Is state senator's discrimination stance a symbol of Rand Paul's America?
OPINION - 2016 GOP presidential front-runner Rand Paul and South Dakota state representative Phil Jensen have something in common...
2016 GOP presidential front-runner Rand Paul and South Dakota state representative Phil Jensen have something in common. Both men have stated that minorities should have no special government protection and that the free market can effectively take care of civil rights matters.
“If someone was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and they were running a little bakery for instance, the majority of us would find it detestable that they refuse to serve blacks, and guess what? In a matter of weeks or so that business would shut down because no one is going to patronize them,” Jensen told the Rapid City Journal last weekend.
Paul has repeatedly made similar comments over the years. In a 2010 interview with Rachel Maddow, he was asked about his opposition to the portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits private businesses from practicing racial discrimination.
“Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things that freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it,” said Paul.
Basically, Paul and Jensen believe that racial discrimination is bad business and that the free market would eradicate racial discrimination because people simply would not patronize such establishments. They believe that rational business owners, even the most racist of the bunch, would not practice racial discrimination because it would negatively impact their bottom line.
Paul likes to toe the line and say he believes that he does believe that the government should not be allowed to racially discriminate, but private businesses can do as they please. Such a stance is dangerous because it would undo years of civil rights work and we could see a return to the days of flagrant virulent and flagrant discrimination, which in turn would inevitably fuel more “long, hot summers.” We would go back to the tumultuous 1960s era when there were assassinations, violent police clashes, rampant race-based domestic terrorism and riots exploding in different cities across the country. This time it could even more bloody and even deadlier and who knows how long it would take to quell such a fire.
In this age of rapidly evolving technology and the ability for any average Joe or Jane to instantly communicate to thousands or even millions of people, law enforcement would have to resort to extreme measures to keep up with civil disobedience. Perhaps more drones in action on domestic soil?
Additionally, Paul’s hair splitting on public vs. private discrimination doesn’t hold water because police would eventually have to be called in to private establishments to extract patrons who are the “wrong color.”
If this is what the GOP has to offer in the 2016 election, America should be very afraid and current GOP supporters need to take a long, hard look at what they are signing up for if they put people like that in office. Are they ready? Would any of us be ready? To quote Mobb Deep, “There’s a war going on outside and no man is safe.”
Follow Demetria Irwin on Twitter at @Love_Is_Dope and connect with her on Facebook.
