Rand Paul May 30, 2010

(This is, admittedly, a few days late and couple of Lincolns short, but due to a virus outbreak at work, I didn’t have time to write this up and post it until today.. apologies! -A)

So by now, most everyone has heard about the sudden ascension of Rand Paul as the Tea Party’s shining new star… of course, after the luster of Scott Brown’s victory quickly dulled and lost its glimmer, when it became clear he was going to operate as a practical politician, and not as the flaming paddle of populist retribution that the TP’ers so very much wanted to use to spank the established political system. And while Rand Paul rode a fetid wave of reactionary, and often barely concealed racism spewed forth by the Tea Party to primary victory, I can’t help but feel some sense of approval, if for no other reason that the self-serving nature of the political system has been painfully evident (a lesson learned again and again watching the back-scratching, cozy shenanigans between Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, and so many others).

Of course, less than 24 hours later, this proud new ship of revolutionary politics was suddenly listing badly, and motoring in circles just after leaving the harbor – if you’ve only heard about his appearance on Rachel Maddow, but not seen or listened to it, it’s almost uncomfortable to watch him dance around the topic of neo-libertarian ideals versus the civil rights act:

And before the dialogue surrounding this interview, and the fallout surrounding it could be fully explored, Rand Paul was rescued from the media spotlight by means of of an ecological disaster in the gulf. Save by an oil spill, essentially.

But before the national spotlight creaked over (deservedly) to the horrifying ineptitude filling the suddenly revealed vacuum of BP’s ethics and preparedness, it was interesting to see rhetoric and ideas play back and forth…

I, personally, do not believe that Rand Paul is a secret racist, hiding an agenda, and I do take him at his word that were he of age at the time, that he would have marched in support of civil liberties. And I certainly don’t believe that he would condone violence based on discrimination. But the appearance on Rachel Maddow served to prove that his philosophy, like so much of the reactionary left and right, is not forged and tempered in the fires of reasoned discussion and debate, but often the product of short-attention span rage, born out of an anger that does not bear close self-examination. It’s this neo-libertarianism that I find frightening, and shocking in its vacuous levels of forward planning.

The argument, as I understand it, is that while racism and discrimination is despicable, no government should reach so far into the affairs of the public as to dictate whether the expression of his beliefs, should it be found morally repugnant, should then be legislated against – this being a classic symptom of a government that has grown to large and too interested in the minutiae and small-level affairs of the common man or woman. And that while this person, even though the act is reprehensible, should be allowed to discriminate against potential customers – because we, as people, have the right to simply not patronize this person’s business. The idea being that our essential beliefs, and the application of, can act as a non-governmental series of checks and balances. Or, put quite simply, by one internet commenter, “If that racist fuck thinks I’m a ‘nigger’, then why on earth would I want to give him my business anyways, regardless of the law?”

And this is my problem with this neo-libertarianism – nothing happens in a bubble, in its own Petri dish. The idea that interactions like these are somehow simple binary equations that operate distinctly apart from all other societal interactions, ideas, and social mores. And that’s just simply not true.

Part of what allows us to function as a society (admittedly, we’re not talking a smoothly oiled machine) is the shared application of certain fundamental rights, so that we can operate on as level a playing field as possible (again, admittedly, it’s a pretty pock-marked playing field with some impressive mountains and valleys, but progress is slow, and the jagged peaks and dark pits are sparser than they used to be). The example used in the Maddow show was refusal of service at the Walgreen’s lunch counter. Putting aside the virulent nature of racism, and how it acts as a handy focal point for anger and fear over issues that are incredibly complex, let’s switch that out – a black man heads into an establishment owned by someone who will not serve any non-caucasians. And that business is a bank, and this person needs a loan.

And they’re the only bank in town.

The sad fact of the matter is that certain rights must be legislated across the board, as an inoculation (or hell, even just topical cream) against prejudicial ideals. And both Rand Paul and the Tea Party’s failure to grasp that shows a shocking lack of introspection at their own ideals (claimed or actual), and the real-world application of. It’s the flip-side of the coin to anarchists – and in either situation, it’s a reactionary philosophy based out of fear of the unknown, uncertainty of the future, and the refusal to apply personal responsibility to the actual world. I can understand the attraction of both (“fuck the government, it’s their meddling in everything that has kept me down and stymied my progress towards a comfortable future”), but the fact that it side-steps any soul searching and ownership of one’s own role in a giant tangled mess is, despite the bluster and the verbal saber-rattling, craven and cowardly.