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.

Cillizza wrote this:

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.