Stepping In It

As a newfound Tea Party supporter, I must regrettably put some distance between myself and Rand Paul, whom last week I referred to as “one of the new faces of the conservative movement” (along with Marco Rubio).  So, here I am, doing what Rand Paul refuses to do – I’m eating my words.

In a number of interviews, Rand Paul has taken issue with Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; that’s the piece of legislation that desegregated private businesses open to the public (with an exemption for clubs requiring membership by design).  The day after winning the Kentucky primary, on The Rachel Maddow Show, when Maddow asked him, ”Do you think that a private business has the right to say ‘we don’t serve black people’?”

Dr. Paul answered with the following:

“I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form.  I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific ‘gotcha’ on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? . . . I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires.”

Later, to Maddow’s question, “How about desegregating lunch counters?” Paul answered:

“Well, what it gets into then is if you decide that restaurants are publicly owned and not privately owned, then do you say that you should have the right to bring your gun into a restaurant even though the owner of the restaurant says, ‘Well, no, we don’t want to have guns in here,’ the bar says, ‘We don’t want you have guns in here because people might drink and start fighting and shoot each other?’  Does the owner of the restuarant own his restaurant?  Or does the government own his restaurant?  These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.”

Well.  As you would expect, this instantly became fodder for left-wingers like Joke Line - I mean, Joe Klein – of Time, Keith Olbermann (and the rest of MSNBC), and Anderson Cooper (and the rest of CNN), thereby strengthening their longstanding attempts to broad brush libertarian philosophy, the Tea Party Movement, the Republican Party and the Right largesse as “racist.”  Let’s stop right there and define our terms.

Defending Libertarianism (Again)

Statists may feign shock at the debate over proper size and scope of government in the private sector, but for libertarians, the discussion is not new.  In fact, the conversation occurs frequently in the minds of real libertarians, who understand and appreciate the freedoms people have from government intrusion.  The standard principles of freedom enjoyed today are upheld by the Declaration of Independence (“All men are created equal“) finalized federally with the 13th Amendment (“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States”) and the 14th Amendment (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”)

Our framers understood the importance of individual freedom, and, contingently, the restraint of federal powers.  Standing on the shoulders of John Locke and Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson, our first libertarian President, reiterated these principles in his First Inaugural Address, stating:

“Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?  Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?  Let history answer this question.”

Jefferson offers more to the argument for the individual, though, as he prudently couched his disdain for federal powers three sentences later, saying:

“A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.  This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities.”

This idea became known as the “Harm Principle,” and was promulgated specifically by John Stuart Mill in years to follow.  This principle is important in the context of Rand Paul’s comments.  Government is supposed to uphold individual rights, from both government and other individuals; otherwise, it serves no purpose.

While regrettable, additional legislation became necessary due to the reality of the law’s spotty application throughout the states.  It took nearly 100 years to properly adopt the intent of the 14th Amendment – equal justice under law – with regards to race relations.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and before it, Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) were painful but necessary pieces of our national history, ensuring that a minority is not to be oppressed at the will of the majority.  Libertarians understand that, if nothing else.

So while I appreciate his philosophical argument, I cannot endorse Rand Paul’s brand of libertarianism, because I think he has his founding principles all mixed up.  The guarantee of life and liberty comes before the pursuit of happiness, or as the author of that phrase also put it, the “circle of our felicities.”

It’s not that hard in my mind, really; I agree with Calvin Coolidge, our last libertarian President, who said at the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence:  ”If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.  If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.”

What does this mean for the GOP?  Sunday morning, George Will (a libertarian think-tank) conferred this is indeed a problem for the Republican Party, and that Rand Paul is “frivolous.”  Additionally, the haphazard RNC Chairman Michael Steele said he is ”uncomfortable” with Paul’s views.  This forces one of two things: either all Republicans must denounce Paul’s point-of-view, individually or collectively; or Rand Paul must convincingly amend his comments, letting the world know this was merely a philosophical debate about the struggle between public and private sectors.

I do not believe Paul is a racist.  However, he has yet to convince America of this.  From the outset, I wanted to like Dr. Paul, but his “rookie mistake” was a pretty big one: displacing ideology with reality.  There is still time for Rand Paul to right his ship and explain his comments, but hiding in Kentucky won’t help him, or our cause.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address