Posted on May 23, 2010 - by David

Rand Paul: Loud, But Not So Clear

The day after Dr. Rand Paul, son of congressman Ron Paul and darling of the Tea Party movement, won the republican nomination for senate in Kentucky, he got himself into some trouble on the Rachel Maddow show discussing the piece of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which banned discrimination by private businesses.

part 2 of the Maddow interview

Two days later, on Good Morning America with George Stephanopolous, Rand Paul is obviously frustrated with the barrage of media criticism he faced after the interview with Rachel Maddow.

I might be inclined to stick up for Rand Paul if he seemed inclined to stick up for himself. Calling the criticism he is facing politically motivated and accusing George Stephanopolous of getting his talking points from the Democratic National Committee is a waste of valuable air time. Of course they are politically motivated – so what? Did he expect things to be different for him? Is he surprised that he is being attacked in media outlets that his own Tea Party movement decries for being leftist/socialist?

As George Will put it, “He doesn’t understand that his job is to win a Senate seat, not conduct a seminar on libertarian philosophy.” To be fair, Dr. Paul may not have known back in 2002 that in 8 years he’d be heading out on the campaign trail, and now there are public statements he must account for. He may not be able to avoid sounding extreme, but he could at least avoid looking stupid. When forced into a corner on the Civil Rights Act, he argued that outlawing abhorrent racist practices by privately-owned businesses is a slippery slope to undermining the first amendment. But for someone defending free speech, he is doing an awful lot of back-pedaling and equivocating about what he has already said.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think more people would respect Rand Paul if he simply stopped stammering. When someone in the media brings up something he said in the past, and asks if he still stands by the statement, he ought to give a clear “yes” or “no,” or, if really in a bind, an “I don’t know.” The people of Kentucky could then decide whether they agree with Paul’s principles, rather than puzzling over whether he agrees with himself.  For someone bringing a message that is “loud and clear and does not mince words,” things are getting awfully muddled. The golden rule might be something like, ‘if you don’t have anything smart to say, don’t say anything at all,’ but that may not really be an option.

part 2 of April 15, 2010 Tea Party address in Louisville, KY

In the above Tea Party speech, Dr. Paul is critical of legislators who pass bills without reading them, but on NPR he admitted to not having “really read all through” the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Now I’m not saying the two are equivalent, but it presents his opponents with another point of attack. Paul’s position(s?) on the Civil Rights Act has turned into a debate over whether libertarianism can provide practicable solutions to actual problems. For readers interested in intelligent libertarian commentary on the issue, I’d recommend the posts written by David Bernstein, Randy Barnett, and Ilya Somin over at the group blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. I think Dr. Paul himself would benefit greatly from browsing these posts, but something tells he won’t have a lot of time to read now that he’s in campaign mode.

While the guys at Volokh (almost all of them professors of law) seem excited about Rand Paul, it may just be that their impulse to uphold the libertarian position in general led them to amass their considerable legal/historical expertise in (something resembling) his defense.  Unfortunately for Paul, TV interviews are not particularly conducive to the kind of detailed (and often hypothetical) considerations that these bloggers have the luxury of making at any time of day or night. But TV is where he must shine. One might ask, ‘Isn’t Rand Paul in the same position as any other political candidate who has to deal with having his own words turned on him?’  I would say no. Paul, as a Tea Partier, cannot afford to flip-flop. Those already on Paul’s side will see the criticism he now faces as further evidence of the entrenchment of liberals in the media – it’s more fuel for their fire. But to those in Kentucky who must be won over, and those around the nation just becoming acquainted with the Tea Party phenomenon, this whole thing may is bound to be a little unsettling.

See this politico article on what the GOP thinks about Paul’s early missteps. I have by no means attempted to cover this thing in detail. There are literally thousands of blog posts and news articles out there. Happy reading!