Is Western Conservativism Taking Over the GOP?

The attached is a very nice article about the differences between the Western and Southern brands of Republican conservatism. A shorthand expression would be that Western conservatives (among whom the author includes, a little confusingly, Rand Paul of Kentucky) descend from Barry Goldwater, while Southern conservatives descend from George Wallace. Actually, the inclusion of Rand Paul in the Western branch makes sense, in that his defense of his questioning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is clearly based on property rights rather than any racial bias at all. In fact, one could argue that this is what has gotten Paul into trouble; his questioners, such as Rachel Maddow, take it for granted that opposition to "civil rights" is proof of racism. Paul, who is clearly no racist, is confused and baffled by this line of attack.

One of the problems with pushing limitations on the government's ability to intervene in private business decisions, in "property rights," is that it's hard to take into account the motivations of the actors, or the circumstances surrounding their actions. It's all very well to say that Lester Maddox had a right to refuse service to anyone he chose, and that, as a private property owner, he should have been shielded from government interference. But when Maddox's sole principle for exclusion was race, the result of allowing him to exercise his private property rights was that a black person couldn't get a meal or find a hotel room at all in some towns.

It was, in fact, a stretch to use the interstate commerce clause to apply the Civil Rights Act to local businesses that participated very little, if at all, in interstate commerce. But it actually makes more sense today, when so many restaurants are owned by large corporations with operations in many states, and use central suppliers who ship goods across state lines. And while the public face of this fight was about the ability of black people to be served in restaurants owned by white people, the arguably more important point was about the right of black people to be employed in restaurants, stores, and other businesses.

Which gets into a larger question. Suppose we take Rand Paul at his word. He deplores racism, and he wouldn't do business with any company with racially biased policies. But he thinks that private property rights trump civil rights, because the Federal government simply does not, under the Constitution, have the power to enforce racially unbiased policies. Would he then, as a US Senator, vote for against a bill that would deny Federal contracts to companies that did not adhere to equal employment opportunity standards?