By now, I’m sure most everyone has heard that Dr. Rand Paul, son of Texas’ own Congressman Ron Paul, has won the Republican nomination for Kentucky’s senate election this fall. Apparently, he won that nomination quite easily, so one could probably assume that most Republicans think he’s a fine sort of candidate.
I’m sure most everyone has also heard about some of the viewpoints he’s gone on the record with – namely, that he does not believe it is right for the government to require private businesses to refrain from discriminating, or indeed, to require them to provide access to people with disabilities.
These are quite radical viewpoints, in this day and age. Many people still remember the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, of course, but a great many more people really take the Civil Rights Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act, or other similar federal laws quite for granted. It would never even occur to me, as someone born in the 1980s, that these laws were up for debate. I assume they are about as indelible as things like my right to vote.
Dr. Paul was on the Rachel Maddow show a couple of days ago, and the very first thing he said (after an introduction explaining more or less what I’ve just told you, and a question from Rachel asking him if a local newspaper’s assessment of his stance was accurate) is that the newspaper Rachel quoted is hardly known for being kind to Republicans, as it’s a very Democratic newspaper.
The reason he said this is that the newspaper (the Courier-Journal in Louisville, KY) declined to endorse a candidate for the Republican nomination. They wouldn’t endorse Dr. Paul because they said some of his viewpoints were “reprehensible” to the mainstream. I’m not sure why they wouldn’t endorse his opponent, but they apparently didn’t like him any better.
If this newspaper is anything like my local newspaper (or indeed, any other newspaper I’ve seen around election season), the editorial board endorses one candidate from each party during primary elections, whether they’d ever vote for those candidates in a general election or not. So the fact that they wouldn’t endorse anyone in the Republican primary is hardly evidence of a liberal bias. I’ve never read this paper, so of course I have no idea what sort of bias they may or may not have. But endorsing someone for the Democratic primary and not the Republican one just means that the Republican candidates must be pretty damned terrible.
What I find the most interesting about that comment from Dr. Paul, however, is that it was the very first thing he said. Which makes me wonder if that’s truly his best argument. Because seriously? That is a really, really weak argument. This whole idea of the “liberal media” is sort of a tired old trope anyway, but it doesn’t exactly win people over to your way of thinking if you respond to, “Do you think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against minorities, gays, and others?” with, “Well you know that paper hates Republicans, right?”
The other thing that I find rather astounding about this is the fact that he is back-tracking like it’s a professional sport. And the crazy thing is – he started back-tracking even more after this interview on the Rachel Maddow Show! On the show, his stance that he was against discrimination, but also against legislating that private businesses refrain from doing it was definitely documented from multiple sources – primarily, from an interview on NPR’s All Things Considered, and from a filmed interview with the editorial staff of the Courier-Journal before they decided who to endorse in the primaries.
But now that he’s gotten some national media attention? Well, you know those 1850s, they were real interesting, and oh by the way, I never really said that. Uh huh. He spent an entire interview (nearly 20 minutes) talking over Rachel Maddow, selectively answering only the questions that would let him repeat — ad nauseum — that he doesn’t support discrimination or violence, and basically just refusing to actually confront what he was actually on the record saying.
I also found his attempt to explain the logic behind why businesses shouldn’t be required to do these things rather ridiculous. For instance, with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act, it makes sense to put someone who is disabled on the first floor of a two-story office building. But it doesn’t make any sense to force that business to install a $100,000 elevator. Therefore, the law as it currently exists is no good, he argues.
Now, if that little scenario had any actual basis in fact, it would be true – that doesn’t make sense. But that’s not what the law requires. That’s why the language in the law is “reasonable accommodation.” So if, for instance, it is necessary to be capable of lifting 50 pounds in order to perform a particular job, the company doesn’t have to hire anyone who can’t lift that much weight. Or, with the office building, a reasonable accommodation is giving that disabled person an accessible, first-floor office and setting things up so they don’t need to go up to the second floor. There’s nothing in that law that says you have to spend a whole bunch of money to put in an elevator.
So really, I’m calling this guy an idiot. And I’m trying really hard not to cackle with glee that he may become the face of the tea partiers, and perhaps even the Republican Party. I’m all for calling things like they are – this guy may think he’s not racist or bigoted, but he sure doesn’t have much sympathy, empathy, or understanding for anyone who isn’t a white male like himself. A lot of people may think that Republicans are not in favor of systematic racism and discrimination against anyone who isn’t white and male, but they’d be wrong.
I mean, just look at Arizona, right? It’s bordering on illegal to be in public while brown in Arizona these days. The Republican Party hasn’t called out the Arizonans who passed that law any more than they’ve called out Rand Paul for thinking that the government has no right to require private businesses to be fair to all of their potential customers. Really, lovely political philosophy right there.
After writing all of the above, I was able to watch Rachel Maddow’s response to her interview with Rand Paul on Wednesday. It’s really, incredibly fascinating, and I encourage anyone and everyone to watch it. I can’t figure out how to embed it here, but here’s a direct link: http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/civil-rights-beyond-race/17y4qip1m?from=sharepermalink
“it doesn’t exactly win people over to your way of thinking if you respond to, “Do you think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate against minorities, gays, and others?” with, “Well you know that paper hates Republicans, right?””
LOL.
I’ll try to check out the link b/c I like Maddow, she always strikes me as intelligent.
(That said, I do think it’s possible to think discrimination is wrong but that the gov’t shouldn’t enforce anti-discrimination. I’m not saying I agree with it, just saying I think it’s possible. In a way it’s like me saying I don’t think religion is wrong, but I don’t think the gov’t should promote it.)
“That said, I do think it’s possible to think discrimination is wrong but that the gov’t shouldn’t enforce anti-discrimination.”
Oh, it’s surely possible to think that. The guy’s a libertarian, so that viewpoint coming from him doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. However, it’s that type of thinking that makes me strongly dislike libertarian political philosophy. I think it’s bad for us as a country, and rather reprehensible in individuals.
I also think that Rand Paul in particular is a hypocrite, because he keeps trying to insist that he never really said that at all. You can’t have an opinion like that and refuse to stand by it when questioned without looking like a really wishy-washy idiot.
Oh, Rand Paul…
That whole race was a giant cluster over here. I mean, from my perspective, I was just glad I wasn’t a registered Republican — there wasn’t much to choose from between Paul and Trey Grayson, from what I can tell. I mean, vote for the guy endorsed by Mitch McConnell (who had never before endorsed a primary candidate) or vote for the guy endorsed by Sarah Palin? Talk about trying to choose the lesser of two evils…
All that said, almost everything I hear about Rand Paul scares me because it’s so out there and seems as though it’s rarely based in fact. I wish I could remember some of the pre-election ads that were run for the things he said. But I’m with you on the hypocrisy issue. If you’re going to take a politically risky stance, own it. Don’t play it up for a while and then turn around and deny that you ever thought it was a good idea; with technology and the prevalence of the media these days, you’re just going to make yourself look like an idiot when someone says, “Oh, really, then what do you say about this video clip of you that we’re going to show everyone?”
I’ll be paying a great deal of attention to the general election this fall. I’m not sure how much I like the idea of living in a state that could elect someone like Paul to Congress. Although it would be interesting to see McConnell have to try to work with him.
If it makes you feel any better, I read somewhere that Rand Paul may have won the Republican nomination handily…but turnout was higher in the Democratic primary. So you may not be living in a state that could elect him or someone like him, if he’s wildly popular among a very small minority. I can’t imagine anyone who isn’t a die-hard Republican being entirely comfortable with him now, even if they aren’t too thrilled with the other end of the political spectrum, either.
Since I’m sure it’s quite obvious what my political leanings are at this point, I’ll tell you right now that it was pretty damned awful living in a state that could elect the likes of people like Tom DeLay to Congress. Not to mention Rand Paul’s daddy, Ron Paul, who will probably keep winning his seat until he gives it up or dies.