I don’t tend to make myself an apologist for politicians or aspiring politicians. In some ways, I may be doing just that with this entry concerning Rand Paul and his comments on the Rachel Maddow Show. Last week on her television show, Rachel Maddow twisted Kentucky’s Republican U.S. Senatorial candidate, Rand Paul’s, ideology in a way to make it seem as if he wanted to reverse the Civil Rights Movement.
Sensationalism is what drives ratings. MSNBC needs good ratings as it regularly falls behind FOX News in ratings. Rand Paul and Ron Paul always seem to be willing to go onto any news program that will have them, and as far as any politician is concerned, they probably have some of the largest followings. MSNBC is a left-leaning news organization, lest we kid ourselves. They need to throw some red meat to the left to keep their ratings among their target audience, so they need to go after Republicans any time they can. Rachel Maddow is also an avowed liberal, so it would seem fair to assume that would come out in her program. It does. Add all of this information together, and it is easy to see why she would want to go after Rand Paul. I cannot fault her for doing this. Paul should have seen that this would be what she would attempt to do.
Many consider Rand Paul to be a libertarian. Whether or not he accepts this label, I do not know, but his small government conservatism would, at the very least, mirror some basic tenets of libertarianism. Being a small government conservative myself, I can easily see many, many places that I agree with adherents of libertarianism. His views on government that he portrayed are now creating a bit of a crisis in his march to the U.S. Senate.
Rachel Maddow questioned Rand Paul about whether or not he believed that restaurants or other businesses should be able to discriminate and not serve someone based on that person’s race. Paul never directly said “yes” or “no,” (MSNBC transcripts falsely used the word “Yes” to begin his quote when, in fact, he never said “Yes.”) but Paul attempted to explain that he had a problem with a government telling a private business who they must do business with.
On the surface, Paul’s statement could seem that he holds to some unsettling racial views, if you do not understand the belief that government should be extremely limited. According to many libertarians and small government conservatives, the only role of government is to insure the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness or protection of property. These adherents believe that rights not specifically given to government are understood to not be the power of government. By extension, there is no specific allowance for government to interfere in private property, thus the government should not have interfered in private property as they seemingly did through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul deviates somewhat from his small government views by stating that he would not favor the repeal of the act, and he has even stated he supports the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Most people do not have such a view of limited government. Many Americans believe that government should fix society’s problems. How many times have you heard someone discussing a problem and someone else saying, “There should be allow against that?” The left is for economic regulation. The right is for social regulation. Some in the middle are for some of both. These views are hypocritical in a sense. Where should government intervene and where should it not?
Paul’s view is that government should not interfere in business. He believes that the government should not interfere in private property. He believes that government should be very limited. States should have the right to decide things not specifically given to the federal government per the 10th Amendment. This view is actually what the Founders theoretically believed since this is the view that was incorporated into our U.S. Constitution, though it is entirely arguable that the Founders did not practice this.
Let’s view this question for how it should be viewed. You want to start a business? Start one. You want a restaurant? Start one. Who owns it? You do? Okay. Run with it. You want to serve fat foods? Go for it! You want to allow guns in your business? Go for it. You want to allow smoking in your restaurant? Go for it! You want to only serve those of caucasian descent? Go for it.
You probably agree with some of the above questions, but disagree with other parts if you are the average American. The question that really frames the whole argument is, who owns your business. Do you own the business? If so, it is your private property. Should you be allowed to invite someone to your private property and be allowed to sell them foods high in fat content? Should I be allowed to buy food high in fat content? Unless you are a strong believer that the government knows more than you do, then the answer is yes I should be able to buy or sell foods high in fat content.
Smoking and guns are legal. It is my private property, so should I not be able to allow people to bring legal items to my business? Should people be allowed to bring guns to my property if I allow them? Should government be allowed to tell me no? Should I be able to allow people to smoke on my property? This is where many begin to waffle. People start talking safety here. It is my PRIVATE property. A restaurant is PRIVATE property. The public is allowed to come into my PRIVATE business. I am not forcing them. They can say “NO!” Why should people not be allowed to come to my PRIVATE business and smoke if I say they can? I don’t owe workers a job. They can choose to quit if they don’t want to be around smoke. If they don’t want to be around guns, they can quit. Keep in mind, it is PRIVATE property. Whatever you think about smoking, it is legal and can be done on private property. Same with guns. They can be carried on private property. Well, that used to be the case. Governent now views PRIVATE business as quasi-public, simply because the public goes to these places.
What if I wanted to allow you to smoke in my PRIVATE home? Should you be allowed? What if I opened my home to many people to come in? Should people be allowed to smoke in my home? Why would my restaurant be any different? See how there is a bit of hypocrisy there?
Now, what if I were racist? What if I just absolutely hated an ethnic group? Should I have to allow anyone of that ethnicity to come into my home? Apply that to a PRIVATE business. This is where Rand Paul’s ideology becomes reprehensible to so many. He has a belief that a person has a right to his or her property that government cannot and should not be able to control. This is a belief that he holds to be absolute, regardless of how disgusting someone’s beliefs may be. In other words, if someone is racist, it does not matter that racism is absolutely disgusting, but they have a right to their property so that they would not be forced to serve a person of that race.
Paul did go on and say that he would not join any private club that would discriminate based on race. He has stated that he would not support repealing the Civil Rights Act. He has stated that he would not go to a restaurant that refused to serve people based on race. He just happens to believe that rights are not able to be limited just because someone else does not like what you believe.
Paul’s ideas are actually the basis for our government. Many people are quick to say that we live in a democracy. A democracy does not need a written constitution. As a matter of fact, the nation of Israel is a representative democracy. It has no written constition. A democracy has no need for a written constitution because a simple majority vote (the people’s will) decides the law. Our government is a democratic republic. A republic allows laws to be created, yet laws cannot be created that will infringe on anyone’s rights. Christians cannot vote to take away the right of Muslims to worship how they see fit. Caucasians cannot decide to take the lives of dark skinned persons. Republics have set limits. Democracies limits are whatever the people decide the limits are at any given time. In a democracy, rights are pointless because a majority can overrule those at any time, similar to how a Tennessee governor’s veto is pointless because a simple majority can overrule it.
Paul’s words do not show him to be racist. His words do not say that he will support discrimination. He has gone far to show and state that this is not the case. He simply believes in limits. How often does a politician actually live by limits of his or her own power? Plenty say it, but few live by them. Paul is a different kind of politician. Whether you like his politics or not, you should take comfort in the fact that he says what he believes and that he will stand up for your rights whether he thinks you use them wisely or not.
