What follows is how real, actual journalism is supposed to work. Reporter asks question. Interviewee answers question. If interviewee isn't answering the question, reporter continues to demand an answer until he/she gets one. All of you would be journalists out there, you would do well to use the video at the end of this piece as an example.
In one of the most interesting exchanges I’ve seen in a very long time, we actually get to see just how vacuous the (capital L) Libertarian philosophy is. For fifteen solid minutes, Rachel tried to get Rand Paul, the newly minted Republican candidate for the Senate in Kentucky, to answer a simple question; should the federal government have the power to tell private business owners whose businesses are open to the public that they cannot discriminate against people who come into their business.
For at least 10-12 minutes, Paul refused to answer the question at all, because he knew that he couldn’t and still be considered a viable candidate. He hemmed, he hawed, and he flailed wildly. Instead of answering the question, Paul assured us over and over that he was not a racist, and he thought racism was bad. He has no problem with nine-tenths of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that one little section, which tells businesses they are NOT allowed to discriminate based on subjective criteria, such as the color of a person’s skin, their perceived sexual orientation or their possession of a vagina – he has a serious problem with that, folks.
And he doesn’t understand why this is an issue, which is why he MUST lose in November. He MUST lose in November, folks. Anyone who doesn't see the point in using OUR government to protect OUR interests doesn't understand how actual liberty works.
What you see with Rand Paul is that (capital L) Libertarian philosophy rearing its ugly head. To a (capital L) Libertarian, private ownership is sacred and should not be touched by governmental hands. Paul even said repeatedly (if you could wade through the bullshit to get to it) that for the government to tell a business who they must allow into their place of business is a violation of their right to freedom of speech.
As people who have been following me for years know, this is nothing more than (capital L) Libertarian sophistry rearing its ugly head. To a (capital L) Libertarian, private ownership is sacred, and should not be touched by governmental hands. Paul even said, repeatedly, (if you could wade through the bullshit to get to it) that for the government to tell a business who they must allow into their place of business is a violation of their right to freedom of speech. If you're scratching your head and wondering what refusing to allow black or gay people to enter your public establishment has to do with "free speech," you are not alone. Only a (capital L) Libertarian sees things that way, and why we should keep them away from sharp objects and the government.
To a (capital L) Libertarian, everyone’s rights are absolute, as long as the (capital L) Libertarian sees their right as important. No one else’s rights matter. If a guy buys a store, according to the (capital L) Libertarian, he has earned the right to ban midgets or people with zits if he so chooses, because this is America, and by Gawd, freedom is great and wonderful and… apparently very selective.
See, here’s the problem with assholes like Rand Paul, and why they shouldn’t be allowed to have the keys to the political machine. They can only see freedom from one perspective. They see all freedom as absolute, which is absolutely impossible in the real world. Freedom is about balance. In this example, Joe Average should have the freedom to open the business of his dreams to the public. But that freedom to do so must necessarily be balanced with the right of the public to patronize that business. In the (capital L) Libertarian mindset, the business owner has the right to freedom of speech, but no one else has a right to enter a publicly open establishment. Unfortunately, while a business is a private enterprise, it's actually a public entity, not a private one.
The part of the equation the (capital L) Libertarian can’t fathom is that the business has a license to operate. As a condition of that license, that business owner must bring his building up to code, so that all of the other buildings around it can be safe, and so that people entering the establishment can have a reasonable expectation that the building won’t fall on them, or knives won't come flying out of the ceiling at them. In addition to those common sense rules, the business owner also agrees to be open to the PUBLIC. This is another area where the (capital L) Libertarian’s head becomes twisted like a pretzel; though the business is privately owned; the license is a PUBLIC license. He’s open to the PUBLIC. Your HOME is private; no one has a right to go in there under any circumstances without your permission. When you apply for a public business license, you are actually asking permission to open your business up to everyone in the community. When you open a business with a PUBLIC license, everyone else should have the freedom to walk through there and do business with you if they so choose. Your freedom as a business owner does not trump everyone else’s freedom to purchase goods from you.
To a (capital L) Libertarian, freedom is the ability to do whatever they themselves want, unencumbered by governmental “interference” (read; “rules and regulations”), but as they see it, no one else in the equation has any rights at all.
And that is why we need to support Jack Conway for Senate in Kentucky. We cannot give these people a foothold in government. (capital L) Libertarians are simply right wingers who are against the Iraq war and in favor of legal pot; they are not capable of understanding how basic (small L) liberty actually works. Liberty has to work for everyone, or it doesn’t work for anyone.
Just as an aside, the fact that (capital L) Libertarians are winning Republican primaries should demonstrate just how bad the GOP has become. If Michael Steele can’t see the warning signs, his suit is even emptier than I have him credit for.
Check out this video, and take notes. This is how a real journalist interviews a politician. She's not rude or disrespectful; she simply insists that he answer the damn question:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
