Rand Paul, the Civil Rights Act, and the Trouble With Ideological Candidates

Kentucky Republican and Senate candidate Rand Paul has recently aroused a great deal of controversy for expressing concerns with one aspect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: namely, the authority it gives to the federal government to forbid businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, and national origin. While Paul has stated that he approves of the Act's forbidding of discrimination on the governmental level without reservation, he is uneasy with the idea of businesses being compelled to provide service to all due to his firm belief in the rights of property owners. It all boils down to, "Does a private entity get to decide what to do with its property even if it hurts other people?" To understand the nature of the controversy and Paul's stance on the issue, you might want to watch his interview on the Rachel Maddow Show: part 1 and part 2 are on YouTube.

While the younger Dr. Paul seems to see this issue purely through the prism of property rights, I think there are other factors involved which is why I disagree with him. You have the right to own a gun, but you can't use it in any possible way without infringing on the rights of others. In the same way, I don't think property owners should have the right to use their property as a weapon to hurt others and deny them from purchasing what may be vitally needed goods and services. I don't think it's too much of a sacrifice to ask property owners who choose to do business with the public at large to serve all equally regardless of their demographic, no more than I think it is too much of a sacrifice to ask gun owners not to shoot innocent people who aren't threatening life, limb, or property. I absolutely understand where Rand Paul is coming from -- property rights are not anywhere near as respected as they should be in this country. Still, even property rights should have limits, and the appropriate place for rights to end is when they start to hurt other people severely and unnecessarily. Oddly enough, I actually think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is actually fairly moderate. It allows private clubs not open to the public to discriminate as they wish, and it allows all entities to discriminate against unmentioned groups all they want to (hence: "No shirt, no shoes, no service").

With that said, I've thought that all the media and blogging hoopla over Rand Paul's comments has been ridiculous, and it's given me some new insight into how the political powers that be seek to maintain the status quo. As wrong as I think Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is, it's hardly as if he was campaigning to repeal it. Indeed, he has since stated for the record that he would not seek to change it and in fact he has even said that he would have voted for the Act despite its restrictions on business had he been in Congress at the time. He was never a racist demagogue blowing dog whistles to rally racists to his cause which is why he now resembles a dog running away with its tail between its legs as he tries to talk his way out of the firestorm. What Paul's "baggage" is is actually simply political ideology. People often wonder why it is that Republicans who talk about the importance of individual liberty when it comes to gun rights often turn around and support legislating morality or why Democrats are so keen on expanding social services but yet often also support inflationary policies and direct and indirect taxes that make products and services more expensive. The answer is easy enough: the overwhelming majority of politicians do not have an overarching political philosophy that they try to apply to each and every political stance they have. They don't mind being philosophically inconsistent -- it's probably not something most of them even think about. Rand Paul is vulnerable on issues like civil rights because he doesn't pick and choose when his political philosophy is important to him. He strives for consistency even when that leads him into uncomfortable territory. In his discussion with Rachel Maddow, he mentioned how freedom of speech protects the words of even those who hold despicable views. It's not a stretch at all to go on from there to say that property rights should also apply to those who hold despicable views. It's perfectly possible to support freedom of speech and property rights without necessarily supporting how those freedoms are used by cruel and hateful individuals. As such, I can respect Rand's point of view even though I disagree with him. He probably has a rosier view of humanity than I do and believes that racist business owners would get skewered in the market just as he's currently being skewered in the press and online. As much as I distrust government, I nonetheless don't trust people not to treat each other like crap either; to expect otherwise is to ignore the lessons of history.

What Paul's opponents on the Democratic side of things want now is for people to not simply disagree with Paul's position on civil rights but to be afraid of him. They want him to be perceived as a monster rather than simply as misguided. Above all else, they want people whose support of smaller government, lower taxes, and fiscal restraint (topics that Rand Paul made the center of his campaign rather than civil rights) would make them uneasy about voting for Jack Conway or any Democrat given the current political climate to stay home on Election Day. As a political ploy, it just might work -- if it does, I think it'll be an ample illustration of why people who are so passionate about their ideas that they take them to the nth degree seem to flounder when facing off against career politicians and the political establishment time and time again. While this makes it more difficult for extremists (relative to prevailing popular opinion, that is) to win office, it also makes it harder to get anything other than the same old breed of career politicians elected. Those folks aren't all bad, but frankly I'd bet at least a few of them are as perturbed by Rand Paul's advocacy for legislative term limits as they are about anything else the opthamologist has said.

Energy Policy and the Worst Case Scenario

We all make decisions about how much risk we are willing to take on as we go about our daily lives. Some of us focus more on probability (the likelihood that something bad will happen to us if we take a certain action) and others of us focus more on the worst case scenario, the most negative consequence that could reasonably occur in response to our action. If you focus purely on probability, an activity like skydiving is not particularly dangerous -- one death per 100,000 jumps is not too bad. On the other hand, skydiving accidents are frequently fatal when they do occur. The worst case scenario is severe.

Fear of the worst case scenario is perhaps the main reason why the United States hasn't embraced nuclear power to a greater degree than it has. The 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant that exposed millions of people to small doses of radiation had a decisive impact on public opinion. What happened at Three Mile Island wasn't the worst case scenario by any means -- no one died as an immediate result of the accident, and the public health implications of the event are still being debated. What it did, however, was remind the public, the government, and the power industry of just how dangerous nuclear power can potentially be. Nowadays the majority of the American people do support nuclear power once again, but 31 years is a long time for any event to hold a prominent place in the collective memory. Another serious nuclear accident could change perceptions in a jiffy, and regulators and the industry certainly haven't forgotten what happened in 1979.

The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill of 2010, on the other hand, is a worst case scenario we're seeing unfold before our eyes. The initial catastrophe claimed 11 lives of oil workers, a tragedy in and of itself, but the ensuing disaster will have widespread implications for millions of people and animals. That the damage to the marine ecosystem and the Gulf Coast economy will be severe is a given -- how the disaster will affect the hydrologic cycle and weather patterns is more of an open question at this point. This thing is bad enough to fundamentally change how risky offshore oil drilling is perceived to be. The probability of such a spill hasn't really changed that much...remember, there's offshore drilling going on all over the world, from West Africa to the North Sea. Massive explosions and oil spills aren't typical occurrences. One study found that just 2% of the oil in the oceans is a result of offshore drilling. So, for me at least, the issue isn't whether or not offshore drilling is too bad for the environment to be permitted...what I wonder is if the worst case scenario is so severe that it's not even worth the small risk of such massive spills.

One approach is to try to make offshore drilling and nuclear power more safe through more stringent regulations. It seems clear that BP and Transocean did not do all they could do to prepare for a worst case scenario -- just as Three Mile Island changed nuclear governmental policies, so too will the Gulf Oil Spill change governmental policies towards offshore drilling. Still, regulations can only go so far. Accidents WILL happen. Although nuclear plants are probably safer now than they used to be, the cynic in me can't help but wonder if the main reason Three Mile Island hasn't been repeated is because the nuclear power industry was utterly stalled following the accident and has only very recently shown some signs of revival. I can imagine a new regulatory environment having a chilling effect on offshore drilling in the Gulf -- risky behavior is not always banned when it can be disincentivized instead. Is that the right choice in a world where petroleum is still king and likely still will be for some time to come? I'm honestly not sure. We've seen a glimpse of the worst case scenario for offshore drilling and it is extremely ugly, but if the end result of all this is that Americans will just consume more oil drilled offshore from other countries, is that really an environmental triumph or just an economic setback?