Washington Matters
Why the Rand Paul Debate Is Healthy
Maybe -- just maybe -- Rand Paul's candidacy can spark the serious discussion this country needs.
By Mark Willen, Senior Political Editor, The Kiplinger Letter
May 24, 2010
- Comments
- Email This Article
- Print This Article
- Order a Reprint
Advertisement
Whatever your views of the GOP’s new Senate candidate in Kentucky, there’s something to be said for a constructive discussion about the proper size and role of government -- something beyond the slogans and the name calling that has characterized the political discourse thus far.
As everyone now knows, Paul got into political hot water last week when he suggested (as he has since 2002) that a key portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a problem. It’s a mistake, he argued, for government to be telling private property owners what they can or can’t do on that property. He was quick to add that he abhors discrimination and he wouldn’t patronize an establishment that practices it, but he’s uncomfortable banning it.
The story attracted so much attention because Paul is the Tea Party candidate, and his primary win over the GOP establishment-backed candidate represented the first major electoral victory for the Tea Party. Most people know what the Tea Party is against, but few know what it is for, so Paul’s comments were seized as an important indication.
But Paul, like his father, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), is a libertarian who happens to have Tea Party backing, not a Tea Party candidate with libertarian backing. He is truly for minimalist government, and his comments on the Civil Rights Act are entirely consistent with that. And they’re not as indefensible as some liberals would like to think. In an ideal world, any health club that posted a “No Blacks Welcome” sign would be shunned by patrons and quickly go out of business. But this is not an ideal world, and the reality is that discrimination is far from dead. And even if it were true for blacks, would most people also shun a health club that said “No Gays Welcome”?
The fact that the Rand controversy involved civil rights was a particular lightning rod because the Tea Party has been fighting hard to shuck its image of a whites-only group that welcomes racists. It’s no coincidence that the Tea Party’s rise coincided with the election of Barack Obama. Its main planks are lower taxes, smaller deficits and smaller government. But the expansion of government and deficit spending began under President George W. Bush, not Obama, and brought no rise of the Tea Party. And as for taxes, Obama has lowered, not increased, them. The ugly posters that show up at Tea Party rallies add to the racist concern, as does the fact that 30% of those identifying with both the Tea Party and the racially tinged birther movement denying that Obama was born in the U.S., despite overwhelming evidence.
Ross Douthat, writing in the New York Times today, points out that Paul could have avoided this debate by simply saying that while he opposes government controls on private institutions, civil rights merits an exception because of our history.
That may be true, but Americans on all sides of this issue should welcome the debate that Rand has spawned. Very few of us are on the absolute extremes -- wanting either complete government control or a total withdrawal of government. The issue, so simple in big vs. small government slogans, is far more complicated: What exactly do we want government to do or not do, and how do we pay for what we want?
This immediately puts us into shades of gray. Private businesses need autonomy, but does that mean they should be free to hire illegal immigrants? Should restaurants be allowed to serve meals without FDA checks on food safety? Should toys be sold without someone checking the lead content? Should oil companies be allowed to drill beneath the sea without government-approved safety measures?
There are a million of these questions, and unfortunately, most need to be considered separately. Some general guidelines might help -- e.g., government is responsible for health and safety -- but they’re no substitute for specifics. Even a health and safety standard quickly breaks down when we can’t agree on the safety of carbon dioxide emissions or whether cigarettes should be banned.
If Paul’s candidacy leads to a constructive debate on these issues, I, for one, will be grateful to him. But that will require an engaged public, lowered rhetoric and politicians interested in more than which party controls the levers of powers. Here’s hoping.
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy
Reader Comments (18)
Posted by: Lock Piatt at 05/24/2010 04:00:14 PM
The Constitution is the bedrock of America and our freedoms. If we all addressed our collective problems to it's rules for government actions, America would be a better place. One can not make another free by taking freedoms from another. Freedoms are for all not just a majority or a minority therefor no law can be just if if takes from one to give to another. There can be no redistribution to correct past wrongs for those being taken from where not those that committed the wrong. This idea that one can repair the wrongs of the past by actions of the future is a fallacious theory with zero logical support in facts. Feelings are not facts and will not support a real debate on the premise of freedoms.
Posted by: Bob at 05/24/2010 11:53:36 PM
The birther movement is NOT "racially tinged." There is NO "overwhelming evidence" of Obama's being born in the U.S. - Hawaii has mysteriously sealed all records of his alleged birth, and Obama's minders allow NO transparency into his birth or scholarship records. Mark Willen's commentary about Rand Paul is flawed by Willen's stumble on this ancillary but important issue.
Posted by: Mark Willen at 05/25/2010 11:38:31 AM
Bob, Unfortunately there is no amount of factual information that will persuade birthers. The Obama campaign released a certified copy of his birth certificate in 2007. The government of Hawaii and career civil service officials in Hawaii have repeated attested to his birth in the state, and several courts -- including the U.S. Supreme Court -- have dismissed suits alleging the documents are false. Plus there were birth announcements in local newspapers back when Obama was born, so any conspiracy would have had to start then. There may be many reasons for disliking the Obama administration, but challenges to the legitimacy of his election based on lies that he was born in Kenya are truly out of bounds. Mark Willen
Posted by: kbird at 05/25/2010 02:26:51 PM
You can hope all you want but as long as we have professional politicians in Washington who's only priority is to keep their jobs by buying votes and not offending anyone but white Christians then you will be very disappointed.
Posted by: JD at 05/25/2010 02:28:51 PM
Mark Willen, I'm surprised to see you talk that way. I do doubt that Obama was born in Kenya, but I am quite certain that he is doing something unethical related to his birth certificate. As you admit, they have produced a "signed cop"y and other statements from pro-Obama people. Nothing from a neutral source. No one has seen the original. And newspaper announcements in 1961 make sense even if he was born in Kenya. His parents would have had reason to make him seem to be an American citizen besides potential presidency down the road. Here's the bottom line: Obama either A: was born in Kenya, B: lost his original birth certificate and participated in fraud to hide that fact, or C: is hiding proof that he was born in the US to fuel the birther movement, which he believes benefits him by allowing him to portray his opponents as kooks (similar to the way 9/11 conspiracy theorists benefit GWB). Any of these is unethical, and there is no fourth possibility.
Posted by: JD at 05/25/2010 02:30:48 PM
"Ross Douthat, writing in the New York Times today, points out that Paul could have avoided this debate by simply saying that while he opposes government controls on private institutions, civil rights merits an exception because of our history." Except that Paul may not believe that. Also, he was blindsided by a question unrelated to previous conversation in a hostile interview. He didn't have all the time in the world to consider his answer. Insert teleprompter joke here.
Posted by: Jeffrey at 05/25/2010 02:34:05 PM
Mr. Willen---I know you are trying to be very sensitive and clear in your handling of Mr. Rand's comments about the Civil Rights Act, but I think you have missed the mark and let Mr. Paul off too easily. Pretending that one's objections to the application of the Act to private businesses is just a 'keep the government out of my affairs' argument requires a willful ignorance of the history that required the Civil Rights Act. Private business left on their own actively and comprehensively discriminated against racial minorities, particularly blacks. Mr. Paul's anti-government posturing is just the human face on a barbaric belief---that it is acceptable for people of minority races to be discriminated against on that basis. This is the state's rights argument justifying slavery all over again. Don't fall for it.
Posted by: Aleck at 05/25/2010 02:38:56 PM
Unfortunately, there will be no "constructive debate". There will be shouting, spreading of misinformation, name calling, false insinuations and other political dirt that became the hallmark of the conservative movement in the last couple of years. Neither Rand Paul election nor any other event will change the tone of the political debate in the near future. This strategy seems to be working for the anti-Dem crowd and they will milk it for all its worth.
Posted by: Charles at 05/25/2010 04:25:58 PM
Isn't the Civil Rights Act supposed to be a multi-directional , multiple-lane highway for non discrimination? If so, I offer as Exhibit "A" the United Negro College Fund. Seems to me there is "a sign" hanging on that door which reads "Caucasians Need Not Apply." I'll skip Exhibits "B" through "Z." However, just to save some inane comments, I am a white male who has contributed to the Fund. And, no, I do not advovate a United White College Fund. I DO, however, advocvate a MUCH less intrusive role into private lives, business, and organizations. On balance, that would go far to restoring the Constitutional republic our founders envisioned and intended.
Posted by: Glenn Garrison at 05/25/2010 04:58:08 PM
We do need this debate, on a civil tone of course, because right now most Americans run to the federal government to take care of everything and candidates looking for votes are more than willing to oblige anyone that will give them a horse to run on. The Constitution is very clear on what the limits of government should be, and are, - general welfare, allow the pursuit of happiness, etc. There is no place mentioned that says that government should be free to take personal land for little reason. Nor is there any mention that formal public Education is a primary role of the government. Try telling that to the Teacher's Union in CA and IL - you'll be hanged. The primary role of the federal government is to provide safety and security from foreign enemies for it's citizens. Is an open Mexican border conducive to public safety - I don't think so.
Posted by: Barry G at 05/25/2010 05:38:35 PM
There's too much money involved to be reasonable and integrity at many levels in government is corrupted by the same.
Posted by: R at 05/25/2010 06:43:10 PM
Mr Willen, please cite U.S. Supreme Court reference. Faith comes in many forms to the confidence a person or persons have in others. When someone pledges "transparency", but yet when so many actions by them or their associates (even those seemingly not tied directly to), seem to prevent any disclosure; would it not be prudent to "question"? Local newspapers are not a valued "official" declaration of anything; so, when "the people" question something, should they not get the answers they seek? Even if 200 million people look upon a document and are not experts in "officiating" its legitmacy, wouldn't that at least meet some level of "Transparenc"y? I do agree with you as to "What exactly do we want government to do or not do, and how do we pay for what we want?". Myself, I believe our great nation will fail if the Government fully controlled our lives, or even if it had no control over any of it (lawlessness, anarchy). Our Governments (Federal, and States), were sought out to provide law and order, and to help us all live long, safe, and productive lives. A private business is much like a club, if those who want to partake of that establishment, should be able to do so; but, thier memeberships should not be held in confidence. If someone wants to be racist, a sexist, a bigot then let them do so in thier own home. I too believe, if an establishment barred someone because of their race, creed, disability, or gender, then they will ultimately lose out in business to the point they fail, or they change their mindset and policies. A balance is always sought out, the the true balance comes over time; often swinging to the right or left. Fairness is desired, equality is a must; but diminshing those who have worked hard to succeed (those who have valued equality and fairness), is not a valued course of action. An example is demeaning someone that has owned and operated business(es), and being told they are the ones that keep people in the low-income brackets. My question (and I know it has been asked and pondered on), "How do you encourage those, who choose not to work or to be a better person, to strive to that next level"?
Posted by: jetskreemr at 05/25/2010 07:32:09 PM
Any birthers on this board (or anywhere else for that matter) only need to check www.factcheck.org for their clear, unbiased analysis of the issue. They saw, touched, and ANALYZED Obama's ACTUAL birth certificate, and posted an article stating that all their research showed that it was a legitimate Hawaii birth certificate, including their photos of the raised seal, signatures, etc. Case closed. End of story. And how, again, is this NOT "overwhelming evidence"? And besides, why is Obama expected to produce more evidence of his citizenship than that for anyone? Remember, McCain was born in Panama, but no one ever made a case for needing to see his birth certificate. I completely understand why people claim that this shows a racist double-standard, it sure looks that way....
Posted by: Chris Brown at 05/25/2010 09:04:26 PM
"If Pauls candidacy leads to a constructive debate on these issues, I, for one, will be grateful to him. But that will require an engaged public, lowered rhetoric and politicians interested in more than which party controls the levers of powers." Don't know much about USA history, eh? "these issues", as you put it come down to the conflict between the "implied power"/Federalist/Hamiltonians and the "enumerated powers"/republican/Jeffersonians. The conflict was settled by the SCOTUS in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland, amongst other earlier and subsequent decisions. Shouldn't we be having "constructive debate(s)" matters relevant to the modern world rather than rehashing an 18th and 19th century debate, long ago settled?
Posted by: Mark Willen at 05/26/2010 08:41:08 AM
Hi, this is Mark Willen, author of this column. In response to R's request for Court citations, two that reached the Supreme Court in 2008 and 2009 were Donofrio v. Wells and Berg v. Obama et al. In both cases, the Court refused without comment to even hear the cases. Several others were dismissed at lower court levels. I'm not in the habit of using Wikipedia as a source, but they do have a rundown of the cases that you can follow up on by checking the links to the courts involved. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories Hope this helps.
Posted by: Walter H. Mosby II at 05/26/2010 12:19:47 PM
With freedom comes responsilbility and sad to say most White Americans don't feel they should have ANY responsibility for racism in this country which if the truth be told they (Whites) should not only have created the Civil Rights Act but should be expelled fron the country becasuse they (Whites) are illegal not the "so - called" illegals they (Whites) don't want in America in the first place. Native Americans were the first people here before White Europeans came because of being kicked out of England by King George while The King was cleaning out the English prisons and not because of "so - called" religious persecution. African - Americans were forced to come here because of slavery thus having no say so as to wanting to come to this country in the first place. Most White Americans feel "entitled" to doing and having anything they want without having compassion for another's rights or feelings. And when the economy is bad (when most Whites cannot buy the most expensive house, car, vacation or go to the most expensive resturant just so they can brag to their friends as to what they bought or where they went) minorities are not only blamed but they are singled out for abuse i.e. false arrest, imprisonment and in some cases death. There will be no real discussion about racism in America until Whites admit that racism does exist, truly apologize for slavery and make an HONEST attempt to bring REAL racial harmony to America.
Posted by: realthoughts at 05/26/2010 05:19:13 PM
The unending and complex requirements of the inter-related society that we all benefit from and enjoy eclipse the ponderings of Dr. Paul. For example, he's a doctor. Should doctors be able to practice to the level of care that they wish leaving only the "market" to weed out the ones who are inadequate? Is there even a need to waste time debating that?? Should the corrective lenses and eye drops he perscribes be manufactured at the sole discretion of a private business owner? Again, allowing only the market to regulate contact lenses and eye drops? And let me guess, Dr. Paul would abhor the makers of faulty eye care products thus removing himself from the problems. Please, can we move on?
Posted by: The Truth at 05/27/2010 07:01:44 AM
Hey Walter H. Mosby II. I will never apologize for slavery. I had nothing to do with it. It ended 100 years before I was born.