Going out on a limb here, I’m guessing that Rand Paul’s admission that he would have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act is not going to help him become the next Republican Senator representing the great state of Kentucky. Of course he’s walking back from his comments now but going from “I wouldn’t have voted for it” to “Of course I would have voted for it” is flippier than your usual flip-flop.
Paul, like his father Ron, is no white supremacist and his opposition to federal encroachment is principled and reasonably consistent. The Civil Rights Act was indeed a terrible infringement upon States’ Rights. But the problem with the Paulite position is that it complains about one form of state-sponsored coercion while implicitly tolerating or at best ignoring the more iniquitous state-sponsored coercion the legislation was designed, even required, to combat.
Saying the market will provide is often fine but it’s not enough when the market is rigged in the first place.
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate, free for a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first month free.
UNLOCK ACCESS Try a month freeAlready a subscriber? Log in