This page was last updated on June 8, 2010.
Rand Paul is no Barry Goldwater; Lonzie Cox, Jr.; Beaver County Times; June 8, 2010. I am not related to Mr. Cox.
Most of Mr. Cox’s at least 50 letters since 2004 are tinged with race. This letter is not one of the exceptions.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Arizona seems bent on solidifying its position as Mississippi in the desert.”
[RWC] It appears Mr. Cox is trying to equate Rand Paul with Barry Goldwater. Otherwise, why would Mr. Cox spend so much of this letter writing about Mr. Goldwater while only briefly mentioning Mr. Paul? In any case, Mr. Cox misrepresents Mr. Goldwater’s positions.
“Its unfair immigration law isn’t the whole story as the state has a history of bigotry from encouraging slavery to its own Jim Crow laws where citizens were denied food, water or shelter at the whim of business owners.”
[RWC] The 1863 law (passed by a Republican-majority Congress and signed by Republican President Lincoln) that created the Arizona Territory abolished slavery in the Territory. Democrats dominated Arizona from its formation until the 1950s.
“The tendency for some Americans to backtrack on racial issues is well documented. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, recently expressed a negative opinion of the public accommodations section of the Civil Rights Bill. That act caused many Southern Democrats to scurry like rats away from their party and vote Republican for the first time in 1964. Still, President Johnson won big.”
[RWC] Please read Democrats - the party of civil rights - not. Democrats, who had significant majorities in both houses of Congress, filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Republicans delivered the votes for cloture. In the Senate, only 69% of Democrats voted for the act while 82% of Republicans supported it. Of the “nay” votes, 78% were by Democrats. In the House, only 61% of Democrats voted for the act while 80% of Republicans supported it. Of the nay votes, 74% were by Democrats.
Mr. Paul opposes discrimination on the basis of race and isn’t “backtrack[ing] on racial issues.” Though he supports the goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Mr. Paul’s position on Title II is that it is unconstitutional. Like it or not, Mr. Paul is correct. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to tell private citizens whom to serve (Title II) or hire (Title VII). Remember, the only rights the federal government has are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution (10th Amendment). All other rights not specifically “prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Until Mr. Cox opposes things like the Congressional Black Caucus, the Miss Black America Pageant, et cetera, he is in no position to criticize anyone about race discrimination.
Finally, have you noticed not one of Mr. Cox’s letters addressed the sordid race history of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)? Sen. Byrd was a Kleagle (organizer) in the KKKK (Knights of the Ku Klux Klan), said he would not serve in an integrated armed forces, filibustered and voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, voted against the nominations of Supreme Court Justices Thurgood Marshall (1967) and Clarence Thomas (1991), and referred to “white niggers” during a 2001 television interview. Mr. Cox ignores racism in his own political party but feels compelled to fabricate it for his opposition.
“Arizona’s Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee for president that year. Goldwater campaigned on the fact that he voted against the bill, was anti-union, anti-immigration, wanted to nuke Vietnam and invade Cuba.”
[RWC] Mr. Goldwater supported the goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but voted against it because he believed Titles II (“public” accommodation) and VII (private employment) were unconstitutional as discussed above.
Mr. Goldwater was not “anti-immigration;” he was anti-illegal immigration. According to a 2008 article, Mr. Goldwater’s position on illegal immigration was “Don’t offer amnesty to those already here illegally. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are unfair; it is the government’s responsibility to determine who is here legally. Start a guest worker program to ‘channel the flow’ of illegal immigrants through a legal mechanism. And establish a clear immigration policy that is actually enforced.” Other than opposing amnesty for illegal aliens, these positions are what folks like Mr. Cox tell us they want.
As for Mr. Goldwater “wanted to nuke Vietnam,” here’s what “The Difficulty of ‘Being Fair’ to Goldwater” (Hedley Donovan - Editor-in-Chief; LIFE; September 18, 1964) said: “An erroneous Associated Press report of a Goldwater TV interview in May had him advocating the use of nuclear weapons to ‘defoliate’ jungle growth that conceals the Vietcong supply lines. He had actually mentioned this as something that ‘could well be done,’ while making it fairly (but not absolutely) clear he wasn’t proposing it.” Mr. Cox failed to note Mr. Goldwater’s overarching position on Vietnam was win quickly or get out.
As for Mr. Goldwater “wanted to … invade Cuba,” that would appear to be a fabrication. In the same article referenced above, Mr. Goldwater said, “The suggestion that we must either accept Communism in Cuba or invade Cuba is defeatist and dangerous nonsense.”
“Goldwater was important in starting the anti-United Nations movement that has effectively silenced that organization, leaving G.W. Bush free to invade Iraq. George Wallace quit the 1964 race satisfied that he and Goldwater agreed on race issues.”
[RWC] Other than being anti-United States and anti-individual liberty, what about the UN does Mr. Cox like?
It’s a smear to claim “George Wallace … and Goldwater agreed on race issues.” Mr. Wallace was a racist and Mr. Goldwater was not. Mr. Cox likely came to his convenient conclusion based on the fact both men opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The two men opposed the Act for very different reasons (Mr. Goldwater’s noted above) and Mr. Cox knows it.
“So, compared to bigoted Goldwater, the little shave-tailed, right-wing tea-bagger Paul sounds a lot more like John Paul.”
[RWC] It’s not a Lonzie Cox letter without name-calling. In this case, I suspect it’s a case of projection.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.