Why Rand Paul's "Defense" Is Flawed

Faced with growing controversy over his position on civil rights, Paul Rand has stated that he would not seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Rand created a stir when he stated that he believed that the federal government should not prohibit discrimination by private companies. By stating that he would not seek to repeal the legislation, Rand hopes to defend his reputation and his senate campaign.

Rand's defenders have added another dimension to his defense, which Rand touches upon subtly. Rand's defenders stress that he is not a "racist." Also, Rand, in his own defense, says that he opposes racial discrimination, which is another way of saying "I'm not a racist." Neither of these defenses helps Rand, however.

Most of Rand's critics never even said or implied that he would seek to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Honestly, I have not seen any argument that even implies he would seek to repeal the legislation. Also, during the scattered interviews during which Rand stated his opposition to regulation of private companies, the interviewers did not contend that he wanted to repeal the civil rights statute. Instead, they asked him whether he would have voted for the law. Rand's view of civil rights is troubling whether or not he has the courage to advocate repeal of the legislation.

Rand's position on civil rights is disturbing because it indicates that he probably would not prefer strong enforcement of civil rights laws against private companies and that he definitely would not favor extending these laws to other groups, such as gays and lesbians. Agreeing that the law should remain in place does not mean that he also wants the federal government to prosecute vigorously civil rights violations.

Paul's effort to say he is not a racist is also irrelevant. Regardless of Paul's personal views about persons of color, his ideas about the role of government in the creation of a just society are extreme and dangerous. Personally, I do not care whether Paul is a bigot or not. How he votes on important issues like civil rights matters much more.

Paul has given the country a look at his views on these important issues. Criticizing him is a highly appropriate response.

Rand Paul and Civil Rights: MISERABLE

Hello, Tea Party. Welcome to the General Election
The media continue to repeat the flawed headline that a deep wave of resentment against incumbents exists. I have argued (as have others), that incumbents who are in jeopardy are vulnerable due to ideological reasons -- rather than mere incumbency. Likewise, many of the upstart candidates who have been successful represent an ideological alternative to the incumbent or opposing candidate. Rand Paul's success in Kentucky is a great example of this theory in action.

Paul won the Republican senate primary by catering to the political demands of the Tea Party movement. He captured the Tea Party and other conservative voters by embracing socially and fiscally conservative opinions. Although he portrayed himself as an "outsider," his main substantive message was conservatism.

Paul and Civil Rights
Now that primary has ended, Paul faces broader scrutiny. Some commentators have argued that Democrats actually prefer Paul as the Republican nominee because they believe his ideas will not appeal to a majority of Kentucky voters.

Several political commentators have started to examine some of Paul's policy positions (see here, here, here, here, and here). As the general campaign begins, Paul is particularly vulnerable on civil rights issues. His views on this subject could place him outside of the mainstream in Kentucky.

Gay Rights
During an April 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, Paul said that Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the military's anti-gay policy, "worked relatively well." Paul also repeatedly described DADT as a "nonfraternization policy," which is patently false. Paul likened DADT to other military policies, such as rules banning adultery or campaigning in uniform. Paul, however, said that he liked recent "modifications" to the enforcement of DADT, such as the decision not to pursue individuals who are outed by third parties.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
During the same April 2010 interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal, an interviewer asked Paul whether he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response, Paul said "I like the civil rights act" because it ended discrimination in "public domains." Paul, however, said that he does not agree with telling "private" businesses what they can or cannot do. Paul said that the government should only concern itself with discrimination in settings that are "publicly funded."

Paul's logic would wipe out a substantial portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The statute certainly addresses discrimination by publicly funded entities, but it also prohibits discrimination in private employment and privately owned places of public accommodation (e.g., hotels and restaurants).

One interviewer asked Paul a loaded question -- whether in his view, private businesses could deny service to Dr. Martin Luther King. Paul said that standing up for freedom means accepting people's "abhorrent" views and "behaviors" (translation: yes).

Paul also made the tired assertion (which began in slavery) that racial justice and individual liberty are opposing concepts. Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, and a majority of the American public generally reject this argument.

The Louisville Courier-Journal had harsh words for Paul. The newspaper published an editorial that refused to endorse either Paul or his Republican challenger Trey Grayson on the grounds that both candidates are too extreme. With respect to Paul and civil rights, the editors made the following observation:

The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group. He quickly emphasizes that he personally would not agree with any form of discrimination, but he just doesn't think it should be legislated.

NPR Interview: More Civil Wrongs
Yesterday (the day after his primary victory), Paul spoke on NPR. During the interview, Paul said he opposed "institutional racism." Paul also said that he believes he would have marched with Dr. King, which led the interviewer to ask in disbelief: "You would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater?"

Paul also said that many problems with discrimination could be handled locally. Of course, local and federal laws prohibit discrimination. The most despicable aspect of this comment, however, is that it shows either deep ignorance or callousness regarding the historical context in which Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At that time, many local governments, particularly in the South, were not enforcing civil rights, and many of them were actively facilitating, mandating, and engaging in racial discrimination. Paul's "local" solution argument is extremely dangerous from an historical perspective.

Paul's local argument also contradicts his stance that discrimination is an individual right. "Infringing" this "right" does not become permissble when states do it rather than Congress.

Final Take
As November approaches, Paul will receive more scrutiny. His ability to handle topics beyond the rhetoric of fiscal conservatism will face additional testing. So far, Paul has performed miserably.

For more analysis of this issue, see: A Conservative Defense of Rand Paul: He Is Telling the Truth; He's Not a Racist and Rand Paul on Gay Rights and Persons With Disabilities.


UPDATE: For an interesting argument that explores in greater detail how Paul's position contradicts libertarianism, see: More on Rand Paul, Civil Rights and Balancing Choices over Liberty.

Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died

Since 1964, no Democrat has won a majority of white voters in a presidential election. Although most media accounts of the 2008 election suggest a reversal of fortune for the Democrats, Obama's recent victory did not alter this statistic.

In 1964 Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed major civil rights legislation, which prohibited racial discrimination in a host of contexts, including employment and places of public accommodation. One provision (Title VI) also banned racial discrimination in the usage of federal money. Enforcement of this law would have bankrupted southern schools systems, because the federal government provides large amounts of financial assistance to state educational systems. Although the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education 10 years earlier, in 1964 only 1% of white and black kids attended schools together in the South. Standing alone, Brown did not affect the racial composition of schools, although the case became an important symbol that organized blacks and their supporters to lobby for more progressive changes. After reading this blog entry, you might view Obama's victory in a similar light.

When LBJ signed the 1964 legislation, he predicted that the Democrats would lose a whole generation of the South. He was correct. But following this year's election, many commentators have argued that race relations have dramatically shifted and that the South (and other red territory) has now become blue (or at least purple), citing to Obama's victories in North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, and Indiana.

Furthermore, much of the commentary surrounding the election has concluded that Obama's success in red states means that most Americans have discarded race-based identity politics and that the electoral map has permanently shifted as a result. Some of the most wildly hopeful liberals assert that the nation is now left-of-center and that Obama's administration will implement a comprehensive liberal agenda, while an impotent GOP watches in utter dismay.

Well, here at Dissenting Justice, I like to combine a hopeful outlook with a healthy dose of down-home southern "straight talk" (not the McCain-Palin variety). Consider me the designated driver among political commentators this year. Despite the dramatic discourse that proclaims a radical shift in U.S. race relations and political ideology, my analysis of exit polls in the state-to-state contests suggests that starry eyed commentators need a reality check.

In many blue states, for example, Obama failed to get a majority of white voters. In several others, he only won a very slight majority of white voters. The vast amount of support he generated from black and Latino voters helped deliver him the victory in those states where he was unable to secure a majority of white support. To Mr. Obama's credit, Gore and Kerry faced similar obstacles. But while the media announce the end of race, identity politics -- in terms of race-based voting -- clearly played a significant role in Obama's victory. Below, I provide a breakdown of the results of my analysis, which relies upon CNN exit poll data.

*11 Blue States Where Obama Failed to Get a Majority of White Votes:

Colorado (50-48), Florida (42-56), Indiana (45-54), Maryland (47-49), New Jersey (49-50), Nevada (53-45), New Mexico (42-56), North Carolina (35-64), Ohio (46-52), Pennsylvania (48-51), and Virginia (60-39).

*5 Blue States where Obama Received a Small Majority (51-52%) of White Votes:

California (52-46), Connecticut (51-46), Illinois (51-48), Iowa (51-47), and Michigan (51-47).

Data Summary and Big Picture

Obama lost the white vote by a wide margin in the traditional red states. Of the 28 states that voted for Obama, he only won a majority of white votes in 17 of them. 5 of the 17 are in New England; two of them include his birthplace of Hawaii and his current home state of Illinois. Obama' received only a small majority (between 51-52%) of white votes in Connecticut, California, Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan. UPDATE: Initially, I neglected to pull the white-voter data from Iowa and Illinois. Now I have corrected this. Incredibly, Obama only won 51% of white voters in both states!

Black and Latino voters helped secure his victory in key states. In Pennsylvania, for example, blacks and Latinos made up 17% of the electorate, and Obama received 95% of black votes and 72% of Latino votes. In Nevada, blacks and Latinos represented 25% of the vote, and Obama won blacks by 94% and Latinos by 72%. In Florida, blacks and Latinos cast 27% of the votes, and Obama won blacks by 96% and Latinos by 57%. In Indiana, where blacks and Latinos cast 7% of the votes, Obama won blacks by 90% and Latinos by 77%. In Ohio, blacks were 11% of the electorat, and Obama won 97% of their votes. In North Carolina, Obama secured 95% of black votes; blacks represented 23% of all votes in the Tar Heel State. Finally, in California, blacks and Latinos were 28% of the votes, and Obama won 95% and 74% of these important votes.

This breakdown does not mean that Obama only won because of blacks and Latinos. It does demonstrate, however, that race remains a very strong factor in voter preference -- despite all of the hoopla about the demise of race, racism, and social conservatism. A sizeable gender gap also remains pervasive in virtually all states. And California voters, who approved an anti-gay constitutional amendment, remind us that "sexual orientation" divides even the heart of the Democratic Party. Although blacks in California (and nationwide) gave Obama even more votes than they have delivered to Democratic candidates in the recent past, they also flexed their heterosexual political strength and helped to enshrine bigotry in the state constitution. Florida, Arizona and Arkansas also passed anti-gay initiatives, and affirmative action survived in suddenly blue Colorado by a hair.

Although I am happy to see very jubilant people of color and energized voters, liberals need to come back to Earth very soon because their distorted perception of the current political landscape will only harm social justice efforts. At some point (hopefully soon), the election-night buzz must concede to sobriety, and then all of us who desire concrete progressive change must engage in the tough work of organizing and developing strategies to make these changes a reality.