Saturday, May 22, 2010

Rand Paul and the self perceived intellectual superiority of libertarianism

I have a lot of Libertarian beliefs I subscribe to many of the tenants
of Libertarianism. It's Libertarians and their insufferable smugness
that I have a problem with.

While their political ideology is polar opposite, much like Liberals
the Libertarians have a certain unshakable belief in their own
intellectual superiority

Rand Paul is the most recent example of this smugness. Let me begin by saying I don't for a moment believe Rand Paul is a racist or harbors any racist ideas or tendencies. I don't think MSNBC commentator Rachael Maddow who interviewed Paul the other night thinks he is a racist either. However Paul couldn't have painted himself as more of a backwards jackass than he did the other night in an MSNBC interview when Paul suggested Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act violated the rights of private business owners to descriminate on the basis of race.

As a philosophical exercise Paul's questioning the 1964 Civil Rights
Act Title II impact on the right of free association is compelling.
Paul, however, is not arguing with friends in a smoke filled coffee
house, he is in a political campaign for nthe US senate seat in Kentucky and living in a nation where racism and it's effects are very real. Paul is also living in an imperfect world where we can't make perfect laws that completely respect philosophical absolutes like freedom.

Presumably someone as intelligent as Paul who
had the temerity to assume he needed to educate the rest of us on
freedom and the constitutionality of title II. would be able to
recognise that a post primary election victory TV interview was
neither the time nor the appropriate venue to for said philosophical
discussion.

Perhaps it's just my cynicism but I saw the MSNBC interview as a setup
and of no political benefit and I was amazed Paul fell for this
obvious ruse. The fact that someone who is as intelligent as Rand assumes he
is,couldn't see this and couldn't extract himself from this obvious
pitfall is amazing.

Paul has stated repeatedly that He supports the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
Is not interested in any way changing or repealing title II so why
does he allow himself to be drawn into a philosophical debate on
something he doesn't seek to change?

This was such an easy subject to defuse and give the media nowhere to
go yet Paul chose to argue a philosophical absolute that in the real
world he could in no way possibly win.

Here's a sample statement Paul could have made and put an end to the
controversy.

"While philosophically I am troubled by the government intrusion into
the civil right of free association caused by Title II of the civil
rights act, I also recognise that while title II is an imperfect
solution it is the best possible solution and the minimal incursion
into civil rights is outweighed by the the effort to De-institutionalize
racism."

This is a television interview and in such Once you start arguing about the minute details it becomes a defensive battle and there is no way to win a defensive battle. The only way to win is to not allow the other party to draw you into a debate of details.

The questions I am left with are, How can losing a debate possibly help Paul's campaign for a Kentucky senate seat? To answer my own question, It can't. How can arguing the soundness of a law you have no interest in changing possibly help your goal of becoming the senator from Kentucky? Again to answer my own question, It cant.

I'm a college dropout and I can see this, Rand Paul
is an eye Doctor why can't he see that? I think it comes back to the self
perceived intellectual superiority of Libertarianism. In essence it's
the concept of the holy man on a mountain top. It is much easier to be
pure in the abstract than in the real world. Rand Paul demonstrates Libertarians have been on the the mountain top too long.

What ultimately really bothers me about the other days events is not
Rand Paul's stupid behavior but the fact that he doesn't see how this
behavior reflects poorly on his supporters. On the night of his win
Paul stood before the cameras and said;
"I have a message, a message from the tea party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words: We've come to take our government back."

As a self proclaimed spokesman for the movement Paul has a duty to not
sully the reputation of the members of that movement. This is a
movement that has been painted as racist by the MSM since it's
inception. Paul does these people no favors by getting into a debate
about Title II infringing on the rights of business owners to racially
discriminate .