Friday, May 21, 2010

Are the White liberals now criticizing Rand Paul for being racist themselves racist?

When White liberal Rachel Maddow interviewed Rand Paul, she not only asked him whether the principle of property rights meant that private businesses have the right to discriminate, they also discussed whether the principle of free speech meant that people could express racist thoughts.

One of the things that Paul is being accused of by White liberals is being racist because his idea of property rights would result in allowing racist actions. But how is this fundamentally different from the idea that free speech rights should allow racist speech? If the belief that property rights oblige us to allow racist actions on the part of private businesses is racist, why isn't the belief that free speech rights oblige us to allow racist speech on the part of private individuals racist?

Ironically, it is the White liberals who will be the first to defend the free speech rights of people expressing racist sentiments. Are White liberals therefore racist?

By their own logic, they are.

20 comments:

Art said...

LOL

So, Rand Paul disagreed with one facet of the Civil Rights bill, but it turns out that he would have voted for it anyways (well, at least it turns out that he is as willing as any other politician to put votes over principle). So much for sticking to one's principles.

And so much for the prospects of having a deficit hawk in the Senate, at least a Republican senator from KY. Anyone who has no real principles will find reasons to spend, spend, spend if it gets him or her votes, votes, votes. Or if it keeps the Medicare money flowing into his own coffers. (What's really funny is that the KY Republicans nominated someone who supports socialized medicine.)

And he'll turn out to be some pro-lifer. Heck, it seems as if Paul believes that there should be no accountability or responsibility on the parts of private businesses when they kill their employees or destroy the economies of all the Gulf coast states. Property trumps peoples' lives. That's some morality the Republicans have bought into.

It's possible that Paul is going to make Palin seem sane.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Here's the difference. In a free society, we all get subjected to harsh criticism-you have to have a thick skin. However, what Rand would allow (before he flipped-flopped to save his campaign) is turning the clock back fifty years. African-Americans would once again be denied housing, education, employment, and the right to enter a business establishment supposedly open to the public. They would be denied the dignity of being treated with decency and respect. The fact that Paul is oblivious to this and chooses to make his stand with the racists instead of the oppressed is why one can reasonably call him a racist.

Anonymous said...

KyCobb, if legislators today pass a law that makes it illegal for someone to express racist thoughts and in fifty years a man says that they were wrong to have done so, then would he be racist in saying so? Would he be advocating "turning back the clock fifty years" so that "African-Americans would once again [...] be denied the dignity of being treated with dignity and respect"? Would he be "stand[ing] with the racists instead of the oppressed"?

--Jonathan

KyCobb said...

Jonathan,

That law would be unconstitutional, so its a moot point.

Anonymous said...

Suppose that the Constitution were amended to allow for passage of the law.

--Jonathan

KyCobb said...

Jonathan,

If the 1st Amendment was amended to abridge our right to free speech, then we would no longer be living in a country I would recognize as America.

Let me give you an analogy conservatives should understand. If a person said that while he was personally opposed to abortion, he thought abortion should be legal, would the pro-life movement accept his claim to be pro-life? Rand Paul wants it that way-claiming to be personally opposed to racism, while supporting the legality of racial discrimination.

Martin Cothran said...

Kycobb:

Your argument is that if Paul believes that racial discrimination should be legal, he therefore must believe it to be morally acceptable.

This was the whole point of my post: if you believe that inference why don't you believe the equivalent one: that if you believe that racist speech should be legal, you must therefore believe it to be morally acceptable.

You believe the first but reject the second when it is exactly the same kind of reasoning. You either have to accept your own inconsistency or reject the First Amendment.

Which is it?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

my analogy holds. You would not accept as pro-life someone who claims to be personally against abortion but thinks it should be legal.

You are also trying to blur the distinction between talking about something and actually doing it. The US has a very strong bias in favor of free speech which militates against the notion that we favor something just because we think people should be free to talk about it.

That is not true of actual damaging acts. Activities which violate other people's rights have always been subject to regulation in this country. So when you say that you believe racial discrimination should be legal, you are saying that you think racial minorities don't have the same right to participate in civil society as whites do. If you enable racists to violate the rights of African-Americans, you will be perceived as racist regardless of what you claim to harbor in your heart.

Anonymous said...

There are plenty of conservatives who have serious problems with Rand's position and I am one of them.

First, there is a great difference between liberty and license. Liberty is the freedom to do what we ought, while license is the freedom to do what we want.

I'm quite certain our founders understood liberty in the sense of doing what we ought.

I'm no legal scholar but it seems to me that the Constitution can rightly be informed by what many consider to the the charter of USA - that all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights including the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

Since the method, which by far has proven to be the best, of distributing God's bounty to his human creatures in America is through the free exchange of goods and services in the free market.

I can conceive of no way that banning blacks from employment or purchases from grocery stores expands or protects any inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness becaue happiness can never be derived from unjust and unmerciful acts.

However, I can plainly see how a black father being denied employemnet or groceries for his family just because he is black is a gross violation of our founding principles and thus Unconstitutional.

But the big point is now we are discussing the merits of separate lunch counters 5 months before the most important election of my lifetime in the context of an extremely talented opponent - black opponent - Barack Obama.

Short or wearing white sheets to his interview, I can't concieve of much else that could have discredited the Tea Party than Paul.

Just think of the loop theyre going to run - "I have a message from the tea party." and "private businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of race."

SO now the "establishment" which he disdains so much is going to pull his sorry ass out of the fire.

MJ

Anonymous said...

KyCobb, the question wasn't whether you would recognize the country as America following the passage of that law (which would make it illegal for someone to express racist thoughts), but whether you would call a man a racist for opposing the passage of that law. Your analogy is telling, though. Would you say of the man who opposes that law (again, which would make it illegal for someone to express racist thoughts) that he is a supporter of racist speech, perhaps even a racist, because he refuses to support the criminalization of racist speech?

--Jonathan

KyCobb said...

Jonathan,

I would not call such a man a racist, because in that case the issue isn't race, its free speech. What Rand Paul wanted to do last week before he flip-flopped, however, is about race, because it would do incalculable harm to African-Americans and other minorities.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You are also trying to blur the distinction between talking about something and actually doing it.

I don't have to blur that distinction. I fully recognize the distinction. Your problem is that the distinction is completely irrelevant to the argument.

Maybe you could explain why it is relevant at all. Just because there is a difference in the terms of two similar arguments has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the two arguments use the same logic. The whole point is to show that even though the terms are different, the logic is the same.

Why does the opposition to allowing racist actions betray racism while the opposition to allowing racist speech does not? Your basic answer to the question is: "they're just different."

Anonymous said...

I will echo Martin's question, adding this: Why is it, in the case concerning racial discrimination via speech, that the "issue" is freedom of speech and not racism (and therefore, the man opposing the criminalization of racial discrimination via speech is not racist), but, in the case concerning racial discrimination via association, that the "issue" is not freedom of association but racism (and therefore, the man opposing the criminalization of racial discrimination via association is racist)?

--Jonathan

KyCobb said...

Martin and Jonathan,

I have to assume that you are capable of comprehending that free speech is a right, whereas racial discrimination is a violation of other people's rights, even though you keep pretending they are the exact same thing. I would also point out that the racists who opposed the Civil Rights Act made the exact same argument based in property rights as Rand Paul made:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/05/26/1648165/rand-paul-the-same-old-story.html

That's no change, of course-the racists were making the argument that abolition of slavery would violate their property rights 140 years ago.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You don't seem to understand what the issue is here. The issue is not whether, in fact, there is a right to racist speech or whether there is a right to discriminate.

The issue is whether the belief that property rights allows discrimination is an inherently racist belief--and why, if you think it is, the belief that free speech rights allows racist speech is not.

The fact that racist speech may, in fact, be a right--and discrimination may not be--is completely irrelevant to that question.

If we suddenly decided to make racist speech illegal and discrimination legal, that would make absolutely no difference to the question of whether the belief in either or both is inherently racist.

If the mere fact that something is a recognized right implies that it is not inherently racist, then all we would have to do to is to recognize it, and then, presto, it will not be inherently racist.

So, according to your reasoning, all we have to do to cure the evil of racial discrimination (which you believe to be inherently racist) is to recognize it as a legitimate right. Then it will no longer be inherently racist!

Keep dancin'.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

You have certainly shown the limits of logic. If logic actually requires that apples and oranges be treated as though they are the exact same things, then its useless. I will choose to be "illogical" (according to you) and support both the freedom of speech and freedom from racial discrimination. Why doesn't your logic see those two freedoms as the same thing?

Rand Paul quacks like a racist, as my link showed. Is he, in his heart, a racist or not? It doesn't matter, if he supports racist policies.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Why doesn't your logic see those two freedoms as the same thing?

Did you just simply not read what I said?

This is clearly not productive. Let's just talk about something else now.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

The problem with what you wrote is that you are suggesting that we decide what rights are pretty much on a whim, and you ignore historical context. The free speech guarantees in the 1st Amendment aren't going to be repealed anytime soon, and "property rights" have been the rallying cry of racists to justify oppression of African-Americans for centuries. So its simply facetious to pretend that free speech and racial discrimination are the same thing.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Nope. You didn't read what I said--or simply didn't understand it.

We're done.

KyCobb said...

I read it and understood it. We are not going to "suddenly decide" that free speech is no longer a right. It is a fundamental attribute of our republic.