The problem with labeling Rand Paul racist

I imagine it's what Paul would prefer at this point.  Labeling him a racist, or just a principled zealot for that matter, is really missing the point.  The point is that the man has a belief system that is better suited for 1910, not 2010.  And calling Paul a racist allows his supporters to claim that his critics are just hysterical over-reachers.  Is it even important, given Paul's positions, whether he's a racist or not?

Ta-Nehisi Coates praised Rachel Maddow for her interview the other day with Paul:

That interview would have went a lot better for Rand Paul if Maddow had have just thrown her notes in the air and accused him of being a bigot, and a covert member of the Klan. That's what they want. And I don't simply mean conservatives--I mean people you disagree with. I know I've won a debate when my adversary says, "What the fuck type of name is Ta-Nuh-hah-see, anyway?" It translates to "I've got nothing." Much scarier is the opponent who takes your argument, with whatever nuances it may or may not possess, and politely disagrees with the argument as it is.

Along the same lines, Balloon Juice featured a handy, very wise tutorial on the dangers of labeling someone racist rather than attacking their positions:

I don't know and, honestly, don't care whether Rand Paul is a racist.  I do know, however, he has no problem with large swaths of Americans suffering humiliating discrimination for the sake of his outmoded Utopian ideals. 

That seems like more than enough reason to make sure Rand Paul has no seat in the Senate of the United States.

Comments

[Wes]

You always do such a great job of getting past the manipulative language and you've done it again by dismissing the racist label and getting to the point: the treatment of people in real life. Now, rather than dismissing him as an anachronism, we can also open the real political issue raised here, which like all political issues, is the matter of control. Specifically: can there be social progress without legislating morality? Rand Paul appears to suggest that it is not only possible, but that all legislation is reactive, following broad social progress (and may not be necessary even then...though apparently that depends on the specific topic). It appears to me, the grossly-uneducated reader, that you believe that social progress came as a direct result of the referenced legislation. I've not seen enough to take a side in this matter, though I tend to believe that order is self-emergent (which isn't at odds with either of these scenarios, by the way). For all the unfairness that you reference and I agree is obviously inherent in Paul's position, your suggestion displays violent disregard of private property...which raises bigger questions in my mind: what rights, if any, do we have to our mind, body, and personal property?

[Jay McDonough]

Uh, thanks, I think. : )

You know that common introduction to tedious conclusions; "There are two kinds of people in this world..."

I guess I believe there are three, actually. There are good. There are bad. And there's those that just need a nudge, a reminder to be decent.

Here's the thing about slippery slopes: They're all around and they have to be reckoned with. Societies have to stake a position so as not to slip downward. In my mind, that staked position needs to be inclusive and decent and not be based on petty bias.

[libhomo]

There's something particularly wrong with our society and our political discourse when stating the fact that Rand Paul is a racist, or stating any other fact, is so socially unacceptable that it can be politically counterproductive.

[Wes]

Ha, yes. It was all complimentary. I gather you interpret law as a proxy for the traditional role of religion (ie. a nudge to the savages)? Wielding law as a neo-religious order also seems like a pretty slippery slope...in our time and place this represents a real transfer of power to old white men in expensive suits and robes. Nonetheless, I certainly understand your desire for order to things, and you certainly may be correct to suggest that threatening people with cages is the pragmatic solution.

[Jay McDonough]

libhomo: my point was that, from a political perspective, it's counterproductive to label Paul a racist. It's a whole lot easier to demonstrate, and convince voters, that Paul's ideas are crazy, Utopian fancy than it is to tag him with being a racist.

[Jay McDonough]

I reckon what makes "wielding law" messy is the lack of homogeneity in background and belief here. At the end of the day, there's a need to reach consensus - that raping children or robbing gas stations or refusing to feed African Americans is wrong and won't be tolerated.

There may be some folks who think those things are acceptable behaviors (e.g. Rand Paul). But the role of law, in religion or a society, is to maintain order and establish an acceptable, and socially allowed code of conduct.

We've been asking those "old white men" to develop our laws for the last 230 years.

[James Madison]

The real problem for the liberals and NWO enablers is that Rand Paul isn't a racist. But those who support big government know full well that the worst racism comes from big government like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.