Skip to main content

Also posted at Facing South, a New Voice for a Changing South

How fast things can change. Just two days ago, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul was celebrating his stunning victory in Kentucky's primary to run as the GOP's candidate for U.S. Senate.

Now Rand is fending off questions about why, in two successive media interviews, he suggested that the Civil Rights Act went too far in telling private businesses in the South that they couldn't discriminate on the basis of race.

Both triumphant Democrats and dismayed Republicans have seized on Paul's statements as a typical scandal, responding with mixtures of shock and outrage.

But are Paul's statements and sentiments really all that surprising?

True, there's a certain disconnect when, on the 50th anniversary of the famous civil rights sit-ins in places like Greensboro, North Carolina and Nashville, Tennessee -- protests which challenged the ability of owners of privately-owned public accommodations -- leading Congressional candidate argues such discrimination amounts to "free speech."

But the idea that the Civil Rights Act overstepped in its pursuit of guaranteeing racial equality in the South is hardly an alien idea to political right. In fact, in certain conservative circles -- especially the anti-government, libertarian wing Rand Paul represents -- it's practically an article of faith.

Consider Ronald Reagan, now part of the pantheon of Republican and conservative heroes. Reagan got his start in national politics stumping for Barry Goldwater, whose fierce anti-government views led him to view the Civil Rights Act as an attack on "the Southern way of life."

When Reagan made his own run for the presidency in 1976, he positioned himself as Goldwater's heir, picking up his first primary win in North Carolina on a platform stoking resentment of government intrusion in the South. In 1980, the Californian consciously launched his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- just miles from where three civil rights activists were killed in the 1960s.

Like Rand, Reagan insisted his views were anti-government and not pro-discrimination -- ignoring, of course, that in practical terms, opposing federal civil rights standards would ensure that discrimination persisted. As NPR noted in a 2004 retrospective:

Today it is hard to believe that Reagan had such success using the Civil Rights Act as a whipping boy.  The Civil Rights Act is now so widely accepted that it doesn't attract controversy in any region of the country -- including the South.

But Reagan's campaign was only one sign that acceptance of the Civil Rights Act wasn't -- and isn't -- as broad and deep as many believe.

Another group which still rails against federal intrusions into the South like the Civil Rights Act is the Council of Conservative Citizens, a descendant of the segregationist White Citizen's Councils of the Jim Crow era.

The CCC opposes inter-racial marriage, hates non-white immigration (legal or not), and openly praises racist-nationalist groups in Europe -- the true source of U.S. culture -- like the neo-fascist British Nationalist Party.

But it's hardly an obscure sect in U.S. and Southern politics. Dozens of mainstream politicians, almost all of them Republicans, have spoken at, endorsed or otherwise been involved in CCC activities. These include:

* Gov. Haley Barbour (R) of Mississippi
* Former Sen. Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi
* Former Rep. Bob Barr (R) of Georgia
* Dozens of state lawmakers in Florida and Mississippi.

While slightly more open about their hostility to people of non-European heritage, the Council's distasteful positions are largely couched in the same libertarian language as Rand's: anti-Washington, pro-state's rights.

Consider even Rand Paul's father, the libertarian maverick Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas. On the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, Rep. Paul rose to speak in Congress with a speech titled "The Trouble with Imposed Integration."

Based on his libertarian views, Rep. Paul blasted the Civil Rights Act as an "expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce" that "violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty."

Such views, a natural outgrowth of the elder Paul's staunch anti-government ideology, didn't cause a media flap or raise questions about Paul's qualifications to hold office. Neither did the revelation in 2008 that, in the 1990s, Rep. Paul sent fundraising appeals bashing African-Americans and gays -- a signal that his animosity to civil rights may be about more than opposition to "big government."

Today, candidate Rand Paul -- the latest incarnation of this philosophy -- backtracked from his earlier position, saying he supported the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act after all, and that this chapter of U.S. history was "settled."

Clearly, in Southern politics and beyond, that's far from the case.

PHOTO: The Walgreens lunch counter that was a target of the 1960 civil rights sit-in movement.

Originally posted to ProgressiveSouth on Thu May 20, 2010 at 01:57 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Lots of good diaries on this, but (28+ / 0-)

      I wanted to offer a perspective that linked Paul's views with the broader trajectory of Southern and national politics.

      These views are far from an obscure ideology. In certain sectors of the U.S. right, they are the centerpiece of their politics to this very day.

      Blogging for a Progressive South // www.southernstudies.org

      by ProgressiveSouth on Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:00:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  absolutely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JayC

        Native Alabamian here--old enough to recall Ground Zero in Birmingham, my home city.

        Years ago, I had a discussion with another Southerner online, one who was born in the early seventies and who, as a child, had idolized Ronald Reagan. He had since broken away from the GOP, but he continued to insist that he was for "states' rights." When I tried to explain the history of that term, he really didn't want to believe that Reagan had been dog-whistling to the racists. He didn't know that "states' rights" had been the "rational" defense of Southerners who wanted to preserve their own, deeply irrational, local segregation laws.

        People born outside the South and/or post Civil Rights Era generally are unaware of how much of the GOP's ideology is still rooted in a reaction to the mid-20th century challenges to white, male, heterosexual, Christian  supremacy.

        "Freedom of association" and "states' rights" and resentment of "activist judges" and opposition to any and all federal regulation have been elements of a certain American viewpoint since the country's founding, a viewpoint prevalent in the South but not exclusive to it. Segregation, though, which codified white supremacy and essentially denied blacks full citizenship, was a peculiarly Southern institution. Bravely and wisely attacking it, the civil rights activists challenged all Americans to make a choice: support the founding principle of equality under the law or support the notion that people have a right to discriminate against others on the basis of race.

        When the Jim Crow aspect of "the Southern way of life" was defeated in the 1960s, thanks to the federal enforcement of Constitutional principles of equality under the law, the GOP poised itself to ride the inevitable backlash of white resentment.
        It's been doing it ever since, slamming "activist judges" and the federal government, which had finally stepped up and forced the racists in America--Southern and otherwise--to abide by the principle of equality or suffer legal consequences.

        That ugly resentment is what writhes beneath the "logic" of many white conservatives and libertarians. (As for the few black conservatives and libertarians, I have no earthly idea what makes them tick. But Clarence Thomas seems to resent the hell out of something.)

        Thanks for a great diary.

  •  conservative rock & conservative hard place (12+ / 0-)

    Any conservative is put in a tough position when asked about civil rights.  

    They don't want to come out against them, because in today's day and age, that'd just be stupid.

    But, they don't want to come out in favor of them too stongly, either, because a large part of the conservative base are still terrified of minorities and want them kept down.  That idiotic fear and bigotry is what brought 'em to the show in the first place.

    So that's why it's brilliant strategy to hammer them on these questions.  Whatever answer they give, they lose large chunks of their voters. :)

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:05:30 PM PDT

  •  GOP strategy in one line. (11+ / 0-)

    EEEK DARK PEOPLE...boogedy boogedy BOO!

    F the right wing whiners. I don't care about them any more they can all F themselves for all I care.

    by UndercoverRxer on Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:07:18 PM PDT

  •  A simple question for every politician (12+ / 0-)

    Do you support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including Title II's prohibition of discrimination in public accomodation, and Title VII's prohibition of discrimination in private employment

    None of this wiggling around about supporting non-discrimination by government.  And none of this double-talk about not wishing to pursue repeal.  Paul talks about this as if the question is whether he would repeal the law.  We know he can't repeal the law.  What we want to know is whether he has beliefs which are far out the mainstream of American opinion on Civil Rights.

  •  He maintains that anyone has the right to be a (6+ / 0-)

    bigot.  Interestingly, the author's reference to the British National Party misses a significant point -- the BNP is anti-American

  •  rand paul is personable, just like his father (7+ / 0-)
    but then, hitler never slapped eva braun...
    stalin always stood up when a lady entered the room...
    mussolini always smiled innocently whenever he pinched a lady's bottom...
    mao always bathed before sex...
    all personable too!

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:31:16 PM PDT

  •  Libertarian = Confederate (13+ / 0-)

    I will repeatedly point out that the "Libertarianism" of the Pauls is actually the ideology of the Confederates.

    They are not opposed to ALL government power over the individual - they are opposed to "Federal" power.

    They are all for "State's Rights" - Human rights not so much.

    John McCain is deeply disappointed that Barack Obama has failed to follow through on John McCain's campaign promises.

    by tiponeill on Thu May 20, 2010 at 02:32:28 PM PDT

  •  The Maddow interview was difficult to watch... (11+ / 0-)

    ...but kudos to her for pressing him on this. I was struck by how uncomfortable Paul seemed with his own position. It's tough to be an ideologue.

  •  Maddow is just too tough for him (9+ / 0-)

    I see today that the good doctor is saying that his mistake was letting Maddow interview him at all.  He is ready to be a Senator but Rachel Maddow is just too tough for anyone to handle, especially someone who only has an MD degree.

    What a poltroon. "Oh, that nasty Liberal lady tricked me!" I hope that his opponent has the tape and force-feeds it to him for the next 6 months.

    I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

    by docterry on Thu May 20, 2010 at 03:29:41 PM PDT

  •  Paul wants repeal the A.D.A. too...Paul can f-off (8+ / 0-)

    As an American w/ a disability (due to a spinal cord injury when I was 17), Paul represents the type of Republican who would take our country back...way back, to the year 1910 say.

    Rand Paul has some interesting beliefs but his form of libertarianism would result in a much more limited (weak) Constitution than what we're used to and gives cover to conservative racists and Neo-Confederacy types. Is this the purpose for Paul's ideology??

    He stated the Civil Rights Act and Americans' With Disability Act need to be neutered b/c they supposedly interfere w/ business owners private property rights (and the right of racists and bigots to be racists and bigots, which Paul must think is a valued part of white Southern culture). Of course he didn't mention that black and disabled Americans may just want Congress to uphold their equal Constitutional rights to not be treated as 2nd class, inferior citizens.

    Paul has stated the usual red hearing that the market will address this issue (don't worry bout your Constitutional rights suckas!)...b/c somehow a scenario will develop where business A, owned by a racist and anti-disability bigot who wants to exclude blacks and the disabled, will compete for customers w/ business B, owned by the non-racist and non-bigot...or maybe disabled Americans should pay a usage fee of say $50 to $500 when they access a businesses' expensive ramp.

    Maybe a restaurant chain owned by a religious nut would decide on a whim to ban all disabled people...b/c he believes disability is Gaaaawwwwd's punishment.

    A high level of discrimination, legally protected segregation, and very little access to public life for disabled Americans...as well as a neutered Constitution would be the result of Paul's dream for us all.

  •  An African American, defends Paul on Civil Rights (4+ / 0-)

    Rachel,

    I am a 45 year old Black American male who loves your show but I strongly disagree with you about your position on Rand Paul. Just so you know I voted for Obama and Kerry because I was horrified by both Bush and Palin respectively. Here's where I disagree with you.

    1. If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn't want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? I don't want my money going to buy little Klan baby clothes. I'd rather the privately owned establishments wear their racism on their sleeves so I know who to support. If they want to lose my money, and the money of all other minorities and people with brains and a conscience, then fine. Racism is bad business.
    1. There's two facts none of us can get around. Churches are still the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning. Its called freedom of religion. There are still restaurants where you can't go in D.C. and I can't go in Georgia. That's called tribalism. Integration cannot be forced privately, only publicly. Tribalism cannot be defeated by legislation. Freedom of speech and of religion means also freedom of @!$%#s. I prefer them with their hoods off.
    1. I respectfully say that I think you're wrong to imply that Rand Paul is a racist for believing that.

    Woolworth's should be allowed to be segregated. I will go on the record right now and state that I believe that Woolworth's and any other privately owned business should be allowed to be segregated. We Black's have a choice now that we didn't back before the Civil Rights Act. Why would I want to support cracker ass Woolworth's if that's who owns the store? I'll take my money elswhere. If you had your way, I wouldn't know one from the other. I hope we can one day agree to let Woolworth's be free to take off its Klan Hood so you and I both know where to spend our money. Its not like and oil company. We all "have to" buy gasoline for now. We blacks have a choice which lunch counter we want to sit at in 2010. Rand Paul stated that when violence occurred it was wrong. He said it was morally reprehensible and he would never support it? He shouldn't be smeared as a racist.

    I love you to pieces and as a person of color I identify with your pain, but I'm glad these racists and homophobes want to come out into the open now. I don't think Rand Paul is one of them.

    Oteil Burbridge

    Bassist Allman Brothers Band

    Lawrenceville, Georgia

    http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/...

    •  he's a fine musician (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DavidW, MichaelNY, Jerry Melton

      but not a smart political thinker.

      "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war" - John Adams

      by esquimaux on Thu May 20, 2010 at 08:21:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  here's the rub (5+ / 0-)

      We Black's have a choice now that we didn't back before the Civil Rights Act.

      That's the point isn't it?  He can choose to reject the Civil Rights Act now, but only because it was the Civil Rights Act that enabled him to be in a position to make that choice.  

      But the Left is wrong on this issue also.  We have the moral high ground, yes, but the legal and intellectual rationale for the federal anti-discrimination laws are shaky at best and we should recognize that and fix it, not simply reject the criticism as racism and ignore it.

      If it exists, my legal obligation not to discriminate against my fellow human beings should have a far stronger basis than the concept of interstate commerce.  

      Now that most of us have moved beyond the Jim Crow psychology, wouldn't it be better to admit that the Civil Rights Act with it's limited protected classes does not go near far enough in protecting the fundamental premise that all men are created equal?

      How can we justify prohibiting discrimination against Blacks, but not gays?  Buddhists, but not the homeless?  Women, but not if they are transgender?  

      If we are going to legislatively prohibit discrimination by private actors (as opposed to only state actors), we ought to do so across the board.  It seems a wee bit hypocritical to say you are allowed to hate these people, but not those.  

      "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

      by jlynne on Thu May 20, 2010 at 11:08:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And we ought to prohibit discr. by state actors (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jlynne

        And their private contractors, as a matter of course. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet. The state retains just as much ability to discriminate as private businesses do, and it does discriminate.

        Free Alexandra Svoboda, and help stop police brutality!

        by Marja E on Fri May 21, 2010 at 08:06:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, some states do (0+ / 0-)

          but many (most?) states have enacted civil rights legislation that parallels the Civil Rights Act.

          "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

          by jlynne on Fri May 21, 2010 at 10:59:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's systemic (0+ / 0-)

            Racial profiling, racial discrimination in arrests and prosecutions, sex discrimination, laws which explicitly discriminate against womyn, against trans people, against intersex people, against lesbian, gay, or bisexual people, etc. Also laws written to target certain racial minorities or to target one sex.

            Federal law makes sure I can't get accurate identification.

            Free Alexandra Svoboda, and help stop police brutality!

            by Marja E on Fri May 21, 2010 at 11:43:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Getting On To the Next Step (0+ / 0-)

      I think I agree with most of what you said, but I do think that Rachel did us a huge service by focusing on this issue.

      The thing is that it would be okay for all these racists to come out of hiding if it weren't so damaging to society. If a few places excluded blacks, then we could let them suffer the inevitable economic penalty of their racism. But before the Civil Rights Act, the practice was so widespread that it didn't just give you a choice, it made being black literally being a second-class citizen.

      Where I think people are a little overboard on this is failing to recognize that this literally pushed constitutional bounds and that there is a legitimate constitutional argument about whether the commerce clause supports this much intrusion into the affairs of private business. What we have to be able to say is that this is a legitimate use of the constitution because these private businesses are offering goods and services to the public, and that they are part of a national economy.

      The problem I have with a lot of the horror about Rand Paul's comments is that it supports the view that there are no limits to what the government can require of a private business. Is it now the case that there is no such thing as a "private business"? Is there any part of a private business that the government can't control? Same for the individual, is there any limit to what the government can demand of you? Where does freedom start?

      I think this is where people on the other side think we're crazy. They look at people going after Paul and they think that we are just socialists. Well, if you can't say where governmental power to control business is limited, then perhaps that is just socialism.

      In any case, I think that Rachel did a great job of putting Rand Paul on the spot and making him defend this position. If he wants to hold this position and get elected, then he needs to be able to express it in a way that shows the legitimacy of real concern about the rights of individual people (the libertarian position) balanced with a realistic view of governmental power and the right of society to set the rules. Pushing him on civil rights may be unfair in that it is hard to defend individuals that take racist actions, but life's unfair and someone that wants to be elected is going to have to deal with these "unfair" questions.

      In a way, this is a good sign, because I think it means we are starting to get onto the next step in race relations. We now have enough people growing up in a society that doesn't tolerate racism as any kind of official policy that some people are starting to question why we still have these legal policies in place. It would be nice to think that we could start dismantling some of the legal scaffolding because the structure of a post-racial society was at hand. But then, I look at Anderson Cooper's show and see the unfiltered knowledge of racism children still have and it is apparent we haven't made all that much progress. Racism may be officially taboo, but plenty of people still believe one race is superior to another. I think it's a view that is slowly going away, and we have the civil rights legislation of the '60s (and the people that fought for it) to thank for that. It can't go away too quickly.

  •  Ron Paul + Glenn Beck = Rand Paul (3+ / 0-)

    That equation could also apply to Sarah Palin (even though there are inconsistencies- but inconsistencies are fundamental to Republican arithmetic).

    We need Jack Conway in the US Senate. I think Paul has the potential to be worse than Jim DeMint, which would be a real unachievement.  

    Civil and productive arguments among citizens are impossible if they take place on alternate planes of reality

    by grinning dog on Thu May 20, 2010 at 09:03:26 PM PDT

  •  This is a great, clarifying diary (4+ / 0-)

    You might possibly be slightly overreaching on one point, though. You posted the following:

    Reagan got his start in national politics stumping for Barry Goldwater, whose fierce anti-government views led him to view the Civil Rights Act as an attack on "the Southern way of life."

    Your source says something a bit different:

    Goldwater said he supported the white Southern position on civil rights, which was that each and every state had a sovereign right to control its laws. The Arizona Republican argued that each American has the right to decide whom to hire, whom to do business with and whom to welcome in his or her restaurant. The senator was right at home with Southern politicians who called the Civil Rights Act an attack on "the Southern way of life."

    It's a subtle difference, and not of much moment, but the difference is that it does not state that Barry Goldwater, himself, attacked the 1964 Civil Rights Act as an attack on the Southern way of life (though another source may say that he did; I couldn't say), only that he associated himself with Southern politicians who did.

    I was unaware that Goldwater actually thought de jure segregation by state law should be allowed. I thought he opposed official discrimination and only supported private individuals' rights (as he saw them) to discriminate, if they chose to. If Juan Williams' description of Goldwater's point of view in the 60s is accurate, so-called libertarian conservatives actually favored "states rights" over individual rights, which were thereby disfavored. I question why the word "libertarian" would have been used to describe such a position at all.

    •  excellent hairsplitting - nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY

      "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

      by jlynne on Thu May 20, 2010 at 10:44:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jlynne

        Because that was quite intentionally what I was doing.

      •  Added (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jlynne

        But the intentional hairsplitting was only PART of my post. The more significant thing to me is that Mr. Williams on NPR says that Goldwater supported the "right" of states to practice de jure discrimination. I'd still like other confirmation of that.

        •  I'm no student of Goldwater (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Liberal Thinking, MichaelNY

          but I believe you are correct.  I don't think he supported discrimination at any level, but he allowed that individuals should have the freedom to choose to be bigots.  It is unfortunate that the concept of individual liberty is so often conflated with the doctrine of States' rights.  Parsing them is difficult hairsplitting work, but it is often an important distinction.

          "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

          by jlynne on Thu May 20, 2010 at 11:42:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The reason it's important (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jlynne

            is that it shows the difference between a clearly malicious position - states should be able to choose to discriminate by law, including denying non-criminal citizens the right to vote - with a disastrously misguided position - individual rights are paramount, so the government shouldn't be able to tell people who to do business with.

            I may be wrong, but I think that people adhering to the misguided position based on the primacy of individual rights, if they are sincere, may be more susceptible to realizing they were wrong than people who actually advocated segregation based not on political expediency (e.g. Wallace, Fulbright) but personal conviction that the "black race" is inherently inferior. Again, though, I could well be wrong.

  •  Your Diary Was An Education For This Ignoramus (5+ / 0-)

    I took Ron Paul for an ideologue without the racist content.

    Ron Paul may not have written the campaign literature but it is very difficult to believe he had no knowledge of it.

    There is kind of a funny statement in your CNN link in which Ron Paul declares he is the anti-racist because only he is opposed to the drug laws that burden most heavily the African-American community.

    There is a sad grain of truth in that.

    Things are never completely - ummm - black and white are they?

    Best,  Terry

  •  I think Rand Paul believes it's not about race (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, Jerry Melton

    and when he says he's not personally a racist, he may be telling the truth. But for god's sake, he's arguing that racists should be allowed to be racists.

    It's all about money and property.

    (In his mind) If you have a big bank account, the government should leave you alone and not tax you.

    (In his mind) If you own a restaurant or hotel or a gas station with a bathroom, the government shouldn't tell you which customers you have to allow inside. And no rules about mine safety or child labor or minimum wages, either.

    (In his mind) If you own land, it's yours to do anything with, even if you kill an endangered species or pollute the water or air with poisons. No building codes, either.

    And (in his self-proclaimed non-racist mind), black people should be allowed to not pay taxes or discriminate against people or spew pollution.

    It's a selfish me-first philosophy. If you're rich, the government is the enemy. And the poor and infirm would be happy if only they were rich.

    ---

    Also, thanks to the rescue rangers for rescuing this. You do good work.

    Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

    by Dbug on Fri May 21, 2010 at 12:11:02 AM PDT

  •  Correction: Reagan started his political career (4+ / 0-)

    Correction: Reagan started his political career with GE breaking union. After the disastrous public relations of the massive union strikes, which halted production in factories across America in the 1950s, GE and its cadre of business took their stand in politics. They spent millions in advertisements and campaigns to reeducate America. (Fascist much?) They tempted to show the unbridled (corporate) freedom  and the combustion engine of capitalism were deep political virtues of America.

    They had a wildly successful Sunday nigh regular called GE Theater where they'd play out dramas that wrapped up in the drama of the GE in the grace and divine inspiration of capitalism.

    Reagan, not sure at first, was hired, the Hollywood star he was, to speak to people in radio addresses, town halls, and live addresses to speak the gospel of corporate America all in GE's new Boulwarism to break unions and hijack American politics.

    Just saying.

    Reagan was in the political spotlight before he started stumping for Goldwater.

    Tangential, I know.

  •  Thanks so much for your excellent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, cassandraX, Jerry Melton

    diary. You were referred in the diary rescue this am. I think it is important to get someone's perspective who lives in the South. My parents left Alabama before I was born to have a better opportunity. All of my father's brothers and sisters do not live in the South for that reason.

    The problem is with this line of thinking is there is some kind of rationalizing behind it. R Maddow gave a great discussion including using WF Buckley's words as a focal point. What is more important, property rights or the dignity of human beings. Clearly, these folks think money and property are more important than people.  Their motto should be "property first".

    Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. is wrong. No one forced any of the founding fathers to own people.

    by OHknighty on Fri May 21, 2010 at 03:52:19 AM PDT

  •  Well do I remember those times. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidW, cassandraX
    1964 was the first Presidential election I avidly followed. Being raised by New Dealers, I was all the way with LBJ. But the only issue the Goldwater supporters at my school wanted to talk about was the Civil Rights Law, and why Goldwater was right to oppose it. The really sad thing was, they'd argue with you all day long about "private property rights," but if you asked them point-blank if they thought blacks ("Negroes" we called them) were an inferior race, they'd say yes. Political positions are not just philosophical or legal points. They have consequences in real life.

    I have flow thru Detriot in recent months and the number of TSA women in hijab is alarming. It's like the foxes are overseeing the chicken coop -- A RW blogger.

    by Kimball Cross on Fri May 21, 2010 at 04:15:03 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site