Why is Rand Paul a "racist," according to Krugman and his employer? He is a racist because he does not believe that the federal government should dictate anti-discrimination policies to private businesses via the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Keep in mind that Paul has not used racially-inflammatory language during his campaign or even brought up race at all. However, if he does not worship at the feet of the feds, then he is by definition a racist, or at least that is what they claim at the NYT.
You know, if Rand Paul loses his Senate race, in a way I’ll be sorry. He’s been so much fun in such a short period of time!Therefore, Rand Paul is a "Southern Democrat" who is a racist, like Theo Bilbo or George Wallace in his earlier years. Now, Krugman offers no proof that Paul is a racist; he just makes the connection.
Anyway, given the flap over his assertion that he wouldn’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, some Republicans are making the argument that they were the party of civil rights, while Democrats were the enemies. And there’s some truth to that: in the 1950s and early 1960s, the opponents of civil right were largely Southern Democrats.
But what happened to those Southern Democrats? They became Republicans. And I’m not just speaking metaphorically: many Republican members of Congress during the era of GOP dominance were, literally, former Democrats who switched parties.
The point is that today’s Democratic party is, effectively, the party of Lyndon Johnson, whose decision to push forward on civil rights cost the party the South, as he knew it would. Meanwhile, today’s Republican party is the party of Richard Nixon, who cynically exploited the backlash against civil rights to build a new majority.
Likewise, his employer declares:
In a handful of remarkably candid interviews since winning Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary this week, Mr. Paul made it clear that he does not understand the nature of racial progress in this country.Now, the editors don't explain how the government "rescued" the economy from the Great Depression, given that the rate of unemployment in 1939 was substantially higher than it was in 1930 or even 1931, and was close to the 1933 high of 25 percent. However, we are speaking of the NYT, the same newspaper that tried to claim that Duke lacrosse player Reade Seligmann simultaneously could be both at a bank teller and at a party miles away raping Crystal Mangum. This is a newspaper that believes its very words supercede reality.
As a longtime libertarian, he espouses the view that personal freedom should supersede all government intervention. Neighborhood associations should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, he has written, and private businesses ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they wish. Under this philosophy, the punishment for a lunch counter that refuses to seat black customers would be public shunning, not a court order.
It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others.
It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace. (Emphasis mine)
Republicans in Washington have breathlessly distanced themselves from Mr. Paul’s remarks, afraid that voters might tar them with the same extremist brush. But as they continue to fight the new health care law and oppose greater financial regulation, claiming the federal government is overstepping its bounds, they should notice that the distance is closing.
Krugman makes one more interesting comment: "So yes, let’s honor the great Republicans of yore; I’m a Lincoln man, myself."
That is interesting. Lincoln was a self-proclaimed racist, whose Illinois did not permit free black people to live within its state borders. Lincoln also ordered his armies to loot, burn down whole cities and towns, and whose armies went pillaging and raping as they went along.
Thus, if I am to follow Krugman's logic (and the logic of his employer), then Krugman favors rape, racism, and destruction. Hey, if he is a "Lincoln man," then he has to favor what Lincoln did.