Race and Rand Paul

Because race remains such a sensitive issue in America, news media need to be especially careful, cautious and precise in reporting what a politician says about it and in putting his remarks in context. Shortly after Rand Paul won the Kentucky GOP senatorial primary, he indicated on MSNBC that he had concerns about some parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was referring to the provisions against discrimination by private companies. Among other things, he said this:

“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?. . . “

Did that make him a racist, as some commentators said? Or did that make him a libertarian, like his father, opposed to what they see as too much government interference? Or was he simply naive to think that it is politically acceptable to criticize part of the historic legislation that has given hope for millions of Americans that the Federal government can step in to forbid discrimination and try to help alleviate the worst effects of racism? Whatever it says about him, Paul touched off a torrent of negative reactions. He had to cancel a scheduled appearance on Meet the Press, his campaign went into overdrive trying to explain his words, and Paul later said on CNN that he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act. In this kind of inflamed environment, journalists can help by staying focused on just the facts and the proper context, quoting word for word what he actually said, explaining exactly what is in the Civil Rights Act, noting his past comments on it, and avoiding jumping to conclusions. Of course, it might be easier and simpler for journalists to summarize what he said and get quickly to the negative reactions, but that would run the risk that some readers would think he said something other than what he actually said. In fairness to him, and in the interests of fostering a calm, reasonable debate, journalists should do their job and give us all the facts, at the proper length, so that we can decide for ourselves what we think about Rand Paul.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Race and Rand Paul

  1. Zach Sturley

    Paul’s application of libertarian theory to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was perhaps the most inflammatory, misguided political strategy possible. Indeed, the unavoidable discussion about Tea Party conservatism and its ties to racism have prompted a national dialogue about the contemporary status of race relations in the United States. Foregrounding this conversation—in political arenas, at least—is the still-poignant relationship between Southern, conservative politicians and racism.

    Regardless of his actual intentions, Paul’s strict adherence to libertarianism in such a sensitive pocket of recent American history has, as is expected, created a firestorm. Dealing with questions of race has historically been a nuanced and complicated process, yet in situations where the lines of battle, as it were, are so clearly defined, how can news organizations offer a fair, objective presentation of information?

    In my opinion, discussions of Rand Paul’s argument need to be qualified with context. News organizations should offer a brief explanation of what libertarianism and libertarian philosophy is. Although historically conservative governmental policies have been leveraged to preserve a racist status quo, that does not mean the two—racism and conservatism—are inherently linked. Effecting this strategy does, however, put news organizations in somewhat of a bind. There is a certain amount of mental gymnastics that are required for such logic. Nevertheless, in fairness to Paul and the Tea Party movement in general, the theoretical underpinnings of the movement should receive some attention. It is far too simple to characterize Tea Partiers as the latest iteration of former, more explicitly racist, nativist American political groups.

    That said, Paul himself has invited much of the controversy through his focus. The libertarian movement—of which Paul is perhaps now the most visible spokesman—could discuss a variety of relevant issues that do not rely on the old ideological boundaries defined by race. For example, the Patriot Act, immigration reform in Arizona, and so forth, all allow for a less emotionally charged and more germane discussion—with respect to contemporary libertarianism. In this way, questioning Rand Paul’s motivations for such a clearly objectionable strategy could allow for a investigation into the disconnect between theory and praxis within the Tea Party movement itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s