Rachel v Rand

I never thought I would say these words!  But sometimes the truth, as painful as it is, must be stated.
OK, deep breath......Rachel was wrong.  I know, I know--I worship the ground she walks on, but the Rand Paul interview was a low point, in my opinion, and I really think she compounded the issue last night.
Rand Paul is an extremely intelligent, articulate....Libertarian.  And Rachel is an extremely intelligent, articulate...NOT Libertarian.  They had a great discussion about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but as I watched the interview, it became clear to me that Rachel just wanted to win the argument.  She lost journalistic focus and perspective, forced herself into a corner, and just flat out tried every way she knew to win the argument.  Except there wasn't a win or lose position to be had; if anything, the viewers were the winners because they were observing a great conversation between two smart people.  It's so rare that the viewers of television are allowed to witness an "argument" that doesn't involve people shouting over each other, not listening to each other, or with a "moderator" trying to stick their nose in.  That didn't happen the other night, and I for one appreciated the fact that I was able to see both perspectives, which was as educational as it was refreshing.  So, kudos to Rachel and Rand for giving that to me.
But here's the thing.  Rand Paul is an honest-to-goodness Libertarian , and believes in limited government.  And bless him for his beliefs!  When asked, he said, many times and in many different ways, that he's against discrimination in all forms, would not belong to or support clubs that discriminated, and would not abide discrimination in entities that received government support.   I believe him.  He's not a racist.  However, he also said that government has no place in regulating who a business owner does business with.  As repugnant as that may sound to someone who is not a Libertarian, he's staying true to his Libertarian beliefs.  And Rachel was repulsed.  Her basic beliefs and philosophies are not the same as his, pure and simple.  THIS was when she lost focus and just tried to convince Rand Paul that he was wrong, and she was right.  Big mistake.  Instead of going off the first night about violence (the Lunch Counter Demonstrations), and the second night about the right of government to regulate things involving public safety--neither of which had anything to do with Rand Paul's positions, she should have stopped.  She should have listened to me--I was shouting a question for her to ask!
Rachel should have asked Rand if it was also the right of each and every citizen to rise up and tell that business owner that they were wrong to discriminate against others?  Non-violently, of course.  Picket that business person until the cows come home, make it uncomfortable for others to do business there, whatever--was it the right of people to do this?  And Rand would have said yes, it is their right to do this.  Maybe that would have helped Rachel a little, allowed her to breathe and again become the awesome journalist that she is.
There was something else missing from the discussion between Rachel and Rand--a reflection on history.  Why we had to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the first place, why all the provisions of the Act had to be included, how bad our country was at that point.  Because there were places in this country that were so horrible for minorities to live in, it was dangerous for them.  Physically and mentally and emotionally just awful.  And there weren't enough people standing up saying that it was wrong to treat another human being that way; yes, there were a few, just not enough.  Today we live in a different society (it's not perfect!), and most of us know discrimination is wrong, will speak out against it, and will even go so far as to have Human Relations Commissions in our local communities, to make sure businesses are held accountable.  We've come a long way, and have a long way to go.  But it's easy to forget those old days, to think that it never was as bad as all that.  It's like when young people say they're not feminists, because, well, they're not like those women, completely forgetting that those women were the ones who fought for all the rights they now have the opportunity to take for granted--the right to vote, the right to control their own bodies, the right to education, and so on.
It's the history of our country, and the history of humans, that shape our beliefs, and make those pure political beliefs so hard to defend completely.  I think it's easier for Rand Paul to be a Libertarian today than it would have been 55 years ago; I daresay the 21st century man he is would have found some human relations in our country repugnant in the 1950s, making it harder to be a pure Libertarian.  This is not to say what he believes is wrong; the 21st century woman I am says I understand but I just don't agree; I know what humans are capable of, for good and for evil, and I think they need to be held to a very high standard if we are to survive and thrive as a race.  I'm not a Libertarian.
Anyway, I hope I never have to utter "Rachel was wrong" again.  Love her for making me think though.
And one more thing I never thought I'd say--I agree with Republican Sen. John Kyl of Arizona!  Kyl said, "I think the two of them [Rachel and Rand] were having a bit of a good time having a debate like you had at 2 a.m. in the morning when you're going to college, but it doesn't have a lot to do with anything."