Is Rand Paul a racist?

Is Rand Paul,  a: prejudiced,  b: a chauvinist,  c: a racist?

First we should define these three words in context with the discussion.

Chauvinism - unreasoning devotion to ones race, sex, etc. with contempt for other races, sex, etc.

Prejudices - suspicion, intolerance, or irrational hatred of other races, sex, creeds, regions, occupations, etc.

Racism - any programs or practices of discrimination and segregation that uphold the political or economic domination of one race over another or others.

(definitions from Webster's New world College Dictionary)

Now lets consider the question(s) at hand considering recent comments of Rand Paul.

a. Is Rand Paul a chauvinist?

He says he is not. Absent any defining "macaque" moment, the question, in and of itself, will stand answered by his denial: for now.

b. Is Rand Paul prejudiced?

He says he is not. Ditto the "macaque" statement above.

c. Is Rand Paul a racist?

Yes. He is. His statements concerning his opposition to Federal laws that protect African Americans against "programs or practices that uphold political or economic domination of one race over another or others" brands him.

Racist Jim Crow laws and culture - "program or practice" - existed throughout the country before the passage of the Civil Rights Law. The consequences their existence amounted to the uninterrupted "economic or political" domination over African Americans, going back to the earliest days of our nation.

Racist "programs or practices", first and foremost, are sources of power and profit - "political or economic" - and those who support them have been the most ardent and consistent opponents of Federal laws that put those sources out of reach. Here is where we may revisit questions a and b above and challenge Rand Paul's denial of chauvinism and prejudice. How else can his opposition to laws that provide relief and protection from "political or economic" super-exploitation for millions of African-American citizens be viewed?

One of the great setbacks of the discourse over equality and justice that has taken place since the passage of the Civil Rights Law is the success those who benefit from racist "programs or practices" have had in redefining racism as a prejudice and/or chauvinism. A subjective state of mind rather than one of design represented by "program or practice."

These days we hear talk of black racism, even among some who should know better, as if the African-American community as a whole is or has ever been in any position to institute any "program or practice" that would lead to any level of "political or economic domination" of the white population. It is akin to saying a round square is a geometric figure. It is a lie created to hide the truth and the facts of the consequences of racism. Consequences that do harm to all except the seekers of ever more power and profit. Those who, like Rand Paul, lurk under the mantle of respectability while planning the return of "programs or practices of discrimination and segregation that uphold the political or economic domination of one race over another or others."

Rand Paul is a racist. We as a nation trying to move forward risk much if we shy from the challenge his ilk presents. Although the danger of what he represents is great, he can be dealt with easily. Simply toss him onto history's trash heap of other aberrant individuals, as we pass it in November, and don't look back!

 

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • True Libertarians generally are not racist, but tend to be gravely naive. But True Libertarians are a truly rare. I'm not convinced Rand Paul qualifies as a True Libertarian.

    Fake Libertarians claiming to be True Libertarians are far less rare. Fake Libertarians, while not generally naive, are often scoundrels and are often racist. If they are not racist they still try to pander to racist because it suits their political interests and ambitions.

    So is Rand Paul racist? I don't know. But I do know that he is either naive or is a scoundrel. In either case he's not worth listening to.

    Posted by mike, 08/19/2010 2:30am (4 years ago)

  • True Libertarians generally are not racist, but tend to be gravely naive. But True Libertarians are a truly rare. I'm not convinced Rand Paul qualifies as a True Libertarian.

    Fake Libertarians claiming to be True Libertarians are far less rare. Fake Libertarians, while not generally naive, are often scoundrels and are often racist. If they are not racist they still try to pander to racist because it suits their political interests and ambitions.

    So is Rand Paul racist? I don't know. But I do know that he is either naive or is a scoundrel. In either case he's not worth listening to.

    Posted by mike, 08/19/2010 2:29am (4 years ago)

  • On a communist web-site, I would expect there to be disagreements with the libertarian view of private property and limited federalism. However, the columnist, Bill Appelhans, and the site discredit themselves when they make up straw-man arguments.

    Claiming that Paul is motivated by racism, is intellectually dishonest and a little bit silly. Try to take a little more responsibility by arguing against his actual views instead of reaching for a cheap political weapon.

    Posted by Nathan Higgins, 05/27/2010 1:02pm (5 years ago)

  • Racist? Give me a break! This is just another ploy to paint all the teapartiers as racists. If you knew anything about libertarian views/values, you would know they are for personal responsibilities. The fact that there is a law against racism doesn't mean racism won't persist. He is about realistically cutting spending and balancing the budget and is for repealing laws that take up valuable resources. Some country clubs today are segregated and no fuss against that?

    Posted by chuck, 05/27/2010 2:59am (5 years ago)

  • Freedom of speech is for UNPOPULAR speech. Private property rights let you do DISGUSTING things. Stop and think and you'll see that he is just not backing down from well-known libertarian principles.

    The REAL jim crow laws are drug laws. You got the same rate of usage. At least double black people get caught. Double those get convicted. Then their sentence is double. If you care about race issues, champion that. Let's be intellectually honest about this.

    Rand Paul wants to end the drug war.

    Posted by dave, 05/26/2010 2:02pm (5 years ago)

  • Who said otherwise?

    Posted by Nathan Higgins, 05/25/2010 1:01am (5 years ago)

  • @Kingamba,

    Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation.

    I read the article that you posted and it seemed to underscore my point that what we're dealing with here are differing philosophies on the role of government, and not valuations of different races.

    However, I will grant that your use of the exclamation point at the end of your sentence was very persuasive. You almost won me over to your opinion with that forceful use of punctuation. Very compelling.

    ;)

    Posted by Nathan Higgins, 05/24/2010 12:59pm (5 years ago)

  • @Josephus P. Franks,

    Actually, Paul's not a racist even by Bill Appelhans' definition. Paul defended the repeal of the Jim Crow laws and spoke forcefully against them. Jim Crow was the discriminatory system at that time.

    He questions the idea that one can go so far as to force morality upon people. Can you force morality upon a person? Are there unintended consequences when you try to legislate your morality onto others?

    I think it's a fair question to ask.

    Posted by Nathan Higgins, 05/24/2010 11:57am (5 years ago)

  • The mere topic of your article shows a bias. Rand Paul is as racist as he is a keyboard or any other inanimate object one could insert to conclude my analogy. The definition given says that it is used to uphold the dominance of one particular group. his position is that it is the government that is racist by wanting to uphold the dominace of one particular group. People seem to forget history and the lessons it gives on abolition of slavery and discrimination. The whole of Europe was able to end slavery without a civil war, because progress and ideals challenged the ways of old. It was not force or war that changed the idea that all men should be free, but non violent resistance. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated that position. That all men should be free. He was not in search of a massive big brother government enforceing those actions thereby enabling special privalages to a few. He spoke and offered a change in ideas, and touched at the core of our problem with race here in America. It is seeing people in groups rather then as individuals. I am a Native American and know all too well the history of my people. It was through peacefull change and public advocacy that we were granted the freedoms that God had allready given us. I am against all Native subsidies and public health care programs we receive. Does that make me racist because I do not beleive that I should get special privalges that my wife does not receive merely because she was born white? The argument should not be whether or not Rand is racist, but whether or not the government that imposes racist collectivist laws is. People should read and research how racism is always used by politicians to paint any opposition to collectivist laws or social programs for minorities (like myself) as racist. Predjudice comes from those who choose to classify people in groups (Blacks, Whites, Hispanic, etc) instead of as individuals. Choose freedom.

    Posted by FREEMANJAY, 05/24/2010 11:39am (5 years ago)

  • Rand Paul said from the start that he opposed the Jim Crow laws which forced racial segregation. If you mean to say that he supported that legal system, you're simply making a false statement.

    The distinction he made was between public policy and private policy. There are many people who feel that private property rights are fundamental to self-ownership, and that when we erode self-ownership for the sake of legislating morality, then we (all of us) pay a cost in personal sovereignty. Personally, I think it's a sticky question all ways around.

    A person may disagree with this view wholeheartedly, but to jump to the conclusion that a person is necessarily motivated by racism, I think, is unfair. It also betrays an unwillingness to consider other people's ideas, which is itself chauvinistic.

    Posted by Nathan Higgins, 05/24/2010 10:01am (5 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments