Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > May > 27 > Entry
Martin Gottlieb: Rand Paul faced up to real meaning of his pitch
2010 ELECTION
During the primary election campaign, I had occasion to ask a certain candidate the Rachel Maddow question: what about the civil right laws of the 1960s?
The candidate was Rene Oberer, who was running against Mike Turner for the Republican nomination to Congress. She came out of the Tea Party movement, but had an emphasis that struck me as more libertarian than conservative.
She was a newcomer to politics and was flying solo, that is, without expensive consultants to advise her. So I don’t mean to pick on her. The subject of this column is really Rand Paul, from across the Ohio River. The point is that he’s part of something bigger.
In the 1960s, the federal government made it illegal to exclude people from restaurants, stores, hotels and other “public accommodations” because of race. This was a revolution, the arrival of a whole new social system. It was the end of the 100-year reign of government-sanctioned repression — known as the Jim Crow era — that followed the Civil War and defined the South.
Though opponents had said “You can’t legislate morality,” the laws did precisely that. Within the next decade, the white South largely turned against its old ways.
So how is all that seen by the government-is-the-root-of-evil crowd? (Oberer opposed even the extension of unemployment benefits during the recession.)
Oberer’s reaction to the question was captured by Clarence Page (who wasn’t there) in a column here about Rand Paul.
Paul won the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate from Kentucky in the May 18 primary. He’s been an object of national attention ever since.
Specifically, he got into trouble when MSNBC’s Maddow asked him how he felt about the historic civil rights legislation. He told her he didn’t believe the government should have told private businesses whom to do business with.
Page wrote, “As Paul backpedaled in subsequent interviews, it became clear that he apparently had not really thought very much about issues like race and civil rights versus property rights, beyond the easy one-size-fits-all libertarian dogma.”
That seemed true about Oberer, too. She thought the question came out of left field. She asked, why would anybody do that (exclude people because of race)? After follow-up questions, she referred to the line of questioning as “race baiting.”
My read was that talk radio, Fox television and like-minded Internet outlets do not pause long over the indisputable successes of “big government.” So the people who look to those outlets have a certain gap.
Ultimately, Oberer suggested that civil rights law had done more harm than good, making everything about race and resulting in discrimination against whites, especially white males.
Again, it seemed like the myopic talk-radio take.
There, the issue isn’t fundamental civil rights, but affirmative action and “quotas.” Both Oberer and Rand Paul deserve credit for a certain consistency (at least before Paul backed off).
The people who portray government as the root of all evil, but make exceptions for the popular stuff — civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, wars, defense, veterans benefits, interstates, public universities and federal aid in oil spills and other emergencies — have an incoherent position.
Their own exceptions — acknowledging where government is good — overwhelm their own generalization about how “government is the problem.”
After all, that little list of exceptions entails most of what the federal government does, certainly in terms of spending.
Paul is relatively hostile to the war in Afghanistan. Add that to his civil rights comments, and you get the sense that he doesn’t want to allow too many exceptions to his generalizations about the evils of government.
Some people have always stuck rigidly and honestly to the government-as-the-root-of-all-evil position. Typically, however, they stick to writing articles, calling talk shows and posting on the Internet.
They don’t run for office. Or at least they don’t get a major nomination for a major office.
Rand Paul sometimes looks like he might be happier writing articles and calling talk shows.
Permalink | Comments (15) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, National Politics
Comments
By Davidss2
May 28, 2010 10:29 AM | Link to this
I realize the goal of the democrats and media is to make anything Tea Party or not Democrat/Republican look ridiculous. But the status quo won’t last. The gottcha ability of the on air interviews to twist the meaning and intent of the words is set to be used again this election, just like it was used last election but not against Obama.———————-Most people realize the civil rights concepts were greatly needed. I recall traveling in SC during the late 60s and seeing restrooms labeled. However the intent of the legislation wasn’t to give full college educations to blacks who have attended equal opportunity schools of the last 30 years or so and give academically equal or better white students nothing in the way of a subsidized education. The intent wasn’t to give special treatment on civil service tests just because not enough of the lesser qualified minorities who took the test didn’t make the grade—the more highly qualified apparently didn’t take the test, they are working somewhere already. If I need a policeman or fireman, I want someone highly qualified to answer the call of the need. Most intelligent people realize the civil rights has been used as a stepping stone for people like Jackson, Sharpton, and others to ride the gravy train to lots of money for themselves and little to alleged poor whom they purport to be golddigging for. I forgot Trammel in that list. Grin. Point made?
By joe_mamma
May 28, 2010 2:43 PM | Link to this
Martin correctly points out that Jim Crow laws were a creation of big government…but as is his usual schtick he largely misses the target. Research has shown that people acting in their own interest in a free market are reluctant to racially discriminate… see Robert Higgs, Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy 1865-1914; Jennifer Roback, “Southern Labor Law in the Jim Crow Era: Exploitative or Competitive?” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 51 (1984); and Jennifer Roback, “The Political Economy of Segregation: The Case of Segregated Streetcars,” Journal of Economic History, Vol. 46 (1986). This reluctance to discriminate is what led the racists to use the power of government to discriminate. Once again pointing out the dangers of big government.
By Max
May 28, 2010 5:53 PM | Link to this
Of course you can legislate ‘morality’……most legislation has at least a motive based in contemporary morality. The Emancipation Proclamation was not ‘legisaltion’ but a timely moral position. The temperance movement which caused Prohibition legislation was a ‘moral’ decree although eventually repealed. That is the problem with morality based legislation in general; morality changes but the legislation, until repealed, is forever. The morality of the Constitution is that while the majority may rule it does so with difference to the minority. So, yes, legislation and its foundations are manifested in morality. However, when a ‘particular’ morality (i.e. the ‘silent majority’ years ago) is imposed, then problems arise.
By Max
May 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Link to this
David, the media doesn’t deserve the credit you bestowe regarding making the Tea Party and Republicans (I’ll add many Democrats to that group) appear as bumbling buffoons; they do that to themselves. Rand Paul’s philosophy is suprisingly sound in a philosophy classroom or forum. His problem is he’s a politician in an arena where the lions await for anything appearing to be biased. Well, life has its set of biases and maybe politicians have tried to appeal to such a broad audience they appeal to no one. Maybe I’m giving Paul too much credit but it does open the box revealing unprincipled politicians throwing the first stones.
By Michael
May 29, 2010 9:09 AM | Link to this
So, should black-owned restaurants be legally required to seat and serve members of the KKK? Freedom of association is important, and even racist idiots should be allowed to run their businesses however they choose.
By Davidss2
May 29, 2010 7:57 PM | Link to this
The same folks who throw stones at Paul for pointing out the excesses of the government politicians interpreting the civil rights legislation would think it’s okay for a black-owned business to not have to seat KKK folks in white sheets. That’s even though, hopefully, few of those exist today.
By Kurt
May 30, 2010 7:19 AM | Link to this
When will Marty write about Obama offering a job to a congressman to drop out of a Senate primary??—Oh sorry, the President’s name is not Bush.
By Elaine
May 30, 2010 1:55 PM | Link to this
Well said, Davidss2! Freedom, coupled with dignity and responsibility are a threesome that create an admiral human being.
By Elaine
May 30, 2010 1:56 PM | Link to this
Well said, Davidss2! Freedom, coupled with dignity and responsibility are a threesome that create an admiral human being.
By Rick
May 30, 2010 3:30 PM | Link to this
Some people were concerned that the Interstate Commerce clause was not so expansive to allow the Civil Rights acts to be enacted. While it is not politically correct to raise the issue, for fear of being called a racist, it is clear that the interstate commerce clause has been the basis of the unconstitutional expansion of our federal government. BTW, I don’t know why Congress did not authorize these statutes under the Fourteenth Amendment, which to me, would clearly authorize their enactment.
By Bob
May 30, 2010 7:29 PM | Link to this
Rand Paul and the corporatocracy Tea Party are the new face of the Republican Party, as the Ohio Republican Party begs for Tea Party endorsements. You cannot have a moderate Republican anymore. Start looking for a conservative or moderate Democrat. If you’re old like I am and you enjoy your quality of life, wait until the Republicans privatize your Medicare. Any compassionate Democrat will do.
By Bob
May 30, 2010 7:29 PM | Link to this
Rand Paul and the corporatocracy Tea Party are the new face of the Republican Party, as the Ohio Republican Party begs for Tea Party endorsements. You cannot have a moderate Republican anymore. Start looking for a conservative or moderate Democrat. If you’re old like I am and you enjoy your quality of life, wait until the Republicans privatize your Medicare. Any compassionate Democrat will do.
By Bob
May 30, 2010 7:29 PM | Link to this
Rand Paul and the corporatocracy Tea Party are the new face of the Republican Party, as the Ohio Republican Party begs for Tea Party endorsements. You cannot have a moderate Republican anymore. Start looking for a conservative or moderate Democrat. If you’re old like I am and you enjoy your quality of life, wait until the Republicans privatize your Medicare. Any compassionate Democrat will do.
By Bob
May 30, 2010 7:30 PM | Link to this
Rand Paul and the corporatocracy Tea Party are the new face of the Republican Party, as the Ohio Republican Party begs for Tea Party endorsements. You cannot have a moderate Republican anymore. Start looking for a conservative or moderate Democrat. If you’re old like I am and you enjoy your quality of life, wait until the Republicans privatize your Medicare. Any compassionate Democrat will do.
By Brian
June 3, 2010 8:16 PM | Link to this
Bob, you obviously have not followed Rand Paul very closely. He speaks against corporate welfare and for corporate accountability. Rand Paul’s ideas are well thought-out and are what this country’s founding was based on, and it worked just fine up until the early 1900’s. No one is suggesting repealing the Civil Rights Bill, nor would anyone support it.