Kentucky Republican and Senate candidate Rand Paul has recently aroused a great deal of controversy for expressing concerns with one aspect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: namely, the authority it gives to the federal government to forbid businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. While Paul has stated that he approves of the Act's forbidding of discrimination on the governmental level without reservation, he is uneasy with the idea of businesses being compelled to provide service to all due to his firm belief in the rights of property owners. It all boils down to, "Does a private entity get to decide what to do with its property even if it hurts other people?" To understand the nature of the controversy and Paul's stance on the issue, you might want to watch his interview on the Rachel Maddow Show: part 1 and part 2 are on YouTube.

While the younger Dr. Paul seems to see this issue purely through the prism of property rights, I think there are other factors involved which is why I disagree with him. You have the right to own a gun, but you can't use it in any possible way without infringing on the rights of others. In the same way, I don't think property owners should have the right to use their property as a weapon to hurt others and deny them from purchasing what may be vitally needed goods and services. I don't think it's too much of a sacrifice to ask property owners who choose to do business with the public at large to serve all equally regardless of their demographic, no more than I think it is too much of a sacrifice to ask gun owners not to shoot innocent people who aren't threatening life, limb, or property. I absolutely understand where Rand Paul is coming from -- property rights are not anywhere near as respected as they should be in this country. Still, even property rights should have limits, and the appropriate place for rights to end is when they start to hurt other people severely and unnecessarily. Oddly enough, I actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is actually fairly moderate. It allows private clubs not open to the public to discriminate as they wish, and it allows all entities to discriminate against unmentioned groups all they want to (hence: "No shirt, no shoes, no service").

With that said, I've thought that all the media and blogging hoopla over Rand Paul's comments has been ridiculous, and it's given me some new insight into how the political powers that be seek to maintain the status quo. As wrong as I think Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is, it's hardly as if he was campaigning to repeal it. Indeed, he has since stated for the record that he would not seek to change it and in fact he has even said that he would have voted for the Act despite its restrictions on business had he been in Congress at the time. He was never a racist demagogue blowing dog whistles to rally racists to his cause which is why he now resembles a dog running away with its tail between its legs as he tries to talk his way out of the firestorm. What Paul's "baggage" is is actually simply political ideology. People often wonder why it is that Republicans who talk about the importance of individual liberty when it comes to gun rights often turn around and support legislating morality or why Democrats are so keen on expanding social services but yet often also support inflationary policies and direct and indirect taxes that make products and services more expensive. The answer is easy enough: the overwhelming majority of politicians do not have an overarching political philosophy that they try to apply to each and every political stance they have. They don't mind being philosophically inconsistent -- it's probably not something most of them even think about. Rand Paul is vulnerable on issues like civil rights because he doesn't pick and choose when his political philosophy is important to him. He strives for consistency even when that leads him into uncomfortable territory. In his discussion with Rachel Maddow, he mentioned how freedom of speech protects the words of even those who hold despicable views. It's not a stretch at all to go on from there to say that property rights should also apply to those who hold despicable views. It's perfectly possible to support freedom of speech and property rights without necessarily supporting how those freedoms are used by cruel and hateful individuals. As such, I can respect Rand's point of view even though I disagree with him. He probably has a rosier view of humanity than I do and believes that racist business owners would get skewered in the market just as he's currently being skewered in the press and online. As much as I distrust government, I nonetheless don't trust people not to treat each other like crap either; to expect otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history.

What Paul's opponents on the Democratic side of things want now is for people to not simply disagree with Paul's position on civil rights but to be afraid of him. They want him to be perceived as a monster rather than simply as misguided. Above all else, they want people whose support of smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal restraint (topics that Rand Paul made the center of his campaign rather than civil rights) would make them uneasy about voting for Jack Conway or any Democrat given the current political climate to stay home on Election Day. As a political ploy, it just might work -- if it does, I think it'll be an ample illustration of why people who are so passionate about their ideas that they take them to the nth degree seem to flounder when facing off against career politicians and the political establishment time and time again. While this makes it more difficult for extremists (relative to prevailing popular opinion, that is) to win office, it also makes it harder to get anything other than the same old breed of career politicians elected. Those folks aren't all bad, but frankly I'd bet at least a few of them are as perturbed by Rand Paul's advocacy for legislative term limits as they are about anything else the opthamologist has said.