Rand Paul, the GOP’s new Senate candidate for Kentucky and teabagger favourite, has run into some controversy over his somewhat, um, atavistic views with regard to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When Rachel Maddow tried to pin him down about his views on the CRA on Wednesday night, things went a little sideways:
Watch how he studiously avoids the question, to the point where he even ignores Maddow’s frustrated request for a “Yes or No” answer:
Paul appears to be an extremely doctrinaire libertarian: government doesn’t get to fuck with private business, dead stop. If a restaurant owner wants to pull a Lester Maddox on one of his would-be customers,
I tend to think most libertarianism is somewhat more nuanced than Paul’s absolutist version. I have a distinct libertarian streak myself, but there’s no way I could ever convince myself that a minority person being driven out of a restaurant at the end of a gun and an axehandle, or even just being refused service, is a scene that has anything to do with what I’d call “liberty”… it looks more like authoritarianism to me. Tyranny of the majority.
But Rand Paul entertains no such nuances, and his candidacy is turning into a shitstorm of massive magnitude for the GOP. The Dems must be celebrating… I give it until July before he resigns.
Or maybe not, and won’t that be interesting.
UPDATE: The Invisible Hand can fix a lot of things, but it can’t fix Stupid. See?
This is why the part of the CRA that addresses private businesses is necessary. Bigotry isn’t a commodity that waxes and wanes according to supply and demand — the supply creates its own demand, because there is no shortage of Teh Stoopid out there.