Jim DeMint: I’m going to talk to Rand Paul about his positions

posted at 4:16 pm on May 20, 2010 by Allahpundit

Heh. Think Progress cornered him this morning about Paul’s take on the Civil Rights Act and, unlike RP, the old pro had the savvy to give the politically safe answer. Follow the link for video. As for what he and Paul will be chatting about, two words: Message discipline.

Two clips below for your edification, one the much buzzed about exchange last night between Paul and Rachel Maddow (Dave Weigel has the full transcript) and the other his walkback this morning on Laura Ingraham’s show, in which he served up some red meat about the “loony left” and gave the time-for-this-to-go-away answer that, yes indeed, he supports the Civil Rights Act. What this means to his libertarian fan club, I don’t know. Presumably it’ll be shrugged off, either on grounds that he secretly opposes the law but has to make certain concessions to get elected (see, e.g., Obama and gay marriage) or that it’s a non-issue compared to cutting spending, rolling back ObamaCare, ending the Fed, screaming against about the gold standard, etc. I’m actually surprised that he backed off, as the whole Paul phenomenon is based on the idea of principled, uncompromising libertarianism. He’s out there — or at least, I think a lot of his supporters want him to be out there — not just to win an election but to do so with a full-throated, unapologetic defense of laissez faire, warts and all. If his base preferred a safe pol who’d say what he had to say to win, they would have gone for Grayson; instead they took a chance on the purist, and now they’re either about to ride the roller coaster for six months or watch Paul water down his message in hopes of making it more digestible to centrists. If he does end up imploding because of his views, perhaps there’s a lesson there about how politically viable strong-form libertarianism is, even in this anti-Democratic tea-party climate.

In the meantime, he’ll have to contend with a question posed by Bruce Bartlett (via Weigel): If libertarian solutions are the best way to end discrimination, why didn’t things start improving for blacks until the feds got involved in earnest in the 1950s? Presumably the answer will be “it wasn’t the feds, it was MLK’s civil rights movement that turned the tide,” but it’s hard to separate those two: Civil rights leaders leveraged federal power in various ways to protect minority rights. I think the real answer is that Paul isn’t claiming that libertarianism is the “best” way to end discrimination, he’s claiming (or was claiming) that it’s the only constitutional way. If that means leaving businesses alone who refuse service to blacks, well, that sucks, but that’s property rights for you. That’s the bind Paul’s in now, either gritting his teeth and saying, “yes, under our rule of law, we have to be willing to endure some racism” — which seems to be his position — or claiming that we could have achieved the same level of equality we’ve achieved now purely through boycotts and pickets and other non-state means. I’d like to believe that we could have, but I think a Kentucky voter quoted by the Times (in a different context) said it best: “He says things, and I wish they could be that way, but I know they’re not.”

Speaking of strong-form libertarianism, Ann Althouse is calling me out for misrepresenting Paul’s views in my post yesterday. I didn’t mean to, but she’s right that I should have been clearer. Althouse’s point is that Paul opposes any government interference in how someone runs their business, which would be strong form laissez faire; I assumed, because he danced around NPR’s questions and because this was obviously about to become a major headache for him, that he was taking the more palatable, weaker form position that it’s more acceptable for state and local agencies to act against discrimination but that the feds should stay out. (As it turned out, he now says having the feds interfere is fine.) That’s why I brought federalism into it, and that’s why I thought the Fourteenth Amendment would eventually end up in the discussion. If Paul doesn’t want the feds meddling in private businesses to protect minority rights, does he at least support letting them meddle with state governments that refuse to do so? I think he’s answered that question by implication today, but like I say, I should have been clearer.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But if huge swaths of the South exercise their property rights to systematically exclude you from restaurants, inns and other public accommodations, it has a very real affect on your freedom. You can’t eat many certain places. It’s much more difficult to travel. You get the idea. And that’s exactly what happened to blacks in the South prior to the CRA.

crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Do you actually believe discrimination against black people was exclusive to the south, either prior to or since the CRA was passed? Your bigotry knows no bounds. Pr!ck.

runawayyyy on May 21, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Told ya:

DeMint didn’t admonish Rand Paul for civil rights comments

Dave Weigel

On Thursday, the Center for America Progress Action Fund’s reported blog ThinkProgress posted a quick video of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) — approached by blogger Lee Fang — responding to the Rand Paul Civil Rights Act flap. I linked to it, as did other bloggers, but I don’t think any of us noted the discrepancy between the video and the transcript.

Here’s the ThinkProgress transcript.

TP: What about the Americans with Disabilities Act? Rand Paul says he wants to abolish that as well.

DEMINT: I’m going to talk to Rand about his positions–

But the dash indicates missing words, and those words are important. Here’s what DeMint said:

I’m going to talk to Rand about his positions there before I talk to you.

This is key, because the first version of the quote does not reflect what actually happened.

After the Paul story blew up Thursday morning, DeMint’s staff reached out to Paul’s staff to ask about it and get the details on his position. Paul put out his statement on the controversy, and DeMint was satisfied. He did not personally talk to Paul yesterday, much yes give him a talking-to, as “I’m going to talk to Rand about his positions” suggests. What he meant was that he refused to give ThinkProgress a quote based on its own interpretation of what Paul said.

So please quit taking media representations of what happened when it involves one of ours until we cross-check and get more information. This is exactly what I figured DeMint was saying.

KittyLowrey on May 21, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Uhhh…no. In the Deep South prior to the CRA, many businesses would lose business if from whites if they stopped discriminating against blacks.

It really is nuts how hopelessly naive some of you guys are. You’ll follow the “limited government” and “free market solutions” meme off a cliff.

crr6 on May 20, 2010 at 5:55 PM

Do you realize that you didn’t actually make an argument (except from silence), here crr6? Those are just bald assertions and ad hominems.

BlueCollarAstronaut on May 21, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Rand Paul is giving the Lew Rockwell, Neo-Confederate version of history.

Rockwell is one of the most deceitul, disgraceful loons in American politics.

jp on May 20, 2010 at 5:19 PM

Exactly. Ron Paul is a racist.

Now everyone is realizing that Rand Paul is just like his father. The father and the son have problem with associating with loony racists like Lew Rockwell.

Conservative Samizdat on May 24, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2