by Sheldon Richman
October/November 2000

In 1997, President Clinton called for an "unprecedented conversation about race." That's curious, since we've been talking about race nonstop since who knows-when?

Mr. Clinton said that "we have torn down the barriers in our laws. Now we must break down the barriers in our lives, our minds, our hearts." That's also curious, because there are probably more one-on-one dealings between people of different races in the United States today than ever before.

Shrouded by Mr. Clinton's rhetoric is the real continuing problem. The government has gone far beyond simply tearing down legal barriers that imposed disadvantages on blacks. It has gone on to micromanage race relations and, predictably, it has made a mess of things.

Take the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law can be divided into two classes of government action: the nullification of laws that restrict people's rights (Jim Crow laws) and the imposition of positive obligations on private persons. The first can be said to have enhanced liberty. The second limits liberty and creates racial animosity.

If the government treats some people differently from others because of their race, that violates the rule of law, which includes the idea of equality under the law. The Jim Crow regime violated that principle, so good riddance to it.

If that's all the federal government did, the last few decades would have been far more harmonious than they have been. But it went beyond that by trying to regulate private conduct. It did not say only that governments may not invidiously discriminate against its citizens. It also said that private individuals may not discriminate, either. When the government tries to outlaw discrimination, it opens the door to pervasive intrusion into private activities. It has been remarked many times that the sponsors of the 1964 act insisted their bill would not impose hiring quotas. Yet it has. Employers have been sued and have paid large damages for having a workforce unreflective of the racial and ethnic composition of the surrounding community. The mere threat of costly litigation has undoubtedly caused employers to hire people they felt were not the best candidates for the jobs. That has created racial animosity among members of unprotected groups who feel they are treated unfairly. Alternatively, since it can be costly to fire an employee who is a minority-group member, an employer has an increased incentive to avoid hiring him if possible. This undoubtedly happens in small businesses.

Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute has pointed out that the move to quotas was an inexorable consequence of the 1964 act. Once the government outlawed discrimination, it had to devise allegedly objective standards because it is hard to know what is in an employer's mind. But government imposed quotas wear away the fabric of civil society. We know that all too well.

Government's own hiring policies have also poisoned race relations. Affirmative action programs, or racial preferences, in employment and education are a form of the discrimination that supposedly was outlawed. In the name of nondiscrimination, the government discriminates. That makes no sense.

When California voters approved a ban on state racial preferences, Mr. Clinton objected. He and others now point out that black enrollment in law and graduate schools has dropped because of the ban. If that is so, it means that the critics of affirmative action were correct: people were getting into school solely on racial considerations.

Mr. Clinton says that those who oppose affirmative action should come up with an alternative. How about freedom for all? This is either a free country or it isn't. Accepting freedom only as long as you like the results is an insult to the great principle that has produced so much good.

If private employers wish to have affirmative action programs, that is their right. The right to discriminate (even if it is odious discrimination) is intrinsic to the right of free association, which in turn is at the core of life, liberty, and property. A limited right of free association is a contradiction in terms.

If we want an end to racial antagonism, the first step is to depoliticize race. We don't need new commissions or presidential sanctimony from the bully pulpit. We need freedom to work out our own problems without the heavy hand of government.

Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Why We Must Abolish the Welfare State, and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.

Also by Sheldon Richman

The Multiracial Activist - Count Me Out

The Multiracial Activist - Elian's Fate: It's Not America's Decision

The Multiracial Activist - Reno's Disgrace

The Multiracial Activist - Of, By, And For The People?

The Multiracial Activist - Preventing Holocausts

Book: Your Money or Your Life

Book: Separating School and State

---

Copyright © 1999 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

---

Add as favourites (37) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 2457

Comments (8)

1  The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by GeorgeDAllen, on 09-10-2000 05:04 As long as officials of public trust and institutions use and misuse their positions, administrative techniques and outright lawlessness to impose white supremacist theory to actively harm children, as is the case today in this nation, disparity exists proportionate with the corruption used to impose racial hatred.    "The Key to Race:Depoliticize It" neatly and cleanly ignores the active use of racial hate crime activity within government and institutions today as Marxist-Leninist Communists use specious arguments to discount their own dirty linen. Seems ok if viewed without contact with reality, but only to the self serving seeking justification for ignoring wrongdoing which is ongoing.    I hold this to be intellectual dishonesty of the highest order and a classical intentional misuse of logic for propaganda purposes. Posing as a detached intellectual or academic does not make one so.  GeorgeDAllen    Edited 10/9/2000 12:16:08 PM ET by GEORGEDALLEN  Edited 10/9/2000 12:25:37 PM ET by GEORGEDALLEN Report

2  Re: The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by susannah11, on 09-10-2000 14:18 He says that people have the right to discriminate, even if it's odious discrimination. He says that the problem is with the government in preventing discrimination.    If we go that way, then we would end up with slavery again. After all, wasn't it the government who abolished slavery by waging war on the south? Does this man think that that was wrong?    It is in the interests of corporate America to have American citizens hate their government, and loath and fear democracy. However, corporations won't fight racism unless it is their own interests. I think that people should take a long hard look at the views of Libertarian politics because if it was legal for people to have the freedom to do anything that they wanted then Jim Crowe laws would be back and no-one but the K.K.K. would benefit. Report

3  Re: The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by jlandrith, on 09-10-2000 16:14 Jim Crow laws had nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarians abhor Jim Crow laws. A libertarian nation would not have Jim Crow laws or slavery. Anyone who knows anything about the philosophy knows better. Libertarians oppose slavery and Jim Crow laws which violate individual rights. In America, the Democratic Party built and fostered segregation for nearly a hundred years. The most senior Democrat in the Senate is a former Klansman. Most people don't know that the only person currently serving in Congress with ties to the KKK is a Democrat. Don't put the KKK and Jim Crow laws on a philosophy that didn't even exist then. Jim Crow laws violate libertarian philosophy at it's very basic core. Put the blame where it really lies, at the feet of the Democratic Party who started building the current race-hating machine shortly after the Civil War, with it's support of the KKK, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws.    Many Democrats currently and vocally oppose multiracial self-identification to the tune of belittling interracial marriage, etc. Is this really acceptable? Belittling interracial marriage? Telling those who identify as multiracial that they are "running from their blackness" or "selling out"? This current resurgence of racism in the Democratic Party has all happened in the last 3 years. Not 150 years ago. I'll name a few names that participated in the biracial/interracial bashfest that was the 1997 round of multiracial census category hearings: Representatives Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, Carolyn Maloney, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, to name a few. Seems that Democrats are still having trouble shedding their anti-miscegenationist views and intolerance. I find this thoroughly disgusting and completely unacceptable. Don't blame libertarians, blame Democrats for the current state of race in America. I take plenty of post-shots at conservatives for their intolerance on immigration, freedom to practice or not to practice religion, etc., but I believe in telling the truth. Democrats get sole credit for Jim Crow, not libertarians who oppose Jim Crow laws and any other laws that restrict individual property rights. Libertarians oppose slavery in all forms. Libertarians believe in the right of the individual, not the state. Those who created slavery in America did not believe in individual rights. Those who created segregation and the post-Civil War anti-miscegenation laws did not believe in individual rights. Those who defended the practice of slavery and instituted most of the post-Civil War anti-miscegenation laws were DEMOCRATS, who didn't believe in individual rights. A large number still don't, judging from their treatment of racial self-identification. Attributing future Jim Crow laws and slavery (which violate the philosophy of individual rights) to libertarianism is a perversion of the truth, and indicative of a lack of knowledge of libertarian philosophy.    As far as loathing and fearing democracy go, I can't comment. I've never lived in a democracy. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, meaning that a tiny, elite group of professional power-mongers (less than 600), get to make decisions for 270 million people. That's about as far as you can get from a democracy.    The problem is America today is not racism. It's race. The concept of static "races" and the need to classify people as such, currently pushed by liberals like Maxine Waters, Danny Davis, and Carolyn Maloney and by conservatives like Steve Sailer is at the root of racism. Simply put, racism is just a symptom of race. Using quotas and set-asides as a means of fighting racism is the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It's simply wishful thinking. People who wish to discriminate will do so and continue to do so. Personally, I would rather that they did it out in the open so that I could spend my money elsewhere. Undercover racists are the ones to fear, not those idiots who do it out in the open, and seem oblivious to the fact that America is rapidly becoming "browner" and that whites be in the minority by 2050. Let them hang their racist signs in store windows and then watch them go out of business as their neighbors discover their true beliefs. 30 years of open and free miscegenation is not going to go away, it is going to continue to build more interracial families who have more multiraical children. There just aren't enough white people in America today to keep hundreds of thousands of white-only stores and factories open in today's America. Discrimination does occur and it is morally bankrupt, but so is government classification of people into "races." The people who would do something so economically stupid as to create white-only institutions are those who have no stockholders to answer to and who have no desire to create business empires. Large corporations, who penetrate markets that cross national, ethnic, and "racial" borders all over the world and want to make money, not live in the past, know better. Americans have been programmed from birth to believe in static "races" by government, activist groups and religious organizations of various political leanings from left to right. The government sends a huge "people are different" message every ten years in the form of the Census. The government says "don't discriminate" and then says "everyone get in your own box so we can divide the nation up based on race." Get rid of "race" and we can then start the process of getting rid of racism. It must happen in that order or it is just a huge circle jerk that will go on forever. It's time to stop treating the symptoms and start rooting out this cancer from the inside. It'll be a long, painful process, but our great-great grandkids will be better off for it. Getting rid of race won't make the symptoms disappear immediately. It will, however, start the healing process, which is more than has been done in the entire history of this country. If you are truly interested in ending racism, start by ending race.    Edited 10/10/00 12:33:13 AM ET by JLANDRITHJR Report

4  Re: The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by Eugenia (liljean), on 10-10-2000 12:52 Oh God, thank you, thank you, thank you. I am so tired of people not knowing the true meaning of having liberty. Liberty and libertarians fight for freedom for all not just some and the people that you like but for everyone. If this country had been truly libertarian, there would have been no slavery and no Jim Crowe, just people free to seek and out their dreams to best of their ability. That's what I want right now. You explained libertarianism in one of best forms yet. I am proud to be a libertarian. I may not agree with people say, but being the thought police is not only going to harm their freedom, it takes away mine. I may not agree with what they say, but I'll fight for your freedom to say it.    Edited 10/10/00 7:53:42 PM ET by LILJEAN Report

5  Re: The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by susannah11, on 11-10-2000 15:44 Thank you James for replying to my post. I learnt a great deal. I don't live in the United States, I live in Australia and so I know very little about what actually goes on there,other than what I have read. I basically wrote what I wrote in response to a statement that was made by the writer who said that as odious as discrimination was, people had the right to practice discrimination. So I based my reply on that.    I have started to become interested in multiracial issues as I feel that bisexuals and biracial/multiracial people make natural allies in the fight against the various dichotomies of society that we all face.    I have sent an e-mail to Beverly Yuen Thompson, but I have been having e-mail problems so I don't know if she has received it.    Best wishes Susannah Report

6  Re: The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by GeorgeDAllen, on 14-10-2000 03:10 The essay "The Key to Race; Depoliticize it" is not about the libertarian or democratic parties, and definitely not about ending racism or race.    The argument is that eliminating government is the cure, and the problem is the 1964 Civil rights act. Marxist-Leninist claimed eliminating capitalism was the cure to all evils. What followed was a structure more oppressive than what was being cured. No "classless society" occured in Russia. Once power was in the hands of a few through selling a lie as the answer, power was abused. Eliminating capitalism did not and does not work but the control of power was grasp through this agenda. The reality was very different from what the theory promised the gullible and did not work.    No elimination of government is going to occur or can occur. We are too many to go back to hunter/gatherer social organization. Using the argument that the real evil is passing a law to give relief to institutionalized racism is just as dishonest and propagandistic as  communists spouting all evil is due to capitalism and the United States to brainwash folks to help them grab power in a third world country. The aim of the author is to turn back the clock to eliminate legal remedy under the guise of greater freedom. He is selling a bill of goods.    The fallacy of logic is "Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc", this therefore this. Civil rights laws are laws. All laws restrict freedom-bad. Therefore all civil rights laws are bad. (A dog made a mess on my lawn. A mess on my lawn is bad. Therefore all dogs are bad) Notice that he did not attack laws against murder or rape, just civil rights. If his wife or daughter were murdered or raped I do not believe the posturing would continue to demand to let us work it out ourselves. With a powerful abuse of institutions to harm children already in place he would like to have the remedy eliminated so that he can be more free, in theory, however the child is not free. This selective in attack.    The same argument can be misused against anything that his personal agenda benefits from and is propagandistic-dishonest. This is "thought police" of the highest order. Allow the notion that good is evil for whatever reason and you are standing in rotten cotton. I see this essay as rotten cotton, not the elimination of race or in any way arguing for the elimination of race.    What it argues for is an elimination of the 1964 Civil Rights act which provides some legal remedy IF you have the money to hire a private attorney.    Eliminating protection under the law does not enhance freedom for all, only for those who do not need protection under the law.      GeorgeDAllen Report

7  Re: The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by jlandrith, on 16-10-2000 06:45 You said: "As long as officials of public trust and institutions use and misuse their positions, administrative techniques and outright lawlessness to impose white supremacist theory to actively harm children, as is the case today in this nation, disparity exists proportionate with the corruption used to impose racial hatred. "The Key to Race:Depoliticize It" neatly and cleanly ignores the active use of racial hate crime activity within government and institutions today as Marxist-Leninist Communists use specious arguments to discount their own dirty linen."    Sheldon Richman made his thoughts on government imposed discrimination very clear when he said: "If the government treats some people differently from others because of their race, that violates the rule of law, which includes the idea of equality under the law. The Jim Crow regime violated that principle, so good riddance to it."    George, nowhere in that piece does Richman call for legalizing "racial hate crime activity." If by "racial hate crime activity" you mean - destruction of personal property, assault, death threats, theft, etc. then you are incorrect in trying to tie them to the piece. They are not relevant to the piece, as it is not about crime. The actions described above are illegal regardless of whether are not the target is of any particular "racial" group. These activities are illegal by themselves and covered more than adequately by local, state and federal laws. That doesn't necessarily mean that anyone will enforce these laws. People get screwed over by the justice system daily as it is subject to corrupt politicians, prosecutors and judges, but that has nothing to do with what he was talking about.    Edited 10/16/00 1:55:49 PM ET by JLANDRITHJR Report

8  Re: The Key to Race: Depoliticize It Written by GeorgeDAllen, on 16-10-2000 10:53 This is your medium and board. I disagree with the essay but defer to you.    GeorgeDAllen Report

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved