Why Rand Paul Is Wrong On Civil Rights

Let me begin by saying that I am not accusing Rand Paul of racism.
.
That least sentence doesn't mean that I'm arguing Paul isn't a racist, just like this sentence isn't meant to imply that I actually believe he is one.
.
In my mind, the key to determining whether someone's political views are motivated by bigotry is to see whether they can back up their statements with a logically sound and factually accurate argument, particularly one that is consistent with the broader ideological principles they espouse. As a rule of thumb, if they can't - as is the case with those who claims that Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen, that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, or that Jews are responsible for the war in Iraq - then it's quite likely due to the unsavoriness of their motives (which, deep down, they generally know is the case). If they can, however, then they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
.
This brings me to Rand Paul, the libertarian Republican who recently won his party's nomination for a Senate seat in Kentucky. While being interviewed by Rachel Maddow on her show, Paul was asked whether he would have supported the provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits private businesses from refusing to serve potential customers on the basis of race and religion.
.
Maddow: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?
.
Clearly aware of the fact that providing an honest answer would open him up to charges of racism, Paul's response is replete with adamant claims that he does not condone discrimination and in fact openly disapproves of those who practice racism. Nevertheless, he goes on to say...
.
I do defend and believe that the government should not be involved with institutional racism or discrimination or segregation in schools, busing, all those things. But had I been there, there would have been some discussion over one of the titles of the civil rights.
.
And I think that's a valid point, and still a valid discussion, because the thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about: do you want to abridge the First Amendment as well. Do you want to say that because people say abhorrent things -- you know, we still have this. We're having all this debate over hate speech and this and that. Can you have a newspaper and say abhorrent things? Can you march in a parade and believe in abhorrent things, you know?. . .
.
Now, inevitably, Rand Paul is being accused of racism.
.
There are two points that need to be made in reaction to this controversy:
.
1) The position Paul has espoused is not inherently racist. Indeed, it is very consistent with the tenets of purist libertarianism - the idea that the government should not discriminate between any of its citizens, and at the same time has no right to tell private individuals what they can say or believe. As such, while Rand Paul supports those measures of the 1964 Civil Rights bill that outlawed government discrimination against African-Americans (such as making it difficult for them to vote, segregating schools and public facilities, and so on), he opposes the part of the bill that would have made it illegal for private individuals to express racist ideas through their speech or ban racial and religious minorities from their private businesses. That position, because it is logically well-constructed and consistent with the larger principles Paul has advocated, is not enough to warrant accusing him of racism.
.
2) At the same time, that position is wrong.
.
While I agree with Rand Paul's belief that government must focus on protecting individual rights, he fails to take into account how certain individual rights - if exercised to their fullest - naturally compromise the rights of other individuals, even if the damage isn't done directly and/or isn't intrinsic to the action being committed. For example, even though drinking alcohol while driving a car doesn't intrinsically hurt anyone else (after all, there are people who manage to drive while intoxicated without harming anyone), it has been rightfully made illegal because the probability that someone doing these things will endanger other human beings is too great. Even though two rights that are normally mine - the right to drink alcohol (since I am above the age of twenty-one) and the right to drive a car - are being restricted, it is necessary that this happen, since the increased likelihood that my drinking and driving will harm someone else makes it necessary that I not be allowed to do so.

Likewise, private business owners who prohibit racial and religious minorities from entering their shops are not simply making decisions that only affect themselves. Through their actions, they create a social environment in which the groups being targeted are isolated and identified with a status of "otherness" - one that, in turn, has been shown historically to lead to other forms of persecution and discrimination more often than not. As a result, the signers of the 1964 Civil Rights Act determined that - even though the right to decide who can patron your private business is normally inviolable - allowing the exercise of those rights against specific racial, religious, and other minorities should not be allowed.

This ultimately traces back to my basic disagreement with purist libertarians - their tendency to oversimplify complicated issues such as this one. Hence, even though I do not believe it is fair to accuse Paul of being a racist, he is very clearly making one of the classic mistakes of the uncompromising ideologue: he is forgetting that any ideology, to retain its value, must be capable of accomodating reality.