Sen. Rand Paul has now "clarified" his remarks yesterday, in which he said (emphasis added), "I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed."
Now we hear this, from Byron York in the Washington Examiner:
The Paul campaign says the senator's words were misunderstood. "Sen. Paul was referring to nonviolent crimes," campaign spokeswoman Eleanor May told me via email, adding that the passage in question was "a reference to his criminal justice reforms."
Where to start?
Probably the place to start is with the observation that the "clarification" is simply false. Paul was not misunderstood. Words have meanings, and words in speeches announcing one's campaign for the highest office in the land are chosen, reviewed and spoken with the utmost care. He said what he meant to say.
"Any law" means "any law." When Sen. Paul says, "...any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color [should be] repealed," that does not leave a lot of room for doubt.
The second problem (although the first is sufficient) is that the new position is incoherent and, under Paul's own principles, abhorrent. The Senator's whole point was that it's unacceptable that present law discriminates against "people of color." But if that is true, then his new position is astonishing: That it's OK to keep right on discriminating against "people of color" as long as the discrimination is confined only to the law's treatment of violent crimes.
Far out!
The third problem, as pointed out here, is that
...Paul's position remains inane and dangerous. Why should non-violent acts that now constitute crimes be legalized just because a particular group doesn't obey the current prohibition? No criminal law should be subject, in effect, to a "criminals of color veto."
Paul says he wants to broaden the Republican Party's base, but if broadening it entails kowtowing to a brand of racial politics that would make Al Sharpton blush, then the Republican Party will be headed to a deserved oblivion.
Finally, Paul tacitly adopts the position that "non-violent" crime essentially means "non-serious" crime. But the position is preposterous and -- dare I say it? -- lacking in compassion. As I have pointed out before:
For punishment purposes...the correct question is not just whether the offense involves violence; the question that matters is whether it involves harm.Non-violent offenses do incalculable harm. The trafficking and consumption of hard drugs, for example, is one of the most socially destructive enterprises going on in America, even when if comes without direct violence. There's nothing violent going on when a teenage addict slides the needle in his arm, but if he gets the dose wrong, he'll be dead by nightfall. There is nothing violent when a nine year old is enticed to pose for obscene pictures, but her childhood has been poisoned. There is nothing violent when an older couple is swindled out of their life savings, but their hopes for the future are gone. The siren song of the "low level, non-violent" offender will lead us into a swamp in which people who can't afford law degrees will drown.
His candidacy is probably doomed more for his being an apparent anti-vaxxer, sexist jerk, and all-around crazy goofball than for his views on criminal law. In any event, he certainly wouldn't be my pick for president in this or any other universe.
Oh phooey. You beat me to the vaccine point. I thought it was jaw-dropping. It's one step short of the birthers (Obama is an alien) and the truthers (Bush was in on 9-11).
Sen. Paul might have done many good things as a doctor, but as a President.....yikes.
Given all you criticisms, Bill, are you rooting for a GOP primary challenge when Senator Paul seeks reelection for his senate seat? Would you generally be inclined to support his opponent in a primary or in the general senate election in Ky? If you do not think he is fit to be Prez, I wonder if you think he is not fit to be a Senator.
I think who goes to the Senate from Kentucky is up to the people of Kentucky, of whom I am not one.
But while we're off topic....do you have an opinion of his opposition to mandatory vaccination? Like notablogger (who I believe is a liberal on the majority of social issues), I thought it was just astounding that he would take such a position. It was a position which -- like the position noted in this entry -- he promptly danced and pranced away from once it came under scrutiny.
The guy is, if nothing else, agile.
As someone who generally agrees with Bill and IS a citizen of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, I would happily answer Doug's question.
Yes, I will support his candidacy for Senate completely. I LIKE having libertarians in Congress to act as "the conscience of conservatism." It is healthy that we are having a debate about crime, privacy rights, etc. I applaud their keeping mainstream conservatives' feet to the fire about spending and keep (or at least try) the Republicans from being "Democrat lite".
The Dems should have that much debate instead of being just a monolith.
What makes Paul useful is also his biggest weakness. Libertarianism works great for being a gadfly but is not a governing philosophy. When he tries to articulate a governing philosophy, he cannot without "dancin' and prancin'."
I was intrigued for a bit by Rand Paul's foreign policy views as I think we've suffered through some really bad policy choices by Obama, Bush, and Clinton and could probably benefit from a different outlook (i.e. less trying to police world). That being said, we are so behind the curve on the international scene, we'd probably need a Reagan/von Bismarck ticket to get things back on track.
But outside of that, I think Rand is a bit off his rocker (despite agreeing with some of his economic libertarian themes).
"What makes Paul useful is also his biggest weakness. Libertarianism works great for being a gadfly but is not a governing philosophy."
Bingo!