There was something comical in hearing former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin’s recent condemnation of the “liberal media” for exposing — although a bit late — Rand Paul’s disappointingly narrow view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The charismatic gentleman from Kentucky — the tea party’s most prominent acolyte and the GOP nominee for the state’s Senate race — found out that when it comes to the general election, the media dissects every phrase and parses every word you’ve ever uttered. That’s political campaign management 101.

I used quotes around the phrase liberal media, because it is politicians, not reporters or editors, who do themselves in with malicious comments, absentminded assertions and befuddled responses to innocuous questions. For your average reporter, big political jaw-droppers like Paul’s are the hanging curve served up by a politician who just couldn’t or wouldn’t stop.

Just ask the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

In 1984, Jackson managed to use an anti-Semitic description of New York City and knock his presidential aspirations, as well as black-Jewish relations, off the track. Jackson tried to deny he used the slur, and his advocates griped about a media conspiracy to derail his candidacy, or, worse, wanted the public to believe it was taken out of context.

It didn’t matter that what was said was supposed to be in secret. Forget that. In 1984, as a young man living through his first election cycle in which he could vote, I wondered in what context could using such a racist term be acceptable, particularly falling out of the mouth of a civil rights icon.

It was shameful.

Today, with Rand Paul, I wonder in what universe does reflexively jumping on a pro-property rights position when faced with a fundamental question of civil rights make much sense.

It, too, is a shameful moment.

While some gleefully cheered the first major faux pas of Paul’s candidacy, I was taken aback by how earnest and steadfast he was in his belief. To counter the surge of protest, Paul spouts a doctrine that the government shall not discriminate, but private property owners —restaurateurs, booksellers, and car dealers — ought to have the right to keep out whomever they wish.

Paul doesn’t appear to remember the scenes of young men and women, dressed well with money in hand, being tossed out of a restaurant or beaten simply because they dared to be served a hamburger and soda. The market didn’t rectify the obvious injustice; government did. Those kids are now grandparents, and more than a few must be looking at their grandkids struggling with the unsettling and heartbreaking thought: “My God, was the struggle for nothing?”

Do we really want to go back to the days when black and white ballplayers had to stay in separate hotels, when non-white families were turned away from neighborhoods, or where workplaces kept women and minorities from applying for jobs, much less rising through the ranks because of corporate policy?

Paul, locked into insentience by his unyielding belief in a flawed doctrine, would willfully send us back to the not-so-good-old days of segregated spaces and places.

His doctrine justifies the signs that said: “No Dogs or Irish Allowed,” “No Jews,” “Waiting Room for Whites Only.”

We’re better than that.

At least Jackson apologized for his mistake.

The sad thing is that neither Rand Paul nor his defenders like Sarah Palin have the decency to do the same, or at least consider the effects of a regressive policy.

Fred McKissack is a former Progressive magazine editor and editorial writer who lives in Fort Wayne, Ind. He can be reached at pmproj [at] progresssive [dot] org.