CT Blue

This post by Matt Corley at ThinkProgress got me thinking. The subject is Rand Paul, the “libertarian” Republican candidate for Senate in Kentucky, and the fact that quite a few conservatives disagree with Sarah Palin’s view that Rachel Maddow was somehow unfair to him by asking about his opinions. Corley references a post by a conservative named Peter Wehner, who defended Maddow’s treatment of Paul, and then concludes:

Wehner’s post was linked without disagreement by both the FrumForum and National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru. Wehner’s Commentary colleague, Rick Richman added, “it is important for conservatives to be honest about Rand Paul and not to blame his unacceptable comments on the media that ferreted them out.”

Now, here’s what struck me. What were Paul’s “unacceptable comments” according to Mr. Richman? Answer: the view that private property rights trump civil rights. This was the conservative position back when the Civil Rights Act was passed. It was not just overt racists that opposed the legislation, it was “principled” conservatives like Barry Goldwater, the Republican 1964 standard bearer and William F. Buckley, who believed exactly what Rand Paul believes today. It continues to be the case, by the way, that conservatives reflexively oppose the extension of statutory protections to any needful group not already protected.

The liberal position is now the universal position, as it is on pretty much all of the progressive legislative victories of the past 100 years. Child Labor laws, Social Security, Medicare, the Family Leave Act, laws against age and sex discrimination, etc. Progressive legislation, once passed, becomes part of the fabric of our society, and anyone advocating repeal is committing political suicide. That’s why they do try to repeal, they do it by stealth, or attempt it in increments. For the fact is, they still cherish hopes of reversing the progressive legislation of the past 100 years. I still believe, for instance, that Bush’s privatization scheme, was born of his desire to get the ultimate conservative feather in his cap. But even Bush, at the height of his arrogance and power, couldn’t touch social security. The only progressive legislation that is truly vulnerable is legislation the public can’t understand; that’s why Glass-Steagel was repealed, and we see where that brought us.

Now, quick: Can you think of a piece of conservative legislation that has become similarly embedded in the American way of life? The glorious Bush tax cuts are about to become history, or will if the Democrats keep their spines, and the country will yawn, though the Republicans will pout. Doesn’t it say something about the relative merits of the opposing political philosophies that, very shortly after progressive legislation is enacted, it is embraced by its former opponents? Witness, for example, the hypocritical attacks on the Health Care Act alleging that it would harm Medicare. They may not really like progressive legislation, but none are as foolish as Rand Paul and care to admit it. It’s why they fight legislation like the Health Care bill-not because they think it will fail, but are afraid it will succeed.