Last night I watched the war in Iraq end. I figured since I watched it begin, I should watch it end, too. So, around 9 pm EST (2 or 3 am local time) the last of our combat troops crossed the border into Kuwait, the gate was closed, and an era ended.

C’mon, all y’all gotta know this one — even though it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall (a.k.a. Stephen G Tallentyre) who wrote these words, in The Friends of Voltaire, to describe what Voltaire believed vis-à-vis freedom of expression:

I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Now, most folks just take that quotation as a simple platitude that’s useful for explaining why The ACLU was right to fight for a Neo-Nazi group’s right to march in Skokie, Illinois, or why we do not and cannot censor homophobic cranks like Fred Phelps and Maggie Gallagher, but Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul takes the whole Voltaire thing much, much farther, extending — or perhaps reducing — it to gross oversimplification.

I am NOT accusing Dr. Paul of racism, and I believe him when he says he’s not in favor of discrimination, and that he would not belong to a club that excluded people because of race.

Only those folks whose thinking is as oversimplified as Dr. Paul’s should have come to that conclusion when Dr. Paul stepped into a very messy rhetorical quagmire during an interview with the Louisville Courier-Journal [video], in which he said, “I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I’m all in favor of that, I don’t like the idea of teling private business owners — I abhor racism… I do believe in private ownership.”

I understand what Dr. Paul tried so ineloquently to convey because what Dr. Paul really is is a libertarian purist, a simple-minded almost-anarchist who actually believes that there is such a thing as a clear and bright line between the public sphere and private enterprise, and that human nature is inherently good.

Still, while it is unfair and wrong to label Dr. Paul as a racist, he was largely backed by the Tea Party (the GOP put its support behind Dr. Paul’s opponent, Trey Grayson), which has an undeniable, albeit slight, racist streak.

In his May 18, 2010 victory speech, Dr. Paul said, “I have a message, a message from the Tea Party, a message that is loud and clear and does not mince words. We’ve come to take our government back.” (From whom? I wonder.)

Somehow, I don’t think Dr. Paul fully understood the Tea Party’s message, partly because outside of vague slogans about taxes, the deficit, and how much they do not care for our current president, the Tea Party doesn’t really have a coherent one, but mostly because of Dr. Paul’s apparent naivete with regard to human nature and the politics of race in 21st century America.

Even so, Dr. Paul must know that certain elements of the Tea Party would probably like to see the Civil Rights Act of 1964 repealed — and not just the 10% of it to which libertarian purists, like Dr. Paul, object.

Dr. Paul attempted to clarify the nuances of his position in a May 19, 2010 interview with Robert Siegel of NPR’s All Things Considered:

SIEGEL: You’ve said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: What I’ve always said is that I’m opposed to institutional racism, and I would’ve, had I’ve been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.

SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have – hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it’s confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I’m in favor of. I’m in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven’t really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we’re going for the Civil Rights Act.

SIEGEL: But it’s been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the ‘64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn’t be bothered by people with the basis in law to sue them for redress?

Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who’s handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to the solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.

Later that same day, Dr. Paul sat for an interview on The Rachel Maddow Show and once again got all tangled up in the complexities of his own oversimplifications:

MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

PAUL: Yes. I’m not in favor of any discrimination of any form. I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race.

But I think what’s important about this debate is not written into any specific “gotcha” on this, but asking the question: what about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking?

I don’t want to be associated with those people, but I also don’t want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that’s one of the things freedom requires is that we allow people to be boorish and uncivilized, but that doesn’t mean we approve of it. I think the problem with this debate is by getting muddled down into it, the implication is somehow that I would approve of any racism or discrimination, and I don’t in any form or fashion.

So, in Dr. Paul’s expressed worldview, economic darwinism is supposed to surmount social darwinism in a modern society that’s allegedly gotten past its patriarchal white supremacist history. Apparently, Dr. Paul truly believes that the forces of the free market can keep private enterprise from engaging in the practice of arbitrary discrimination (e.g. racially segregated lunch counters) because it’s bad for business.

Would it were that such idealistic notions were true, and that our world-famous American innovation could not, and would not, ever come up with a business model in which prejudice amounts to profit.

Free Speech versus Free Enterprise

Dr. Paul has held fast to pure libertarian (of the paleoconservative/anarcho-capitalist variety) principles of limited government that is as close to anarchy as possible, while still having some kind of a state remaining in place so we can have stuff like a military, and perhaps first responders such as a police force, firefighters and paramedics for when those natural and human-caused disasters strike — and maybe some kind of refuse collection and a few public roads and schools, if that’s not too “liberal” or “socialist” for the mysterious and muddled ideology of Tea Party folks (who seem to be huge fans of Social Security and Medicare, BTW).

Now, I understand that libertarian purists must stick to their principles — in theory, at least — and that that may require a bit of cognitive dissonance, from time to time. And I also understand that freedom can sometimes have undesirable, yet unavoidable, ramifications.

However, in his efforts to remain true to his pure, theoretical libertarian principles, Dr. Paul has relied upon a contortion of Voltaire’s principle of free expression, stretching it to include some imagined right of business owners to arbitrarily decide whom they will or will not hire and which customers they will or will not serve. In doing so, Dr. Paul has failed to take into account the  obvious fact that there can be no clear and bright line that separates the public sphere from private enterprise because private enterprise is merely a part of the public sphere, and it cannot exist independently of it.

I don’t really need to go into the practical aspects of Dr. Paul’s libertarian purism, such as those concerning sanitation and security — not to mention streets, transportation and parking so that the free market can actually function — do I?

Photo attribution: Gage Skidmore

What about all the companies that keep hiring people who’re here illegally?

They’re looking for cheap labor and to avoid regulations that protect workers, as well as all the taxes employers of legal workers must pay.

Meanwhile, lots of people seem to be attacking mostly poor, uneducated people who do things like pick fruit or dig holes for a living — if those jobs did not exist, people would not be coming here to fill them.

And let’s not get all up in arms over Americans being unemployed as most Americans wouldn’t do that sort of work under the kind of working conditions illegal immigrants endure, even for twice what illegal immigrants are paid.

The National Day of Prayer was an annual day of prayer held on the first Thursday of May until April 15, 2010, when it was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb.

The law that formalized The National Day of Prayer was enacted in 1952, which means that it was probably intended to distinguish America from the godless commies — followed by the words “under God” being shoehorned into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, for the very same reason. (They might not seem very scary now, but commies were, like, the Al-Qaeda of the 1950s.)

As usual and expected, many Christians are up in arms over the whole National Day of Prayer being struck down, but other Christians are just gonna pray anyway because, well they want to pray and they have a right to do so regardless of the constitutionality (or the lack thereof) of the U.S. government proclaiming a day of prayer.

And they don’t need the government to proclaim a day of prayer in order to pray ’cause they do it all the time, not just one Thursday out of the year.

Besides, it’s churches that ought to be in the business of proclaiming days of prayer — national, international, intergalactic, etc — anyway, not a government that is of, by and for the people (a.k.a. our fellow sinners).

But all this talk of public praying and the like doesn’t really make me think of the Constitution so much as it makes me think of the Bible, specifically Matthew 6, in which Jesus instructed His followers on where, when and how to pray:

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11 Give us this day our daily bread.

12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Wise words that complaining Christians ought to contemplate, instead of looking to the government for support they should not need to keep their faith.

Meanwhile, I suspect that the Christians who’re praying anyway (and very likely more often than once a year) already know this ’cause those are the sort of Christians who have actually read the Bible.

BTW, President Obama has NOT cancelled the National Day of Prayer and still plans to recognize it — and even if he did cancel it that wouldn’t stop anyone from praying on May 6, or any other day.

Cue the violins and cry me a river for all the poor, poor white bigots who’re gonna be, like, sooooooo disappointed when they discover that the Constitution — which, like the Bible, is often waved about and banged upon by people who’ve obviously never read it — applies equally to everyone and that nobody is special just because of the melanin content of their skin.

Stupid white people, who believe themselves superior to people who are not white, are in serious denial as they dream their golden dreams of running all the non-white people out of the country — even the millions who are legal citizens, some of whom were actually born right here in the good ol’ US of A  –  so they can once again claim their entitlement to special treatment they never deserved in the first place.

Under a new law in Arizona, people who cannot produce their “papers” (documents proving they’re either citizens or non-citizens who are legally in the U.S.)  can be arrested, thrown in jail for up to six months, and fined $2500.

Supporters of the law say it’s needed to protect Arizonans. They don’t really have much else of a defense they can use without coming across as bigots because there isn’t one.

And the first time an American citizen of hispanic descent is arrested and jailed, in Arizona, because he/she was not carrying his/her “papers,” Arizona’s new immigration law is destined for the courts.

This is because it encroaches upon the federal government’s authority in regulating immigration, it is overly broad, the logistics of its enforcement can be nothing but arbitrary, and it gives the police way too much power — talk about your “Big Government” — to arrest people for things like walking around in Arizona while being hispanic.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama has asked the Justice Department to review the law’s implications, and the Arizona ACLU is already on the case.

And when it gets to the courts, it’s gonna be struck down as the unconstitutional anachronism it is.

‘Cause America ain’t just for white folks anymore.

(Y’all know who I’m talkin’at… And you know how I love to get my schadenfreude on over sniveling whiny bigots who lament the decline of “White America.”)