"Philosophers Shouldn't Run for Office," Except Obama

I can understand why people are upset with Rand Paul. I think they are misunderstanding his intentions, which are not racist. But I can understand how they could have that reaction.

From what I have read in the Twittersphere and in blogs, etc. people angry with Paul quite often show that they misunderstand the very nature of the crisis of southern segregation, which was not a spontaneous exercise in free dis-association, but a government mandated and enforced reality, under Jim Crow, etc. (Separate public facilities, anti-miscegenation laws, etc.) Laws which violated basic rights under the constitution, which were helping to integrate the races. Laws which were supported by a band of vigilantes in a secret society. So, why did this require laws, and "secret" enforcers?

I still think it is possible to have a reasonable discussion about what actually happened during that crisis and learn lessons from it. About lawmaking. The same way people still watch D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" to understand the reality of political propaganda, and how the Klan flourished.

If a senatorial candidate can't "philosophize" on the job, what is he or she doing running for the United States Senate anyway, which is supposed to be an aristocratic, deliberative body?

Which is why I don't understand someone like Chris Matthews going on the Jay Leno show and saying "philosophers shouldn't run for office."

Matthews, it seems to me, thinks politics should be basically for the enjoyment of him and his beer-drinking buddies. Like sports; to watch the instant replays, talk about tactics and tell colorful stories about old Irish pols like his former boss, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill.

I used to enjoy Hardball, but I am finding Matthews' approach to politics growing shallower by the day. Perhaps he's been hanging around Keith Olbermann a little too long.

Anyway, who then was this guy (see below), who gave Matthews that thrill up his leg? You know, the guy who wants to "transform" America by eliminating the Founders' paradigm of negative rights?

I guess you can only "philosophize" about America if you're going in one direction -- which is away from the philosophy of the highly-philosophical Founders.

Tea Party, Libertarianism Do Not Equal "Old South"

If First Amendment advocates say we must tolerate the cartoonish reality of Nazi and Klan street marches in order to protect our freedom of speech, are these advocates all inherently, secretly Nazis and Klansmen?

The answer, of course, is "No."

So, why then are libertarian- or "classical liberal"-minded advocates of property rights and free association, such as Rand Paul, automatically deemed "racist?"

Freedom sometimes generates cartoonish side effects. It doesn't mean those who advocate freedom advocate on behalf of the cartoons.

You could say that in regard to property rights and free association all of these things are "settled" questions, because the racist past of America was a terrible time that we would rather not revisit.

I agree. I would rather not revisit it.

However, today, because the narrative is that the expansion of federal government power then was an unqualified success, the federal government is empowered to address and "fix" now pretty much any thing the public (as interpreted by our legislators) deems cartoonish and unfair, using the power to tax and regulate property.

So, where does the growth of government (including all costly post hoc attempts to fix previous attempts) stop? What will be the total cost, in dollars and in freedom, not only in property, but even in speech (the "fairness" doctrine, etc.?) Name a "social problem" or even annoyance and today the government is empowered to "fix" it. (From hate speech to -- in my home state senator Schumer's balliwick -- the cost of carry on luggage and annoying ATM fees.)

This is why the Tea Party exists. To challenge that old narrative, and challenge the growing progressive costs in dollars and freedom. And Rand Paul, to his credit and his discomfort, zeroed in on the hot spot problem. He is now paying a heavy price, personally and politically.

You can attempt to smear the Tea Party movement by comparing it to the Old South. But if you look around the world, you see hundreds of governments empowered to do the very same things: "fix" society's ills, with sometimes catastrophic results in terms of debt, economic decline and social unrest.

When Ronald Reagan called America the "shining city on a hill" he didn't believe there weren't some ugly things going on inside that city.

Like it or not, at some point we will have to look back at what we did wrong in the middle of our success in the 1960s. Or else, the government's intrusion into the private sphere will just simply grow and grow, and America will begin to look like every other steadily declining socialist nation.

The Rand Paul Imbroglio Shows America Needs Less Deliberation

No doubt the Rand Paul debate of the past few days has produced a few "cringe-worthy" moments. Whenever a candidate raises arguments about previous law that allow his opponents to suggest he is in favor of segregation, or is racist, well, that can soften the backbone of even the strongest candidates, their political consultants and political fellow travelers.

Paul's backpedaling since has also been somewhat cringe-worthy, creating the impression that he, like Connecticut senate candidate Richard Blumenthal, is only willing to say things to friendly audiences who might not seriously think more about or investigate his utterances.

But better that than the alternative, some potential allies might say. Rich Lowry, for example -- along with other commentators at National Review -- derides Paul's original discussion with Rachel Maddow, et al as a politically foolish theoretical exercise. Says Lowry:

"It turns out that a Senate campaign does not offer the same friendly confines for the discussion of libertarian doctrine as a seminar at the Ayn Rand Institute."

Lowry goes on to call Paul a "problem" for the GOP.

The problem it seems, is not that Paul's a racist. He clearly is not.

It's his ability to be labeled a racist by the opposition.

If only Rand Paul hadn't come along with his theoretical discussion about property rights, the left would never have called conservatives and libertarians "racist."

Indeed, as I watched Rachel Maddow smile that smirky smile last night, and chirp that one day later Rand Paul looked like the usual flip-flopping politician (trying to hide his racism, no doubt!) the problem of our country occurred to me:

Too many theoretical discussions!

We all know that theoretical exercises are dragging our country (and the GOP) down. Too many long, ponderous discussions of federal power, and the fine points of law in the Senate until all hours. Too many television talk show debates, commercially uninterrupted, full of historical consciousness, that show how property rights can be eroded to dangerous levels, just like free speech rights, leading to massive and costly attempts by the federal government to right every wrong from 50,000 feet.

Forget all that "theoretical" nonsense and "libertarian doctrine!" I mean, we can't get anything done!

Why risk upsetting the public when there are elections to be won?

There have to be other ways to defeat massive expansion of the federal government than actually talking about how massive expansions of the federal government come about.

Rand Paul Bending or Breaking Under Charges of Racism, etc.?

Odd exchange last night on CNN between Rand Paul, the GOP senate nominee from Kentucky, and host John King.

King pressed Paul on a number of questions, particularly on whether or not he would dismantle the Department of Education, and Paul, it seems to me, danced around that question a little, and some others.

CNN went ahead anyway, after the question was asked, and attributed to Paul in the caption that he did seek to eliminate the DOE and the Dept. of Agriculture. A little odd journalistically, I think.

Anyway, I suspect to Paul's supporters this behavior is excusable, because they see him under attack by liberal media. Paul is libertarian, but as his profile has been raised he now appears to be feeling the sting of responses to his positions on federal legislation, articulated in front of the more critical audiences on NPR, CNN and MSNBC.

But after the similar constant beat down that occurs on the national stage, would this same habit endear him to anyone years from now? I don't know how his father, Texas congressman Ron Paul, has withstood the onslaught for so long.

Rand has to practice his responses a little more for the national media I think, particularly on the federal departments. "The correct answer is," to borrow a trope from TV commentator John McLaughlin, that while these departments seem to place decision making in the hands of trained experts, they often concentrate more decision making in the hands of those with less knowledge about the overall education situation. Does anyone really believe that Head Start or No Child Left Behind are effective?

Devolution of political power to the local level outsources work on many more smaller decisions to MORE people. This is the paradox of large federal interventions. It places more power in the hands of fewer (self-interested) people, reducing the overall information and aggregate motivation available to solve social problems.

In a recent exchange, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow pressed Rand Paul on his views about federal civil rights legislation. Joan Walsh, the liberal editor of Salon magazine, makes great hay about Paul's "demolishment" at the hands of Maddow (video included). And today, the Twittersphere is full of comments about how Paul "opposed the Civil Rights Act," "supports segregation" and is "racist." Google Rand Paul and you see additional headlines asserting that Paul is defending discrimination.

Whereas, Paul explicitly said in the interview (!) that he would have voted for all but one part of the Civil Rights Act, he finds racism abhorrent and that segregation was actually a government policy and misuse of the law. I agree with him on all these points.

Paul acquitted himself reasonably well here in this one interview.

The problem for many liberals is that they will see in Paul what they want to see. Which is what they want to see in most people who want to protect property rights and limit government power, the core of Paul's philosophy: a closet racist and homophobe. All because he opposes a certain means of achieving a social objective. (A rather heavy-handed means with numerous unintended consequences.)

For many on the left, that the 1960s were a triumph of progressive legislation is a "settled question." The 1960s are never to be discussed with any critical eye again, because it was the age of Abraham, Martin and John. Unfortunately, libertarians keep cropping up.

But these libertarians often struggle to articulate the organic link between the expansion of federal power then -- however well intentioned it was -- and consequences being felt today in ever expanding, intrusive federal action over private initiative and all its related costs and debt, and little room left for local initiative.

All while feeling the sting of being called racist, because you oppose certain aspects of legislation touching on race - which is not the same thing.

Libertarians and conservatives have to repeat it until they are blue in the face, that supporting limited government and defense of private property does not mean they endorse repugnant social behavior. Wasn't it a great liberal with progressive attitudes about women, John Stuart Mill, who argued that social sanction rather than legislation should play an important role in behavior we find repugnant?

So, those of us who are libertarian should expect great moralizing on the part of the left this election season, and a sense of crisis that the KKK is back in town. Some don't know enough to know better. But some of those critics in the media clearly are educated enough to know better.

Rachel Maddow's parting comment to Rand Paul:

"Well, it was pretty practical to the people who had the life nearly beaten out of them trying to desegregate Walgreen's lunch counters despite these esoteric debates about what it means about ownership. This is not a hypothetical Dr. Paul."

No one says it's a hypothetical, and this is the usual posturing and playing to the left-wing audience by Maddow.

People who had the life beaten out them (and fire-hosed and attacked by dogs) had it done to them by the government. And those acts were disproportionate and already illegal and federal intervention was necessary to stop them. Paul AGREED on that much.

Maddow is smart enough to know that. But her comments were about demonizing, not actual, real discussion and journalism.

Not an exclusive province of MSNBC or left-wing media by the way. It's a pervasive risk of being a popular journalist, to play to an audience. You see the same kind of thing on FOX.

In response to certain external stimuli, journalists tend to bend and break as well.