If we limit our attacks on Rand Paul to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we are missing the boat on an opportunity to define Rand Paul in a meaningful way. Join me over the fold for a strategy session on an individual who represents more than a Republican vying for seat in the Senate...but a man who presents us the best opportunity to impose a referendum on the ideas and values of the Tea Party itself.
Most of us saw the Rachel Maddow interview (Part 1, Part 2) that will go down as the opening salvo in what will likely be one of the more focused on races this year. But if we limit our attacks to exclusively question Paul's commitment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in its totality, we will be ignoring another more lethal can-of-worms Paul opened implicitly by trying to state his case.
If we look at the demographics for Kentucky, it is arguable that we have little to gain by turning this into a "Rand Paul is a racist" narrative. That narrative allows the right to deflect related attacks as "...the Democrats are playing the race card again...". I would argue this would be the worst possible outcome for us as it can potentially backfire and serve to inoculate Rand from any future racially insensitive comments or associations that would be more damaging, explicit and more difficult to defend.
What Rand Paul has effectively done, is expose himself to be a market fundamentalist. That interview with Maddow undeniably demonstrates Rand Paul's deification of the free markets, to the extent he is willing to subjugate human rights or civil rights in order to "protect" those markets. Private business, in this example, serves to be the manifestation of those markets. It is this admission we need to amplify if possible, to absurd extremes.
We have the benefit of recent history to make this case. Does Rand Paul feel regulatory failure was one of the causes of the recession? Does he feel that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act have anything to do with it? Does any regulation on the private sector make sense? The FDA? Minimum wage? The EPA? Questioning him on regulation is not enough. We must also submit a scenario of an environment where such regulation is absent. Any regulation or regulatory body Rand Paul wants to abolish demands the follow-up question of what should we do in its place...if anything.
Rand Paul, like many conservatives, seems to be "compulsive deifier". They elevate certain ideas or objects to be above reproach. Examples of this are their alleged reverence for the Constitution, the Bible, Christianity, free markets etc. I would argue that every assertion of what the object / idea represents is an interpretation but I digress. Conservatives like to project themselves to be guardians of the true meaning of said object and will defend their sacred object in the most absolutist of terms. For some individuals, this behavior can extend to their leaders as well.
This may serve to be a useful tool to rally individuals of like-mind who also highly regard the same object or maxim; but concepts of nuance and circumstance are lost to them and exposes a vulnerability that should be exploited in order to delegitimize their arguments. We must take circumstances that the average American can relate to (or readily accept as reasonable as in the case of some basic regulation) and offer them as legitimate exceptions to their absolutism. Force them to either appear absurd in their steadfastness OR admit there are exceptions to what they initially posed as sacrosanct and irreproachable.
As Stiglitz asserts, market fundamentalism is dead. Take the very events that the teabaggers rally around (bank bailouts, big government) and confront them with the contradictions in their positions that enable the very things they are fighting against. For example,...hate bank bailouts? Then why is your senator impeding financial reform? Don't like the reform bill the Democrats are pushing through? Then what sort of measures do we take in order to prevent another bailout? No measures needed? Have several quotes readied from several leading economists (make sure some are avowed Conservatives economists) saying that the status quo guarantees future bailouts..and so forth. The point of this exercise is to lure them outside of the safety of their pseudo-populist sound bites and commit them to stating what specific solutions they advocate and expose their "values" or "ideals".
DeMint has inserted himself now in a way that leaves him open to attack as well. He's a Tea Party favorite, so attacking and discrediting him serves to discredit the Tea Party as well.
The DSCC has a spot that is on the right track, but it's not provocative enough to capitalize on Paul's admission this week on Maddow's show. Get them to admit, in one way or another, that what they are prescribing is to subject the people to the good graces of the banks, big business, etc as a necessary consequence of their ideology. Lastly, whenever possible, take the opportunity to simultaneously attack Tea Party figures and the movement itself. We must seek to frame them as an extremist, logically incoherent movement whose very prescriptions threaten the many conveniences and protections we enjoy in our regular life. Demoralizing them will prove essential come election time as the Republican party is heavily leaning on them to deliver the ground game.