Rand Paul, civil rights and journalism
If you’ve been anywhere near an electronic device in the last 24 hours, you probably know that Kentucky Senate hopeful Rand Paul — the tea party movement’s newest champion — raised some thorny questions about the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In a nutshell, Mr. Paul said that he was unsure whether it was appropriate for the Federal government to force businesses to end racist practices — say, a private bus company sending blacks to the back, or a lunch counter refusing to serve people of color.
Mr. Paul is clearly not a racist. He spoke eloquently about his own dismay at racist behavior. But in his view, libertarian and state’s rights principles may trump the value of government intervention in righting racist wrongs.
In the interview, Mr. Paul specifically said that this was a conversation still worth having, and he suggested that imposing civil rights on businesses might violate their First Amendment right to free expression.
He has since backtracked, saying he wouldn’t support repealing the Civil Rights act, which was a landmark piece of legislation pushed through by Republicans as well as Democrats.
He has also suggested that the whole thing is typical Washington-style gotcha-ism.
Unfortunately, a lot of journalists are playing along. In the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza focus on the political implications of what he portrays as a political gaffe.
Here’s Paul’s political problem in two easy steps.
1) He was trying to make a theoretical argument about what role the government does (or should) have telling private businesses what to do.
2) Theoretical arguments are stone cold losers in the context of political campaigns.
But here’s the thing about modern conservatism, and the tea party movement in particular: It’s about ideas.
Candidates like Rand Paul — and Doug Hoffman, for that matter — aren’t just another batch of off-the-shelf politicians.
They have thought a lot about modern American society, moral values, and our political culture. And they want to make big, profound changes.
Because many of their conclusions are well outside the mainstream conservatives often keep those ideas to themselves.
When it was revealed that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wrote in his masters thesis that working women were “detrimental” to the family (also questioning the value of legal contraception) it startled people.
When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich explained in detail how American progressives are more dangerous to the future of our culture than Nazism and Communism, people were taken aback.
But in fact those statement — and Mr. Paul’s arguments about the Civil Rights Act — reflect a fully realized body of theory and thinking that many conservatives embrace.
Watch Mr. Paul’s interview with Maddow and you’ll see that, while his views are surprising and controversial, they are clearly well thought out and nuanced.
Obviously, it’s up to voters to decide whether they want to be led by these particular people, and see their government guided by these particular ideas.
But it’s up to journalists to investigate those ideas, honestly, fairly and fully.
Unfortunately, many reporters are nervous about doing so. Some think the ideas are so nutty that they’re not worth giving credence to — a form of bias in itself.
And others are, in fact, just out for the quick gotcha moment. They don’t really care about Mr. Paul’s views, even though he may soon emerge as one of the most powerful men in the U.S.
But clearly the time has come for a real national conversation about conservative ideas. Not looking for gaffes or fumbles, but also not shying from issues that make people uncomfortable.
This is one of the most honest, thought-out, takes on last nights events that I have seen. Thank you, and great job.
The problem comes with the idea of governing by ideas, and the Tea Party’s orientation toward idealogical purity. Embracing the “idea” of libertarian free expression, with every shop owner free to express his or herself through their business operations can sound appealing, until you apply it and realize that means any racist can start excluding people by race from their restaurant, bar, grocery store, movie theater or whatever. What if the owners of Pyramid Corp., for example, decided they wanted to exclude, say, all white people from their malls. Politics, like parenting, should be a practical exercise. You don’t do it by the book. You don’t apply a theory to every situation that arises. Hoffman’s statement last time out about the race not being about parochial issues was wrong, as a matter of principle and of practicality.
@Will
Look at all the flak Paul is getting for theoretically disagreeing with a small portion of the civil rights bill that he would’ve voted for on a larger part and would not attempt to repeal.
The assumption here is that, without government in the way, once something is made ‘legal’ no matter how immoral or disgusting the act, it will be largely indulged in. If Paul is getting all this flak for this, how much business you think Pyramid Corp. would get if they banned anyone based on their skin color? Aside from the insanity of shrinking your marketing demographics, the bad press would be immeasurable.
If people really think it’s just or even mostly government standing between progressivism and full-blown segregation, they’re bigger cynics than I.
Lenin had some really profound ideas, too. The bottom line for Teapartiers: Property rights trump all other rights, including individual rights.
That’s the nut of the argument. And the preferred outcome is stronger corporatism, with no checks.
All the rest is lacy intellectualish curtains. If you agree with that philosophy, vote for Paul.
“But clearly the time has come for a real national conversation about conservative ideas.”
Good.
We’ve had enough of the liberal / progressive global warming stuff for awhile.
Agreed, JDM.
And I’ve had enough ice fishing, too. I hate that the liberals have taken that away from me by shortening the season the last several years with all that phony global warming talk that prevents Lake Champlain from freezing.
Or something.
anon:
Oh yes, the global is warming. and cooling. It’s doing anything but staying the same.
“Man-made” global warming is the buzz-word that differentiates the political ideologies.
Actually it is very exciting to have a debate on conservative ideas for once instead of rank demonizing. What are the “limits of liberty”? How far can we and should we go to protect individual rights and liberty from the mob or from the Leviathan?
Hopefully the conservative movement will be move in the direction of ideas versus simply saying we don’t like Liberals or we don’t like taxes and abortion. Which are are boring even if you are pro-life and anti-tax, which I am, but lets face it what is there really to say anymore about those things? Not much really.
Suddenly, Paul seems to be having the debate with himself. And losing. After questioning the civil rights bill, then saying he wouldn’t push for repeal, he now says he would have voted for it. Quite a lot of movement in about 48 hours.
Maybe defending racial discrimination isn’t a debate worth having, after all, in a country whose founding self-evident truth is that all men are created equal.
I’m so bored with some of these conservative “ideas.” It just isn’t too hard to figure out that a person’s freedom to discriminate ends at the discriminated person’s right to be treated equally. Let me see, I think they called that The Golden Rule and any well raised 4 year old can tell you why it is right. Seems to me they used to consider it conservative until the John Birchers and their ilk came along. In fact it was a conservative idea long before Jesus was born.
And don’t even get me started on Pro-life and anti-tax; I’ve never met a liberal who was Pro-death and Pro-tax. Though I’ve met a considerable number of conservatives who are Pro-death penalty.
Khl, aptly named, said, I’ve never met a liberal who was Pro-death and Pro-tax.”
Liberal / progressives hide their true beliefs behind cowardly words. If you are for “abortion-rights”, then be a man and say, “I support the right of the mom to decide to kill her baby”.
JDM, name calling and reducing a complicated and nuanced problem into a sound bite isn’t going to save any lives. I have never heard of anyone who likes abortions.
Well done Brian M. At last, a journalist that’s able to grasp the difference between theory and practice. Too bad so many others in your line either can’t, won’t or are incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.
This is a fine example of the problems we face. We can talk about socialism/liberalism/progressivism all day and it’s all well and good. These are readily identifiable ideas. But when someone brings up the so called “conservative” ideas like Paul did then people jump to the conclusion you’re trying to make a politically “conservative” argument. No, we aren’t. Is it “conservative” to question Gov’ts role in our lives? Is a “liberal” unable to question the balance of States Rights over those of the Federal Gov’t? These aren’t “conservative” or “liberal” areas. These are basic philosophical questions, the same ones the Founders discussed and they turned to Cicero and his ideas on “Natural Law” and to the Old Testament and to others that escape me at the moment. Our problem is the people we depend on to provide us with these reports (the media) very often appear incapable of grasping that much of this is way beyond a simple “right/left” discussion. And that’s the type of discussions the Founders had at length back before writing the Constitution. Their mistake was in the assumption that people would remember why they wrote that document as they did, choosing each word carefully. They expected the population to remain “Virtuous” to use their term- that is that we would retain the moral compass that would allow us to abide by natural law and right law. When you raise these issues on the national front today you’re instantly branded a lunatic.
I doubt Rand Paul will last long if he continues to speak like this. Not unless he or someone else can articulate that, for instance, he’s not saying discrimination is right, but that the Federal Gov’t was probably never intended to be able to usurp a States Right or individual liberty in a case like this. On this particular subject, if you’ll read the Founders background work and the discussion they had you’ll see that the original text of The Constitution read, “…life, liberty and property…”. The Founders working on that wording wisely saw that that might provide the basis for the continued institution of slavery. So the wording was changed so as not to give the southern States a foothold. Manumission was the goal even in 1787! Paul attempts to clarify this result in calls of “back peddling”.
i think thats incorrect.
I only wish people could grasp the difference between some of the discussions.
knuckleheadedliberal:
I apologize for calling you a knuckle-headed liberal.
“But here’s the thing about modern conservatism, and the tea party movement in particular: It’s about ideas.”
The Green Party has great ideas, much better ones than the Tea Party. Where they both fall short (and I’m a Green) is their lack of specifics. Governing is about translating grandiose ideas into reality. That requires the un-grandiose process of developing often boring specifics.
I’ve been shocked at the complete inability of someone like Mr. Hoffman (who I reference only because I hear more about him) to come up with specifics. He’s great at mouthing the standard conservative line about smaller government, less spending, blah blah blah. But what happens when pressed with specifics? He can’t come up with any. It’s all empty rhetoric.
I heard an interview with a prominent local Tea Partier on NCPR where he said we shouldn’t cut the military, prisons or farm subsidies. Where should cuts be made, he was asked? From downstate.
I heard another Tea Partier go on about the evils of big government. He was a corrections officer.
This is NOT innovative politics. It just more politics-as-usual.
And a good chunk of the media lets these irresponsible firebrands get away with it. You can get away with grandiose speechifying before talk show yapping heads when you’re in opposition. If you want the responsibility of actually governing, you need to deal in the unsexy world of specifics.
This is quite clearly illustrated here in New York State. You have one person who’s responsible enough to actually govern in the real world of specifics while the others are trying to dodge that responsibility in a most cowardly fashion. And the dutiful one is being crucified by the public and the media.
” I’ve never met a liberal who was Pro-death and Pro-tax. Though I’ve met a considerable number of conservatives who are Pro-death penalty.”
On a related tangent… I’ve been amazed by the number of self-described “pro-life” people who are in favor of state murder and wars of aggression. I mean… “capital punishment” and “Operation (arbitrary victim of the month) Freedom.”
Talk about euphemisms!
Brian, just because someone works in gov’t doesn’t mean they can’t see the problems. I think rape is a terrible crime, but I’ve never been raped, so am I unqualified to voice an opinion? I worked in gov’t at various times and saw the waste and abuse and fraud, should I just keep quiet about it and let the system roll on?
A person working in gov’t, even at the highest levels, that see’s the problems and desires change is hardly a hypocrite. It’s the guy who see’s the problem and wants to fix all the problems EXCEPT the ones that benefit him- that’s the hypocrite.
Ok, Libertarian Paul wants to do away with government interference, especially, it seems, in business. Rand is an eye doctor. Does he treat patients who are on Medicare? How does he feel about Medicare pay cuts to physicians? Yes he treats a significant number of Medicare patients and yes he is opposed to Medicare payment cuts to doctors. Rand says “Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living”. I guess it’s the governments job to make sure Rand makes a comfortable living.
One question…if Rand can be opposed to the Civil Rights Act and not be considered a racist, can a progressive be in favor of a woman’s right to choose and not be considered pro-abortion?
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dems didn’t contribute heavily to Paul’s primary campaign. This was a safe seat for GOP and, being Kentucky, may still be, but this is really going to allow the Dems to make Paul/Tea Party a national campaign issue. Without a Tea Party candidate like this, any attacks on the Tea Party views looks like an attack on average citizens who are concerned about their country. Now they can focus on the Tea party views by showcasing the extreme conservative ideal views of an individual is promoted as the face of the Tea Party
I am sure many people here can see the flaws in Rand’s argument, but I still feel I need to say something. I just do not see how Rand can make the argument that not allowing black people to be served by a private business is the same as not allowing someone with a gun to be served by a private business. A person can leave a gun at home.
JDM: Not everyone agrees that “fetus” equals “baby”.
khl is right about the rights paradox. Do I have the right to abrogate your rights?
Bret, prisons are the ultimate example of “big government” in NYS, of government spending as an economic development program.
After all, the argument elected officials made against closing NNY prisons was not that they were necessary but that their closure would devastate the region’s economy. These were predominantly Republican and conservative elected officials, of course.
They want so-called smaller government so long as it adversely affects others, but not them. They believe in it in theory so long as they are immune from the reality.
Dan:
Fortunately, for babies, your definition argument is becoming more and more archaic as science advances. As is the lie to women who are told, and who believed, that the choice they are making is about tissue, not life.
Brian muses, but there is a difference between an innocent, unborn life in the womb, and an armed combatant who wishes harm on us.
Brian, I agree in part. Ogdensburg CF should be closed if it’s not needed. I have no issue there. What you was was another part of big gov’t at work- UNIONS. That was the primary noisemaker in that issue, UNIONS.
‘Nuff said.
Jen- So my right to equal treatment as a gun owner and responsible citizen is trumped by another persons skin tone? Cool, so we negate two civil rights and allow one. That’s a great argument. You’re opening a whole can of worms with that line of reasoning.
Instead of worrying about skin tone, look instead at the issue of private property (your business) and equal treatment. If you run a diner catering to upscale businessmen and your place is suddenly taken over every day by bikers, farmer with poop pn their boots and guys who service porta johns are you within your rights to ask them to leave? Does the state have the right to force you to allow them to spend hours there?
Are there really scientists working of determining what a baby is? I am pretty sure the science of what is alive is not new. Sure its alive, so is the egg that falls out ever 28 days. Scientists will never settle this debate. Pro-life means anti-abortion. After your born, kill away.
It continues to amaze me how many anti-abortionists are also pro death penalty.
Not really the culture of life in general would be against the death penalty at least I am and I know many other pro-life people who are also against the death penalty. But being pro-life is not just being anti-abortion it is about we treat all human life itself.
But I don’t think it is a productive political debate I really don’t it is more of a cultural issue and the culture in the US has decided what we will do on this issue; it also gets very personal so then all debate is sidetracked.
“That was the primary noisemaker in that issue, UNIONS.”
You mean besides the local business people and the (mostly Republican) elected officials?
Oh and by “unions,” you mean the local residents and working people who belong to them.
Bret- What happens in a rural community, where there is only one grocery store and it is privately run? If the owner decides to ban guns and not to allow non-white people to shop there, the people with guns can still get food. This is just one example of why gun ownership and skin color is not the same thing.
Are you implying that people with guns would force their way in and steal food? Then you’re missing the point entirely. You can’t make the leap from theory to fact? That’s your problem and the problem so many others have- you can’t separate the philosophical from the practical. Look at it this way- If I was to propose the Black Pride Rallies and Black History month were divisive and should be outlawed then I’m fairly certain you and a whole lot of other people would tell me I’m wrong, that it’s not divisive at all, that it’s a celebration of culture and history. Okay- then how about we White Pride Rallys and White History Month? Huh, where’s the outpouring of support for that idea? Well that’s different, right? Don;t panic, it’s just a discussion to make a point, the same as Mr. Paul was doing. You have to be able to separate the philosophical from the actual and the politic from the philosophical. If you can’t make that leap then you can’t have the discussion and expect to respond other than exactly as you did- “Those gun nutss will force their way in and take food!”
Jeeze.
No, I did not mean that the gun people would force there way in. I meant that they could leave their guns at home, get their food, and then return home to their guns. The non-white people could not leave their skin color at home.
Brian- were you up here seeing who was protesting loudest? I live there, it was CO’s-members of the UNION- and their friends and families, just as you would expect since their livelihood was threatened. Didn’t matter if they were Democrat of Republican, no one wanted to see Oburg close. Don’t even start saying it was “mostly Republicans” unless you have a way of determining the voter registration of all the Co’s, their families and friends. You have ZERO way of knowing that.
Jen, then you still miss the point. The debate in your terms is what do the white gun carrying people that are barred from entry do if the sole store owner decides he doesn’t want them in there? They go elsewhere- this is the chance for another person to cater to the white gun owners in your scenario and open their own store. Or they go to another town and shop there. Your idea seems to be that Gov’t should prevent a hardship, having to travel to get a desired item or service. So we got off on a tangent because Pauls argument as I understand it was that it might not have been the Federal Gov’t’s place to force private property owners to do a certain thing. Note the words “Federal Government” and “might”. It’s a discussion on the intent and spirit of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He wasn’t saying, any more than I am, that racism is a good thing or that anyone should be discriminated against. He’s saying that the Federal Gov’t MAY have overstepped it’s bounds, again!
Look at my example of the white pride parade. I’m not advocating that, but the example helps illustrate the difference between reality and philosophical political discussion. In a truly fair and equal world there would be no reason we couldn’t have black pride marches and white pride marches. If we were going to have one, then equal treatment allows we should have the other. In the real world we can’t, and why we can’t should be saved for another discussion.
If we can’t get away from the simple right/left political spectrum and allow for what Brain Mann refers to as “nuance” then people simply aren’t going to understand the libertarian and Tea Party positions. They aren’t the same in many cases, but both get lumped under “Republican”, “GOP”, “conservative” or “right wing”.
Well folks, it is easy to see here through several strings why right-wing idealogues make poor political representatives. They are less interested in finding common common ground than they are in splitting hairs.
Oh, and Brian M. you can see illustrated here what happens when you give the extreme enough time (rope) they will hang themselves with their own words.
I particularly like Greentea’s comment about Dems helping to finance Rand Paul. What better way to focus the national media attention on the nutty right and away from the real issues? Maybe I’ll send Rand a donation myself.
Bret is right on OCF, the efforts major organizing force was through the unions. I am not an OCF CO or in a union but I supported the effort for purely selfish motives. I know many people who work there, I know Ogdensburg and St. Lawrence county, we need 22 million dollars per year in payroll in this county very badly, if that were to go my taxes would go up and this county would get even more poor. So yeah I support it staying open for those reasons alone. I also understand people across the state who say close it, but I have to support the home team, regardless.
I think this probably explains why it is so hard to cut government spending.
Jen- I re-read my responses to you and they sound much harsher than I intended. My apologies.
You can call it splitting hairs and I make no claims to be a great communicator. But we need to be able to discuss ideas without the misunderstanding that we mean to put the ideas into practice. We should be able to say and recognize that Lincoln violated numerous laws and made many clearly unConstitutional moves in order to keep the country from dissolving. That doesn’t mean we wish to impeach Lincoln posthumously. We should be able to say and recognize that Wilsons imprisonment of 80 thousands Americans for simply speaking their minds was wrong, that FDR’s attempts to pack the SCOTUS was wrong, that many of our current laws and regulations may have been improperly based or may be in violation of the Constitution or BoR. We should be able to say and discuss that just because a court allows a law to stand, even the SCOTUS, that at some other time that law may be rescinded as wrong and unConstitutional. The SCOTUS maintained “separate but equal” for decades. Was that right?
I find it troubling that when many of the same people who claim to be liberal thinkers can’t or won’t accept that those “on the right” can have ideas worthy of discussion. I’ll take the risk of someone saying I’m claiming victimhood again when I say those on the right have been forced to keep many views, questions and ideas to ourselves simply because even mentioning some of those questions is so completely non-PC that the more liberal/leftside thinkers can’t accept that there is any merit to the question at all. There are some things you just don’t say without running exactly the risk the Rand Paul did- “THAT’S RACIST!!!! HE WANTS TO END THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!!!!!” No. Not at all.
I have a great deal of respect for many of the posters here. I would hope some of you can see where I’m trying to go with this.
knuckleheadedliberal says:
May 21, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Well folks, it is easy to see here through several strings why right-wing idealogues make poor political representatives. They are less interested in finding common common ground than they are in splitting hairs.
KHL- may I refer you to this link- http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers – in which you will find 85 essays those crazy Founding Fathers published when they were “splitting hairs”. They split those hairs in attempt to find common ground. There is also reference material on the anti-Federalists too. They expected people to weigh their arguments for and against and they did it in public. Why should we be any different?
Of course Bret part of the problem is on our side also, we as conservatives have brought some of this on ourselves by not having thoughtful candidates or debates about real conservatism. The last time we really did that was in the early 80’s and those ideas about choice and the free market were relatively untried at that point and were new and many of them DID work. An ironic example was trading carbon credits or “cap and trade” which was a conservative idea about how to handle the issue of pollution using the market.
We have to admit that often times what has passed for conservatism under the Bush administration was truly just crony capitalism, for example protecting the oil, gas and mineral industries. So all of a sudden we are supposed to be against cap and trade, when in reality we all know it is a market based solution to a real problem that makes sense, the reason we are supposed to be against it is because Exxon-Mobile was against it. Big business is not always necessarily about the free market and we have to admit that.
Mervel, much of the damage has been done by Republicans who don’t grasp the first thing about conservatism beyond “do what Reagan did, say what Rush says”. They can’t separate the political from the practical. Cap and trade is a good example, yes. But cap and trade has been twisted to serve the needs of those who want to redistribute western wealth. It’s become another form social engineering and you can’t have social engineering involved in free market principles. The two are mutually exclusive.
Bret-I accept your apologies. I understand this is a very passionate issue for you, and I respect that. I want to say that I do not disagree with you that a conversation needs to be had about conservative views. I realize now that you thought I was attacking conservative views, and I was not. What I was trying to point out is how troublesome it can be to translate conservative ideas into practical applications. The flaw I was discussing was Rand’s comparison of black people and gun owners. I felt by trying to explain his ideas using a practical example, he failed to help his cause.
While I would say I tend toward a more liberal bent, I am by no means aggressively against many conservative ideas. I really believe that a good idea can come from either side; after all, we are all humans with diverse, complex thoughts. It is easy to demonize one side or the other, but that does not help the US in a fruitful way. Conversations need to be had. Conversely, though, and the point I tried to make (and obviously failed), is that people need to be careful with the examples.
I don’t know Bret, can we have social engineering involved with or promoted through free market principles? I think that may be a good discussion.
Jen, I’m glad you understood I didn’t mean to sound so harsh. I still haven;t seen where Rand mentioned guns at all, so it must have been a different place. And when you come down to it, it’s discrimination of a different type anyway. In a truly just world it wouldn’t even be an issue.
Mervel- The idea of a free market pretty much runs opposite of the idea of social engineering of any kind IMO. In fact the idea of social engineering is counter to pretty much anything I’ve ever seen in the Constitution and BoR. If someone has a differing opinion on that I’m all ears.
Of course I’m agin social engineering (robbing the producers to buy votes) on principal anyway. (There, that ought to stir something up….)
Bret, if one is splitting hairs with the intention of trying to reach a consensus that is one thing. Somehow I get the feeling that mostly it is done to avoid consensus. How often do the arguments made start out by stating the points of agreement?
Never, and I’m not expecting anything to change or for any consensus to be reached. Just saying that’s how the Founders did things. What I hope for is that we (the whole of the Nation) can at least discuss ideas that are labeled “conservative” or “libertarian” the same way we discuss other more progressive ideas. That’s a simplistic view of what I see being needed, but after years of hearing “You righties want to take us backwards you buncha racist bigots!” this in one of the first times I’ve seen any reporter for the MSM recognize the difference between theory and practice. Brian M went so far as to point out that Rand ISN’T a racist. That’s groundbreaking in my experience.
There is promoting a mindless agenda which needs dominance, labels and chest beating versus having a conversation. Are we selling or are we talking? At some point we started labeling each other with these inflammatory terms, racist, Nazi, communist, socialist, right winger, left winger, blah blah blah. Maybe political conversation has always been like that in the US? I don’t think so though it seems at some point we had more people in the middle, Democrats and Republicans were not that really far apart on many issues.
Can we even talk about immigration for example without throwing out these crazy terms about being a racist or a traitor? Both conservatives and liberals are to blame for this.
Bret I wish I could bag that and spread it on my garden. The Founding Fathers may have disagreed vehemently but their ultimate objective was to reach consensus, otherwise we would not have a country. The Founders also recognized it when their ideas weren’t practical and they attempted to re-form them…remember that the Constitution was our second form of government. As for the idea that being a conservative is backward looking, well, that is the definition of being a conservative. As for the bigot thing we are all bigots in our own way, not everyone is an overt racist and, frankly you seem overly touchy about it. As for recognizing the difference between theory and practice, while I appreciate Brian’s thoughtful work he is far from the first to recognize this dichotomy.
I would submit that your use of, essentially, Achems Razor is not in the search for greater meaning and truth but of greater disharmony and poorer understanding.
Wow KHL, just how did I go about urinating on your Wheaties? Maybe you ought to go back and read up on the Founders and their arguments a bit more. It took years to wear everyone down get the Constitution ratified, and some of the issues later resulted in a little argument called the American Civil War. Just whittling down the 180+ first round amendments to 10 took some major work. I think you underestimate or misunderstand the “consensus” that was reached. Your simplistic view that things went nice and smooth and that consensus was the goal is incorrect. The goal was a proper Constitution that would serve the ideals of the Founders, ensure citizens their unalienable rights and secure the republic, not a “lets all get along” consensus.
Conservatism isn’t moving backwards anymore than progressiveness is moving “forward”. Not in the political sense. That’s some of that fertilizer you were looking for. Politically progressive ideas (collectivism) are no more “forward” thinking than monarchical ideas. In this conservative ideas are more along the lines of sticking to the Constitution and BoR than going “back” to another time. To say otherwise is just spinning the facts.
Yes, of course, my goal is to confuse people and muddle their thoughts. What a diabolically clever plan! Exactly how would that benefit me?
For Brian M and everybody else, here’s a GOPer disagreeing with the philosophical underpinnings of Rand Paul. Food for thought:
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1734/rand-paul-no-barry-goldwater-civil-rights
One quote: “In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn’t work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.”
People underestimate the power of law, I think, not only to bring police power to the protection of, for example, civil rights, but to change people’s hearts and minds over time. This could be a matter of practicality — people change their attitudes to fit what is legal. But it matters. It is very powerful for the state to say, through the law, “this is unacceptable.”