click to enlarge

"Last night I saw Lester Maddox on a TV show

-- Randy Newman, "Rednecks"

Last week, fresh from winning the GOP nomination for Sen. Jim

Bunning's old seat, tea party favorite Rand Paul told a couple of interviewers that he had a problem with the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 -- that is, it uses the force of law to make

businesses admit black people ("Does the owner of the restaurant own his

restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?"), rather than

using the power of the Free Market and libertarian

magic dust.

When it was pointed out to Paul that,

without government intervention, certain (let us say) historically

Negro-averse parts of the country could not otherwise have been

desegregated expeditiously, Paul accused his interlocutors of playing

"gotcha" politics with his very principled stand -- which he abandoned shortly thereafter, declaring that he

certainly would not try and repeal the Act, despite its interference

with free enterprise.

Some mainstream conservatives, like George Will, shook their heads at Rand: "...in

1964, we, as a nation, repealed one widely-exercised right -- the right

of private property owners to serve on public accommodations whom they

want -- and replaced it with another right, that is the right of the

entire American public to use public accommodations," Will said. "We

were correct to do so..."

But rightbloggers aren't inclined toward such an MOR approach.

That's

for squares! Their consensus was that Paul was heroic to denounce the

Civil Rights Act, though some felt he should have kept his mouth shut

about it until he was elected.

As for the Act, they were divided on whether there was anything

good

about it, but there was one thing about it they all agreed was bad:

Liberals like it.

Those in the don't-ask-don't-tell camp at least showed some

awareness

that normal people might not share Rand's feelings about the Civil

Rights Act.

While lauding the way Paul was "trying to bring serious

constitutionalism back into the mainstream," the American Spectator said his comments "were

an example of what not to do." Granted, they said, there was "room for a

discussion" about "whether Jim Crow could have been dismantled with a

less aggressive federal approach," but "these discussions are probably

best had outside the heat of a political campaign." After the campaign,

one imagines, we can revisit the CRA to our hearts' content.

"When you're running for office and someone asks you if you

support the

Civil Rights Act you say 'yes,'" advised DrewM of Ace of

Spades. "Why? Because answering anything else paints you as a crank

who doesn't need to be taken seriously on anything else." As for

himself, DrewM sighed, "Personally, I would love to see some adjustments

made to the way we deal with civil rights litigation and regulation in

this country ... it's an almost impossible task in Congress (maybe the

courts someday)." Keep hope alive!

(Later DrewM professed grudging approval of the Civil Rights

Act, though

he suggested that America might have experienced "gains in race

relations" without it. No crank he -- at least when he's cornered.)

At National Review Daniel Foster said the controversy was

irrelevant

because "the whole exercise is an abstraction, and one that

doesn't map neatly to current policy debates. In other words, my opinion

that the Three-Fifths Compromise and the 1808 stuff in the Constitution

were probably justified, because forging a union was worth a temporary

compromise on slavery, does not mean that I'd rather there have been

slavery." We'd love to hear Foster explain his views on the Three-Fifths

Compromise to his black friends, assuming he has any.

Street Journal's James Taranto said he supported the Civil

Rights

Act -- but nonetheless admired Paul for standing up for his "morally

dubious" beliefs, by which Paul "has shown himself to be both candid and

principled to a fault." It's not what you believe, apparently,

but whether you believe it strongly enough to make a fool of yourself on

national TV over it (assuming it's not some liberal nonsense, of

course).

Besides, added Taranto, when Paul wins the election he will

"merely" be

"one vote of 100 in the Senate," most of which will be in favor of the

Civil Rights Act, unless the Republicans achieve a majority.

Taranto also fretted that "Paul's eccentric views on civil rights will

harm the Republican Party by feeding the left's claims that America is a

racist country and the GOP is a racist party." One is tempted to ask:

Now where would they get that idea?

Many rightbloggers blamed the press for the real crime

here --

that is, reporting what Paul said, rather than some other less

offensive thing.

"Libertarians sometimes in their robust self-appreciation of

politics

tend to say things that get them in trouble in this hyper-political

atmosphere," explained Torrey Spears. "And it appears that Paul got

caught

in the trap of Liberal Speak without a clear exit strategy..."

Spears is one of Paul's black defenders. The other is Another Black Conservative, who gave Paul credit

for "supporting the results of the Civil Rights Act and not the actual

legislation," which was very generous of him -- sort of an "it's the

thought that counts" approach. He, too, expressed concern that Paul's

talking "gives the left room to paint him as a racist."

Liberty Pundits was even more focused on the damn

media. "It took one whole day for the left to go after Rand Paul," they

explained. "They see [his poll] numbers and they want to Terminate Him

(politically of course)." Thus they accurately quoted him, the bastards!

And now, just because Paul "answered poorly" -- which could have

happened to anybody -- "the press is looking to tar him and the whole

party as racist. ... It's freaking annoying."

No doubt! But some of the brethren decided that it time to stop

playing

defense on Paul, and start standing up for his iconoclastic,

pre-recantation idea.

"This is an important debate to have," said Say Anything, "and Republicans shouldn't shy away

from it. We have been going down a path toward big government for some

time now, and it's useful to look at some decisions made in the past and

ask whether or not they were the right decisions." Today the Civil

Rights Act, tomorrow Brown vs. Board of Education!

Recalling Lee Edwards' statement that prominent

conservatives had, by

opposing the Civil Rights Act, hung "the albatross of racism ... around

the neck of American conservatism," Robert Stacy McCain cheerfully declared, "I

will

risk 'the albatross of racism' by siding with Buckley and Goldwater

and

-- though Edwards doesn't mention this -- Ronald Reagan."

McCain claimed the Act had by "logical extension" led to such

nightmares

as the Community Reinvestment Act, and that the media's insistence on

quoting Paul constituted "intellectual terrorism," an "Orwellian 'memory

hole,'" and an attempt to "decide what people can or cannot say in

public discourse." Then he counseled conservatives against "whining or

acting defensively indignant," which must have been some kind of private

joke.

The obstreperous RedState offered "A Proud Defense of Rand Paul."

Correspondent constitutionalconservative told readers that the Jim Crow

laws the Act overturned "were enforced by the state the liberals

worship." (This was a common trope, and suggests that the white people

of the South were against Jim Crow -- though their general

reaction to desegregation strongly suggests

otherwise.)

The author seemed less interested in legalistic defenses of

Paul's

words, though, than in using the story to stir anger toward liberals.

"The left-wing press is out to flay Rand Paul," he said, via "a story

that started, not so-coincidentally, on government-sponsored NPR." They

were coming after Rand with (this is almost charming) "McCarthyist smear

tactics," but constitutionalconservative urged readers to stay strong:

"By attacking Rand Paul, they want to make you think that you are alone.

But," the author promised, "you are not alone ..."

Did these authors know that Paul had backed down? What

difference would

that make? Whatever expediency later demanded of him, Rand Paul had

offered rightbloggers a rare glimpse of an alternate universe -- one in

which the last liberal idea they hadn't yet managed to discredit was

suddenly within range of their howitzers. Now they had a winning

candidate who, however briefly, had suggested it was all a terrible

mistake. Think how it must lift their spirits! Maybe their next

candidate will be able to keep it up more than a couple of days.

Does that mean they're racist? No; it means they're unable to

accept

that, with the Civil Rights Act, the Big Government they despise did

something that a.) improved the lives of millions of people, b.) unlike

some other government achievements, isn't even remotely cool to sneer

at, and c.) the Democrats get credit for. Over the years they've tried

to take the shine off this achievement, but that never seems to work --

in fact, their best efforts just seem to make things worse for them. So, perversely, the

increased racial harmony that pleases everyone else just makes them sullen and bitter.

We'll leave it for you to decide whether that's better or worse than

racism.

Roy

appears courtesy of our sister paper in New York City, Village Voice.