Here’s an interesting post I found today defending Rand Paul.
But why oh why do these democratc/progressive/left wing people insist on digging up race bones? I could not believe shewas going back to the lunch counters. Let me see, has that been about 50 or 60 years ago? Could we just move forward? No. Of course not. I imagine the little worker bees at Media Matters spent a lot of time trying to come up with some way to trap him with some controversy. They LOVE it when they can stir up something, perfect example is Al Sharpton going down to the Mexican border and inserting himself and his racism into something that was of no concern to him.
Read More >>
Well, to his larger point that Rand Paul and Republicans aren’t racists, I’ll agree. Nothing he said was racist and Rachel Maddow never accused him of racism. The point of the conversation was never about race. Though it was a conversation involving race, he completely missed the true point of the conversation: the proper place of government in Libertarian philosophy.
You see, in Progressive philosophy, governments job is to fix problems and move the country forward. Libertarians feel that most government intervention causes more problems than they fix, and that even when a problem seems fixed, the side affects were worse than the original problem.
Civil Rights was a “win” for Progressive philosophy (note, I’m not saying Democrats). With the several civil rights lws, Government fixed a problem, and most people would agree the country was better for it. Most people don’t want to go back to a place where restaurants are allowed to hang “White’s Only” signs. For better or worse, Government, Big Brother, the Nanny State, and yes, even Judicial activism in Brown vs. Board of Education, all these things were necessary for the country to move past our own racism.
For anyone who believes in limited government, questions about how America got over our past leads to complicated questions. The core principles have to bend a little sometimes, there has to be, if not compromise, at least intelligent nuance in the exorcise of those principles.
So using a racial sensitive bill to discuss this deeply philosophy topic was probably not completely fair to Rand Paul, but he and Maddow are both professionals, and I won’t criticize a media reporter for being aggressive on policy questions. As Sun Tzu would say, when in battle, you will win if you can pick your battlefield. Maddow picked the right battlefield.
So I’ll pose a similar question to each of you, but I’ll leave out as much of the racial stuff as possible.
Do you believe that government has the right and power to tell private citizens what to do with their own money and property if it’s believed they are misusing their own money and property?
Rand Paul would probably say no. Rachel Maddow preemptively used the Civil Rights act in the question to make the “no” as painful as possible, thus doing her best to prove the answer should be “yes.” If you ask me, I’d say the answer is “as sparingly as possible.”