Rachel Maddow cornered Rand Paul on the subject of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the strangest thing happened. He turned into a politician before our very eyes. This champion of the truth-telling Tea Partiers waffled and dodged like the most seasoned of pols. You half expected him to say, “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
Mr. Paul’s difficulty is this. His libertarian ethic leads him to believe that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was mistaken insofar as it ordered private businesses to not discriminate. He applauded those sections of the law that forbid the government from discriminating but he equivocated on the section of the law that required private establishments to desegregate.
Maddow tried to corner him into a “yes” or “no” on whether or not he supports that aspect of the landmark law, but he refused to answer. He said that liberals have a problem because they want to argue that restaurant owners can prevent patrons from bringing firearms into their restaurants. He brought up William Lloyd Garrison, apropos of nothing really. He began several replies to Maddow’s yes-or-no question by saying, “Well, it’s interesting….” He argued that Maddow’s question was really just a political attack designed to make him appear like a racist. Paul categorically said he opposed all forms of discrimination and racism and there is no reason to disbelieve him. But, that was not the question. The question is about the role of government in society and whether or not the federal government was right to insist that it be against the law to discriminate on the basis of race in private businesses that serve the public. He would not answer.
His career as a non-politician politician lasted less than 24 hours.Mr. Paul also has raised objections to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which has dramatically altered the possibilities open to those with disabilities in our society. He cited a practical example of why he is opposed to the law: Why should a small business owner not be permitted to merely put a disabled person’s office on the first floor rather than be forced to build an elevator so the disabled person can work on the second floor? The problem is that this practical example is false and I know so. Back in the early ‘90s, the business I managed expanded to the neighboring building, which required extensive renovations. Because of our high profile in downtown DC, we were one of the first businesses whose renovation work was done in consultation with the Justice Department for compliance with ADA. Originally, they really did want us to put in an elevator but when we showed them how the cost of this would essentially close the business, they relented. So, his example is a false one and I will be happy to come to Louisville to testify to that fact.
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2899
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
