David Boaz

Desperately searching for an establishment Republican who can block Donald Trump, many observers are ignoring the strong and politically astute performance of Rand Paul in Wednesday night’s Republican debate. A classic example this morning is Michael Gerson, the big-government Republican who has written for George W. Bush and the Washington Post and is the most anti-libertarian pundit this side of Salon. Recognizing the need for the Republican party to reach new audiences, especially “with minorities, with women, with younger voters, with working-class voters in key states,” Gerson writes:

The relatively rare moments of economic analysis and political outreach in the second Republican debate — Chris Christie talking about income stagnation, or Marco Rubio lamenting the “millions of people in this country living paycheck to paycheck,” or Ben Carson admitting the minimum wage might require increasing and fixing, or Jeb Bush setting out the necessary goal of accelerated economic growth, or John Kasich calling for a “sense of hope, sense of purpose, a sense of unity” — served only to highlight the opportunity cost of the Trump summer.

What’s missing? Well, Rand Paul talked about marijuana reform, an issue that is far more popular than the Republican Party, especially among younger voters. And criminal justice and incarceration, an issue of special concern to minorities. And especially about our endless wars in the Middle East, at a time when 63 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of independents say that the Iraq war was not worth the costs, and when 52 percent of Americans say the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” (Not the best formulation, as noninterventionists are not opposed to international activity, just to imprudent military action. But you go to print with the polls you have, not the polls you wish you had.) Those are attempts to reach new audiences that a fair-minded debate watcher would have noticed.

Fortunately, not everyone was deaf to Paul’s arguments. Even at the Washington Post people noticed:

Eugene Robinson: Rand Paul seems to have become a libertarian again, sticking up for individual rights. And unlike the others on the stage, he spoke out for peace rather than war.

Charles Lane: For my money, Paul has delivered the two pithiest critiques of Trump of anyone so far in the debates.

In Cleveland, he pointed at Trump, who actually boasts about his promiscuous political donations, and declared, with complete accuracy, “I mean, this is what’s wrong. He buys and sells politicians of all stripes.”

Last night, Paul was also spot-on regarding Trump’s over-the-top rudeness: “Do we want someone with that kind of character? With that kind of careless language? I think there’s a sophomoric quality about Mr. Trump… about his visceral response to attack people on their appearance, short, tall, fat, ugly.” He added: “Do we really want someone in charge of our nuclear arsenal who goes around basically using the insults of a junior high or a sophomore in high school?” Lately, Paul’s stump speeches hammer on these themes, too.

And in the conservative media:

Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner: Rand Paul just gave the smartest comments on foreign policy from a GOP debate stage in decades.

Guy Benson of Fox News and Townhall: Rand Paul making case that Iraq war didn’t make us safer… which most Americans agree with.

And in the heartland of America, John Kass at the Chicago Tribune:

Rand Paul won the Republican presidential debate.

It wasn’t even close….

Paul, the senator from Kentucky, spoke like a thoughtful grown-up, overshadowing them all on foreign policy, explaining that intervening in Middle East civil wars is a recipe for disaster….

“Sometimes both sides of the civil war are evil, and sometimes intervention sometimes makes us less safe,” Paul said. “This is the real debate we have to have in the Middle East….

There is no buzz to such rhetoric, no bloody gusto, no King Leonidas abs of steel, no Joan of Arc with a sword.

It’s just grown-up talk, and so, quite likely, not entertaining at all.

Right now 50 percent of Republicans tell pollsters they support two candidates who have never before sought or held public office, and who are highly unlikely to succeed in this race. That means the race is still wide open. As Rand Paul said Wednesday night, “If you want boots on the ground, and you want them to be our sons and daughters, you got 14 other choices.” Millions of Republicans believe in free enterprise, smaller government, less punitive drug laws, and a more cautious approach to military intervention. If Paul can convince them that he’s the only candidate who shares their perspective, he has every opportunity to move up sharply in the polls. But there’s powerful Establishment resistance to new ideas and new policies.

At The National Interest, I write about Rand Paul’s clear and forceful presentation of his noninterventionist views at last night’s Republican debate:

Rand Paul found his voice last night. He’s a sincere noninterventionist in foreign policy. If he can get that message across, there’s a Republican constituency for it, and even broader support among independents.

Coincidentally or not, Paul’s standing in the polls has fallen as he seemed to move away from the noninterventionist positions associated with his father, congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul. He called for a declaration of war with ISIS, more military spending, and rejection of President Obama’s Iran deal.

Meanwhile, hawkish conservative pundits consistently underestimate the extent of non interventionist and war-weary sentiment in the Republican party….

Standing in front of Reagan’s Air Force One, he embraced Reaganism:

“I’m a Reagan Conservative. I’m someone who believes in peace through strength, and I would try to lead the country in that way knowing that our goal is peace, and that war is the last resort, not the first resort. And, that when we go to war, we go to war in a constitutional way, which means that we have to vote on it, that war is initiated by congress, not by the president.”

And most particularly in electoral terms, he set up the alternatives for voters:

“If you want boots on the ground, and you want them to be our sons and daughters, you got 14 other choices. There will always be a Bush or Clinton for you, if you want to go back to war in Iraq.”

That’s Paul’s best path to the top of the polls. All the other candidates supported the Iraq war (except Donald Trump) and threaten more military action today….

Guy Benson of Townhall and Fox News tied his comments to politics: “Rand Paul making case that Iraq war didn’t make us safer…which most Americans agree with.”

I wrote more about noninterventionism at National Review in May, drawing on arguments from The Libertarian Mind.

Rand Paul found his voice last night. He’s a sincere noninterventionist in foreign policy. If he can get that message across, there’s a Republican constituency for it, and even broader support among independents.

Coincidentally or not, Paul’s standing in the polls has fallen as he seemed to move away from the noninterventionist positions associated with his father, congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul. He called for a declaration of war with ISIS, more military spending, and rejection of President Obama’s Iran deal.

Meanwhile, hawkish conservative pundits consistently underestimate the extent of non interventionist and war-weary sentiment in the Republican party.

In the debate Paul came out swinging on the risks of war and the failures of military intervention. He declared, “I’ve made my career as being an opponent of the Iraq War. I was opposed to the Syria war. I was opposed to arming people who are our enemies.”

He noted that “intervention sometimes makes us less safe… . sometimes the interventions backfire. The Iraq War backfired and did not help us. We’re still paying the repercussions of a bad decision.”

“Paul found his voice – not just on foreign policy, but on marijuana, federalism, taxes, and the Constitution – and there are millions of Republican voters who share that range of views.”

He chided Carly Fiorina for her incredible promise not to talk to Vladimir Putin “at all,” saying that we need to talk to all the countries with which we have tensions, we “need to leave lines of communication open,” as Ronald Reagan talked to Soviet leaders.

Standing in front of Reagan’s Air Force One, he embraced Reaganism:

“I’m a Reagan Conservative. I’m someone who believes in peace through strength, and I would try to lead the country in that way knowing that our goal is peace, and that war is the last resort, not the first resort. And, that when we go to war, we go to war in a constitutional way, which means that we have to vote on it, that war is initiated by congress, not by the president.”

And most particularly in electoral terms, he set up the alternatives for voters:

“If you want boots on the ground, and you want them to be our sons and daughters, you got 14 other choices. There will always be a Bush or Clinton for you, if you want to go back to war in Iraq.”

That’s Paul’s best path to the top of the polls. All the other candidates supported the Iraq war (except Donald Trump) and threaten more military action today.

Carly Fiorina delivered a strong performance, but substantively it was frightening. While refusing to talk to the president of Russia, she would send more troops to the countries bordering Russia and “conduct regular, aggressive military exercises.” Threatening a renewed war in Iraq isn’t enough, she wants to take us back to the dangerous heights of the Cold War.

Marco Rubio is viewed as a knowledgeable foreign policy expert by neoconservative pundits, but his framework begins with “These are extraordinarily dangerous times that we live in.” That suggests a stunning ignorance of history. In the past century we dealt with Hitler, Stalin, the Cold War, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, the long Vietnam war. Today our military is bigger than the next 10 militaries combined, and no power threatens us.

Bill Kristol told the Washington Post last year that Paul is “a lonely gadfly” on foreign policy: “Rand Paul speaks for a genuine sentiment that’s always been in the Republican Party, but maybe it’s 10 percent? 15 percent? 20 percent? I don’t think he’s going to be a serious competitor for guiding Republican foreign policy.”

Sixty-three percent of Republicans and 79 percent of independents told a CBS-New York Times poll in 2014 that the Iraq war had not been worth the costs.

As neoconservatives and Republican senators beat the drums for military action in Syria, Republicans turned sharply against the idea — 70 percent against in September 2013.

And of course a massive Pew Research Center survey in December 2013 found that 52 percent of respondents said the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.” That was the most lopsided balance in favor of the U.S. “minding its own business” in the nearly 50-year history of the measure.

Kristol and his fellow pundits should read these polls. There’s more scope for a non interventionist or realist Republican candidate than they want to admit.

So far, of course, Paul isn’t reaching even the 10 to 20 percent of Republican voters that even Kristol concedes. But there’s a constituency there, and he may have started to reach it last night in a debate with “NFL-level ratings.”

Some observers did notice. Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner tweeted, “Rand Paul just gave the smartest comments on foreign policy from a GOP debate stage in decades.”

Jonathan Chait of New York magazine added, “Whoa, Rand Paul talking about foreign policy right now like a person who reads newspapers, not a character in an action movie.”

Guy Benson of Townhall and Fox News tied his comments to politics: “Rand Paul making case that Iraq war didn’t make us safer… which most Americans agree with.”

The debate transcript shows 205 mentions of Trump, 124 of Bush, and only 66 of Paul. He’s still struggling for visibility. But he’s found his voice — not just on foreign policy, but on marijuana, federalism, taxes, and the Constitution — and there are millions of Republican voters who share that range of views.

Under new rules in the District of Columbia, residents are allowed to possess, smoke, and grow marijuana, but they are not allowed to sell it. So, as Aaron C. Davis writes in the Washington Post, this presents an interesting question: How is the marijuana grown in D.C. supposed to get to people in the city who want to smoke it? And it turns out that in a few short months the enterprising people of Washington have found several opportunities:

A fitness instructor who took up the hobby six months ago has amassed enough pot to make tens of thousands of dollars selling it. Instead, he’s begun giving away a little bit to anyone who pays for a massage. The instructor asked not to be named out of concern that he or his home, where he sometimes serves clients, could become targets for criminals.

A T-shirt vendor in Columbia Heights who declined to comment may be working in a similar gray area. College students say the roving stand has become known to include a “gift” of a bag of marijuana inside a purchase for those who tip really well. And recently, dozens of people paid $125 for a class in Northwest Washington to learn about cooking with cannabis from a home grower. Free samples were included.

Andrew Paul House, 27, a recent law school graduate, may be the best early test case for whether home growers can find a way to make money from their extra pot.

House has started a corporation and a sleek Web site to order deliveries of homegrown marijuana to D.C. residents’ doorsteps — “free gifts” in exchange for donations to the company, akin to a coffee mug given to donors by a public radio station.

Davis goes on to examine other interactions between the law and natural human activity. The law, for instance, sets a limit on the number of plants people can grown in their homes, but it doesn’t limit the size of plants. Which allows for the production of more joints per month than you might imagine. Other growers have constructed sophisticated growing rooms. But note:

Many have tried to take a more organic approach to growing, using natural light and the ­District’s summer weather to bring plants to maturity. Those growers have generally had less success.

Prohibition of any activity that people want to engage in tends to fail. And however you define failure, it will always have unintended consequences. But in this case it’s pretty clear that the consequences of a confused halfway house between legalization and prohibition are better than the consequences of outright prohibition.

Sigh. Alan Wolfe is writing about libertarianism again. In June he complained that libertarianism was “rigid” and obsessed with “purity,” under the ridiculous headline “Why libertarianism is closer to Stalinism than you think.” Now he’s claiming that “libertarianism embodies Max Weber’s nightmare of an iron cage,” whatever that means. The article is obsessed with ideological infighting, and this time he actually does manage to accuse Ayn Rand of a “Stalinesque purge” of Nathaniel Branden, her former lover and ideological partner. Thing is, she didn’t have Branden killed, which is pretty much the essence of Stalinesque purges.

“Libertarianism? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Yes, Rand and Murray Rothbard denounced lots of people for ideological deviation. Some fans of Ron Paul don’t find Rand Paul sufficiently libertarian. I myself find lots of people insufficiently libertarian, even some who are pretty libertarian. In my observation, ideological arguments, splits, and purges are pretty common in all ideologies. How many tiny socialist and communist parties are there? In the United Kingdom, the Jeremy Corbyn left has just purged the Blairites. In the Republican party lots of movements and candidates are battling for whatever combination of purity and electability they prefer. They all want to be the Reagan guy, though in 1980 the purest conservatives rallied around Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), the conservative alternative to Reagan. In 1972 the McGovern campaign manager Frank Mankiewicz went to a meeting of a New York City Democratic club and came out several hours later musing, ”Every little meaning has a movement all its own.” Ideologues argue.

I also find it amusing that Wolfe writes in Commonweal, a Catholic magazine, that libertarianism seeks to impose an orthodoxy.

But let me look at what I take to be the main point of the article:

Libertarianism, however, is not just a set of policy prescriptions, but an ideology. It is, moreover, a total ideology, one that addresses every aspect of how people live. There is a libertarian way of riding a bicycle, of taking your medicine, finding a spouse, giving blood, and even calling a cab (can you say, “Uber?”).

Is he kidding? In a world that has experienced Catholicism, fundamentalism, communism, national socialism, Islamic fundamentalism, and political correctness, he calls libertarianism ”a total ideology, one that addresses every aspect of how people live?” How does such nonsense get published?

Let me just say that I’ve written books on libertarianism, and I’ve never used Uber, nor do I have any idea what the libertarian way of “riding a bicycle, of taking your medicine,” or of “finding a spouse” is supposed to be.

There are of course philosophies that are totalist or address “every aspect of how people live,” from peaceful but prescriptive religions to theocracies to 20th-century totalitarianisms. Let’s look at a more timely example, political correctness.

As Jesse Walker wrote earlier this year, the term “politically correct” began with Marxists seeking to impose ideological discipline. It gravitated to some feminist and leftist thinking between the 1960s and 1980s, also as a form of ideological discipline. Only later did it become a mocking term, first among freer-thinking leftists and then among conservatives. Note also the feminist slogan “the personal is political.” That too is an attempt to regulate thought and action, bringing them into conformity with a particular ideology. It might have derived from a 1970 essay by Carol Hamisch under that title and widely reprinted. Hamisch wrote:

One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.

There’s a perspective that might have created an iron cage. A philosophy of “do what you want to do, so long as you respect the equal rights of others” is something very different. But Wolfe just can’t see that. He also claims:

Indeed, the libertarian conception of human nature seems curiously, even paradoxically, machine-like. Seemingly free to make our own decisions, in the libertarian utopia we would in fact be little more than slaves of rules that conform our choices to the rigidities of marketplace rationality….At a personal level, emotions such as envy, guilt, and sympathy would be forbidden us. Human nature, libertarians insist, is one thing and one thing only: the capacity to make choices based on the rational calculation of self-interest. 

That’s a striking distortion of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It has, as far as I can see, no relationship at all to non-Randian libertarianism. I suppose it’s true that libertarians discourage envy as a guide to action. But guilt and sympathy “forbidden …at a personal level?” The point of libertarianism is to respect each person as an end, not just a means; to allow persons to think and act as they please, so long as they respect the rights of others; and thereby to encourage human flourishing. You won’t find much scope in that agenda for forbidding personal emotions.

This is all very sad. You can tell that Alan Wolfe has read a lot of libertarian writings. Yet with all his reading, he has not got understanding; apparently his aversion to free-market economics blinds him to what libertarians are actually saying. Wolfe might want to reflect on something he wrote about modern Americans in his book One Nation, After All:

Above all moderate in their outlook on the world, they believe in the importance of living a virtuous life but are reluctant to impose values they understand as virtuous for themselves on others; strong believers in morality, they do not want to be considered moralists.

That just might be a description of many libertarians.

If The Princess Bride’s Inigo Montoya was here, he would say to Alan Wolfe, “Libertarianism? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Few Republican candidates these days are talking about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Indeed, they’ve been avoiding the last Republican administration since 2006. Even Jeb(!) Bush dances around the topic of his unpopular brother.

But this weekend I got an email from “Dick Cheney” – actually a fundraising appeal for the Republican National Committee, sent from its GOP.com. The email promises that if I give the RNC at least $59.99, I’ll get a copy of Cheney’s new book, which “describes the kind of leader we desperately need in the White House.”

The RNC must be sending this appeal widely. I’m not on their general email list. I get lots of unsolicited emails from both Republican and Democratic candidates, but I can’t recall one from GOP.com. So they seem to have acquired a lot of outside lists for their Dick Cheney pitch.

Cheney’s book has garnered widespread criticism, from Carlos Lozada at the Washington Post and Steve Chapman at Reason, for instance. According to Lozada, Cheney and daughter Liz call for

a massive military buildup, including new missile-defense systems, more nuclear weapons and a force prepared to wage war in multiple geographic locations simultaneously… the restoration of National Security Agency’s surveillance authorities, the return of “enhanced” interrogation of terrorism suspects, the deployment of thousands of military “advisors” to battle the Islamic State and a halt to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan… aggressive actions against rival nations, such as sending troops to NATO countries that border Russia, in order to “signal American determination.”

No wonder Republican candidates are not holding public events with Cheney. That’s not a platform candidates would want to ask the voters to endorse. But now the Republican National Committee – which calls itself in the email “the Official Committee in Charge of Taking Back the White House” – is wrapping itself in the arms of Dick Cheney and dangerously interventionist agenda. I wonder if any presidential candidates were consulted on this tactic.

Peter Hannaford, a longtime aide to Ronald Reagan, has died at 82. As the Washington Post puts it, after Reagan’s term as governor ended in 1975, Hannaford “teamed with ex-Reagan aide Michael K. Deaver to handle radio broadcasts, newspaper columns and appearances that kept the presidential aspirant in the public eye” until his election as president in 1980. The Post obituary notes the last time Hannaford recalled sending Reagan an idea, in 1988 near the end of his presidency:

He had come across a saying attributed to a Chinese philosopher: “Govern a great country as you would cook a small fish.” Mr. Hannaford said he knew it would appeal to Reagan’s belief in applying only a light touch to free-market enterprise.

“I knew he would like it,” Mr. Hannaford said. “And sure enough, it was in the State of the Union speech.”

Indeed it was. The ancient Chinese philosopher was Lao-tzu (or Lao-tse, or Laozi). In The Libertarian Mind I write:

The first known libertarian may have been the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu, who lived around the sixth century B.C. and is best known as the author of the Tao Te Ching. Lao-tzu advised, “Without law or compulsion, men would dwell in harmony.” 

And in The Libertarian Reader I include selections from the Tao. Not chapter 60, which Reagan quoted, but other sections with similar ideas:

19
Exterminate the sage [the ruler] and discard the wisdom [of rule],
And the people will benefit a hundredfold.

32
Without law or compulsion, men would dwell in harmony.

42
All things carry the yin and embrace the yang.
They achieve harmony through their interaction.

57
The more prohibitions there are,
The poorer the people will be.
The more laws are promulgated,
The more thieves and bandits there will be.
Therefore a sage has said:
So long as I “do nothing” the people will of themselves be
transformed.
So long as I love quietude, the people will of themselves go
straight.
So long as I act only by inactivity the people will of themselves
become prosperous.

75
The people starve because those above them eat too much tax-grain.
That is the only reason why they starve. The people are difficult to
keep in order because those above them interfere. That is the only
reason why they are so difficult to keep in order.

Professor Joseph Adler of Kenyon, an expert on Chinese religious traditions, wrote about Confucianism and Taoism:

The Tao Te Ching, or the Scripture of the Way and its Power, is one of the foundational texts of Chinese civilization – in particular of the religious and intellectual tradition of Taoism. Taoism is one of the two main streams of Chinese thought, along with Confucianism. They took shape at roughly the same time, from the 5th through 3rd centuries BCE, at a time when China was in a long period of civil war, aptly named the “Warring States” period.

Taoism and Confucianism both attempted to provide a new philosophical underpinning for government and society. Confucius’ theory was that a well-ordered and harmonious society could only be brought about when the ruling classes (the aristocracy and government officials) were composed of virtuous people. Their virtue, he said, would then spread throughout society like a wind rippling through a field of grain, mediated by able officials actively managing society through rational and benevolent means.

The Taoist approach focused not on society and conventional morality but on the individual’s relationship with the natural world. The Taoists had a laissez faire theory of government, although they too said that having a good ruler at the top was crucial. The difference was that for them, the ideal “sage-king” was one who did as little as possible to interfere with the people’s natural wants and needs. Their ideal form of action in the world, for both the ruler and the ordinary person, was called wu-wei, or “actingless action” – i.e. a form of natural action that reacts spontaneously to the flow of events and changing circumstances. The sage-ruler, they said, understands that governing a large kingdom is like “cooking a small fish.” How do you cook a small fish? As lightly as possible.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, is out of jail now but still in a legal battle over whether she can be required to issue licenses that offend her religion.

Although her case has been generating angry debates for a month now, the good news is how rare Kim Davis is.

In late June, the Supreme Court struck down state bans on gay marriage, at one stroke legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. Before the ruling there had been many predictions of widespread resistance and long-term cultural warfare. Even strong advocates of marriage equality had worried that a nationwide court decision could set off a long culture war, as the court’s 1973 decision legalizing abortion did.

But that isn’t happening. Kim Davis is not a symbol of massive resistance. Mostly she’s just a lonely warrior.

“Kim Davis stands almost alone — devout and courageous, perhaps, but not part of a rising tide of local officials determined to roll back marriage equality.”

Yes, it’s been reported that “many other local officials across the country are not giving up the fight.” That depends on what the meaning of “many” is. In Kentucky two other county clerks — out of 120 — have said they won’t issue licenses to same-sex couples, though neither has yet faced an actual request.

Who else? A judge in Marion County, Oregon. A county clerk in Granbury, Texas, who did accede to a court order. Three employees in a county clerk’s office in Tennessee. A firestorm of opposition this is not.

Religious right activists aren’t giving up. After the court’s decision, Iowa activist Bob Vander Plaats warned, “When the Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision, it didn’t end the debate about slavery, but only intensified it. Roe v. Wade didn’t end the debate over abortion, for we’re still working through it today. Likewise, Obergefell v. Hodges doesn’t end the debate, but only stirs it.”

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, held a rally for Davis Tuesday outside the jail where she spent the weekend. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the son of an evangelist, met with Davis the same afternoon.

Those activists misunderstand the mood of the nation. Unlike the continuing divide over abortion, public opinion has been moving rapidly toward support of same-sex marriage. The experienced Republican pollster Glen Bolger told Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post recently, “This is an unprecedented shift in public opinion. In 20 years it won’t even be an issue.” In the Gallup poll, support rose from 27 to 60 percent in only 19 years.

Abortion is very different. Since 1975, Gallup shows almost no change in its basic question about abortion. Close to 30 percent want abortion to be legal under any circumstances, around 20 percent want it illegal in all circumstances, and 50 percent are in the middle. The percentage calling themselves pro-choice has ranged between 41 and 50 percent for the past 20 years.

The obvious difference is that abortion involves the termination of a life. Many Americans regard that as murder, while others think it is at best morally troubling. Gay marriage, on the other hand, means people promising to love and support another person. It’s a lot harder to organize a campaign against that, or even to sustain people’s original opposition once they learn that some of their friends and family are gay and want to get married.

A major part of the American story is the progressive extension of the promises of the Declaration of Independence — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — to people to whom they were long denied. Gay marriage is the latest example of this. Now that we have moved into that bright sunshine of marriage equality, we’re not likely to move back to the closet and the shadows. Indeed, the mayor of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti, recently told Variety, “When you hear senators say, ‘I have never had a gay person in my family,’ or people running on a platform that … marriage is just between a man and a woman, it almost feels like we are watching black-and-white television.”

That’s the challenge that candidates like Huckabee and Cruz are facing. Kim Davis stands almost alone — devout and courageous, perhaps, but not part of a rising tide of local officials determined to roll back marriage equality.

We should thank Kim Davis for helping us to see just how tolerant and welcoming America has become in just a few short years.