Is Rand Paul Racist?

SO... I went to a progressive happy hour event at Sidebar near Suffolk University Law School last night. I am not a progressive. Furthermore, I guess others know I am not a progressive although I did not realize that information was so widespread. I honestly thought I was very sneaky-like. Perhaps it is due to the American Flag and Liberty quotes on the back of my laptop computer? who knows? Nonetheless, the proposition was made that night that Rand Paul is racist. So, is he?

First, in case you do not know who Rand Paul is, he is the new Senator of Kentucky, along with Mitch O'Connell (Senate Minority Leader). Paul is the son of Ron Paul, the long-time TX representative and current presidential nominee hopeful for the Republican party. Rand Paul is a libertarian. He is part of the Tea Party. He is a staunch supporter of freedom and unlike many other Republican Senators. He is principled, much like his father, as he has shown in but a short period of time at his position.

The incident which I believe has led progressives and others to label Paul a racist is when he got into a large argument with Ms. Maddow (btw, Maddow is one of my favorite shows to watch for news, I disagree with her but love to watch the show). Rand Paul argued that if he were a senator in 1964, he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited certain private businesses from discriminating based on race, sexual orientation, or gender. Paul would have opposed that.

I assume the argument here is that the Civil Rights Act was passed to protect groups discriminated against. Paul would have rejected the Act, therefore Paul supports discrimination. This is a fallacious argument, this is a misleading argument, and it was employed by Maddow as a trap. Let use have fun with an analogous unsound argument... The deep water oil drilling ban destroys jobs and makes us rely on foreign oil, Obama supported the ban, therefore Obama is opposed to jobs and energy independence (both this argment just made and the argument against Paul are wrong, they are oversimplifications).  This is similar to when a Democrat goes onto the O'Reilly Factor or stands before the menacing she-wolf known as Megyn Kelly and is asked why they support raising taxes and how that is going to create jobs? Paul, to defend his point, would have needed to explain his position, because it is not a mainstream-recognized argument, and being on MSNBC opposite to Maddow was not the correct venue to properly defend and explain the point.

Libertarians believe in the supremacy of the individual. They acknowledge that they do not have a monopoly on wisdom (borrowed that from Prof. Greenbaum), libertarianism is in truth the philosophy of humility, and humility is difficult when there are idiots, bigots, and people you disagree with on matters where you have strong convictions. In the end though, the government, which acts through coercion and force, is not the appropriate means by which to effectuate what a majority believes to be moral character. When the majority of people were racists, they used the law to effectuate their moral beliefs (i.e. Jim Crow laws). Furthermore, government control in private business hampered and prolonged the fight for equality signficantly as opposed to conventional wisdom which holds that the glorious government thankfully restrained and ended racism which the private public could not do without it. Really?? Do you honestly think the government is what saved this country from racism? People's outlook and morals changed with time. The change would have been expedited had the government not gotten in the way. Remember that the NAACP and many attorneys (think of the famous Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP) were at the forefront of the fight for equality. But, the government restricted their push for equality by forcing them to release their bar information and affiliations (which would obviously be used for retaliation and disbarment for such acts like the freedom rides). This government control required other groups to step up where the government had less control, such as religious groups (Rev, Martin Luther King Jr.) and student groups. My point here is that government slowed progress.

The very same push for the Civil Rights Act, the government involvement which we view as good now, is the same governmental overstep which hindered it in the past and very well may hinder it in the future. People should promote acceptance, people should be accepting, business owners should not refuse to employ a more qualified person simply because they are black, or because they are gay. However, it is not the majority's role to tell the business owner what to do, even if we believe it is wrong. Humility is a difficult step, but a necessary one. Right now we may agree with the purpose of the law, but we didn't yesterday, and we very well may not tomorrow.

I stand behind Rand Paul. Both of us are not racists. We believe in freedom and the individual, even when it is difficult, even when we agree with the purpose of the law.

Labeling Paul a racist is akin to labeling the Tea Party as extremists (or according to Biden as terrorists) or calling dems unpatriotic and calling Obama a socialist. They are oversimplified attacks meant to denounce a persons arguments on an appeal to peoples misconceptions. We should have a discussion on policy, and we very well may disagree on principle, but let us not demean ourselves to name-calling.