Louisville Courier Journal: [Rand] Paul's Civil Wrongs.
Paul's civil wrongs
No issue has so divided this nation more than race. We fought a civil war over it, and in the centuries since the first African was brought to our shores in bondage, it has been the national cancer.
But the single event after the Civil War that helped turn the corner for America in this realm was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Followed a year later by laws covering voting rights and other areas of racial justice, the nation never again would permit legal segregation in public accommodations, as well as other aspects of American life.
And, in the 46 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law, most Americans have embraced the fabric of the law. Despite great racial disparities that have continued to exist, this country in 2010 comes far closer to being the land of the free than ever before. Witness the election of Barack Obama.
All of which brings us to a conversation this editorial board had with Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul last month, the contents of which burst onto the national scene following his victory in Tuesday's Republican senatorial primary. We asked Dr. Paul whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He responded by saying that he was totally opposed to racism, that he felt it was wrong to discriminate based on race and that the portions of the law covering federal property were acceptable. "But ...?" we followed. And that's what has caused the firestorm.
Dr. Paul replied: "You had to ask me the 'but.' 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. ..."
This view was common back in the 1960s, and was espoused by all sorts of people who opposed the law, notably Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who was the GOP nominee for president in 1964. But it is a view that most Americans disagreed with then, and virtually all do today.
The ultimate result of such thinking would be the acceptability of a situation where the current President of the United States could be legally denied service at a lunch counter or a department store. This is not mainstream American thinking. This is, in a word, extremism.
Dr. Paul defended his views as part of his libertarian outlook regarding private property and restrictions on government authority.
But even in the most generous assessment, Dr. Paul in this case -- responding to America's struggle to replace institutionalized racism with a decent and open society -- appeared to assign "property rights" a higher value than "human rights." He also seemed to argue that it is more to be desired to limit government's reach, than to allow government, on behalf of all the people, to promote equality under the law. (Dr. Paul's repugnant view on this issue was an important factor in this newspaper's unusual decision not to make a recommendation in the GOP Senate race.)
By Thursday afternoon, after Dr. Paul's answers about his position on Rachel Maddow's program on MSNBC and in a National Public Radio interview had ignited a political and media furor, his camp issued a statement that Dr. Paul does support the power of the federal government "to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race."
Dr. Paul's retreat is welcome, though it is unclear whether it represents his genuine personal beliefs or an effort to stop the political hemorrhaging.
What can be said is that his initial assertions were appalling coming from a candidate for major office in 2010.
No issue has so divided this nation more than race. We fought a civil war over it, and in the centuries since the first African was brought to our shores in bondage, it has been the national cancer.
But the single event after the Civil War that helped turn the corner for America in this realm was the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Followed a year later by laws covering voting rights and other areas of racial justice, the nation never again would permit legal segregation in public accommodations, as well as other aspects of American life.
And, in the 46 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law, most Americans have embraced the fabric of the law. Despite great racial disparities that have continued to exist, this country in 2010 comes far closer to being the land of the free than ever before. Witness the election of Barack Obama.
All of which brings us to a conversation this editorial board had with Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul last month, the contents of which burst onto the national scene following his victory in Tuesday's Republican senatorial primary. We asked Dr. Paul whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He responded by saying that he was totally opposed to racism, that he felt it was wrong to discriminate based on race and that the portions of the law covering federal property were acceptable. "But ...?" we followed. And that's what has caused the firestorm.
Dr. Paul replied: "You had to ask me the 'but.' 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. ..."
This view was common back in the 1960s, and was espoused by all sorts of people who opposed the law, notably Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who was the GOP nominee for president in 1964. But it is a view that most Americans disagreed with then, and virtually all do today.
The ultimate result of such thinking would be the acceptability of a situation where the current President of the United States could be legally denied service at a lunch counter or a department store. This is not mainstream American thinking. This is, in a word, extremism.
Dr. Paul defended his views as part of his libertarian outlook regarding private property and restrictions on government authority.
But even in the most generous assessment, Dr. Paul in this case -- responding to America's struggle to replace institutionalized racism with a decent and open society -- appeared to assign "property rights" a higher value than "human rights." He also seemed to argue that it is more to be desired to limit government's reach, than to allow government, on behalf of all the people, to promote equality under the law. (Dr. Paul's repugnant view on this issue was an important factor in this newspaper's unusual decision not to make a recommendation in the GOP Senate race.)
By Thursday afternoon, after Dr. Paul's answers about his position on Rachel Maddow's program on MSNBC and in a National Public Radio interview had ignited a political and media furor, his camp issued a statement that Dr. Paul does support the power of the federal government "to ensure that private businesses don't discriminate based on race."
Dr. Paul's retreat is welcome, though it is unclear whether it represents his genuine personal beliefs or an effort to stop the political hemorrhaging.
What can be said is that his initial assertions were appalling coming from a candidate for major office in 2010.
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 5:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home