He should be playing for votes; a citizens' vote of confidence that 'their' representative will always seek their interests.
As an African-American I see nothing wrong with the Paul's objection to the civil rights' laws infringement on the private property rights of citizens. Civility cannot be legislated, the most the Federal government can do is to enforce the rights of all tax paying citizens in public places, institutes and institutions that survive on public dollars. Thus a drinking fountain in a public park could not be separate much less un-equal, likewise the lavatories. As an African-American I get to choose who sits at my 'private' counter and who I choose to serve. On 'public transportation' I can choose where I sit. I'm allowed to vote for a 'public office' representative and I'm allowed to occupy that office if I'm voted in. My children are allowed to attend 'public schools' without fear or discrimination, but if I choose to, I can enroll my kids in a Private School (no public funds) for African-Americans only, schools which existed in the segregated south before de-segregation. I can marry whom ever I choose but you reserve the right to refuse my presence from your 'PRIVATE' domain. I'm allowed to enlist and serve in the Armed Forces without restrictions except for those imposed on all.
I can go on, but I'm sure you get the picture. When African-Americans said yes to full integration they also said yes to those aspects of their lives that functioned autonomously. An article written in Black Enterprise Magazine proved that there were more independently owned and operated, successful, African-American businesses during segration than there were a decade ago, I imagine things have only gotten worse. So who really benefited from Federally forced integration?
"Although standard accounts treat Brown as an unambiguous triumph for African American, many Southern blacks did not see it that way. "We felt betrayed," said the principal of a black high school in South Carolina. W. E. B. Du Bois, the major black figure among the founders of the NAACP, and the novelist Zora Neale Hurston denounced the decision. Hurston regarded the ruling as "insulting rather than honoring" her race, because it assumed that black children could not learn without the uplifting presence of white classmates...Adam Fairclough's book is a salutary reminder of what de jure segregation was really like, and a clear demonstration that the educational opportunities open to African American children have expanded dramatically since Brown.
--Stephan Thernstrom (Times Literary Supplement)"
What the book really explains is that had segregation meant separate but equal, African-Americans would have no problem with the south's Jim Crow laws. Tax dollars come in only one color.
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml