. It is also possible that Dobson believes that Paul’s libertarian, anti-government purity is enough to cover a multitude of other sins, including a tolerance for legal segregation. If Paul is still Dobson’s “kind of man,” Dobson has decided to be a Tea Party leader and ceased, in any meaningful sense, to be a Christian leader.

At this point, the options for Palin, DeMint and Dobson are limited. They will either repudiate Paul’s candidacy or they will be tainted by Paul’s extremism.

By Michael Gerson  | May 21, 2010; 12:27 PM ET
Categories:  Gerson  | Tags:  Michael Gerson  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's endorsement: worthless or radioactive?
Next: Rand Paul's bout with reality

Comments

Thank you, Gerson. It's nice to know that there are still Republicans who are sane.

Posted by: jeffwacker | May 21, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Gerson. It's nice to know that there are still Republicans who are sane.

Posted by: jeffwacker | May 21, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

It is unnecessary for Republicans to jump from behind Paul at this time. His comments, in the opinion of this African American, are not extreme at all. At it is a shame that he is being vilified in this manner.

In Dr. Paul's world, there would not have been a need for the Civil Rights Act because the racism that the act strived to undo was the racism put in place by that same government.

In Dr. Paul's world, the government, state and Federal, would not have had the authority to impose Jim Crow laws on the citizens. Laws that the federal government supported by applying to federal government work places.

So for Paul to not support the Civil Rights Act in no way implies that he would have supported Jim Crow legislation, as you dems and party-line Republicans advocate indirectly.

You should apologize for this article.

Posted by: bewrap59829 | May 21, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"Laws often represent a balance between contending rights. As a libertarian, Paul believes that property rights are more important than the right not to be humiliated because of your race in front of your children."

Nicely put.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | May 21, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

And all the good ol' Southern boys are in the shed out back tryin' to find the "White Only' sgins for their 'private' business restrooms.
Inn-dee-vigil rites, don'tcha ya see?

You betcha, we see real clearly.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | May 21, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

It is undeniable that most people feel more comfortable living among their own racial group, we see it everywhere, but this preference is divisive, racial pride is turning people into monsters. In a world composed of many skin colors, it is best if we all learned to share, enlightened humans accept that the worlds wealth should be rainbow colored. Racists that are angry about sharing the wealth, have no choice except to swallow a bitter pill.

Posted by: melpol | May 21, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Interesting viewpoint from 3 perspectives. But lets look at the facts here. There are basically 10 main points to the 64 Act. Rand clearly supports them. However, he just doesn't totally agree that "Private" sectors should be told they cannot remain private because the government says so. And, if you look at our society, that is just how it is. (Washington Post Teed Off about Discrimination in Private Organization, 5 Apr 2007).
There are too many to mention so here's a few that run on discrimination principles: Boy scouts, Womans Sports, Miss America, Unions, etc. Discrimination is does not only include blacks. It was originally stated Rand was racist but later changed to exremist.
By the way, how many White Congress members are in The Congressional Black Caucus? Someone please let me know because I believe it is zero. Racist or Exremist?
How many white students receive funding from the United Negro College Fund? Again, I believe zero.
My point is, let's not get carried away here. Rand kicked butt and noe the losing partiy(s) are trying to exploit something that is not there. Sore losers playing let me win by twisted smear/slander tactics.

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 21, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Being embarrassed when one is attacked because of race, gender, or sexual orientation is up to the individual.

Because a racist is a jerk and attempts to embarrass me does not mean he will succeed. When I think of the blacks before me that were attacked, my own ancestors, embarrassment is not a word that comes to mind. Brave, strong, character driven, fighters, overcomers these are the words that come to mind.

It was politicians that make racism legal. Hitler did what he did to the Jews legally, irregardless of morality.

Paul doesn't believe that government should have that much power and he's right.

Posted by: bewrap59829 | May 21, 2010 1:18 PM | Report abuse

So, the bigoted Dobson must be careful about being associated with the bigoted Paul. Fascinating.
Not.

Posted by: xoidufn1 | May 21, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Rand Paul’s "libertarian, anti-government purity" is hideously flawed. The same man who says, “Like other areas of the economy where the federal government wields its heavy hand, health care is over-regulated..." yearns to wield that same heavy hand between the legs of every American woman of child-bearing age when it comes to health care that clashes with his personal belief system.

A quote from his own website: “I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.

I;m all for a Libertarian having and honoring extreme personal "values" freely and without federal intervention.

Rand Paul calling for no less than a Constitutional AMENDMENT putting draconian restrictions on my reproductive rights, however, spins him right out of any Libertarian orbit I've ever encountered.

Posted by: Clamlydia | May 21, 2010 1:25 PM | Report abuse

How do we know Palin and Dobson don't agree with Paul? Why should they repudiate him if they do?

Posted by: mypitts2 | May 21, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

What race hatred lies in the heart of the libertarian (and the libertariannie). It's natural that Palin and Dobson would support this dim wit.
Why not just move to Arizona where discrimination is NOW legal?
Human life is not worth less than your 'property rights'.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | May 21, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

I think bewrap59829 said it best:

It is unnecessary for Republicans to jump from behind Paul at this time. His comments, in the opinion of this African American, are not extreme at all. At it is a shame that he is being vilified in this manner.

In Dr. Paul's world, there would not have been a need for the Civil Rights Act because the racism that the act strived to undo was the racism put in place by that same government.

In Dr. Paul's world, the government, state and Federal, would not have had the authority to impose Jim Crow laws on the citizens. Laws that the federal government supported by applying to federal government work places.

So for Paul to not support the Civil Rights Act in no way implies that he would have supported Jim Crow legislation, as you dems and party-line Republicans advocate indirectly.

You should apologize for this article.

Posted by: phillips3113 | May 21, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Lots of good points posted. Open minded and civil.
It's one thing to have beliefs and have some sort of assemblance to protect particular aspects, even if it is through government intervention or protection.
Civil law is genuinly overseen by law enforcement to protect citizens. I may believe if my neigbor steals from me I can kick his a$$ but laws protect us from this thinking.
I may believe live begins at conception and laws may be made to protect this life.
Rand believes discrimination of any sort is wrong but the government should not intervene on private sectors.
Ask him if he believes citizens are afforded the right to privacy but is the government allowed to tap calls?

Posted by: TRUTH20 | May 21, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

On a separate website someone actually wrote the following:\

"What would you white people do if you could not get that fried chicken and TACO HELL food or Chinese Take out if the Civil Rights Laws weren;t passed. You would be in court immediately if you were refused service from your favorite RACIST ETHNIC FOOD"

Guess that says it all

Posted by: racerdoc | May 21, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

I love the internet- it lets people like bewrap59829 pretend they're black. Just like the famous New Yorker internet cartoon. google it

Posted by: zed09 | May 21, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Rand reminds me of Palin.....not ready for prime-time!

Posted by: ssaintc | May 21, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I find it not surprisingly ironic that the Lame Stream Media ( Used to be Main Stream Media ) that they would be out to persecute Rand Paul, however it won't work because we know the Lame Stream Media is in bed with the Elitist Globalists, of cours the Elites own most of the media!

Everybody knows, if you want news that will tell you what the establishment allows you to hear, you listen to , watch or read Lame Stream Media news!

The only place citizens are able to hear accurate news anymore is from the Indepenent Media - why do you think the Globalists' want to shut down the Internet and free speech?

Yes, the Lame Stream Media jumping in to Grill the guts out of Rand Paul just goes to prove what a good credible leader he will be!

The establishment and the Elite Globalists are afraid of Rand Paul and of his agenda to help get back our country!

Folks just know that these guys will be out to kill Rand Paul's credibility with the public to help them have less resistance to their highly desired, "One World Dictatoral Government", agenda!

Anything the citizens of America want will be considered extremism by these infiltrated establishment tyrants that have hi-jacked the once free Republic of America!

Folks step up and support what the citizens of Kentucky have openly spoken their approval for whom they want to Govern them, so that other states have the right to do the same!

To me this is absolutely the smoking gun of what is going on behind our backs and yet right in front of us!

If you can speak Global Elite Speak you will understand exactly what Zbigniew Brezinski says on this you tube clip of him speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting in Montreal, Canada!

Re:May 18, 2010
Zbigniew Brzezinski giving the CFR branch in Montreal a presentation discussing world government and his fears of the mass global awakening that has taken place.

Re: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBlABD01U0&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: PaulRevere4 | May 21, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

This is much ado about nothing. Rand Paul is not a racist. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 will not be repealed. He will be one of 100 Senators. Based on the United States Constitution, he is absolutely correct. Politically, he is a neophyte and made a rookie mistake. Personally, I admire his candor and honesty.

Posted by: swr112261 | May 21, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

If Paul is still Dobson’s “kind of man,” Dobson has decided to be a Tea Party leader and ceased, in any meaningful sense, to be a Christian leader.

Dobson ceased to be, in any meaningful sense, a Christian leader long ago. His entire career is centered on right wing politics. It is even beyond abortion at this point. He has drank from the trough of politics and found this beverage more satisfying than the "living water" of Jesus.

Certainly racial sensitivity is not high on his list of priorities. He allowed the racially demeaning Obama waffles at his conference. Oops. Why the vendor thought these items would be welcome is obvious.

Christ was divisive no doubt. However, He did not imply that political bent had ANY relevance to salvation. Render unto Caesar those things which are Caesars. He was divisive about how we should treat others. His question remains until today. Who is really my neighbor. Dobson should realize it is the one who speaks out against the marginalization of any human life - even non white life.

Posted by: RepuNoLonger | May 21, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Gee, Rand is shaping up to be more fun than Sarah Palin. Can you say "libertarian?" What else did you expect?

Posted by: laraine2 | May 21, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see Gerson is again showing that he is just another big-government Bushpublican who will repeat any suck-up to his left-wing employers and can constantly be counted on to defend the Nanny state. We had Eight years of your "conservative" rule Michael-- how did that turn out?

Rand Paul has nothing to apologize for. Neither do DeMint or Palin. The media should apologize for their idiotic smear-job.

But it won't matter, because Paul will win anyway.

Posted by: credentials | May 21, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

The Supreme Court has defended the rights of Nazis to march, which was a realatively unpopular thing to do but they based it on the Constitution which is a relevant thing to base it on. The strict interpretation of the Constitution would almost certainly find all the social justice laws which were promulgated by the need to eliminate descrimination unconstitutional but going off the handle and declaring anyone who believes in Judicial Review is somehow a racist smacks of intentional missreprentation of the issue.
There is an amendment process which is of course ignored not because it is impractical but because it is so much less convienent then just producing laws from unelected judges in an unrepresentative and unconstitutional process we have allowed to go on now for decades.

Posted by: almorganiv | May 21, 2010 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Rand is turning out to be an even bigger dipstick than either Palin or Dobson. No small feat... Perhaps he's not even really interested in being a congressman and he actually wants to quit his day job and follow in Palin's footsteps making money preaching to fools and idiots.

Posted by: GOP08_DOA | May 21, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

uh oh Gerson, the Purity Police may be on their way for you

Posted by: Please_Fix_VAs_Roads | May 21, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

This guy bit off way more than he can chew. Trying to justify the rights of bigots to not allow minorities in their businesses just does not go down well with my own libertarian views. As much as I like a lot of what his dad did, I could never support a person that believes free speech allows discrimination. No matter how you look at it, Rand Paul is justifying discrimination under the banner of free speech. That is unacceptable, period.

Posted by: info4 | May 21, 2010 2:48 PM | Report abuse

"Even after his views on civil rights were known in Kentucky, Paul was uncritically supported by conservative leaders such as Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Sarah Palin and Christian broadcaster James Dobson."

That says pretty much all there is to say about DeMint, Palin, and Dobson. Doesn't it?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | May 21, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Does any of it matter anyway? Seriously, let's say Rand Paul did repeal the 10th article of the Civil Rights Act (the one on private business). Now lets say a lunch counter had out a sign that said "Whites Only".
Now a black man sits down at that lunch counter. How would the owner make him leave? He could try to forcibly remove him, but any injury would open him up to civil and/or criminal law suit.
So the store owner would be forced to call the police. When they arrive, the store owner will have to explain to them his store policies. The police will tell him, "We enforce laws, not store policies."

Posted by: simplemoney | May 21, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

It appears that the key difference between Mr. Gerson and Palin, Dobson and their ilk is that Mr. Gerson seems to have a legitimate education.

Mr. Gerson clearly shares conservative impulses with the others but he understands things like the meaning of civil rights antidiscrimination laws. That is not something apparent among many conservative and Tea Bag followers.

We need to be frank about ignorance. It does not mean an insult to one's intellect although sometimes it could. Instead, it refers to unknown knowledge that one should know. Remember "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and others whose rants are becoming dangerously loud are simply ignorant of many laws, the intent of thos laws, and the philosophy on which such laws are based.

Why are Republicans so wedded to ignorant persons to the extent that they become candidates for office and spokespersons for their causes? Surely, Republican senators leaders are as educated as Mr. Gerson. Why are they allowing their reputations and political integrity to rest on the shoulders of persons whose ignorance shows itself again and again? Perhaps Gerson and the others can school us on that question.

Posted by: edarden1 | May 21, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse


simplemoney...you almost got it right. After reading your 3:03 post, should be simpleminded.

Turn it around...bet you'd like sitting at a 'Blacks Only' counter, wouldn'tcha....oh, year, bring it on. Feel sorry for you.

Posted by: bgreen2224 | May 21, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Libtard, YOU don't make the rules and demand that anyone either repudiate or accept ANYTHING.

You must think we've already become China...having delusions at our metropolitan desk...sniffing a little too much cocaine, huh?

Because you don't repudiate Obama...I will assume that you are a Muslim terrorist-lover, a hater of America, an illegal-alien proponent, a racist, a corporatist, a Socialist, a Marxist, a L I B T A R D. Not that we already didn't know that.

Posted by: joesmithdefend | May 21, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

There is serious doubt that Dobson was ever a "Christian leader" "in any meaningful sense."

Jesus preached a Gospel of forgiveness and God's mercy -- even toward the so-called "wicked." Dobson and his power-mad, holier-than-though, self-righteous, judgmental, compatriots would have been first in line to see Him crucified.

Posted by: Ralphinjersey | May 21, 2010 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"
Second, Paul argued that he supports the Civil Rights Act because he agrees with the overall “intent of the legislation,

So does Rand Paul support the Health Care Reform Law because of the 'Intent' of that legislation too ?

I mean ... since that is his own metric for support .

Posted by: SkiPete | May 21, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse

To those who think Mr. Paul is correct;

The points about guns, black caucus, united negro college fund, the boy scouts, etc miss the fundemental point. Allowing a business to discriminate based on any form of bias prevents people from working or engaging in commerce. Without access to these two fundemental activities you cannot be a fully integrated human being in society. None of the organizations or activities you are citing degrade other people to the point of being sub human. Whereas the bias Mr. Paul seems ok with allowing does exactly that.

Posted by: kchses1 | May 21, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

President Obama must publicly condemn Senator Byrd for his membership in the Klan, in the harshest of terms, or be forever labeled an enabler of racist demagoguery and a hypocrite.

Posted by: MikeMcLamara | May 21, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Does any of it matter anyway? Seriously, let's say Rand Paul did repeal the 10th article of the Civil Rights Act (the one on private business). Now lets say a lunch counter had out a sign that said "Whites Only".
Now a black man sits down at that lunch counter. How would the owner make him leave? He could try to forcibly remove him, but any injury would open him up to civil and/or criminal law suit.
So the store owner would be forced to call the police. When they arrive, the store owner will have to explain to them his store policies. The police will tell him, "We enforce laws, not store policies."


Posted by: simplemoney | May 21, 2010 3:03 PM | Report abuse

___________________________________________

While I agree that in most places in today's society this business would probably be out of business in short order there are still places where it would not. In the 1960's and 70's such a business would have had no trouble thriving. Hence the need for the law. If the discrimination had not existed we would have had no need for such a law and such a intrusion into the affairs of a private business. However we did and that makes a ballgame. Once discrimination is evolved out of existance in our society perhaps we can eliminate these laws but for now we still need them.

Posted by: kchses1 | May 21, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

You do realize the most grievous atrocities of segregation were the act of a white majority government, rather than a private businessman. If we took the view Rand has, government never would have had such horrible authority, and though some racists would have chosen to exclude blacks, many more would choose to accept them, either out of altruism, or out of the profit motive, which as in this case like many others, leads to the right moral decision.

His argument is not radical, and by calling it un-Christian you have just made Locke roll in his grave.

Posted by: WilliamGriffin | May 21, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I love the internet- it lets people like bewrap59829 pretend they're black. Just like the famous New Yorker internet cartoon. google it

Posted by: zed09 | May 21, 2010 1:54 PM
=================
Another liberal racist comes out. I suppose white liberals are the spokespeople for minorities right?

Liberals decide what minorities say, think, vote, and act. Anyone who does not bow down to liberals is a sellout.

I bet MLK and other REAL civil rights people who have an inch of respect for private individuals would not be criticizing Rand. It is too bad the civil rights movement was hijacked by leftist racists.

Posted by: Cryos | May 21, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Gerson not all republicans are neo-con hacks like you supporting the 50/50 split of neocons and liberals taking away American rights. Some of us actually have brains and can think for ourselves.


Sorry your ilk is not faring well.

Posted by: Cryos | May 21, 2010 11:49 PM | Report abuse

This guy bit off way more than he can chew. Trying to justify the rights of bigots to not allow minorities in their businesses just does not go down well with my own libertarian views. As much as I like a lot of what his dad did, I could never support a person that believes free speech allows discrimination. No matter how you look at it, Rand Paul is justifying discrimination under the banner of free speech. That is unacceptable, period.

Posted by: info4 | May 21, 2010 2:48 PM
============================
So what other things does free speech not allow? I suppose the government will tell us. Do you even listen to yourself?

You are not a libertarian you are a brainwashed sheep.

Posted by: Cryos | May 21, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Gerson my previous post was more knee jerk here is something a little more coherent.

The intelligent and unafraid of fake labels know the point he was making. That grass roots efforts, protests, boycotts and other PRIVATE methods that were really the core of the civil rights movement would last in true long lasting change.

I would say that was arguable in the 60s due to the imbalance, but government enablement of racism and with additional restrictions in the name of fighting racism in recent times have arguably done more harm than good in the long run.

We can see evidence of the heavy handedness government approach not working today. Politicans are stirring up racial relations now for political gain and racial relations are sliding downhill not moving forward. They have found their most effective weapon.

You have been made so scared you have fallen victim to political correctness. I'm guessing being deemed a racist is your biggest fear and the 20 year political correctness assault has proven itself worth it.

Posted by: Cryos | May 22, 2010 1:42 AM | Report abuse

Cryos
'I bet MLK and other REAL civil rights people who have an inch of respect for private individuals would not be criticizing Rand.'

I don't know, let's ask them. How many of the 'REAL civil rights people' who were there and are still with us (John Lewis, Joseph Lowery etc) agree with his/your malarky. Don't worry I'll tell you: zero. Or maybe they're not the kind of 'REAL civil rights people' you had in mind- who then.

You obviously also need help understanding the point of the civil rights movement- it was in fact your precious 'respect for private individuals.' The bigoted white south just needed to be dragged kicking and screaming by the federal govt into giving it to people who didn't look like them.
Your logic is just embarrassing.

Posted by: zed09 | May 22, 2010 3:00 AM | Report abuse

Cryos
'I bet MLK and other REAL civil rights people who have an inch of respect for private individuals would not be criticizing Rand.'

I don't know, let's ask them. How many of the 'REAL civil rights people' who were there and are still with us (John Lewis, Joseph Lowery etc) agree with his/your malarky. Don't worry I'll tell you: zero. Or maybe they're not the kind of 'REAL civil rights people' you had in mind- who then.

You obviously also need help understanding the point of the civil rights movement- it was in fact your precious 'respect for private individuals.' The bigoted white south just needed to be dragged kicking and screaming by the federal govt into giving it to people who didn't look like them.
Your logic is just embarrassing.

Posted by: zed09 | May 22, 2010 3:00 AM
============================
Ah someone who believes in the falsehood of the cradle of mommy government.

Funny I have another longer post explaining my logic I guess I used too big of words for you.

The people protesting is what got civil rights done. Blacks, whites and everyone else. If all white people are racist please explain how things changed.

Government actually perpetuated it. It was brave people who got things changed. INDIVIDUALS not a heavy hand of government. I won't explain that aspect since its above.

Politicians only voted for civil rights because they feared being voted out of office.

Or as LBJ put it:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Posted by: Cryos | May 22, 2010 4:11 AM | Report abuse

Last time I checked it was people speaking out against those "laws" that changed the environment, not making a "law" making it legal to discriminate against property owners, as long as the federal government can treat it's citizens as if they are still in Jim Crow era world, private citizens will always be at a disadvantage and property owners will never have any real right over what they own or earned through a lifetime of work, you see really what the government wants maybe for all of us to be treated like slaves by the federal government, not just one race but all people, thanks to the commerce clause we have the war on drugs, we have a massive prison industry, we still have institutional racism. As if by magic wand one can make a law and make everything bad go away, sorry it doesn't work that way....why should the government respect anyone's rights if property owners can be told with whom they must associate, the Government can simply compel anyone to do anything under these presumptions, and evidence over the last 50 years has sadly shown that to be the function of the law, sadly racism has been used by the government to rob "everyone" of the the libertarian principle of "free association" or "mutual consent". Government instead has decided that by pointing guns at people they can force people to do things together and to be friendly to each other, that doesn't sound like choice, it seems more like force to me, all the more reason they can justify bombing children in Iraq or invading countries without declarations and denying rights to detainees.

Posted by: bubbabuddha | May 22, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Cryos
So which 'REAL civil rights people' are with you. You didn't say. I guess you take after Rand, who changes the subject when his answer would be embarrassing.

'Politicians only voted for civil rights because they feared being voted out of office.'
So you believe civil rights was passed because it was universally popular. You must believe health insurance reform passed because it was universally popular too. As LBJ said, knowing he'd infuriated southerners 'We have lost the south for a generation.'

'If all white people are racist please explain how things changed.'
Fortunately not all white people were racist. Just lots of them. Especially in the south. Still are in fact. I grew up there.

As for your LBJ quote, apparently he said it in 1957, 7 years before civil rights passed. Like Robert Byrd, I guess he saw the error of his ways.

Your worldview of pure libertarian theory must be incredibly frustrating sometimes. I suggest you visit us in the real world sometime.

Oh and your previous post makes no sense either.

Posted by: zed09 | May 22, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Cryos
So which 'REAL civil rights people' are with you. You didn't say. I guess you take after Rand, who changes the subject when his answer would be embarrassing.

'Politicians only voted for civil rights because they feared being voted out of office.'
So you believe civil rights was passed because it was universally popular. You must believe health insurance reform passed because it was universally popular too. As LBJ said, knowing he'd infuriated southerners 'We have lost the south for a generation.'

'If all white people are racist please explain how things changed.'
Fortunately not all white people were racist. Just lots of them. Especially in the south. Still are in fact. I grew up there.

As for your LBJ quote, apparently he said it in 1957, 7 years before civil rights passed. Like Robert Byrd, I guess he saw the error of his ways.

Your worldview of pure libertarian theory must be incredibly frustrating sometimes. I suggest you visit us in the real world sometime.

Oh and your previous post makes no sense either.

Posted by: zed09 | May 22, 2010 1:15 PM
===============
There aren't really any civil rights leaders around. What Sharpton or Jesse Jackson? Both are a couple of ignorant racists MLK would despise.

I asked some questions too you didn't answer so what makes you think I should have to answer some racist black person's questions for? Yes you are an ignorant racist.

You need to get the chip off your shoulder. That's why my post makes no sense. Quit hating white people and join all of us in the 21st century.

So far as politicians doing it for survival I bet democrats have your vote lock, stock and barrel don't they. They bring up racism on an issue and you fall in line like a little chump and forget you have your own mind.

Congratulations on making yourself a slave to the racist liberal plantation because they tell you its ok to spew your hatred.

Posted by: Cryos | May 22, 2010 6:39 PM | Report abuse

You didn't ask any questions. Be happy to answer. Let me know. Your post doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense. The red dog barks at midnight. Only the good die young. Other nonsense. You know what I mean. FYI I'm white bro. Now back to fox news or whatever. One love. Best of luck in the future. You're probably not going to like it.

Posted by: zed09 | May 22, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

MikeMcLamara wrote:

President Obama must publicly condemn Senator Byrd for his membership in the Klan, in the harshest of terms, or be forever labeled an enabler of racist demagoguery and a hypocrite.

______________________

So, Mikey, you didn't get the memo? RCB has long since repudiated his racist past, gave up wearing sheets ages ago . . . This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama. Please try to keep up.

But of course, that's a minor point. Back to Rand Paul: even if you overlook the fact that this is a big stink about racism (whatever your position on it may be), you'll still need to disprove Gerson's assertion that Paul is all over the place on this issue. Which Rand Paul to believe? Then, of course, back to racism . . . think that'll work out for Paul?

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | May 23, 2010 1:16 AM | Report abuse

Rand Paul's extreme views on rights of private companies to discriminate as they please needs to be examine closer. When does one man or companies rights infringe on another's?

If one were to say it is ok for private companies to discriminate how does one balance that with the fact that businesses get favorable tax benefits. Taxes that those who would be discriminated against would also be obligated to pay. That's Paul and those in his movement believe in little to no taxes. So how exactly will the roads, and metros that make it possible for customers to get to the buisness be built and maintained? Who will pay the firefighters and police forces to help protect the business?

Where exactly is the limit to this movement?

The fantasy that they have that businesses that discriminate will eventually be put out of business through boycotts etc is just that fantasy. Growing up in the south I know for a fact that many private businesses would still be discriminating against minorities till this day if it was not for the civil rights act. I've SEEN private companies down south were the local population (black & white) know you just shouldn't frequent if you're of a certain racial make up. This is even WITH the civil rights act in place.

Posted by: 6thsense79 | May 24, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

"Laws often represent a balance between contending rights. As a libertarian, Paul believes that property rights are more important than the right not to be humiliated because of your race in front of your children."

It stuns me how clueless intelligent people are when it comes to the concept of "rights". You don't have a right not to be humiliated. If someone tries to humiliate you, they only succeed if you let them.

However, if I own property, I should be able to allow and not allow on that property whoever I damn well please. I will not discriminate against you based on race, but I will discriminate against those that are annoying, obnoxious, loud or offensive.

If a business is refusing customers based on race, it will soon go out of business, without any government intervention. Even down here in the supposedly "racist South". However, if the government has the right to take away my property rights, soon I won't be able to remove any loud, obnoxious, or annoying individual who also happens to be of a different race, because that would be racist of me.

How is this so difficult to understand?

Posted by: ccamealy | May 26, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company