Rand Paul Confronts the GOP's Race Problem

[theworldismine13]

Rand Paul Confronts the GOP's Race Problem

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul will give a speech Wednesday at Howard University, the historically black college, about the history of black voters and the Republican Party. It will be interesting to see what version of GOP history Paul decides to tell. Since the 2012 election, Republicans have been looking to reach out to minority voters, but can sometimes show a bit of denial as to why their party gets so little of the minority vote in the first place. The Kentucky senator, who has said he's interested in running for president in 2016, makes a great case study. "I think sometime aways back we quit showing up and asking African Americans for their vote," Paul told Business Insider's Grace Wyler. Perhaps he could ask his father to clarify what happened.

Since the 2012 election, the GOP has been trying to figure out how to appeal to minority voters, following many failed attempts in just the last 10 years. But a fascinating aspect of this conversation within conservatism is that conservatives don't always want to talk about why that outreach is difficult. The most shocking moment was at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, in which a panel titled "Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick and Tired of Being Called a Racist and You Know You're Not One?" was about how the GOP was the party that really supported civil rights. A segregationist then tried to correct the speakers, telling me he favored the GOP because Republicans supported segregationists in the 1960s and 1970s. "Trump the Race Card" was not making a novel argument! Kevin Williamson made the same case in a National Review cover story titled "The Party of Civil Rights" in May 2012. One bit of recent conservative history Williamson omitted was the time National Review founder William F. Buckley endorsed white supremacy.

It is that context that makes Rand Paul's speech at Howard so interesting. Paul has taken over the job of spokesman for the libertarian wing of the Republican Party from his dad, Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who ran for president three times. Ron Paul also tried to reach out to black voters by attacking the way we implement our drug laws. "True racism in this country is in the judicial system," Paul said during a January 2012 presidential primary debate. "The percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately." Rand Paul's Wednesday speech will also address what he, too, sees as drug laws that hurt black people, as well as school choice, which he thinks would help black kids get better educations.

But the reason Ron Paul was forced to speak out on issues affecting black people is that he was getting a lot of criticism for making tons of money by publishing really racist newsletters two decades earlier. Here's a tiny sample:

As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted.

Ron Paul's defense was that the newsletters were a cynical exploitation of racist whites — his staff repeatedly said Paul did not write and maybe did not read his newsletters. His staff did not claim he didn't profit from them.

Rand Paul didn't have anything warning of a "race war" published under his name. But he had to deal with his own flirtation with appealing to unenlightened southerners. As National Journal's Elahe Izadi explains:

While running for Senate in 2010, Paul’s comments that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in forcing private businesses not to racially discriminate created a firestorm. He had to scramble to clarify that he supports the Civil Rights Act and is against segregation in public spaces, and by the next day, he seemed to reverse his position on discrimination by private entities.

So when Paul speaks about the "history of the Republican Party and African American voters," as his staff described his speech last week, it will be impossible not to be curious about which story he decides upon: the one in which the GOP just forgot to campaign for black votes, or the one in which the GOP made a bad bet on racism and is trying to fix it.

 

[Robbie3000]

Maybe he can talk about his belief that the Civil War should not have been fought or private businesses can refuse service to people based on race.

 

[Jello Biafra]

While running for Senate in 2010, Paul’s comments that the federal government shouldn’t be involved in forcing private businesses not to racially discriminate created a firestorm. He had to scramble to clarify that he supports the Civil Rights Act and is against segregation in public spaces, and by the next day, he seemed to reverse his position on discrimination by private entities.

If memory serves Rand Paul's point on the feds not being able to force a oprivate business to not be racially discriminatory was based on the Libertarian/Old School Conservative philosophy that once the populace discovered that a certain business was racist then people would stop frequenting said establishment and the place would either go out of business or the business owner would have to change his practices.
It is a bit of a pie in the sky, "the marketplace solves all problems" thought process but I don't think he meant it in any malicious, racist way.

And I am very interested to see what angle he tries to work in his speech at Howard because the if the GOP is to survive going forward they really do have to begin doing some outreach to voting sectors that have not been historically inclined to vote for them.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

If memory serves Rand Paul's point on the feds not being able to force a oprivate business to not be racially discriminatory was based on the Libertarian/Old School Conservative philosophy that once the populace discovered that a certain business was racist then people would stop frequenting said establishment and the place would either go out of business or the business owner would have to change his practices.
It is a bit of a pie in the sky, "the marketplace solves all problems" thought process but I don't think he meant it in any malicious, racist way.

Does it really matter? He's dead wrong.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Sadly, I anticipate another attempt at whitewashing (pun intended) the history and relationship between black America and modern neo-conservatism. Republicans have become adept at prattling on about republicanism being the "party of lincoln", in an effort to promote a soft con and avoid the demographic and political shifts in orientation that were spurred on by the civil rights movement. Until republicans LEGITIMATELY engage with conservatives foremost guiding principle: the wholesale acceptance of white supremacy/black inferiority as an explanation for inequality and outcomes, and how this feature of the ideology has controlled the incompatibility between minority voters and republicans, then this "conversation" is just more unproductive white noise.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

If memory serves Rand Paul's point on the feds not being able to force a oprivate business to not be racially discriminatory was based on the Libertarian/Old School Conservative philosophy that once the populace discovered that a certain business was racist then people would stop frequenting said establishment and the place would either go out of business or the business owner would have to change his practices.
It is a bit of a pie in the sky, "the marketplace solves all problems" thought process but I don't think he meant it in any malicious, racist way.

And I am very interested to see what angle he tries to work in his speech at Howard because the if the GOP is to survive going forward they really do have to begin doing some outreach to voting sectors that have not been historically inclined to vote for them.

The idea that money and the market is some objective arbiter, and should serve as the ultimate moral legislator is highly offensive. No where in our societies history have we experienced a significant objection to racial subjugating, w/o first legislative stimulation.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Does it really matter? He's dead wrong.

True but it matters (at least to me) because his being wrong doesn't automatically equal out to him being a racist and most of these types of discussions will get bogged down in discussing his feelings on race instead of how his political view on the matter is flawed.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

True but it matters (at least to me) because his being wrong doesn't automatically equal out to him being a racist and most of these types of discussions will get bogged down in discussing his feelings on race instead of how his political view on the matter is flawed.

I think a fair case can be made that many in the "let the free market decide" crowd adopt such a position because its an indirect way of supporting functionalism that privileges one group at the expense of others, while also still maintaining moral high ground and not appearing on surface to be bigoted in nature.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I think a fair case can be made that many in the "let the free market decide" crowd adopt such a position because its an indirect way of supporting functionalism that privileges one group at the expense of others, while also still maintaining moral high ground and not appearing on surface to be bigoted in nature.

Not that I agree with the practice, but how does a business that doesn't serve certain races gain or exercise a privilege over others? Seems like they are putting themselves at a huge disadvantage.

And the only way the GOP can gain legitimacy with all the groups they have alienated is to acknowledge their wrongdoing and separate themselves from the racist loudmouths. GOP as a fiscally conservative socially disinterested party would appeal to a lot of people.

 

[The Real]

Not that I agree with the practice, but how does a business that doesn't serve certain races gain or exercise a privilege over others? Seems like they are putting themselves at a huge disadvantage.

If we're talking majority and minority groups, it becomes very possible with the right social circumstances, including the de facto segregation we have in so many places, and vast racial disparities in wealth. For example, there was that study that found that a large portion of people in certain Southern states were in favor of resegregation. If there were white-only places they could patronize (in a non-segregation scenario,) those places wouldn't be losing much by not serving Black customers. They might even be doing better than before by deciding to be a white-only establishment.

 

[Rekkapryde]

fukk him and his daddy.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

True but it matters (at least to me) because his being wrong doesn't automatically equal out to him being a racist and most of these types of discussions will get bogged down in discussing his feelings on race instead of how his political view on the matter is flawed.

Whether he's "racist" in his heart or not doesn't matter nearly as much to me as to whether or not he advocates policies that reinforce structural racism. Pushing for racist policy because you're tone deaf or apathetic is no better than pushing for racist policy out of hatred.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Not that I agree with the practice, but how does a business that doesn't serve certain races gain or exercise a privilege over others? Seems like they are putting themselves at a huge disadvantage.

Everywhere in country?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

If we're talking majority and minority groups, it becomes very possible with the right social circumstances, including the de facto segregation we have in so many places, and vast racial disparities in wealth. For example, there was that study that found that a large portion of people in certain Southern states were in favor of resegregation. If there were white-only places they could patronize (in a non-segregation scenario,) those places wouldn't be losing much by not serving Black customers. They might even be doing better than before by deciding to be a white-only establishment.

Everywhere in country?

These places don't need legal protection to segregate. Many of them already do. So to a degree I see dude's point. I mean why would you want to patronize the business of a racist anyway?

Though I do see how it could be an issue for basic shyt like groceries, gas, etc. Imagine being low on gas and pulling up to a "whites only" gas station in the middle of nowhere. And I wouldn't want the govt getting lobbied to decide what are and aren't 'essential services'. So the laws make sense.

 

[Blackking]

"Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick and Tired of Being Called a Racist and You Know You're Not One?" was about how the GOP was the party that really supported civil rights. A segregationist then tried to correct the speakers, telling me he favored the GOP because Republicans supported segregationists in the 1960s and 1970s. "Trump the Race Card" was not making a novel argument! Kevin Williamson made the same case in a National Review cover story titled "The Party of Civil Rights" in May 2012. One bit of recent conservative history Williamson omitted was the time National Review founder William F. Buckley endorsed white supremacy.


He's going to have a very hard time getting his message across.

The only Two options are to not give a fck and consolidate the conservative white male vote along w the majority of Southern White woman... Or create a new party and leave the rednecks and racist out.