Rand Paul's Patriotic Inconsistencies

Rand Paul has made some vexing statements on what kinds of speech are "un-American" (by which I interpret his meaning to be speech consistent with the values of freedom in America).

As many are by now aware, Rand Paul has gotten himself into a bit of a hullabaloo over some comments he made regarding the applicability of civil rights non-discrimination policies to private entities. He defended his position in this way:

On Wednesday, Paul expressed support for the act's provisions banning discrimination in public facilities, but he had misgivings about extending the same requirement to private businesses — then or now.

"Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don't serve black people?" he was asked by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Wednesday.

"Yes. I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form," Paul said at the beginning of a lengthy answer in which he likened the question to one about limiting freedom of speech for racists. "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."

Now the way I read Rand Paul here is that, although he abhors racist speech (and by parallel racially-motivated discrimination by anyone, including private entities), he accepts one's right to be so as part of what he would claim is the "American" value of freedom that should protect such abhorrent speech. I think that's a pretty fair assessment.

And yet ...

When commenting on the "free speech" of Obama and those in his administration who would use such freedoms to criticize BP for its role in the massively destructive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Rand Paul thinks that such commentary is reflective of behavior that is decidedly "un-American":

Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul said Friday that President Barack Obama's criticism of BP in the wake of the Gulf oil debacle sounds "really un-American."

Paul, already facing a backlash over remarks earlier this week about civil rights legislation, criticized the Obama administration for declaring it will put its "boot heel on the throat of BP." White House spokesman Robert Gibbs used similar language shortly after the spill.

Sounds to me like there is a bit of a double standard going on here. And I certainly think that one could argue whether a President attempting to defend the interests of American citizens and the health of our country's physical, natural environment, against the uncontestable failure of a private corporation's operations, is truly an "American" response, and just the opposite of a "really un-American" thing. I think one might be able to say accurately that the vilification of, and discrimination against, Americans because of their race is "really un-American," but Rand Paul seems to think doing so represents the fine tradition of free speech in America. The short of it is that Rand Paul prefers to spin the positive side of an ugly thing in this instance, and yet prefers to spin what he thinks is an ugly side of an arguably positive thing in the case of the Obama Administration's tough approach to BP. Now maybe one could say that Rand Paul would say Barack Obama has the right to sound "really un-American" in his criticism of BP, and so there is no inconsistency there. But then I would have to say that Rand Paul's associating the U.S. President with behavior that he calls really un-American, is rather really un-American, too. Sure, Rand Paul is free to essentially call the President "un-American," but then he probably should subject himself to his own criticism about how "American" he really sounds in doing so.

Even still, I think Rand Paul should get himself and his priorities clear on certain things. He appears to want to go to bat for the freedom of racists to be racists, but then wants to levy criticism of the President for using strong language to hold an oil company responsible for an "accident" that occurred on its watch and through its property, an "accident" of immeasurably tragic consequences for this country and its people. As I see it, there is an inconsistency of rhetoric and attitude here that seems more driven by personal and ideological preference than by principle.

UPDATE: Oyster (I guess that would be Oilster by now?), has some relevant thoughts on this subject. To give you a taste of what to expect, the oily bi-valve writes:

The original Tea Party revolted against a monarchy that assisted a British company attempting to flood the colonial coast with unwanted tea.

And now the darling of the current Tea Party says it's "un-American" for the U.S. President to criticize a British company that has flooded the American coast with unwanted toxic "tea".

Go get 'em, Oyster!