And the Rand Prize Winner . . . . (Updated) (Updated Again) 0

Left and Moderate Blogistans are roiling today over the Rand Paul interview in which he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If you want to read about it, go to Memeorandom; it’s the top story there. Since the Memeorandum rankings will change, here’s a link to the Memeorandum page as of 2:00 p. m. today.

Many persons are inclined to be charitable, attributing his statements to the rigidity of Libertarianism and not to ill motives on the part of Mr. Paul. This bit from Jamelle Bouie is an example:

Paul claims that he isn’t a racist and abhors discrimination, and I completely believe him. But that doesn’t change the fact that Paul, like many libertarians, has an incredibly blinkered view of oppression and liberty. Simply put, and for reasons that I think have a lot to do with the demographics of the movement (read: a lot of white guys), libertarians have a habit of fixating on the state and its role in perpetuating oppression and constraining liberty, with many libertarians completely blind to the fact of oppression by culture and custom. It simply doesn’t register. As such, it’s no surprise that libertarians like Paul can make arguments about the desirability (or lack thereof) of the Civil Rights Act without once considering the oppression that can flow from ostensibly “just” arrangements of private property.

The argument seems to be that Libertarians’ desire to be intellectually pure renders them unable to see how their logical ivory tower conclusions fail when applied to real life.

I am not so charitable.

If Libertarians were so perceptive and so intellectually rigorous as they repeatedly and enthusiastically congratulate themselves for being, they would recognize the damnable results of some of their reasoning logical constructs.

Now, I’ve known some Libertarians (No, I can’t say, “Some of my best friends are Libertarians,” because our lives just didn’t flow in the same direction for reasons that had nothing to do with politics). One on one, they were quite pleasant folks to have a drink or go boating with.

Libertarians are easily recognized by the miniature copies of the Constitution* which they whip from their breast pockets on the slightest of pretexts, coupled with their belief that American society hasn’t changed since 1783. As a commenter to this excellent post by Steve Benen points out:

Rand Paul for Senate: 21st Century Problems, 18th century solutions

The problem with Libertarianism is the same as that with Ayn Rand’s economic and political theories (to which many Libertarians avow allegiance): both view the world as a crossword puzzle. If every player plays by the rules and enters the academically correct answer to each prompt or clue, a pleasingly correct and symmetrical result will be attained.

Living is not a crossword puzzle, nor is governance.

Living is more like a wading pool full of three-year-olds. A philosophy of governance that fails to recognize that is intellectually bankrupt and morally dangerous.

Libertarianism is not a coherent philosophy. It is a nice dress suit worn by a variant of traditional American rightwing crankery.

_____________________

*Most assuredly not the copy distributed by the ACLU, since the ACLU actually thinks about what the damned thing means in real life.

Addendum, Later that Same Afternoon:

Steve Benen rounds up Republican reaction so far. They seem to be running for “no comment” cover. A nugget:

Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he’s “really not in a position to comment.” House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said, “Not being familiar with the context of his response or his questions, I really can’t opine as to his position.”

Aside from the obvious — no Profile In Courage Award nominations for these two — it’s worth emphasizing that avoiding comment won’t do as a political strategy. Rand Paul was some oddball Kentucky ophthalmologist, but he’s now the Republican Party’s nominee for a U.S. Senate seat. At some point, the party will need a response to Paul’s extreme ideology.

Addendum-dee-dum-dum:

John Cole:

What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology. Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist. I don’t think that makes Paul a racist, but I do think it kind of makes him an idiot.