Rand Paul and Civil Rights
Rand Paul has been making waves for his criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964′s prohibition of discrimination in places of public accommodation. Title II of the CRA makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race (and a number of other grounds) at establishments like restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Paul’s timing is interesting, since this year is the 50th anniversary of the lunch-counter sit-ins, which really put the public accommodation question on the civil rights agenda in early 1960. Although fairly controversial at the time, the idea that private owners cannot exclude from places of public accommodation (i.e., businesses that they have opened to, for the most part, all comers) has become part of the legal furniture of our lives. I would guess that only a tiny number of Americans at this point think that private business owners have the right to hang a sign in their window saying “whites only,” but apparently Rand Paul does. If he were elected, I’d wager he’d be the only member of the United States Senate who has openly expressed opposition to Title II in the past 30 years.
Of course, it’s almost certainly true that very few business owners these days would put out a “whites only” sign, at least if they wanted to remain in business for long, but that is almost certainly a testament to the success of Title II (among other things) in changing norms about the propriety of racial discrimination. And, of course, stories of more subtle or ad hoc forms of racial exclusion from places of public accommodation are fairly easy to come by. So it would be wrong to think that the law does not have something important to contribute. In addition, there is no doubt that employment discrimination (prohibited by Title VII) continues to be a problem in the United States, as well racial discrimination in private housing markets (prohibited by the Fair Housing Act, aka Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968). I hope folks in the press will ask Paul what he thinks about those provision, which libertarians have also criticized as infringements on the rights of property owners and employers.
Listening to Paul on NPR last night, what struck me most was his inarticulate ignorance. He admitted that he had little idea what was actually in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I doubt he has much idea about the history behind it or the impact that private discrimination in places of public accommodation. If he’s interested in boning up, he might want to start with this documentary. Notwithstanding his admitted lack of information, he steadfastly refused to say he supported the prohibition of discrimination in places of public accommodation. It will be interesting to see how mainstream conservatives respond to this.
1. It is also interesting to be lectured by Catholic progressives about how concerned we should be about Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act, etc., that has zero chance of being subject to public debate, just shortly after being lectured by this same group that we should shut up about FOCA because it has zero chance of being brought up and voted on (in part because of the vigilance of this same group).
2. If you are going to anathematize Rand Paul for his Constitutional principles leading to his opposing a law banning behavior that is unjust, this criticism also obliterates the “personally opposed, but…” position of Catholic politicians toward abortion restrictions that may not be defended, but is not seen as particularly dishonorable in these pages.
Could it be that there’s racism in the Tea party movement?
I think Mr. McG. is off base -Mr. Paul can say what he likes under free speech.
What’s being criticized is both his lack of knowledge and simplistic approach to things.
Maybe the same can be said for his defenders.
My first post sounds a bit too much like a consistency “gotcha” than I prefer, so let me phrase it a bit less contentiously.
The post concludes with the sentence, “It will be interesting to see how mainstream conservatives respond to this.” The clear implication is that mainstream conservatives ought to reject Rand Paul’s constitutional views, and Rand Paul personally, because those views lead to bad outcomes — racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.
On abortion policy, a number of Catholic politicians — John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, etc. – have adopted a “personally opposed, but…” position on abortion policy. The lack of restrictions on abortion have led to the bad outcome of there being more abortions than there would be in a more restricted environment.
My impression is that although most Commonweal writers would not agree with this type of thinking, they don’t think it marks these politicians as particularly dishonorable, and should not disqualify them from public office or for eligibility for a vote from faithful Catholics.
For example, President Obama scuttled an Illinois law protecting survivors of late term abortion on the basis that it undermines Roe v. Wade. Because of this, some called him “pro-infanticide, ” and were (in my view, rightly) corrected, because President Obama’s actions were motivated by (in my view, misguided) Constitutional principles rather than love for infanticide.
To summarize, if we stipulate that racial discrimination in public accommodations and American abortion are injustices of roughly equal gravity, then for this post to stick, it seems one of these things must be true:
1. There is a significant difference between the two cases that I have not captured in my summary.
2. The “personally opposed, but…” position on abortion is not remotely coherent, and politicians espousing it should be anathematized.
–
For myself, I’m honestly not sure what the right answer is to these questions. But if we’re going down the road of disqualifying people for holding Constitutional principles that would lead to bad outcomes, even when there is zero chance of that person translating those principles into policy, are we willing to follow that all the way?
@Bob,
I’m not so sure — the implication is that if only Dr. Paul understood the magnitude of the injustice of racial discrimination, he would have a different opinion.
But that doesn’t seem to me to be the case. It seems to me that Dr. Paul understands the discrimination was unjust (but perhaps does not share what we might consider a proper visceral abhorrence to it), but still things that the legislative effort to address it does not pass Constitutional muster.
I think the parallels to abortion are apt. To many pro-lifers, the only possible explanation for a pro-choice point of view is ignorance about the horrors of abortion.
My suspicion is that efforts to “educate” Paul and those who share his position on the injustice of discrimination will be about as successful as presenting pro-choice politicians with pictures of aborted fetuses.
Are there really no libertarians at Cornell? Surely you know some libertarians. I think essentially every libertarian would agree with Rand Paul that private citizens should be free to discriminate wrongfully, and libertarians are a reasonably large subset of the population. I’m honestly shocked that you’re not aware of them.
Joe — I’d like to see some evidence that “a reasonably large subset of the population” holds the view that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of discrimination in privately owned places of public accommodation is either (1) unconstitutional or (2) wrong on the merits. Just because that view can be described as libertarian and a large number of Americans also describe themselves as libertarian does not establish that Rand’s views are in any way accepted by all but a fringe group of libertarian hardliners. Moreover, even if opposition to the laws in 1964 was not necessarily relegated to the far-right fringe of American politics (it included, for example, the WSJ editorial page and the National Review), a consensus seems to have emerged in the intervening 40-some years that the laws have been a good thing. Indeed, while people continue to debate details about the proper reach of, say, Title VII, it is quite rare to hear someone challenge Title II at all. Rand Paul apparently does not share that assessment, and I think that takes him outside the mainstream of American political discourse. That is obviously not an argument on the merits — though I can easily provide some of those as well — but I think as a description of the political landscape it’s a hard one to dispute.
As for John McG, the cases of abortion and civil rights seem sufficiently distinct to me that your argument does not even work as an example of “gotcha” commenting. Anyone who holds something more than a cartoonishly simplistic view about how to approach the relationship between morality and law could easily avoid the inconsistency you charge. This is not to say that a great many pro-choice people do not hold cartoonish views about the relationship between morality and law, just that such views are available. And, with them, one can easily distinguish between the civil rights act and laws outlawing abortion in ways that would allow a person to support the former and oppose the latter.
The issues are distinct, but the moral reasoning in either case is exactly the same: “[Abortion] [discrimination] is a moral wrong that harms other human beings, but the law does not punish every moral wrong; instead, the law ought to leave people alone to make private decisions about how to govern their own [bodies] [property].”
“Of course, it’s almost certainly true that very few business owners these days would put out a “whites only” sign, at least if they wanted to remain in business for long, but that is almost certainly a testament to the success of Title II (among other things) in changing norms about the propriety of racial discrimination. ”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 declared that the equality that was declared for Afro-Americans after the Civil War was now going to be a reality. Ted Hesburgh, disturbed by the Protestant Minister’s lack of support for the Act confronted them. They responded that they would be kicked out of town if they supported it. The Civil Rights Act was a great moment for humanity.
Regretfully, John and Joe, you are centering on that one issue. You should be aware that the Right to Life Movement was absent in the battle for civil rights. Unless you want to count all those fashionable liberals who later became fashionable conservatives as the winds changed.
@Bill,
Can you please show me where I’m centering.
I’m wanting to know if we are establishing that it is unacceptable to commit to a Constitutional principle to the point of rejecting legal remedies for injustice.
This post suggests that the answer is “yes.” I’m inclined to agree.
My understanding is that the Right to Life Movement was more or less birthed by Roe v. Wade in 1973. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was, obviously, passed in 1964. So its “absence” in the civil rights battle is not surprising.
To which one might respond that there was little overlap between the civil rights protesters and the nascent right to life movement, and that many in the right to life movement are not supporters of civil rights. Conceded.
The relevance to my question escapes me.
Studebaker, you’re using “harm” in such a broad sense that it does more to obfuscate than to enlighten. Denying someone access to my private facilities certainly “harms” him in the sense that any denial of his claim to my resources “harms” him, but it’s a very different sort of “harm” from if I perpetrated violence against him; a sort of harm which nearly everyone recognizes as distinguishable.
John,
Unlike the bishops and even many progressives I object to all the attention given to the abortion question. There is no where near the concern for the sexual trafficking of women and children as well as the neglect of children in the pedophilia imbroglio. I am certainly for reverence for life in all its forms but am appalled as to how much play this issue gets.
As I have said often it is the fraud issue of our times. Cited mostly by those for whom it will never be an issue and most of them support violence in wars.
It is an issue touted by too many in the hierarchy, especially in America. It is a political issue more than a moral issue as was demonstrated when the bishops asked people to vote Republican. It is more galling because the Republicans do not care a bit about abortion. They are just interested in using it as a political football.
You can put nine pro life judges on the Supreme Court and you will never see Roe vs Wade overturned. As I say it is a fraud issue and the people obsessed with it rarely talk about any other moral issue.
It is very hard for me to write anything about the Paul clan because when I do, I always mention that I think that Libertarianism is an Infantile Disorder and some people always take that wrong even though I mean it in the nicest possible way.
When a Paul talks about “rights” he is talking about property rights. If you can envision a world where the definition of human rights is specified strictly in terms of property rights, you know everything you need to about Ron Paul and his son (and any other Paul who might be running for anything).
The beauty of the Paul circus is its crystal clear purity. Civil rights laws are bad because they keep people from using their own private property as they see fit. It is ALWAYS about property and it is always consistent. If something supports absolute and unregulated property rights, the Pauls are for it. If not, not.
It is absolutely legitimate for him and his followers (or now, apparently, just his followers) to say that his view has nothing to do with race. Racial rights have nothing intrinsic to do with property rights. The fact that whites have more property in general than blacks is just one of those accidents of history. Slavery was bad, but even worse was a civil war depriving slave holders of their property. Freeing the slaves was the first step on the slippery slope of tyranny.
People who are using this to argue about abortion and civil rights are entirely missing the point. No wonder Rand Paul is so confused.
Mr. Penalver,
We’re both just going on anecdotal evidence, I assume, but I know a great many libertarians, and I believe every one I know believes private discrimination should be legal. I don’t believe I’ve ever known anyone who would self-describe as libertarian who believes private discrimination should be prohibited, and I know quite a few people who would self-describe as liberal or conservative who believe it ought not be. Of course, none of these people are bigots. In fact, I suspect most bigots–the people who would stand to potentially “gain” from such freedom–would self-identify as conservative, rather than libertarian.
This is probably bloody obvious, but it seems to me the fact that the benefits gained from the Civil Rights Act are not in question (for most of us) is precisely the reason Paul and other libertarians feel free to question it. It struck me as amusing when, in his statement yesterday, Paul said: “Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points…”
That analysis cuts both ways. He hadn’t been reluctant to “revisit” the CRA before this week, and it made an attractive target for scoring political points because it’s a principled stand that won’t ever be tested — and it feels intellectually edgy. The problem is what happens when you go from the political margins into the mainstream, and you’re actually being considered as someone who could be making policy decisions. Then it’s a lot harder to hold on to ideological purity on issues like this, as Paul is finding out.
In today’s Times Paul said he would have voted for the CRA and does support it. This “clarification” comes after Republican leaders panicked at such political suicide.
Rand Paul’s success really seems to be bringing out the tensions within conservatives between social and economic conservatives, a tension seen most vividly in the Tea Party Movement.
On the Daily Dish I noticed an interesting observation by Robert George — and only later realized it was Robert A. George, a “Catholic, West Indian black Republican” who writes for the New York Post. He says at his blog:
It also seems the “other” Robert George (“P” as in Princeton) has no great affection for libertarians either, which isn’t surprising, I think:
BTW, I am just starting to learn a bit more about Rand Paul — I’m with Unagidon as far as Libertarians and Libertarianism. And intellectually he doesn’t seem to have much “there” there beyond the malleable Tea Party brand of libertarianism/conservatism.
But I was curious about his name “Rand,” figuring it likely had something to do with Ayn Rand. Well, he dispels — reluctantly — that rumor here:
http://libertymaven.com/2009/05/20/rand-paul-talks-about-his-name-and-ayn-rand/5796/
He says he is an Ayn Rand fan, but his given name is Randall.
His wife shortened it to Rand. Before he got married he was Randy. Hmmm….
He sounds like the Republicans’ Ralph Nader. It will make for an interesting general election.
@Bill,
I understand you believe the abortion issue is given too much attention. I’m familiar with the body of your “biggest phony issue” work.
Nevertheless, I hope you will concede that it is a matter worthy of *some* attention, and is an injustice that should be addressed, even if not necessarily in the manner that Republicans and the bishops have urged. Regardless of disagreements on prudential matters on how to address it, I have not seen a convincing argument that it is not an injustice on roughly similar scale to racial discrimination of the 1960′s.
Rand Paul’s position, for which he has been pilloried, is that it is wrong for the federal government to act to address racial discrimination, and that it is better addressed via market actions and personal conversion. This echoes the “personall opposed, but…” position on abortion.
So my question remains — why is Rand Paul beyond the pale and Nancy Pelosi is not?
For example, do you think Rand Paul’s position on the Civil Rights Act should disqualify him from speaking and receiving an honorary degree at Notre Dame’s graduation?
David Gibson,
The Pauls would certainly have been outraged by Jim Crow laws, specifically as infringements on private property rights.
So why is it extreme to oppose–or even criticize–the 1964 Civil Rights Act but perfectly mainstream to support Roe v. Wade?
Mr. Mazzella objects to the focus on abortion because it’s “one” issue, but the same could easily be said for civil rights.
If opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes one open to charges of supporting racism, then does supporting Roe v. Wade make on open to charges of supporting the killing of innocent babies?
People are both overstating this man’s opinions and mischaracterizing the context. This wasn’t “timed” by Paul, and his isn’t “playing to his base.” He was answering a question from an interviewer.
Also, he specifically said he didn’t support Jim Crow laws as stated above. He, and pretty much any libertarian, would oppose laws that enforced segregation. He is looking at the narrower issue of outlawing private discrimination.
I think in the arena of general public accomodation this kind of interference in private property and free speech rights can be justified, but he has a valid point that the division between legitimate regulation and intrusion into important rights is a hard line to distinguish once crossed.
This was a classic case of “open mouth, insert foot” and then discovering that his toenails aren’t very tasty afterall.
Maddow ran circles around him and pointed him out to be the buffoon that he is. Let’s hope that he is indeed the future of the Republican party!
And let’s hope that ratings cellar dweller Maddow is the future of liberal media.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Rand Paul will almost certainly win. This is a non-issue.
What do you think is going to energize voters? Some hypotheitical discussion about the CRA or hundreds of Democratic US Congressmen giving a standing ovation to the President of Mexico while he lectures the US on immigration policy. The first is all the rage on MSNBC while the second is getting play on FNC with way more than twice the viewership.
It is listening to people like Maddow and others in her echo chamber that will lead the progessive movement over the cliff. God bless her.
Since this thread seems pretty much exhausted, I’ll paste a commentary about this bruhaha by leftist Alexander Cockburn over at counterpunch.org :
American politics continue their plunge into ritual farce. Last week we had the spectacle of progressives rallying to the right-wing Elena Kagan, largely on the grounds that it’s improper of dirty minded Republicans, not to mention Glenn Greenwald, to suggest that sexual identity might be a relevant element in assessing a candidate for the US Supreme Court. In other words, 41 years after Stonewall, long live the closet!
Now we have the uproar over Rand Paul, the libertarian Tea Bagger who just won the Republican primary in Kentucky. His grilling by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC on his lack of commitment to every Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is being cast as a political encounter as momentous as that between Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in the Monkey Trial. Turn on the radio and you’ll hear howls about Rand on every liberal and leftist frequency iin execration of the Slouching Beast that is Rand. David Corn herded him into the 9/11 nutball corral, because Paul had gone on the Alex Jones Show (though he’s never endorsed 9/11 conspiracies). By the same token he’s a liberal for having gone on the Maddow Show.
That Maddow-Paul set-to on MSNBC was tragic-comic. As CounterPunch co-editor Jeffrey St Clair remarked, “Maddow and Paul agree on probably 90 per cent of the BIG issues confronting us, from ending the drug and Afghan war, to ending bail outs. But because of their own peculiar prejudices, his doctrinaire libertarian, hers PC progressive, neither of them can talk about anything other than a non-issue such as the Civil Rights Act of 19 — SIXTY-FOUR. It’s like a Dadaist play.”
Start with Rand. Like many libertarians he is never happier than in dashing back through the corridors of history to distant, sometimes obscure champions in the fight for liberty, as construed by libertarians. On the night of the MSNC face-off it was William Lloyd Garrison, founder of the New England Anti-Slavery Society in 1832. When Paul rolled out his name in response to one of her early questions about his posture on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Maddow blinked in astonishment as though he was mustering to his side the shade of the Venerable Bede. If she’d asked him about his posture on the rights of juries to nullify, to act according to the dictates of conscience and to set the law aside, he’d probably have brought up Edward Bushell and the landmark case against William Penn and William Mead in 1670.
Libertarians are like that. On some big and important things they’re admirable and staunch. Many of them, on some big and important things, are rancid. Half of Rand Paul’s positions are disgusting, like his end-of-week defense of BP. Other libertarians decry him from being evasive on O’Reilly’s Show about opposing war with Iran. Libertarians in the dust and heat of the political arena have no grasp of scale or priority. At heart many of them are nutty, martyrs to their truths, like fourth-century Christian schismatics. Ardent to refute charges that they favor the untrammeled sway of the market, the rejection of all federal intrusion, they dash to Von Mises and kindred heroes with all the childish enthusiasm of Gabriel Betteredge invoking Robinson Crusoe in The Moonstone. They have no sense of timing. Rand Paul, after five minutes of jabbing from Maddow, could have easily swerved the conversation towards issues more congenial to the MSNBC audience than his theoretical take on the Civil Rights Act. He could have denounced the farce of financial “reform”, of Bush’s and Obama’s wars, of constitutional abuses. These are all libertarian positions. But no. He couldn’t stop himself shoving his foot in his mouth. He seems dumb.
It’s the easiest thing in the world for a grandstanding liberal to push a libertarian into a corner. Then they’ll get praise for their unflinching courage, like Morris Dees’ South Poverty Law Center putting another “hate group” in the Index and waiting for the contributions to roll in.
Here’s Maddow, brandishing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as though this is the only matter worth considering in the forthcoming race between Rand Paul and the Democrat, an awful neo-liberal prosecutor, Kentucky’s current attorney general, Jack “I’m a Tough Son-of-a-Bitch” Conway. Between Conway and Paul, which one in the U.S. Senate would more likely be a wild card – which is the best we can hope for these days – likely to filibuster against a bankers’ bailout, against reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, against suppression of the CIA’s full torture history? Paul, one would have to bet, and these are the votes that count, where one uncompromising stand by an outsider can make a difference, unlike the gyrations and last-ditch sell-outs of Blowhard Bernie Sanders. Liberals love grandstanding about what are, in practice, distractions. You think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to come up for review in the U.S. Senate?
If Rand Paul hadn’t been so preoccupied with winding up for what he plainly thought was his knock-out punch, concerning Maddow’s posture on the right to bear arms in every restaurant in America from Joe’s Diner to Le Cirque, he could have turned the tables easily enough, just by saying that this ritual flourishing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn’t have too much to do with what has happened to blacks since that glorious day, from an appalling school system, to blighted housing, constricted employment possibilities, shriveled share of the national income and most recently the greatest transfer in US history of money and assets from African Americans to rich white people by the mortgage speculators, given free rein by Democrats and Republicans.
The truth this year is that liberalism is in awful crisis, symbolized by BP’s broken oil pipe spouting maybe 70,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico, not on Rand Paul’s say-so but on that of Obama and Interior Secretary Salazar. Obama to Salazar: helluva a job, Kenny! (As a evidence of Rand Paul’s utter insanity he says Obama is being too tough on BP.) Forty–six years after the Civil Rights Act, with its noble liberal principles one can smell not just the nuttiness and often straight-up racism of the Teabaggers but the un-nutty, methodical corruption of liberalism in fifty thousand concrete instances, most of them well known to ordinary Americans.
If Libertarians are now actually going to be elected to office they might want to sort out some of their self-contradictory notions. Mark Lilla has a piece in The New York Review of Books which will help with this.