Two senate races continue to dominate the headlines nationwide. Kentucky was one of the states in which a primary was held on Tuesday. Connecticut features a senate race once competitive until the decision of Chris Dodd to retire at the end of his present term. Both U.S. Senate contests, however continue to generate much intrigue.

Going into the contentious primaries on Tuesday, revelations broke pertaining to a state where nomination contests had yet to be held in the 2010 cycle; Connecticut. A piece appearing this past Monday in the New York Times alleged that Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General and Democrat of Connecticut lied about his military service record. Mr. Blumenthal is seeking to fill the seat being vacated by the ethically challenged Chris Dodd. While word has since surfaced that a Republican campaign fed the story to the paper of record, the veracity of the claims made have been verified. Richard Blumenthal remains in the Senate race, and has received renewed support from the leadership of his state party.

The Oregon mail-in primary Tuesday failed to generate much interest. Overall, candidates favored to win in both the Republican and Democratic primaries there did so. This was very much true of Republican primaries held in Arkansas and Pennsylvania as well. Things however were rather different on the Democratic side in the keystone and razorback states.  Pennsylvania party-switcher Arlen Specter was defeated by Congressman Joe Sestak, while in Arkansas, a three-person primary has forced sitting centrist Senator Blanche Lincoln into a run-off against comparatively liberal Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter.

Despite these upsets, the big news of the night Tuesday came from Kentucky.  There, preferred Democratic Senate candidate and Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway defeated Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo in what was a rather close primary. In the Republican primary, meanwhile, ophthalmologist Rand Paul trounced Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson. Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul, a member of Congress representing the fourteenth congressional district in Texas.

Ron Paul, a physician like his son, is often criticized for his political views. Nonetheless, this particular father and son have more in common than the practice of medicine; they hold many of the same views. The Grayson campaign operated a website highlighting many of the more controversial positions espoused by Rand Paul. However, since the primary results were announced Tuesday evening, one particular set of views held by the younger Dr. Paul has generated national controversy.

A critical editorial in the left-leaning Louisville Courier-Journal published on the twenty-fifth of April this year expressed disapproval of both GOP senate candidates running for Senate this year. One claim made alleged that Rand Paul holds views out of the mainstream on civil rights.  According to the paper:

The trouble with Dr. Paul is that despite his independent thinking, much of what he stands for is repulsive to people in the mainstream. For instance, he holds an unacceptable view of civil rights, saying that while the federal government can enforce integration of government jobs and facilities, private business people should be able to decide whether they want to serve black people, or gays, or any other minority group.

Rand Paul admits to holding such a view, but has reiterated that he would not seek to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act if elected. Unlike some earlier civil rights bills passed into law, this particular one sought to end segregation in private businesses. When ruling on the validity of the intervention permitted  under the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Supreme Court more or less agreed with the view of Dr. Paul, but what resulted was an undoing of the strides made toward racial equality that followed the war between the states. This reversal of fortune for the newly liberated and their descendants culminated in the infamous Supreme Court decision reached in Plessy v. Ferguson that invented the bogus notion of separate but equal accomodations being acceptable under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Contemporarily, federal and state courts have held as constitutional the particular federal regulation of the private sector mandated in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Many on both the Right and the Left have condemned Rand Paul’s views on civil rights. Those of a rightward persuasion have been particularly scathing. Given the popular narrative of contemporary conservatism in much of the mainstream press, such condemnation of Rand Paul has largely been warranted.

Conservative critics have pointed out that William F. Buckley, Jr., a late pioneering figure on the American Right, saw his views evolve on civil rights. In earlier decades, the esteemed Mr. Buckley held a position not dissimilar from that of Rand Paul, but later in life suggested that federal intervention probably was needed to guarantee the long denied rights of minorities within the United States. Such comparisons are nonetheless a disservice to the late sage of conservatism however valid the underlying contentions put forth may be.

Other conservatives continue to wrongly propagage the popular but dubious contention that the two doctors Paul are anything like the late Republican Barry Goldwater whose Senate vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act won him only the deep south and his home state of Arizona during his ultimately unsuccessful presidential campaign against Lyndon Johnson. On national defense and some social issues, both Ron Paul and Rand Paul diverge considerably from the views expressed by Barry Goldwater. It is more accurate to claim, as another has done, that Ron Paul-and by extension, Rand Paul-is the ideological successor to the isolationist conservatives of the New Deal era.

While criticisms of Rand Paul are justified, he has shown himself to be an independent thinker. The ability of a candidate to think independently is something to be respected in an age when Democratic primary votes actively put ideology above electability in primaries. A consistent if unrealistic current seems to run through the views of Rand Paul. To some extent, this is similarly true of the rather more rightly criticized Ron Paul. Even the Louisville Courier-Journal has praised the sincerity of Rand Paul:

Dr. Paul’s father, Ron Paul, is a well-known congressman from Texas who has run for president twice — in 1988 as a Libertarian and in 2008 as a Republican. But with Rand Paul, it’s not merely a matter of “like father, like son.” Dr. Paul, 48, is an independent thinker, whose articulate, good-humored approach to politics has caught many in the Grand Old Party by surprise.

Rand Paul likely won the Kentucky primary not because Kentuckians support all of views, but due to the sincerity of his convictions. Democratic voters nationally saw much the same thing in Barack Obama two years ago. Buyer beware.

The controversial views of Rand Paul, known since as far back as 2002, pale in comparison to the controversy surrounding Richard Blumenthal. Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal, who has claimed that he served in the Vietnam War as far back as 2007 was once popular with veterans groups in his state. Fortunately, many of these actual veterans, who served their conutry honorably, have since condemned a man once (wrongly) viewed as their champion. Yet, Connecticut Democrats have not done so. Instead, the Democratic Party remains behind a man who has had perhaps too  long of a career in public service. If the national party brass wanted Blumenthal out of the race, they could and would surely intervene, but to date have not.

The real lesson of recent primaries is not that hyperpartisanship is on the rise. Rather, the American electorate longs for authenticity. Senator Bob Bennett, who was defeated for renomination last week at the Republican convention in his home state of Utah,  had once vowed to only serve two terms if elected. He was seeking a fourth. The American people want leaders who are honest about what they believe. That the Democrats in Washington are not such leaders is a tragedy the people of this great country have the opportunity to change by voting Republican in November.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
• On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
• Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
• A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
• Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010