The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Rachel Maddow vs. Rand Paul: Intellectual Terrorism and ‘Civil Rights’

Posted on | May 20, 2010 | 46 Comments

Here’s the video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

David Weigel has some interesting analysis:

So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it’s irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes . . . splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses.
Now, few conservatives would go as far as Paul. In an essay just this month on the thought of William F. Buckley, Lee Edwards criticized Buckley’s belief “that the federal enforcement of integration was worse than the temporary continuation of segregation.”
“As a result of National Review’s above-the-fray philosophizing,” wrote Edwards, “and Barry Goldwater’s vote, on constitutional grounds, against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the albatross of racism was hung around the neck of American conservatism and remained there for decades and even to the present.” . . .

David’s got the complete transcript of the Maddow/Paul interview. As much respect as I have for the great conservative historian Lee Edwards, I will risk “the albatross of racism” by siding with Buckley and Goldwater and — though Edwards doesn’t mention this — Ronald Reagan.

One of the rallying points of California conservatives in the early 1960s was opposition to the Rumford Fair Housing Act, a 1963 state law that banned racial discrimination in housing. Considering this an unjust and unnecessary intrusion on property rights — an attempt to mandate how people bought and sold their homes — conservatives supported Proposition 14, to overturn the new law. Proposition 14 passed with a  2-to-1 majority, although it was subsequently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reagan opposed the Rumford law and supported Proposition 14. Given that the 1964 Civil Rights Act incorporated the same kind of housing anti-discrimination measures as the Rumford law, it is therefore not surprising that Goldwater opposed the federal law — or that Reagan was Goldwater’s strongest advocate.

Nearly a half-century after that controversy, shall we retroactively pronounce Buckley, Reagan and Goldwater “racists”? And shall we impugn Rand Paul for “above-the-fray philosophizing” in daring to defend the policy stances taken by these icons of conservatism who are, after all, not alive to defend themselves?

Well, it’s still a free country, and you are free to throw Buckley, Reagan and Goldwater under the bus along with Rand Paul. I am equally free, however, to say that in discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we must consider not only the direct effects of the law — the abolition of Jim Crow — but also its indirect effects.

Don’t conservatives believe that many problems in American society are unintended consequences of well-intentioned liberal legislation? What is the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 – heavily implicated in the mortgage crisis – except a logical extension of the Civil Rights Act’s effort to eliminate discrimination in housing?

All conservatives now recognize the harm done by the constant playing of the race card in political discourse. But we have also seen in the recent health-care debate how liberals likewise love to play the “reform” card: Support this specific law, or else you are ”anti-reform.”

This is not new, and liberals were playing the same game with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so that everyone who opposed the bill was accused of being an apologist for Jim Crow. And Rand Paul is now being excoriated for being honest enough to say that this was unfair, that whatever the benefits of abolishing Jim Crow, there were unintended consequences to the 1964 law — consequences that were to some extent foreseen by Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan – that still merit critical discussion.

Maddow’s badgering of Rand Paul amounts to an attempt to render off-limits the controversies of the past, to require that everyone endorse a progressive conception of history. As Clifton says, Paul is being forced into a Catch-22:

If Paul says he fully supports how the feds forced the private sector to end segregation he loses libertarian street cred, but by only supporting the results of the Civil Rights Act and not the actual legislation, Paul gives the left room to paint him as a racist.

What is at work here is a sort of intellectual terrorism, not just an effort to portray Rand Paul as a bigot, but to wield the accusation of racism as a weapon to intimidate anyone who dares challenge the progressive worldview.

Here is where wise men must perceive the totalitarian implications of political correctness, the Orwellian “memory hole,” the demand for conformity of thought, Trotsky airbrushed from the old Bolshevik photos. This argument is not really about racism, and it is not merely about Rand Paul or a single Republican campaign in Kentucky. Rather, it is about defending intellectual freedom from the bullies of the Left who arrogate to themselves the authority to decide what people can or cannot say in public discourse.

Conservatives must resolve to stand united against this kind of bullying treatment — to denounce it as an intellectually dishonest enterprise — or they shall eventually find that there is no remainder of the American tradition worth conserving.

“[T]ruth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786)

“Let the others turn away. . . . They fear being ridiculed by the intelligentsia and allow the abuses to continue. They fear the mob as an excuse to avoid action. These are the people who, afraid to risk their reputation for rational thought, avoid rational conclusions. They seek some middle ground where they risk nothing and others do their chores.”
– T.L. Davis, The Constitutionalist (2010)

UPDATE: One of the commenters evidently wants to get me into a fight with my friend Dan Riehl — an invitation I’m not going to accept. Dan was rightly concerned from the outset about the efforts of some conservative to use Rand Paul’s candidacy to undermine Mitch McConnell in the Senate. Point taken.

With friends on both sides of the Kentucky GOP primary, I did not take sides — thinking it best to let Kentuckians fight it out amongst themselves – and was surprised by Sarah Palin’s intervention. Having now crossed this bridge, however, conservatives must fight the fight we are in and not waste time  wishing we had met the enemy on some other field.

Dan’s I-told-you-so is valid, as is his comment that “Paul doesn’t have the good political sense to stop fighting” — or, as I would say, the sense to shift the fight onto more defensible terrain. If Paul or his supporters are “whining about principle,” to borrow Dan’s phrase, that’s not an effective political strategy.

Turn the enemy’s attack against him — rhetorical ju-jitsu. A static defense, a stubborn insistence that you are right, is not nearly so effective as the counterattack that shows your opponent is wrong.

Rachel Maddow and the Left in general are attempting to limit the scope of debate and define the terms to their own advantage, so that they get to decide who is or is not a “racist.” Americans are sick and tired of seeing accusations of racism tossed around willy-nilly like this, and if Rand Paul would confront this tactic head-on — exposing as invalid the rhetorical gamesmanship involved — he would emerge fromn the fight as a hero to many Kentucky voters, especially independents and conservative-leaning Democrats.

Rather than whining or acting defensively indignant (“How dare you call me a racist!”), focus the counterattack on the Left’s dishonest tactic of defining “racism” in a way that shuts off meaningful political debate and categorically stigmatizes conservatives.

Bookmark and Share
Category: Kentucky, MSNBC, Racism, Senate, Video

Comments

  • ConantheCimmerian
  • Joe

    Palin had to be destroyed. Rand Paul is next. Nothing personal. If you promote anything but the liberalism of the elites, you have to be put down by these self appointed arbitors of taste.

  • ConantheCimmerian
  • Joe

    Palin had to be destroyed. Rand Paul is next. Nothing personal. If you promote anything but the liberalism of the elites, you have to be put down by these self appointed arbitors of taste.

  • Count Vikula

    That’s the best post I have read today. Thanks Stacy!

  • Count Vikula

    That’s the best post I have read today. Thanks Stacy!

  • kansas

    If this is how it’s going to be, then the Democrats and MFM will stay in power. Somebody has to learn how to fight with these people.

  • kansas

    If this is how it’s going to be, then the Democrats and MFM will stay in power. Somebody has to learn how to fight with these people.

  • Thomas Rhea

    That was a pleasure to read! You are a master of words!

  • Thomas Rhea

    That was a pleasure to read! You are a master of words!

  • Joe

    Quite a few conservative pundits have noted that having the government intervene on civil rights has resulted in more problems. It is certainly a debatable point. I do not think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, but the question Rand Paul (and many others including Buckley, Reagan, etc.) have raised is whether it causes more harm than good.

    But this is not about honest debate. This is about Rachel Maddow being a dishonest crapweasel for the Democratic Party. People on the left (and a few on the right) tend to throw that racism charge out there if they disagree with you. The goal is to torpedo Rand Paul so he loses the general. An allegation of racism is hard to shake. Rand Paul’s problem is he had the termerity to be honest and he did it on Rachel Maddow’s show. Doing it with Rachel Maddow was a big mistake. At least do it on a friendly forum and then have these bastards take you out of context, then again it is unlikely Laura Ingraham or Mark Levin would have queried Rand Paul about the CRA of 1964 (without Rachel making it an issue first).

  • Joe

    Quite a few conservative pundits have noted that having the government intervene on civil rights has resulted in more problems. It is certainly a debatable point. I do not think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional, but the question Rand Paul (and many others including Buckley, Reagan, etc.) have raised is whether it causes more harm than good.

    But this is not about honest debate. This is about Rachel Maddow being a dishonest crapweasel for the Democratic Party. People on the left (and a few on the right) tend to throw that racism charge out there if they disagree with you. The goal is to torpedo Rand Paul so he loses the general. An allegation of racism is hard to shake. Rand Paul’s problem is he had the termerity to be honest and he did it on Rachel Maddow’s show. Doing it with Rachel Maddow was a big mistake. At least do it on a friendly forum and then have these bastards take you out of context, then again it is unlikely Laura Ingraham or Mark Levin would have queried Rand Paul about the CRA of 1964 (without Rachel making it an issue first).

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    This is such an excellent outing that I’m tempted to start another blog just for the pleasure of linking to it.

    That would be about as silly as conservatives failing to remember when to engage in lively internal debate, and when to set aside debate and unify against the loyal opposition.

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    This is such an excellent outing that I’m tempted to start another blog just for the pleasure of linking to it.

    That would be about as silly as conservatives failing to remember when to engage in lively internal debate, and when to set aside debate and unify against the loyal opposition.

  • Joe

    Rather than whining or acting defensively indignant (“How dare you call me a racist!”), focus the counterattack on the Left’s dishonest tactic of defining “racism” in a way that shuts off meaningful political debate and categorically stigmatizes conservatives.

    ditto.

  • Joe

    Rather than whining or acting defensively indignant (“How dare you call me a racist!”), focus the counterattack on the Left’s dishonest tactic of defining “racism” in a way that shuts off meaningful political debate and categorically stigmatizes conservatives.

    ditto.

  • http://pointofagun.blogspot.com/ Dave C

    http://www.breitbart.tv/rand-paul-says-maddow-appearance-a-mistake/

    Dr. Rand Paul on the Laura Ingraham show about last night.

  • http://pointofagun.blogspot.com/ Dave C

    http://www.breitbart.tv/rand-paul-says-maddow-appearance-a-mistake/

    Dr. Rand Paul on the Laura Ingraham show about last night.

  • Wondering Jew

    Stacy, this is one of your best-ever posts, and that is really saying something. It deserves wide readership and I hop it will get it.

  • Wondering Jew

    Stacy, this is one of your best-ever posts, and that is really saying something. It deserves wide readership and I hop it will get it.

  • http://www.thetraitorsamongus.blogspot.com Thrasymachus

    The reason liberals do this stuff is because it works, and it works well. Practically speaking most people will agree that a person who disagrees with any part of the Civil Rights Act is a racist. Why? Because this is the way liberals have framed it and liberals control the terms of the debate.

    I don’t have an answer for this, I don’t even completely understand how it works, but until conservatives figure out how to deal with this kryptonite we are going to be a day late and a dollar short every time.

  • http://www.thetraitorsamongus.blogspot.com Thrasymachus

    The reason liberals do this stuff is because it works, and it works well. Practically speaking most people will agree that a person who disagrees with any part of the Civil Rights Act is a racist. Why? Because this is the way liberals have framed it and liberals control the terms of the debate.

    I don’t have an answer for this, I don’t even completely understand how it works, but until conservatives figure out how to deal with this kryptonite we are going to be a day late and a dollar short every time.

  • Pingback: The Predictable Treatment Of Rand Paul | Liberty Pundits Blog

  • Pingback: The Rand Paul Round Robin : The Other McCain

  • Adobe Walls

    Why must conservatives humor the preposterous notion that Rachel Madcow and those like her are either qualified or empowered to determine who are or what is racism?

  • Adobe Walls

    Why must conservatives humor the preposterous notion that Rachel Madcow and those like her are either qualified or empowered to determine who are or what is racism?

  • http://www.anti-republicanculture.com Howard Towt

    You can always have Ms. Maddow take “The Quiz” to see where she stands…
    http://anti-republicanculture.com/2010/05/quiz.html

  • http://www.anti-republicanculture.com Howard Towt

    You can always have Ms. Maddow take “The Quiz” to see where she stands…
    http://anti-republicanculture.com/2010/05/quiz.html

  • James

    Adobe Wells, this is done to avoid facing truth, the same scattershot thinking that fuels mindless shouts of Pelosi! Marxist! Obammy! Socialist! Nazi! Nyah Nyah! Absent any ideas relevant to 2010, this is what is done, and it’s wearing mighty thin.

    And now they have gone too far.

    I keep asking my conservative friends the plan to woo back those they have spent decades and millions of dollars demonizing, and absolutely have to have to get elected outside the Hollar.

    Regrettably, this isn’t it. Nor is the Papers Please law of AZ.

  • James

    Adobe Wells, this is done to avoid facing truth, the same scattershot thinking that fuels mindless shouts of Pelosi! Marxist! Obammy! Socialist! Nazi! Nyah Nyah! Absent any ideas relevant to 2010, this is what is done, and it’s wearing mighty thin.

    And now they have gone too far.

    I keep asking my conservative friends the plan to woo back those they have spent decades and millions of dollars demonizing, and absolutely have to have to get elected outside the Hollar.

    Regrettably, this isn’t it. Nor is the Papers Please law of AZ.

  • Coin Hunter

    Hate to sound like a parrot here, but that was one of the best articles I’ve read in a long, long time.

  • Coin Hunter

    Hate to sound like a parrot here, but that was one of the best articles I’ve read in a long, long time.

  • Bo

    “Turn the enemy’s attack against him — rhetorical ju-jitsu. A static defense, a stubborn insistence that you are right, is not nearly so effective as the counterattack that shows your opponent is wrong.”

    Exactly!

  • Bo

    “Turn the enemy’s attack against him — rhetorical ju-jitsu. A static defense, a stubborn insistence that you are right, is not nearly so effective as the counterattack that shows your opponent is wrong.”

    Exactly!

  • Adobe Walls

    @ James
    What?!!

  • Adobe Walls

    @ James
    What?!!

  • timb

    You sided with the de facto racist side? Wha????? Que surprise

  • timb

    You sided with the de facto racist side? Wha????? Que surprise

  • alwaysfiredup

    Wow. Really good writing. I actually had to double-check the byline. Cheers, Stacy.

  • alwaysfiredup

    Wow. Really good writing. I actually had to double-check the byline. Cheers, Stacy.

  • easyliving1

    WFB: Well, let me agree with you at least insofar as you suggest that it is a heavy moral obligation on white employers to go out of their way to make opportunities for Negroes. I believe that that obligation is moral in nature, but also voluntary in nature. As you know, there are an awful lot of people tooling around, some of them in your own organizations, who are arguing in effect for a situation in which you go and get the personnel roster of a business and say, Well now, let me see, there are ten percent Negroes in this particular firm; under the circumstances we find you are, eo ipso, guilty of segregation. And the involvement of the entire givernment mechanism here is something that means a great deal to me. I hope it means something to you.

    ….

    WFB: I’m asking, What should be the recourse?

    James Farmer: All right. We say that he must take affirmative action to integrate the work force. And there must, therefore, be meaningful representation of the discriminated-agains minorities in his workforce.

    WFB: So you do want to use the mechanism of the state to enforce integration.

    Farmer: I’m not an anarchist. I believe it is the duty of the state to guarantee the rights of its citizens.

    WFB: Now you’re trying to steal a base. This has nothing to do with anarchy, because there hasn’t been any anarchy in this country during the preceding one hundred and eighty years. These are, after all, revolutionary proposals, according to some people’s lights–the idea that the government has a right to step in and inform a business how many Negroes and how many whites it has to hire.

    On The Firing Line Page 317

  • easyliving1

    WFB: Well, let me agree with you at least insofar as you suggest that it is a heavy moral obligation on white employers to go out of their way to make opportunities for Negroes. I believe that that obligation is moral in nature, but also voluntary in nature. As you know, there are an awful lot of people tooling around, some of them in your own organizations, who are arguing in effect for a situation in which you go and get the personnel roster of a business and say, Well now, let me see, there are ten percent Negroes in this particular firm; under the circumstances we find you are, eo ipso, guilty of segregation. And the involvement of the entire givernment mechanism here is something that means a great deal to me. I hope it means something to you.

    ….

    WFB: I’m asking, What should be the recourse?

    James Farmer: All right. We say that he must take affirmative action to integrate the work force. And there must, therefore, be meaningful representation of the discriminated-agains minorities in his workforce.

    WFB: So you do want to use the mechanism of the state to enforce integration.

    Farmer: I’m not an anarchist. I believe it is the duty of the state to guarantee the rights of its citizens.

    WFB: Now you’re trying to steal a base. This has nothing to do with anarchy, because there hasn’t been any anarchy in this country during the preceding one hundred and eighty years. These are, after all, revolutionary proposals, according to some people’s lights–the idea that the government has a right to step in and inform a business how many Negroes and how many whites it has to hire.

    On The Firing Line Page 317

  • Pingback: The problem is not Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and the tea parties « Cubachi

  • Pingback: The REAL story in Rachel Maddow vs. Rand Paul over the 1964 Civil Rights Act is that SHE does not have equality and the Left doesn't care — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian

  • Pingback: Here’s This Wild Idea To ImproveUpon YouCut : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: A Proud Defense of Rand Paul | RedState

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE