Racism

Lefty Defense, Righty Attack of Rand Paul

|

Caught red-backgrounded

Once again, from Robert Scheer:

What is so great about our bloated federal government that when a libertarian threatens to become a senator, otherwise rational and mostly liberal pundits start frothing at the mouth? What Rand Paul thinks about the Civil Rights Act, passed 46 years ago, hardly seems the most pressing issue of social justice before us. It's a done deal that he clearly accepts.

Yet Paul's questioning the wisdom of a banking bailout that rewards those who shamelessly exploited the poor and vulnerable, many of them racial minorities, is right on target. So too questioning the enormous cost of wars that as he dared point out are conducted in violation of our Constitution and that, I would add, though he doesn't, prevent us from adequately funding needed social programs.

Meanwhile, Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid uses the Transitive Property of Media Appearances to saddle Paul with friends he doesn't even know he has:

How do you plead, Rand Paul???

[Judge Andrew] Napolitano recently joined John Stossel, another libertarian host on the Fox Business Network (FBN), to bemoan the federal prosecution of a pornographer by the name of John Stagliano. Napolitano defended Stagliano, who produces "kinky" and "fetish" material, and said it was wrong for the Supreme Court to outlaw obscenity. Stossel agreed, saying on his blog it was "obscene" to prosecute him. […]

Interestingly, it turns out that Stagliano is "a hard-core libertarian" and a donor to the Reason Foundation, which publishes Reason magazine. This libertarian magazine did its own interview with Stagliano before FBN picked up the story.

Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine would later comment that Stagliano and Napolitano are both "great friends of Reason."

If Rand Paul has any hope of winning in conservative Kentucky, he will have to cut his ties to his libertarian "friends" of that nature.

Reason on Rand Paul and civil rights here. One banal point perhaps worth mentioning: While many continue to contend that Paul's views on the public accommodation clause in the Civil Rights Act proves that all libertarians are hopeless poo-poo heads, many actual libertarians disagree with Paul's take (without necessarily thinking him a poo-poo head). A preliminary list would include Richard Epstein, Randy Barnett, Julian Sanchez, Brink Lindsey, and David Bernstein, plus plenty of others on Planet Reason (including me, FWIW).

Never forget!

I have no idea what a poll of self-described libertarians on Title II would turn up, but it would certainly be more contested than the presidential vote in the District of Columbia, in part because for most people under 40, the Civil Rights Act just hasn't been much of a pressing political issue. Libertarians disagree (and vehemently so) on all sorts of issues, from immigration to abortion to foreign policy to fractional banking, which anyone who has observed a Libertarian Party convention or toggled back and forth between Reason.com and LewRockwell.com or read the comments string on any Web piece critical of Ron Paul can tell you. Reason staffers disagree pretty sharply with one another on all sorts of things, and not just the cut of Nick Gillespie's jacket. I suspect that if libertarians were as monolithic and ideologically rigid as their critics this week have contended, we actually wouldn't be having this conversation, because there wouldn't be enough of the blue-faced sonsabitches to topple an establishment Republican candidate in Kentucky, let alone animate (at least in some part) a national political backlash against big government.

As long as we are out of money, and the economy does not remotely resemble the ponies promised by this administration [PDF], and the two major political parties keep slathering themselves in spending, the desire to limit government after a decade-long bender in the land of Thomas Jefferson will grow, not shrink. Even if libertarianish politicians occasionally get caught red-handed disagreeing with a provision of a 46-year-old law that they say they would have voted for.

NEXT: Stimulus Boosters, Listen Up: The CBO's Estimates Don't Tell You Whether Or Not the Stimulus Is Working

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am liking Matt Welch more over the past year. This is a nice article….Randy Barnett on the other hand is a dicklord who probably gave money to Greyson. I understand why many libertarians mayt have questions/worries about Rand…but none of them justify supporting a dick like Greyson or ANY of the establishment republicans.

    1. It seems “dicklord” is the term of the week. Where did this one come from?

      1. 12 year old

  2. “Reason staffers disagree pretty sharply with one another on all sorts of things, and not just the cut of Nick Gillespie’s jacket.”

    Thanks for bringing this up again Matt, now we are going to be arguing this all day.

    1. The jacket is clearly the litmus test of libertarianism.

      1. I don’t know why they don’t sell replicas at the reason online store.

      2. Well, yes. But is it the jacket by itself or Gillespie wearing the jacket that gives it its libertarian powers?

        1. You make a false distinction between Nick and The Jacket. They have become one.

          1. More importantly, has anyone ever noticed that Nick and (my compatriot) Jemaine have never appeared in the same room at the same time?

            Judge for yourselves.

          2. I revealed the truth to the world earlier this year:

            Some years ago, Nick Gillespie, a product of thousands of years of Bene Gesserit breeding, took the skin of the sandcow as his own, transforming him into the God Editor of Reason. “The Jacket” merely refers to the leathery skin that-is-not-his-own.

            1. Nick Gillespie is the God Editor & Pro Libertate is his prophet(PBUH).

              1. No. I am the Reason al Gaib.

              2. I am suddenly pondering the possible connection between the acronym PBUH and the phrase the “grand poobah”.

                1. I wonder if he jerks off to reading all this BS.

    2. Off-topic, but something Ive been wondering:

      Are you a follower of Banjo the Clown, God of Puppetry?

      1. Realized if that was the case your name would be “Banjo kicks ass”, not the plural.

        1. No, I just love banjos. I have been learning to play for a couple years now. The first time I posted a comment I needed to think of a name and quick. For some odd reason that is the only thing I could think of, and I just stuck with it.

          1. Been playing 5-string banjo for nearly forty years so I have always liked your handle.

            1. I play 5-string clawhammer. I find it amazing that no matter how much I learn, I still barely scratch the surface. They are such incredible instruments.

      2. He’s nice enough but have you heard about the life stream?

      3. He’s nice enough but have you heard about the life stream?

      4. All Hail The Mighty Banjo!

        Love that strip. Hope he finishes before he dies.

  3. Once again,

    not a defense.

    But keep trying. It’s cute!

    And you’re incidentally making a solid case for the same-mindedness (if a -mindedness it be) of all professional pundits.

  4. A black dude operates a hot dog cart. A Nazi nithing walks by, sees who is behind the hot dog cart, and says, “I don’t buy hot dogs from niggers.” He then walks his merry way.

    No law prohibits that.

    And yet, if it was the Nazi nithing behind the hot dog cart and the black dude is walking by, it would be illegal under Title II of the CRA for the nithing to say, “I don’t sell hot dogs to niggers.”

    Why is the latter illegal but the former is not?

    1. It wouldn’t be illegal for him to say that, it would be illegal to say that in reply to an offer to buy the hot dog, and I think therein may be a difference.

      1. 1. Quantify this “difference”

        2. You have completely avoided the issue clearly laid out.

        1. Why must I quantify the difference? You don’t believe there can be non-quantified differences?

          1. OK then – qualify the difference.

    2. WTYF is nithing?

      1. Less than simthing.

      2. It’s the archaic form of “niding.”

        Ni?ding (n??d?ng)
        n. 1. A coward; a dastard; – a term of utmost opprobrium.

    3. Isn’t that a hate crime?

    4. Looks like you find another thing they can regulate with the broad powers of the steriod-infused misinterpreted commerce clause, Mike! Goddamnit, quit giving them ideas.

      I can see the Supreme Court ruling now:

      “White people who do not buy food products from minority street vendors on sight are impeding interstate commerce…somehow. What, this bullshit worked for paying off big pharm.. (Judge looks around like she accidentally gave up some secret)…I mean …securing…affordable (suppressed giggle) health (suppressed laughter) care (light smile crosses face) for all (hearty laugh escapes chest) Americans (maniacal super-villain laughter envelopes the judges). Besides, all white people are racist anyway and deserve to be punished financially for it. What? Yes, I’m white. But I’m a supreme court judge, so I am exempt from this sort of thing. Remember last year when I was tried for killing that Chippendale’s dancer in a fit of PCB-fueled sexual rage? What, I wasn’t tried? That’s right. I wasn’t . Suck it bitches and pay the state. Without us, you’d be happier or something. We can’t have that. It’s unfair.”

      1. PCB = PCP

        Dyslexia wins again.

    5. The real distinction will come if the hot dog vendor is incorporated or not.

      If he is incorporated, he’s screwed if he says something like that.

    6. I can’t really answer your question, but the nithing may want to be careful about making any proclamations regarding the purchase of health care.

  5. What is so great about our bloated federal government that when a libertarian threatens to become a senator, otherwise rational and mostly liberal pundits start frothing at the mouth?

    “It may be bloated and inefficient, but by golly it’s ours. And no Looney McGooney libertarian is gonna steal it from us!”

    I had Meet the Press on in the background Sunday; I wasn’t paying much attention, but didn’t Missus Greenspan say something along the lines of, “Why is this guy running for the Senate, anyway? A Senator’s job is to pass laws, not repeal them.”?

    1. Yes she did. The idea that someone could run for office for the purpose of reducing government went right over her head.

      And is it just me, but doesn’t she look like Greenspan? She didn’t used to be that bad looking. But after she married that old goat, she started to look more and more like him.

      1. I guess we have to wait for the Revolution to reduce government? Wonder how she and her clique would survive that?

    2. I guess she never heard of Barry Goldwater.

    3. As if we needed any more evidence that Greenspan is a complete turncoat against Rand and limited gov’t.

  6. otherwise rational and mostly liberal pundits

    I think you’re gonna have to pick one or the other. Contemporary liberalism is driven by emotion, not (ahem) reason.

    1. It’s the Enlightenment vs. Romanticism. Reason vs. emotion. Reality vs. illusion.

      And we’re still losing.

      1. adulthood vs. libertarianism

  7. A preliminary list would include Richard Epstein, Randy Barnett, Julian Sanchez, Brink Lindsey, and David Bernstein, plus plenty of others on Planet Reason (including me, FWIW).

    Thanks for the handy reference. I can now add it to this list of self-described libertarians who don’t deserve the presumption of speaking for actual libertarians:

    Peter Bagge – Obama
    Ronald Bailey – Obama
    Bruce Bartlett – Obama
    Tim Cavanaugh – Obama
    Steve Chapman – Obama
    Steven Pinker – Obama
    Bob Poole – McCain
    Ryan Sager – Obama
    Julian Sanchez – Obama
    David Weigel – Obama

    1. It’s easy to forget how well Obama had persuaded people that he wasn’t an activist government leftist. I don’t think the people listed are closet liberals, but they believed Obama when he spoke of the net budget cuts, the drawdown of foreign wars, and the expansion of civil liberties.

      1. Oh, so they were just gullible?

      2. We all succumbed to white liberal guilt.

      3. He never persuaded anyone of that. They persuaded themselves.

  8. Strange, I’ve never noticed much aruging on the reason forums. Everyone usually seems to be in agreement !

  9. This seems an appropriate time to quote robc’s two rules of libertarians again:

    1. Everyone agrees with libertarians about something.

    2. No two libertarians agree about anything.

    1. Shouldn’t 2. be “No two libertarians agree about everything“?
      I’m pretty sure I agree with you about a number of things.

      1. I think we have this same discussion everytime it’s brought up.

        1. I disagree.

          1. That’s because you’re not a true libertarian.

            1. No; it’s because I am. See, I’m disagreeing with you again about why I disagree and what it means.

      2. No it shouldnt.

        What, are you humor impaired?

    2. “There are slightly more versions of libertarianism than there are libertarians.” I forget who said that, and I’m too lazy to check today since I’m on vacation.

  10. There are three separate issues here that are bound fairly tightly. One is what is the principled stance on private business and “public accommodation,” another is whether to not the facts on the ground in 1964 were best remedied by the CRA (or made it inevitable), and whether or not answering a question (legitimate or not) honestly knowing that the answer could be twisted in to something it’s not by partisans who don’t know or even attempt to understand the principles behind the answer was a good idea.

    I think it will just be another day of talking past each other if they are not untangled.

    1. Untangling:

      1. There is no such thing as public accommodation.

      2. I think the facts on the ground made title 2&7 inevitable, although I disgree about them being a remedy. The rest of the CRA was a good enough remedy. I think 2&7 made things slightly worse, not better. Obviously some disagree. Either way, I dont think those two titles are still necessary.

      3. Answering the question at all was pretty stupid.

    2. Pretty much. It is all intellectual masturbation. It is not like Rand is running for king. Even if he was some kind of George Wallace segregationist, it is not like he would ever have the chance to vote for such measures let alone see them enacted.

      Basically this whole thing occurred because he gave an honest answer to a stupid question that was asked because Randy Maddow would rather play with her dick than ask an intelligent and relevant question.

  11. Cue “no true Scotsman” bullshit in 3, 2, …

  12. Well, that explains it. Libertarians are just too all over the map to be held responsible fo any one position. Never having actually governed shit and having no propsect of ever doing so, libertarians can just babble on. Consequenses are for suckers. Matt Welch really does think his readers are morons. Donate now!

    1. Sociopath out the butt much?

    2. Well, that explains it. Libertarians are just too all over the map to be held responsible fo any one position. Never having actually governed shit and having no propsect of ever doing so, libertarians can just babble on. Consequenses are for suckers. Matt Welch really does think his readers are morons. Donate now!

      Libertarians support freedom.

  13. Rand Paul is a fiscal free market conservative. He is no more a libertarian than Wayne Allen Root.

    1. Which is still a hell of a lot more libertarian than any other Senator.

      1. Sometimes you have to grade on a curve.

        1. Agreed. It is a continuum. This Manichean crap is just stupid.

    2. Root is far more libertarian than Rand Paul…and arguable Ron Paul. Just cause his strategy is to appeal to the right does not make him a non-libertarian. He thinks (and I do disagree) that libertarians have little to no chance of convincing lefties so he focuses right. But his positions are 100, 100 on the Nolan Chart.

      Ohh give me a home, where the crying statues of liberty roam…

    3. Rand is an order of magnitude better than Root. Maybe no more libertarian, but I’d rather hear him discuss issues than Root.

  14. Consequenses are for suckers.

    OMFG!

    That’s it! That’s exactly what libertarians believe.

  15. Sometimes you have to grade on a curve.

    Heretic!

    1. 2. No two libertarians agree about anything.

      1. I’m not so sure I agree with that.

        1. Damn straight.

          Also, you are wrong.

      2. Max-Troll is encouraged to fuck himself sideways with a lit Molotov cocktail in the front lobby of the SEIU national headquarters, at his earliest convenience.

  16. Yum. That tastes good in my belly. More. MORE!

    1. Nah Max, next load is going on your bitch tits.

  17. I keep looking at the picture and wondering, was Rand Paul the lead singer for the B 52s before he got into politics?

    1. I immediately thought he looked like Chekov in the last Star Trek.

      1. “nooclee-are wessels”

        1. I was thinking more of Charlie X.

          1. That too. But then you really are slipping more toward Opie, which I don’t think Rand resembles. Head shape is all wrong for that.

      2. http://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-…..ider-1.jpg

        Has anyone ever seen Paul and Fred Schneider in the same room at the same time?

        1. Maybe he got through college fronting a B-52s cover band. Love Shack, indeed.

  18. I hope to god Steve Smith doesn’t see that Buttman comicb book cover. I shudder to think what it could trigger.

    1. We need kleenex. ALL THE KLEENEX. STAT!

  19. I think it’s hee-larious how absolutely terrified the left is of Rand Paul.

    1. And the right. Or insider GOPers anyway.

    2. Because in their hearts they know he’s right.

    3. Just now they are coming to recognize the VAST LIBERTARIAN CONSPIRACY. We lulled them into a false sense of security by letting the hemp industries guys have a big booth at our conventions.

      But now, as their corporatist-regulatory-fiat financed state comes crashing down – NOW we strike my fellow Libertarian Lizards! THE DAY IS OURS!

  20. Libertarians may not be monolithic, but I think one of the things Matt’s missing here is that if you disagree with me on any given issue, then you’re not a real libertarian.

    And isn’t that true for all of us? …except for me, of course, since I’m above it all.

  21. Pthhht, Mr Welch had nice things to say about socialized medicine. Can such a Francophile even dare speak about libertarianism?

    j/k
    As stated in the previous article’s thread … dunno why Reason isn’t smearing the junior Paul, but i’ll take it.

  22. Yeah Yeah. Lefties are quick to praise Libertarians when they aren’t running against them and the Libertarians are criticizing Republicans. But a Lefty will ALWAYS attack when their guy competing with one.

  23. Speaking of LP Conventions Matt, is Reason sending anyone to St. Louis this weekend?

    Just askin

  24. Had a debate about this with Joe Cox on The Inductive this week:

    http://www.theinductive.com/bl…..anism.html

    and

    http://www.theinductive.com/bl…..exist.html

  25. An iron law of libertarian politics should be “DO NOT BE PHOTOGRAPHED WEARING TURTLENECKS”. Any such photos will be cropped to make the candidate look like Marshall Applewhite.

    1. How about we all just agree turtlenecks are incompatible with libertarian principles? Then we know anybody wearing one isn’t in the club.

      Plus, you look considerably less like you have a foreskin around your neck if you don’t wear them.

      1. I am pro-turtleneck, as long as they are horizonatally striped.

      2. Umm,

        nvrmnd…..

  26. Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid:

    If Rand Paul has any hope of winning in conservative Kentucky, he will have to cut his ties to his libertarian “friends” of that nature.

    Cliff can also play the Seven Degree of Separation Game very well . . . maybe a little too well.

    1. Cliff took time out of his busy day surfing Rentboy.com to criticize libertarians? How special.

  27. What I find most irritating is the whole “LOLZ liberty is so passe, look at those losers who think freedom is good, aren’t they stupid?!” attitude in the liberal media.

    Their craven bootlicking of the state is just fucking abhorrent on mutiple levels. They’re like lying on the floor schreeching for chains to be placed upon them. “Please government! Control us more! Oh holy Master!”

    I can’t understand how these people don’t stop and listen to themselves and hear what a bunch of total fascists they sound like. Yes, I said fascist, as a contempt for liberty and it’s advocates is a necessary condition for fascism.

    1. What I find most irritating is the whole “LOLZ liberty is so passe, look at those losers who think freedom is good, aren’t they stupid?!” attitude in the liberal media.

      Their craven bootlicking of the state is just fucking abhorrent on mutiple levels. They’re like lying on the floor schreeching for chains to be placed upon them. “Please government! Control us more! Oh holy Master!”

      I can’t understand how these people don’t stop and listen to themselves and hear what a bunch of total fascists they sound like. Yes, I said fascist, as a contempt for liberty and it’s advocates is a necessary condition for fascism.

      One of the most egregious arguments was made by John.

      To argue that we should not have acted is to say that the Constitution is more important than people. And as much as I like the constitution, it is not. People are more important.

      It is one thing to argue that the Constitution does not forbid the government from banning racial discrimination by private businesses. (In fact, before 1868 states reserved the power to require private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race.)

      It is a totally different thing altogether to argue that elected and appointed officials should violate the Constitution that they swore to uphold because people are more important. In fact, that is what “justified” Jim Crow laws- it was more “important” for white people to be free from black people than it was to uphold the Constitution.

  28. I’m not exactly sure whose votes anyone thinks Rand Paul has “lost.” Black voters? They wouldn’t vote for him because he has an “R” behind his name. Limousine liberals? Not a big part of the Kentucky electorate, AFAIK.

    Apart from the black vote, Democrats get elected in Kentucky because of the union vote, and I doubt that Rand’s comments will have any effect there.

    To me, the bigger issue is why Rand made the mistake of going on Rachel Maddow’s show in the first place. He had nothing to gain by doing so. I’d like to think he’s picking better advisers than that.

    1. …why Rand made the mistake of going on Rachel Maddow’s show in the first place.

      Some guys want to have sex with dykes even though they will never have a true shot. I guess Rand thought it might get him in the door (pun intended).

      1. Batting practice. Lots of noise and fury, with almost no real consequences, no matter what he says. Plus, he also got to wipe his ball sack all over the sofa in her Green Room. Have you?

    2. He just dumped his campaign manager and replaced it with Ron Paul’s.

      I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not. I guess Ron Paul wins his general elections handily. But Rand Paul just ran a heck of a primary. Kinda weird to win a campaign by 25 points and then get fired.

  29. To me, the bigger issue is why Rand made the mistake of going on Rachel Maddow’s show in the first place. He had nothing to gain by doing so. I’d like to think he’s picking better advisers than that.

    That was my first question.

    Actually, Weigel (I know- *makes sign of cross, spits*) made the point that apparently both Pauls have been reasonably well-received by Maddow and her ilk, as long as they were badmouthing evil Republican stuff like the wars and bailouts for Wall Street.

    As soon as he won the primary, she set the trap and lured him in.

  30. Matt you disagree with Paul’s take on the CRA. Care you explain this? I’m curious how you reconcile it.

    In other news the KLP is considering putting a libertarian candidate on the ballot to run against Paul. The purity morons continue to do whatever it takes to destroy any gains in the movement. God forbid we have someone who is 80% libertarian in the Senate.

  31. Loved the article, but nobody disagrees on Nick’s jacket, nobody.

  32. OMG Those guys slightly disagree with libertarian dogma. THEY AREN’T LIBERTARIANS!!!11!!!

    HOw can anyone NOT follow our rigid ideology EXACTLY!?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.