I really have to write more on this blog; few are reading it because little is being written on it. I need to get into the habit of recording whatever strikes me as notable in politics that day, no matter how consequential.
What's notable for me today is my publication of a new Nolan Chart article, "Civil Rights and Wrongs (I)", on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which is back in the news after a Rand Paul incident -- well, you can read about that in the article). Here's the link:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article7778.html
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Defending Rand Paul (II) D.T. Strain
by George J. Dance
Rand Paul's views on Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act have been widely and fiercely condemned. Paul himself has been smeared as everything from a racist to a moron. However (as I noted yesterday) a few voices can be found defending him, if one looks for them, often from the most unlikely sources.
One of the most unlikely is D.T. Strain, a humanist minister from Texas and a writer for examiner.com. As Strain himself writes, "I am about the last person on the planet you might expect to defend Rand Paul, Libertarians, or Republican candidates... I am socially liberal.... I also view the kind of complete laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Libertarianism as unrealistic, logically misguided, and morally deficient as well."
Nevertheless, Strain adds, "above all of that I am firstly concerned with truth and its offspring: honesty, fairness, and accuracy."And he sees little of that in the depictions of Paul as a racist: "when you look more closely at what he's said, there isn't even good reason to suspect it.... Racism is a powerful charge to throw around and no thoughtful and moral person should do so lightly."
Rather, Strain sees Paul's objections to the act as being not racist but libertarian. "He is opposed to limiting individual freedoms, even if that means people will sometimes be bad to one another." He adds: "Paul is thinking of a private business like a home. A person owns a building and whether they live in it or decide to sell bread out of it, it's their property - and an individual should have the right to say who comes onto their property or who they do business with for any reason."
For those who don't understand how one can condemn both discrimination and laws against it (as libertarians do), Strain adds a helpful analogy:
Strain, who as he says is no libertarian, goes on to argue against that libertarian position. And here, of course, is where I disagree with him. For example, he undercuts his earlier analogy by saying that "Enforcing non-discrimination in places of business does not, in fact, require the same level of intrusiveness and bureaucracy as would laws against everyday lying." However, that is not true, not just in regard to Section II but even more so to Section VII of the CRA (which bans discrimination by race or sex in hiring). Precisely because dishonesty and racism are mental states, they cannot be seen but only inferred from objective conditions; and the bureaucracy that investigates the latter conditions has become large and intrusive indeed -- much larger than the average American (or Canadian) may think.
But refuting Strain's argument is not my objective here. In fact, I'd encourage readers to read his arguments against the libertarian view, and think it through for themselves. Giving a hearing to opposing views (even those we find repugnant), and the arguments for them, does not endanger our own views -- provided we have thought our own views through in the first place. It is indeed a pity that the voices mocking and distorting Rand Paul's coments do not understood that.
DT Strain, "In defense of Rand Paul," examiner.com, June 2, 2010.
http://www.examiner.com/x-8993-Houston-Humanist-Examiner~y2010m6d2-In-defense-of-Rand-Paul
Rand Paul's views on Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act have been widely and fiercely condemned. Paul himself has been smeared as everything from a racist to a moron. However (as I noted yesterday) a few voices can be found defending him, if one looks for them, often from the most unlikely sources.
One of the most unlikely is D.T. Strain, a humanist minister from Texas and a writer for examiner.com. As Strain himself writes, "I am about the last person on the planet you might expect to defend Rand Paul, Libertarians, or Republican candidates... I am socially liberal.... I also view the kind of complete laissez-faire capitalism espoused by Libertarianism as unrealistic, logically misguided, and morally deficient as well."
Nevertheless, Strain adds, "above all of that I am firstly concerned with truth and its offspring: honesty, fairness, and accuracy."And he sees little of that in the depictions of Paul as a racist: "when you look more closely at what he's said, there isn't even good reason to suspect it.... Racism is a powerful charge to throw around and no thoughtful and moral person should do so lightly."
Rather, Strain sees Paul's objections to the act as being not racist but libertarian. "He is opposed to limiting individual freedoms, even if that means people will sometimes be bad to one another." He adds: "Paul is thinking of a private business like a home. A person owns a building and whether they live in it or decide to sell bread out of it, it's their property - and an individual should have the right to say who comes onto their property or who they do business with for any reason."
For those who don't understand how one can condemn both discrimination and laws against it (as libertarians do), Strain adds a helpful analogy:
Should lying be illegal? Given that enforcement would require a huge bureaucracy and expense, and that it would create a veritable police state given the amount of oversight and intrusion necessary to police it, most people would agree it should not be illegal. But does that mean those people are liars or that they condone lying? Certainly not. Many of them are honest people who abhor deceptive behavior, and yet they believe these things are better handled through social pressures and the like, rather than through law enforcement.Strain's conclusion: "Those who are distorting [Rand Paul's] words, or framing his position to sound as though he is a racist or in favor of racism are acting immorally. Either they are reacting out of a well justified but misplaced anger regarding racism, or they are cunningly using the event for political gain."
Strain, who as he says is no libertarian, goes on to argue against that libertarian position. And here, of course, is where I disagree with him. For example, he undercuts his earlier analogy by saying that "Enforcing non-discrimination in places of business does not, in fact, require the same level of intrusiveness and bureaucracy as would laws against everyday lying." However, that is not true, not just in regard to Section II but even more so to Section VII of the CRA (which bans discrimination by race or sex in hiring). Precisely because dishonesty and racism are mental states, they cannot be seen but only inferred from objective conditions; and the bureaucracy that investigates the latter conditions has become large and intrusive indeed -- much larger than the average American (or Canadian) may think.
But refuting Strain's argument is not my objective here. In fact, I'd encourage readers to read his arguments against the libertarian view, and think it through for themselves. Giving a hearing to opposing views (even those we find repugnant), and the arguments for them, does not endanger our own views -- provided we have thought our own views through in the first place. It is indeed a pity that the voices mocking and distorting Rand Paul's coments do not understood that.
DT Strain, "In defense of Rand Paul," examiner.com, June 2, 2010.
http://www.examiner.com/x-8993-Houston-Humanist-Examiner~y2010m6d2-In-defense-of-Rand-Paul
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Defending Rand Paul (I) Lanny Davis
by George J. Dance
For two weeks now I have been following the flap over Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow on Title II of the Civil Rights Act, making copious notes and getting little writing done. It just occurred to me that the TPA blog is the ideal place to put those notes: this is the place for rougher, immediate commentary, with the more polished, detailed work still appearing on the Nolan Chart pages.
One encouraging sign is those few voices, mostly drowned out in the widespread chorus of vilification but breaking through from time to time, that have been raised in Dr. Paul's defence. Not only his supporters, but some of his erstwhile political opponents have spoken up.
One early piece out was by former Clinton aide Lanny Davis, in a column called "The Paul-Maddow Interview: A Liberal's Second Thoughts" reprinted in both The Hill and The Daily Caller. Davis says that, while initially he enjoyed "the media and political piling-on of Paul," after a while he became uncomfortable with it and decided to do his own research. Which led him to the Libertarian Party platform, from which he quotes, “property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference,” as the root of Paul's opposition to Title II.
Davis also explains Paul's apparent contradiction -- his later statement that he would have voted for the Act, and supports it today -- by quoting from the platform section on racism: "We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.”
Davis gets some factual points wrong. For one thing, he calls Paul's father Ron the 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee (Paul ran for the Republican nomination that year; he was the Libertarian nominee in 1988.) For another, based on the LP platform, Davis concludes that Paul is pro-choice, when in fact, as a good Republican, he wants abortion almost completely outlawed. However, the article is a good one on balance which makes its points effectively. As well, it appears to have been influential: media commentary by and large has shifted from labelling Paul a racist and even a Klansman, to calling him a libertarian, and I conjecture Davis's article had much to do with that.
It is certainly worth noting, and quoting at length, Davis's conclusion:
For two weeks now I have been following the flap over Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow on Title II of the Civil Rights Act, making copious notes and getting little writing done. It just occurred to me that the TPA blog is the ideal place to put those notes: this is the place for rougher, immediate commentary, with the more polished, detailed work still appearing on the Nolan Chart pages.
One encouraging sign is those few voices, mostly drowned out in the widespread chorus of vilification but breaking through from time to time, that have been raised in Dr. Paul's defence. Not only his supporters, but some of his erstwhile political opponents have spoken up.
One early piece out was by former Clinton aide Lanny Davis, in a column called "The Paul-Maddow Interview: A Liberal's Second Thoughts" reprinted in both The Hill and The Daily Caller. Davis says that, while initially he enjoyed "the media and political piling-on of Paul," after a while he became uncomfortable with it and decided to do his own research. Which led him to the Libertarian Party platform, from which he quotes, “property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference,” as the root of Paul's opposition to Title II.
Davis also explains Paul's apparent contradiction -- his later statement that he would have voted for the Act, and supports it today -- by quoting from the platform section on racism: "We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual’s rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation.”
Davis gets some factual points wrong. For one thing, he calls Paul's father Ron the 2008 Libertarian presidential nominee (Paul ran for the Republican nomination that year; he was the Libertarian nominee in 1988.) For another, based on the LP platform, Davis concludes that Paul is pro-choice, when in fact, as a good Republican, he wants abortion almost completely outlawed. However, the article is a good one on balance which makes its points effectively. As well, it appears to have been influential: media commentary by and large has shifted from labelling Paul a racist and even a Klansman, to calling him a libertarian, and I conjecture Davis's article had much to do with that.
It is certainly worth noting, and quoting at length, Davis's conclusion:
We liberals can and should strongly disagree with Rand Paul and libertarians on the positions they take on various issues, especially their belief in the lack of governmental power to ensure racial and economic justice in this country. But mocking him and trivializing a man who is so intellectually honest in applying his libertarian principles does not feel right to me anymore.
Maybe too many of us have grown so cynical with today’s political culture that we have a hard time coping with, much less believing in, someone who is running for political office who is actually authentic and sincere, even if it means he or she is taking positions that offend, at times, both the left and the right.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Rand Paul money bomb today
Just a quick reminder of the Rand Paul "Give me Liberty" money bomb today, on the anniversary of Patrick Henry's famous quote. You can donate at Rand's website, or through this site, which looks well worth checking out: http://www.winrandwin.com/
Please read the letter from Congressman Ron Paul regarding the money bomb (posted on TPA on Saturday), and for background, my newest Nolan Chart article on the Rand Paul campaign, The Battle of Kentucky [http://www.nolanchart.com/article7526.html].
Please read the letter from Congressman Ron Paul regarding the money bomb (posted on TPA on Saturday), and for background, my newest Nolan Chart article on the Rand Paul campaign, The Battle of Kentucky [http://www.nolanchart.com/article7526.html].
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Ron Paul tells base: "We need you more than ever" on March 23
Subject: URGENT! Help Keep Rand on TV!!
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:32:24 -0400
From: Congressman Ron Paul
Reply-To: Congressman_Ron_Paul_hembt_lnenpm@cp20.com
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Congressman Ron Paul
Dear Friend,
My son Rand is running a great campaign in Kentucky. Through hard work and your support, he is winning! We have a real chance to send the most principled, limited government leader to the United States Senate in a generation.
But now, he needs you more than ever.
The big government establishment has turned on their fundraising machine to try and defeat Rand. According to media reports, Rand's challenger has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past several weeks. The sources? Disgusting! PAC's, special interests and the banking industry - all of whom are opening up their wallets for Rand's opponent.
Remember when AIG took billions of taxpayer bailout dollars not once, but twice? Well, I have it on good information that AIG's chief lobbyist just held a high dollar, big money fundraiser for Rand's rival. I am sure you can figure out why.
Rand has shrewdly purchased all the television airtime he needs from mid-April through his May 18th Primary. The commercials are produced, the voter data is being assembled and a tremendous turnout machine is being put in place.
Rand's career politician opponent is lashing out - he has turned on an attack machine of vicious distortions and outright lies. Rand is working hard to knock them back and fight for our principles.
But, Rand does not have enough money to stay on TV and fight off the establishments smear tactics over the next few weeks. Unless he gets a substantial infusion of cash, he will not be able to purchase airtime from March 24 through mid April. And with all of his opponent's lies and fear mongering, he needs your help to stay on Kentucky statewide television during this critical time.
On Tuesday, March 23, the grassroots have organized a Money Bomb for Rand. If we have a successful day, Rand will be able to purchase the airtime he needs for the next few weeks and fund the last several mail pieces he will need down the stretch. You can donate directly at Rand's website, www.RandPaul2010.com.
We need you more than ever. I dearly hope I can count on your support. We have a tremendous opportunity, and if we come together on March 23, I know we can win.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. Please view this video Rand's team out together, and forward it to your friends and family. Every single person's contribution counts, and anything you can do to spread the message is greatly appreciated!
Pol. Adv. Paid for by Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul * 1-800-RON-PAUL
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:32:24 -0400
From: Congressman Ron Paul
Reply-To: Congressman_Ron_Paul_hembt_lnenpm@cp20.com
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Dear Friend,
My son Rand is running a great campaign in Kentucky. Through hard work and your support, he is winning! We have a real chance to send the most principled, limited government leader to the United States Senate in a generation.
But now, he needs you more than ever.
The big government establishment has turned on their fundraising machine to try and defeat Rand. According to media reports, Rand's challenger has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past several weeks. The sources? Disgusting! PAC's, special interests and the banking industry - all of whom are opening up their wallets for Rand's opponent.
Remember when AIG took billions of taxpayer bailout dollars not once, but twice? Well, I have it on good information that AIG's chief lobbyist just held a high dollar, big money fundraiser for Rand's rival. I am sure you can figure out why.
Rand has shrewdly purchased all the television airtime he needs from mid-April through his May 18th Primary. The commercials are produced, the voter data is being assembled and a tremendous turnout machine is being put in place.
Rand's career politician opponent is lashing out - he has turned on an attack machine of vicious distortions and outright lies. Rand is working hard to knock them back and fight for our principles.
But, Rand does not have enough money to stay on TV and fight off the establishments smear tactics over the next few weeks. Unless he gets a substantial infusion of cash, he will not be able to purchase airtime from March 24 through mid April. And with all of his opponent's lies and fear mongering, he needs your help to stay on Kentucky statewide television during this critical time.
On Tuesday, March 23, the grassroots have organized a Money Bomb for Rand. If we have a successful day, Rand will be able to purchase the airtime he needs for the next few weeks and fund the last several mail pieces he will need down the stretch. You can donate directly at Rand's website, www.RandPaul2010.com.
We need you more than ever. I dearly hope I can count on your support. We have a tremendous opportunity, and if we come together on March 23, I know we can win.
In Liberty,
Ron Paul
P.S. Please view this video Rand's team out together, and forward it to your friends and family. Every single person's contribution counts, and anything you can do to spread the message is greatly appreciated!
Pol. Adv. Paid for by Committee to Re-Elect Ron Paul * 1-800-RON-PAUL
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Modern Politician / Archibald Lampman
The Modern Politician
What manner of soul is his to whom high truth
Is but the plaything of a feverish hour,
A dangling ladder to the ghost of power!
Gone are the grandeurs of the world's iron youth,
When kings were mighty, being made by swords.
Now comes the transit age, the age of brass,
When clowns into the vacant empires pass,
Blinding the multitude with specious words.
To them faith, kinship, truth and verity,
Man's sacred rights and very holiest thing,
Are but the counters at a desperate play,
Flippant and reckless what the end may be,
So that they glitter, each his little day,
The little mimic of a vanished king.
--
Archibald Lampman
1900
What manner of soul is his to whom high truth
Is but the plaything of a feverish hour,
A dangling ladder to the ghost of power!
Gone are the grandeurs of the world's iron youth,
When kings were mighty, being made by swords.
Now comes the transit age, the age of brass,
When clowns into the vacant empires pass,
Blinding the multitude with specious words.
To them faith, kinship, truth and verity,
Man's sacred rights and very holiest thing,
Are but the counters at a desperate play,
Flippant and reckless what the end may be,
So that they glitter, each his little day,
The little mimic of a vanished king.
--
Archibald Lampman
1900
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Dick & Betsy DeVos endorse Justin Amash for Congress
Spokesman: Dick and Betsy DeVos endorse Justin Amash for Congress | MLive.com - Jim Harger:
February 12, 2010 - "GOP power couple Dick and Betsy DeVos have thrown their early support to State Rep. Justin Amash's quest to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids.
"Amash, R-Cascade Township, announced his candidacy on Tuesday, one day before Ehlers announced he would retired at 17 years in the U.S. House.
"They enthusiastically support and endorse his candidacy and believe he has a strong record of standing up for smart but limited government," said a spokesman for the DeVoses....
"Amash, a 29-year-old legislator in his first term of office, would not have won the DeVos endorsement had Ehlers not announced his retirement, said their spokesman, Greg McNeilly.
"'They have known Vern pretty much all their lives,' said McNeilly, noting Betsy DeVos took a physics course from Ehlers while a student at Calvin College.
"Dick DeVos, son of Amway Corp. co-founder Rich DeVos, ran a largely self-funded campaign for governor as a Republican in 2006. Betsy DeVos is a former GOP National Committee member and state party chairwoman."
Read more: http://blog.mlive.com/talkingpolitics/2010/02/spokesman_dick_and_betsy_devos.html
'via Blog this'
February 12, 2010 - "GOP power couple Dick and Betsy DeVos have thrown their early support to State Rep. Justin Amash's quest to succeed retiring U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids.
"Amash, R-Cascade Township, announced his candidacy on Tuesday, one day before Ehlers announced he would retired at 17 years in the U.S. House.
"They enthusiastically support and endorse his candidacy and believe he has a strong record of standing up for smart but limited government," said a spokesman for the DeVoses....
"Amash, a 29-year-old legislator in his first term of office, would not have won the DeVos endorsement had Ehlers not announced his retirement, said their spokesman, Greg McNeilly.
"'They have known Vern pretty much all their lives,' said McNeilly, noting Betsy DeVos took a physics course from Ehlers while a student at Calvin College.
"Dick DeVos, son of Amway Corp. co-founder Rich DeVos, ran a largely self-funded campaign for governor as a Republican in 2006. Betsy DeVos is a former GOP National Committee member and state party chairwoman."
Read more: http://blog.mlive.com/talkingpolitics/2010/02/spokesman_dick_and_betsy_devos.html
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)