my boy rand paul

So first of all I haven't updated this thing in over a month, and I have lots of excuses.  I was taking my last few finals in law school, and I also don't currently have a functioning computer.  I am hoping to write several posts in the next week as there is a lot to talk about including potential NCAA football conference realignment, Elena Kagan's upcoming confirmation hearings, and the gulf oil spill has even made some people speculate that the Senate will move on cap and trade this session.  I will address these issues at a different time.

For now I just want to say a few words about my boy Rand Paul.  Anyone who new me during the 2008 election cycle knows that that I was a steadfast Ron Paul supporter.  I obviously knew that he had no chance at obtaining the GOP nomination, but I still thought his campaign did a great job of bringing about a resurgence of the libertarian leaning edge of the republican party.  In fact, I personally credit with Ron Paul for providing at least part of the spark that his given rise to the tea party movement.  Naturally, now that his son (who holds many views that are in tune with his father) is running for Senate in Kentucky, I am fully supporting and following his campaign.

A few weeks ago, Paul committed what many people are calling a huge mistake.  He went on the Rachel Madow Show and said that he did not support portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Law that prohibited discrimination by private individuals and businesses.  He also reaffirmed his belief that the portions of the act that prohibited state and local governments from discriminating based on race (basically prohibiting Jim Crow laws) were necessary, just, and fully appropriate.  Many members of the media jumped on these comments, and although they stopped short of calling him a racist, they claimed the comments showed that he was too radical to hold public office.

First, I must state that I personally agree with what Rand articulated on MSNBC.  I don't believe it is the role of government to mandate who a private actor can or must serve.  However, that does not a racist make.  I believe in letting private actors set their own rules, and allowing the actors to make rational decisions based on the incentives provided to them.  In fact, I think you could make an argument that this would be a better policy.  Not only would individual actors in this scenario have more liberty and freedom, but a public understanding that the government is not the primary tool for eradicating racism could potentially do more to help stop racism than the law itself.

First, let's imagine a scenario where the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not address private discrimination.  Obviously, then any business or restaurant could discriminate an not serve someone based on race.  I believe that a majority of people (including potential customers and suppliers) would find this abhorrent.  In fact, I'm sure many people would not do business with such an institution.  These types of boycotts were already taking place and had been somewhat effective prior to the 1964 Act (for example look at the Montgomery Bus Boycott which nearly bankrupted the line).  Now, after the Act is passed and Jim Crow is dead, it is my belief that that these types of private demonstrations and boycotts would have become even more effective.  With out the state government's racist laws propping up these private discriminators, there would have been far fewer ways for boycotts and sit-ins to be disrupted.  Additionally, I believe far more people would take up the cause of supporting such a cause if they believed that such an action was the only way to remedy the situation.

Now many will argue that racism was so institutionalized in the South that private boycotts would not have been enough.  We needed strong federal intervention to break the spines of the evil racists.  Unfortunately that is an untestable hypothesis as we can't know what would have occurred in that scenario. I don't live in the South (I live in Texas! ha) so I'm not sure how many people are still out there denying black people a seat at the lunch counter, but my general inclination is to say its better than it was.  However, how much is attributable to laws prohibiting private discrimination rather than a shift in attitudes brought about by the fact that these horrors were being put in the lime light is debatable.  Regardless, even if we assume that more discrimination would occur it almost certainly would be limited to smaller business in restaurants that only have one location that serve mostly a racist clientèle.  Obviously it would be unfortunate that people would be denied service in these places based on their race, but are these few disruptions worthy of the long arm of government meddling with the affairs of private actors?  The Civil Rights Act has probably cost billions in attorney's fees and court costs to enforce, and has surely led to many dubious claims over time that burden the justice system and drive up the costs of litigating and of just doing business.  Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Debatable.  But just cause you go one way on that issue does not make extreme, a racist or unfit for office as some of Paul's haters have contended.