Blacks here, Rand Paul & friends over there

[n2doc]

BY LEONARD PITTS JR.
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

If you notice, they have never been on our side.

"They" meaning social conservatives. "Our" meaning African-American people.

They were not there in the century after the Civil War, as conservative Southern Democrats violently repressed would-be black voters, made a shadow government of the Ku Klux Klan, turned a deaf ear to the howling of lynch mobs and lynch victims. They have not been there in the half-century since, as conservative Southern Republicans fought affirmative action, poverty programs and attempts to ban the American swastika, i.e., the Confederate battle flag, from public lands.

They have never been on our side and, always, they have claimed "principle" to justify it. So remarks like the one above that got Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul in trouble last week are surprising only in the sense that one is surprised to hear an oldie on the radio one hasn't heard in a while.

He first told the editorial board of the Louisville Courier-Journal, then reiterated in last week's interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, that he thinks the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 overreached in telling private businesses they could not discriminate against black people. Paul, a Republican, a Tea Party favorite and an apostle of tiny government, considers private ownership sacrosanct.

If that sounds familiar, it's because it was also the reasoning of segregationists in '63 and '64.

more

http://www.freep.com/article/20100528/OPINION05/5280331/1322/Blacks-here-Rand-Paul-&-friends-over-there

[meowomon]

1. But he has a black friend.

You know. That black guy he talks to at the office.

[EFerrari]

2. And he abhors racism. HIs Klan hoodie wearing communications guy said so!

[political_Dem]

3. If he were as honest as his apologists say he is, Rand should just tell the truth about his racism.

I doubt the Teabaggers or the GOP would leave his side over this--no matter how much they are playing the "shunning game" that happened after his appearance on Ms. Maddow's show. There's no need for Rand to lie about his aversion to people of color. It's time he told us where he stands without the sugarcoating.

However, I give a hardy thanks to Mr. Pitts for his column. He spelled it right out.

[d_r]

4. the thing is

I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually believes that he is not racist.

Of course that doesn't mean that he isn't. But I bet he really does think he isn't.

There's a "cold" racism that comes from not knowing any better, which is different from the more active "hot" racism. They are the ones that make you really cringe, because they can say the stupidest and most prejudiced stuff all the while thinking they aren't doing any harm because as far as they are concerned they don't have any ill feelings towards anyone.

I think he's a good example of what, to me, is wrong with libertarians. They are too naive. If we all lived in happy libertarian utopia world, whet he is saying would make sense. Nobody would treat people in racist ways because it would be bad for their business, and government wouldn't have to be involved. However, we live in reality world, and there is racism in reality world and so the government has got to protect us from racist bastards.

There is a big irony here to me. As economic systems, liberatrainism and communism are direct opposites. but as political systems, they both suffer from the same fatal flaw - they are based on naive assumptions about people being good. Libertarians buy in to the idea that greed is good, because it motivates us to act in ways to maximize our own benefit, and in their imaginary world that would result in everyone being treated fairly, nobody selling poison in the product because the market wouldn't bear it, etc. It is a dream world.

Hell, maybe he is an overt hot racist for all I know. He sure seems like one of the don't-know-any-better-but-thats-no-excuse-you're-still-a-racist types to me.

[n2doc]

5. kick n/t

[PurgedVoter]

6. Leonard Pitt's article was spot on

It saddens me, yet Leonard Pitts arguments are clearly true. His arguments are in fact quite gentle.