It’s always nasty when a politician gets hoisted upon his own petard especially if corruption or ignorance is involved. Rand Paul, a Republican (he calls himself a Libertarian) candidate, who just earned the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky is now mired in serious controversy. Paul says that while he approves strongly of nine of the ten provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act . . . had he been around he would have tried to modify the 10th provision which concerns potential discrimination in private businesses. The other nine provisions affect discrimination in publicly-funded institutions and government and Paul states his agreement with them.
Rajjpuut, is a REAL Libertarian. Let’s be clear here, 100% clear: Bill Clintonesque word-parsing is NOT what Libertarianism is all about. Mr. Paul does have a teensy-tiny point in what he says . . . but then he ignores 99.999999% of the spirit of Libertarianism in making his foolish argument. Too bad Mr. Rand, son of the well-known Ron Paul, doesn’t actually understand the political philosophy he espouses. So, exactly how is Paul right in saying that the private business provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act might have been improved? And how exactly did he miss the boat (the spirit of Libertarianism) with 99.999999% of his comment?
We’ve all seen those signs on business walls “The proprietor reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.” That’s the teensy-tiny part that Rand Paul got correct. No business should be forced to ever serve all customers entering its establishment. There are customers who come in shirtless, shoeless, stinking, etc. There are would-be repeat customers that have previously been kicked out of an establishment for obnoxious behavior. Refusing this class of undesirable customers is definitely within business owners’ rights. So far, so good, Mr. Paul. However, Mr. Paul clearly abused and misstated Libertarianism in virtually all of his objection to the ’64 Civil Rights Act and in the process, showed himself an extreme light-weight in intellectual ability.
“Whites Only” signs in the windows of a few Missouri businesses and all over the segregated south . . . “No sailors or dogs allowed in city parks” . . . “Our business is offered to ‘restricted clientele’ only” . . . “Jewish business is NOT desired” . . . “Colored” bathrooms and drinking fountains . . . are we getting the picture? That is clearly the core issue here. Should a private business open to the public be allowed to ban people because of skin color? religion? national origin? or other extraneous issues? Extending the question, can a private business open to the public, refuse to hire people because they’re, for example, freckled? black? a naturalized rather than a native-born citizen? etc.? etc.? That Mr. Paul does NOT understand the differences between what’s being described in this paragraph and the one immediately preceding it is a dramatic indictment of his lightweight-thinker status.
Once again, people MAY be legally refused service from a business for CAUSE, and for cause only. Then, if they violate the owner’s prerogative to ban them for cause , they can be legally barred by restraining orders issued by our courts. Eventually repeated violations can result in arrest and imprisonment. Banning people for extraneous reasons such as skin color, religion, etc. is a violation of their civil rights. Do you get that now, Mr. Rand Paul? A wise general picks his battles carefully, but you decided to debate on how many angels can stand on a pinpoint . . . foolish.
As a side issue, Rajjpuut would like to advise any serious conservative candidate to respond to questions on abortion, civil rights, “don’t ask-don’t tell, and the like with the simple declarative, “It’s the law of the land.” Conservatives need to stick to the point: discussions of fiscal responsibility; border security; security against terrorism; balanced budgets; Pay-Go legislations; unending deficits; runaway National Debt; almost $109 TRillion in unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid -- unfunded obligations which are stealing our children’s and grandchildren’s future. Add in Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus packages, cap and trade, and lies about openness-transparency-and cleaning up Washington, D.C. and there are enough relevant issues that no sane statesman needs to get involved in legal hair-splitting . . . especially when he claims to be a Libertarian and hasn’t a clue about what Libertarianism is all about.
Politics is a strategic endeavor. In warfare, in business, in every strategic game you can think of . . . the road to victory always lies with creating a plan of attack making your own strong points into the crucial elements of the conflict and your weak points and your opposition’s strong points totally irrelevant. And, one more thing, holding the ball in the air and igniting a celebration on the ten-yard line is utterly stupid as well. Some conservatives are already cheering for their victory in November's elections . . . day-dreaming, in other words. Conservatives need to “do the frigging job” well and keep on doing the frigging job well and forget about headlines and applause and premature celebrations. The country is a center-right nation on the Constitution and on Taxes and Government spending and long has been a center-right nation. Irresponsible Conservatives today, Republicans and TEA Party folks who might feel that the country’s highest priorities are to repeal or weaken the civil rights laws; or the abortion laws or to institute creationism in public schools are misreading the sentiment of the voters even worse than Mr. Obama and his cronies are. Stick to business. Save America.
The country needs jobs. The country needs statesmen and stateswomen elected to Congress and then for them to clean up our financial messes and unchain the free markets and to initiate a new era of respect for the United States Constitution. Americans are almost completely offended by progressivism, particularly the economic results of that misconceived doctrine . . . perhaps wise conservatives need to learn to stick to the subject? Get real, if an issue does NOT advance the cause of fiscal conservativism and constitutional conservativism and help retake the country ignore it. ‘Nuff said.