Rand Paul is an ideologue, not a racist

There are racists and there are ideologues. All white supremacists are, in a crude kind of way, ideologues. Not all ideologues are racists. To jump to the point, Rand Paul, the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Kentucky, is an ideologue, not a racist.

Let's define a term first. An ideologue is someone who clings to an ideal so rigorously that it defies the boundaries of common sense or pragmatism. The ideal could be a racial ideal, in which the ideologue clings to the notion that there is natural hierarchy based on race (usually with his own at the top of the food chain). Of course, it's easy to see where this leads. In spite of the existence of genius in many colors, these ideologues will exclude the genius of George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela simply because the ideologue holds that no person of sub-Saharan African descent can possess genius. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, but that doesn't bother the ideologue.

Dr. Paul is a libertarian. The watchword for libertarians of his kind is freedom. What is call the tea party movement largely grew from the 2008 presidential candidacy of Dr. Paul's father, Texas congressman Ron Paul. Unlike the tea partiers who jumped on the bandwagon with the astroturfing of the movement since President Obama's inaguration, the Pauls can tell you what freedom means to them. It has nothing to do with the "freedom" of members of one "superior" race to rule over all other people, but the freedom to start a business and run it as one sees fit with as little government interference as possible.

Unlike the astroturf tea partiers, whose numbers reak of racism, the Pauls and most other libertarians are not racists. In fact, I've had many libertarian friends in my life and, if they are any indication, very few libertarians are racists.

Dr. Paul's remarks to Rachel Maddow came as no surprise to me. Although he would not answer the question, he most certainly would give Woolworth's the right to put up a "Whites Only" sign in front of their lunch counters. And then he would boycott Woolworth's. That is the same answer I would have gotten from any of my libertarian friends.

Dr. Paul believes that businessmen make rational decisions, and that it is clearly irrational to subject one's business to organized boycotts while at the same time cutting oneself off from a considerable slice of the market by refusing to do business with it. Even if a businessman doesn't like the color of somebody's skin, there is nothing wrong with the color of his money as long as it's green. Therefore, as Dr. Paul sees it, the businessman will do business with people for whom he has an irrational prejudice because it is the rational (i.e., profitable) thing to do.

Of course, businessmen do make irrational decisions. If they didn't, Woolworth's would never have had a whites only policy at its lunch counters and Lester Maddox would have let his ax handle lay idle. I don't agree with Dr. Paul's views on the Civil Act of 1964, but I've never had a discussion about this with a libertarian where the victims of discrimination were disparaged.

Rand Paul is not a racist. He is an ideologue. I am much more concerned with his remarks about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a current problem, than I am about his remarks about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he concedes is now settled law. The undersea blow out is not an "accident"; it is carelessness. Does Dr. Paul think there is any role for government to play in enforcing common-sense safety procedures? Or does BP (not to mention Shell, ExxonMoble, Standard Oil or Conoco) have the right to enforce its own safety rules, which may be subject to cutting costs? Is Dr. Paul's solution to boycott BP into submission? I'm certainly not against that, but it seems to me that what is happening in the Gulf is a crime. Other people, who have no connection to the oil industry other than to use its products, have had their livelihoods destroyed at least for now. There aren't very many of us who are going to eat Louisiana shrimp if it smells like an oil refinery.

Dr. Paul believes we shouldn't be so hard on BP. The free market is the American ideal of freedom to Dr. Paul. Never mind that we've seen how an unbridled, unregulated free market works and that it isn't pretty. Far from being rational, it is self destructive. Yet Dr. Paul, the ideologue, would march America and the world off a cliff in the name of that kind of freedom. That is what an ideologue is. An ideologue is not a rational thinker. In fact, it is just as irrational to destroy the earth in the name of freedom and right to pursue profits as it is to refuse to sell to paying customers because they are of the wrong skin color, religious faith or because if some other incidental feature about them. That is why Dr. Paul should be defeated in November.

Libertarians are racist.

Their ideology is racist.

about DU and coordinate whine-bombs, i don't use PMs for that shit.

:shrug:

No sooner than I post this than you post that.

Please elaborate. Defend your idea that libertarianism is racism.

tl, dr

In the parlance of the new.

Nor do I care. Racists often go on at great length about how they're not really racist. Oh, I've got lots of black friends. Oh, I'm color blind.

I've heard it all before, and frankly my dear, I don't give a shit.

^^No it's not.

I completely agree with the OP. Rand Paul and his father are both rather extreme libertarians, which is actually fairly refreshing since most politicians will change their tune when it "sounds better" to the public.

Remember, Ron Paul wanted to get rid of or greatly reduce in size even the department of education in the name of small government.

I couldn't disagree more with Rand about his views that restaurants should be able to deny service to customers based on race, and I think it's misguided since not supporting basic protections of this is in fact limiting freedom; but he's not saying that because he's a racist, but because he believes in almost zero government regulation. This guy is not some right wing, war mongering, racist kook, he's an extreme libertarian who wants to get rid of our nation building policies, cut defense spending, and end the drug war. He's libertarian across the board, not just when it suits him like the Tea Party mob that clamors over UHC yet did nothing while the patriot act was being passed.

I consider myself a libertarian who leans left, so I'm somewhere in the middle. I believe we should be much more isolationist and end our overseas empire and end the drug war, but I think we need SOME government... i.e. public school system, health care resembling the French system, and of course protections such as the civil rights act.

Classic old school racist.

Get over it.

Back up your statement.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

Like I said, get over it.

Those newsletters are pretty disturbing. If they're true I'd have to agree with you :p.

Get over yourself.

and being a racist?

Either you cling to the notion that all men are created equal (an idea enforceable only through government intervention), or you don't.

If your ideals state that the government should not enforce equality, then it is likely you do not believe in the value of equality or that it should have priority enforcement by the government. And if you do not believe in the value of enforcing equality, you are, in every way, truly a racist (because you believe a greater good will be obtained by "letting be" the racist status quo forces that will cause inequality).

If you believe people do not deserve protection and to have their equality enforce because they are simply a difference race, then you are a racist. You must first place lesser value on this race to come to the conclusion they deserve no government intervention.

no matter what he uses to justify it.

Rand Paul's ideology about abortion is apprently enough to overrule his libertarian ideology.

So, how much of a libertarian ideologue is he, really?

You could easily argue that he's in favor of the rights of the fetus over the rights of the mother.

Shouldn't a libertarian align his views with the Constitution, and Supreme Court decisions based on interpreting it?

He's perfectly willing to overlook his 'pro-freedom' agenda when it comes to womens' rights, but when it comes to racial discrimination, his libertarian doctrine must stand pat.

Why is anybody defending this asshat.

What about the basic freedom of an individual to live freely in his own community? Nothing trumps that, absolutely nothing. If you don't have the freedom to buy a coke on a hot day, because of your skin color, then freedom means absolutely nothing.

These people are racists.

I agree with you (and disagree with Dr. Paul) that nothing trumps the freedom of an individual to live freely in his own community.

I am saying, however, that Dr. Paul's disagreement with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not based on any personal animosity to people of a different skin color, and therefore libertarianism is not inherently racist.

I don't have a problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I support every title of it. I believe it is fitting and proper for the government to outlaw that kind of discrimination in public accommodations.

I am merely saying that Dr. Paul takes his views of the Civil Rights Act from ideals that have nothing to do with the race of the victim of discrimination. He opposes (kinda, sorta opposes) Title II of the act for other reasons. So, I will grant him that, but I disagree with him for other reasons.

Moreover, if Dr. Paul were actually a a racist, he would not say that he would participate in a boycott of a business that discriminates based on race. He thinks that is the proper action to take, and I believe injunctive relief is a stronger and also proper course of action.

They cloak themselves in the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement while opposing its actual accomplishments.

If he truly believed in freedom, he would not defend the right of anyone to take freedom away based on skin color. They would defend the right of the individual over government and business, every single time. But they don't. They pick and choose. And that's because they're trying to defend a hundred year old economic and social structure that was based on exploiting the poor and minorities. The only ones who buy into it are pasty white men. Whodathunkit.

I think Rachel made that abundantly clear. Like Palin, he has exceeded his own level and the MSM continues to give him more than his fair share of attention.

That's the problem with his point of view.

To suggest overturning certain parts of the Civil Rights act of 1964 is Racist. END OF DISCUSSION.

Sugar-coat it anyway you like but Rand Paul is a racist.

And so are Libertarians.



:P

lol

was a screaming racist that posted an image of a lynching to celebrate Dr. King's day, aka in his words, "n***** day"? And pictures of himself in his KKK "hoodie"?

These aren't mutually exclusive situations, you know. Plus, the Gulf crisis may be more important to you at the moment but in view of the fact that there are twice as many active hate groups as there were two years ago, it's a little short sighted to imply that racism is not a "current" concern.

:D

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

Need pearls?

:ouch:

because he compared a business refusing to serve black people as the same as a company deciding it didn't want to serve people with mustaches.

Structural racism depends on that kind of support, as do all forms of discrimination. I think people get mixed up on the level of "intent" needed to be a bigot. Libertarians like Rand are bigots. Their "ideology" is based in their experience in lives of privilege. If they'd ever really experienced discrimination themselves as a minority, I seriously doubt they'd be "libertarians". Why does Rand also support anti-abortion measures? What's the logic there?

The racist kind.

A racist would!

Nuf said.

The one does not deny the other...

Why did he suddenly "reverse" his position once Maddow exposed it?

And he couches his racism in talk about "the market." It does not change what he is and only fools the gullible.

if they really don't recognize racist code when they hear it.

I know at some point I recognized it in my early teens and in a largely white suburb. Maybe it's a practice that some people need to have pointed out to them in an OP.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Rand Paul is an ideologue. He also happens to be a racist one. I can only surmise that those who pretend not to see this do so because they don't want to. More likely than not because if the Rand Pauls got their way on civil rights it wouldn't affect them overmuch and if it doesn't affect them it's not important.

:shrug:

If there's a less pessimistic and cynical way to view this I'm all ears but I suspect that there isn't.

I consider myself a very liberal dem. I supported Kucinich for the Dem. nomination and I supported Ron Paul for the GOP nom. For those who actually watched the interview Rand didn't say he wanted to overturn the act. He said he agreed with 9/10ths of the Act and he wouldn't necessarily vote against it. He stated multiple times that he is not racist. If he was a racist he would have opposed all parts of the bill. The Paul's are refreshing to those who are tired of the endless wars, tired of the war on drugs etc...I agree his views on BP and abortion are far more disturbing than his constitutional arguement against 1/10 of the Civil Rights Act.

I don't know what to say other than I hope you find your way out of that convoluted position someday.

They sound EXACTLY like him. "I abhor racism BUT (insert dog whistle: Civil Rights Act, Obama is unAmerican, my spokesman is not a racist even though he posts pictures of LYNCHINGS to his facebook page)."

And, btw, how do you quantify discrimination? 1/10 of the Civil Rights Act? Seriously?

:puke:

okay.

Let us leave aside Rand Paul's (and Ron Paul's) dubious associations, which we need not argue about. There is a deeper problem.

To a consistent libertarian, liberty in the context of a discriminatory employment or provision policy is only a part of the liberty a society must respect. Consistent libertarians understand that property, narrowly conceived, is only part of the story: the government must also refrain from intervention in other aspects of our lives. It should not be in the business of regulating reproductive choices; it must not discriminate on the basis of whom we form relationships with; it should permit us to make our own choices regarding our bodies and what we put into them; and it should respect our right to make consensual employment and housing arrangements with parties in other countries, as long as we abridge no one's property rights. But for Rand Paul, as for his father, libertarianism, apparently, is something appropriate to some cases, but not to others. For women, for gays, for immigrants, for drug-users, the absolutist libertarianism he invokes in the defense of the rights of white property-owners is conspicuously absent. Apparently, he is only willing to bite some people's bullets.

A socially-progressive libertarian who understands the harms and injustices of discrimination might indeed, as you say, nonetheless argue that business owners have a right to discriminate. But, as you also say, he or she will not stop there: he or she will insist that legitimate libertarian means and stances should be used to support those discriminated against. Consistent libertarians who sympathize with the victims of discrimination should be loudly protesting police brutality, racial profiling laws like Arizona's, continued employment discrimination against gays (about which there is a perfectly libertarian policy in states like Kentucky); they should be encouraging affirmative action programs at private companies and universities instead of characterizing them as "reverse racism"; they should be showing that they actually do care, that their stance is a matter of principle and not simply a neglect of the harms of discrimination. But Rand Paul, like most of the right-wing "libertarians" who support him and who make up the Tea Party, has done none of this. These ideas are foreign to them: they are not socially-progressive at all, they are not interested in social equality, they are interested in a system that caters to people like them and their privilege. Their "libertarian" rhetoric stems less from conviction than it does from their impression, partially correct, that over the past few decades it is the federal government that has taken the initiative in guaranteeing the rights and protecting the interests of people they don't like. (Notice their "states' rights" rhetoric: hardly a libertarian stance.)

Edit: It is telling to read the Libertarian Party platform and compare it to the fundamentally conservative "libertarianism" of politicians like Rand Paul and his father.

except you know and I know it's code. Hello?

If someone believed that everyone in the United States was actually born in Kenya, and all of our birth certificates were secretly concocted by some vast conspiracy, then that person would not be a racist by virtue of being a "birther", just consistently crazy.

But that does not tell us anything substantive about what the "birther" movement is truly about.

quote:
An ideologue is not a rational thinker. end quote.

My thoughts exactly.
It's important to understand the difference between the influence of ideology and the landscape of the real world.

I automatically hide any thread about Rand Paul because, in my opinion, they miss the point. Calling him a racist is a cheap shot that prevents honest analysis and meaningful discussion of the insidious danger of libertarianism.

Three cheers for your post mate. Address the ideology and demolish his politics! Dismiss those at our own peril.

He does not believe women have the right to chose how they govern their bodies.

He is against same sex marriage.

He says he is a libertarian but he clearly is not.

Rand Paul is a bigot and a hypocrite. He is the definition of those terms.

The teabaggers will undoubtedly erect straw man arguments ad infinitum in order to distract from Rand Paul's blatant bigotry.

So, anytime I see a thread that mentions Rand Paul and the topic of racism, I will chime in to remind folks that the real issue is Rand Paul does not consider women and gay people as complete human beings, who deserve the same civil rights as everyone else.

Why should non-white people have to fund services (police, fire, etc.) for businesses that won't serve them?

Ask him that.

Problem is he is only an ideologue went it doesn't adversely effect him. I could go into more detail but thats been done a hundred times before here by others.

You think he would be an ideologue on this subject if he were black and had a four year old daughter who could be denied the use of a bathroom because of her skin color? Be honest.

Don

and the racist consequences do not overcome your love for profits, it seems entirely fair to say that you are a racist. The evils of racism are proven, while there is nothing wrong with requiring that you serve and hire black people. In this balance, Rand Paul has placed all his value in the absolute privilege of racists to discriminate and none of his value in allowing all citizens equal access to jobs and lunch counters. His claim that he is not at all a racist is bullshit: he is only seeing the value in racism, and none in stamping it out.

takes it away.

so what Rand Paul thinks of it is a completely valid consideration --in fact, it would be foolish to not consider it.

secondly, Paul, and he's not my doctor, so I don't need to continually refer to him as "Dr. Paul"...*now* thinks it's settled law, but that's not how he was talking when he first spouted off on this.

No amount of overintellectualizing the issue will cover up that main point.

If the result of his ideology is further institutionalization of racism?

The worst person, with regards to racism, is not necessarily the racist; but those that see racism and remain silent, or worst, make excuses for it.

If the outcome is to deny people their civil rights we and call him mafizta and the outcome would be the same. Racists and ideologue are nouns used as descriptors and in this case the describe the same thing.

It doesn't matter what your politics are - it matters what the outcome is.

If you support racism, even if you're not racist yourself, you're contributing to racism. because you're providing that ONE extra reason and justification for the REAL racists deny freedoms.

racist.

There's no point in mincing words.

A. Rushtard
B. Beckkkerhead
C. Typical Republican Racist Pig
D. All of the above

They have the freedom mantra down, they just don't understand what is required for equality and justice and how true freedom is dependent upon them.

Some interesting things to think about afforded to this issue:

1)Not only Ron Paul is supportive of the John Birch Society; he also gains his support from Neo-Nazis. He does not shy away from them. From Jack and Jill Politics:



2)Chris Hightower, Rand Paul's former spokesperson, was a blatant racist as told in The Daily Kos and http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2009/12/rand-pauls-spokesperson-is-satanic.html">Barefoot and Progressive.

3)Ron Paul's views about Blacks are apparent in the newsletters he was associated with. As reported in http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?page=0,1&id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca&k=15257">The New Republic:




As I read and know more about the Pauls and their stances in regard to race, it is no mistake what Rand Paul meant in that discussion with Rachel Maddow. He did mean what he said: he was in favor of Segregation no matter if it hurt the civil rights of another group of people. He can blather on and on how much he admired Dr. King and what not. But even that would not have stopped him from supporting restaurant owners who restricted on the basis of race. After all, the only rights and "freedom" he is fighting for is his own and for other white males like himself.

When people defend the Pauls and their views, they tend to ignore the aspects of racism while openly professing to commit blatant institutional racism on other groups of people other than those in the dominant culture. The sad part is the fact that these supporters "don't see" what is drastically wrong with the Pauls views on race. They cannot use libertarianism as a blanket excuse to cover up such animus.

The rest of us, in his mind, can go to hell.

1) The second line in the last paragraph should read: "...the sad part is the fact that these supporters 'don't see' what is drastically wrong with the view both Pauls had on race..."

2)The last line in this post should read:"...the rest of us, in their minds, can go to hell..."

I'm sorry. :(

that was authored in his name back in 1995. I don't care how much these two bob and weave, its pretty clear they are world class(less) bigots.

are also racists.

Randy does not get a pass for ideological purity. He supports theocracy, legalized governmental discrimination against homosexuals, and desires to have his small government interfere in the reproductive health care choices of women.

Racist Randy is the poster child of the racist teabagger movement. Why apologize and excuse the obvious?

This I believe. Their opposition to the War on Drugs, however, ensures that some consequences of the policies they advocate would be less racist than policies advocated by so-called progressives who support it.

People made up the "ideology" to cover racism.

There is no "philosophy" or "ideology" to what you are describing. It is racism and it is support for the ruling class, dressed up in fancy duds to fool people.

"Libertarianism" is nonsense - it is not a philosophy. It is "freedom" for whites, and freedom for the wealthy - actually it is a justification for the ongoing exploitation and abuse of others.

However you choose to label it doesn't change the reality. Rand Paul is a racist pig. He came by it from his father and now they spew hatred in unison.

The only other thing to say is to give a heartfelt apology to the pigs who object to being compared to a thing like Rand Paul.