The danger to majority rule – to him sort of thinking, well, the majority voted for me, now I’m the majority, I can do whatever I want, and that there are no rules that restrain me – that’s what gave us Jim Crow,” Paul said. “That’s what gave us the internment of the Japanese – that the majority said you don’t have individual rights, and individual rights don’t come from your creator, and they’re not guaranteed by the Constitution. It’s just whatever the majority wants.”
Paul added: “There’s a real danger to that viewpoint, but it’s consistent with the progressive viewpoint. … Progressives believe in majority rule, not constitutional rule.”
Like most of what comes out of either Paul’s mouth, this has been around for a long time, at least since Rand made an ass of himself over the Civil Rights Act. For example, Rand trotted out this crap seven months ago, and the young and impressionable Conor Freidersdorf (remember him?) lapped it up. Elias Isquith tore that apart on this very blog at the time.
The lesson here is that, when you’re dealing with the Pauls, “new” needs to be construed on an almost geologic timeframe. In this case, it’s the notion that Jim Crow was bad that is new, because Papa Doc’s newsletters from the 80’s and 90’s would seem to indicate otherwise.