In this clip from Hardball earlier this year Ron Paul discusses his view on the legalization of drugs and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (The pertinent discussion of the Civil Rights act begins at 4:10). As a libertarian, Ron Paul believes that the personal liberty and property rights of an individual trumps government infringement. Thus he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act, saying it would have forced individual citizens to give up their freedom. He tries to separate his reasons for being against the act from simple racism, as Chris Matthews tries to insinuate. Paul believes a societal change would have occurred that caused racism to diminish and that the free market would have made discriminatory businesses go under with the change in societal beliefs. He made his decision without using race as a factor.
However, one must wonder if this societal change would have occurred everywhere in the country. Surely some places and small communities would still harbor racist beliefs and use segregation to this day. Is there a need to compel a community like this to desegregate if all such practices were private, and there was no government regulated segregation? Furthermore, is it contradictory to have a country that beliefs in equality but allow individuals in that country use discriminatory practices? If liberty is what one values, then yes because you have to take the good with the bad and believe in the goodness of people.
This is a good tie in to the topic of race in the Presidency and Martin Luther King Jr. Ron Paul, though against the Civil Rights Act, is a great admirer of Martin Luther King Jr. The way in which MLK used the church, religion, and culture to demand equality was right in line with Paul’s beliefs on the great societal benefit churches play. There are letters supposedly written by Paul in the early 1990s criticizing MLK as communist and containing racist comments. However, Paul has denied writing these letters and no major news outlets have investigated their legitimacy. Such social activists, using community support to mobilize people and change accepted cultural practices, are a key element to how a nation regulates itself without a large government.
While I understand how Paul comes by his viewpoint, I think it relies as heavily on a utopian world as communism does, and may frankly contradict the Locke-inspired enlightenment ideas of the founders that people are entitled to freedom and a "pursuit of happiness" so long as they refrain from harming others.
ReplyDeleteRacism (and sexism and ableism) do harm others; relying on a natural change in the social paradigm rather than activist legislature means counting on the group in power to consent to give up some of their power. I'm not shocked that such a viewpoint is held by an older, white male.
This is a very interesting interview. I agree with Ariel's comment. Fifty years later, it is easy for Ron Paul to say that society would have naturally progressed towards desegregation without government intervention. However, it is difficult to determine whether or not this is true.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think one can certainly value liberty while still supporting federal legislation such as the Civil Rights Act. I do not think it can be considered government infringement if its passing protected liberty for a large portion of the population.
It is interesting to see how Ron Paul separates racism from libertarian policy, but in doing so, I think he reveals the limitations of his political beliefs. He continually calls the Civil Rights Movement ancient history during this clip and blames the government for the history of racism in this country. While there have been considerable changes in the past 50 years, the effects of racism are not "ancient history," and for Ron Paul to suggest that it something that can just take care of itself really limits his ability to appeal to minority voters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Christina, I think Ron Paul's views are very hard to explain logically to the average voter and arguments like this are going to continue being brought up, making his viewpoint sound racist, no matter how much he protests. I honestly don't think that he will be able to succeed because, as has happened so many times before, voters will be somewhat quickly turned off by what seem to be radical facets of his ideology.
ReplyDelete