0 votes

Awesome Opinion Piece Defending Rand's Stance on the Civil Right's Act of 1964

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/

Rand Paul Was Right

The Dangerous Flaw of the Civil Rights Act

by Robert Tracinski

Fresh from his blow-out victory in the Kentucky Republican primary for the Senate, Rand Paul has been identified by the left-leaning establishment as a dangerous enemy. And so he is being smeared as a racist for his comments criticizing certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul has already been pressured into backing down a little, and we can expect that by next week he will be shipped off to the Alfred Charles Sharpton, Jr., Re-Education Camp for further behavior modification.

But for all of the high moral dudgeon being unleashed against Paul, his is in fact the superior moral stance—and the one that embraces the only really effective way of eliminating racism. Paul has dared to name and oppose the dangerous flaw that was inserted into the Civil Rights Act.

Of course, a battle over the Civil Rights Act nearly five decades after its passage—when Rand Paul was still in diapers—is utterly preposterous. And it's not a battle anyone on the right would have chosen to fight right now. There is certainly no campaign for amending or reforming the Act. But I think everyone on the right needs to stand up and defend Rand Paul, for two reasons.

First, Paul needs to be defended because he got into trouble for actually being honest about his views rather than expedient. Isn't this precisely what we've asked for from our political leaders? There are a lot of pragmatists on the right who are now arguing that Paul should have pushed off the question by just saying that he approved of the Civil Rights Act—in effect, that he should have smiled and lied and glossed over a politically incorrect truth. But isn't that approach exactly what got us into the trouble we're in now?

More important, we need to defend Paul because he is being made into a victim of the White Guilt racket that the left has been running ever since 1964. As Shelby Steele has explained at length, White Guilt is a system in which all whites are viewed as potential racists, who have to do something to prove that they are not guilty of racism. The easiest way to do this—in fact, the only way, since the practitioners of the White Guilt racket control the game—is to embrace the welfare state policies of the left. If you challenge the welfare state, then the press is going to hound you into saying something that it can construe or misconstrue as racist.

That's what they're doing to Paul, and it's high time those of us on the right stopped walking around like whipped dogs and preemptively apologizing for ourselves. It's time for us to go on the offensive and to face down this racism smear whenever it's dragged out. Maybe it's because I'm from the Midwest, where all of the parks are named after Lincoln and Grant and where the people I grew up with had the clear conscience of having been on the right side of the civil rights movement all the way back to 1861. But I have never accepted that I should have anything to explain or apologize for on the issue of race. You shouldn't accept it, either.

That's especially true because Rand Paul is right on the substance of this issue. The Politico article that broke this story into the national media describes Paul as "evasive" or equivocal about his views on the Civil Rights Act. But it's everyone else who is fudging and equivocating. Paul's position is the one that draws a bright line of clarity: the crucial distinction between private action and government force. Paul was clear that he supports the elimination of government-enforced racism and segregation—the whole structure of the South's old Jim Crow laws. His reservation was that the Civil Rights Act should not have dictated what private individuals can do on their own property.

As he put it, "I like the Civil Rights Act in the sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains, and I'm all in favor of that. I don't like the idea of telling private business owners [what they can do]." And elsewhere: "the hard part about believing in freedom is—if you believe in the First Amendment, for example—…most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things.... It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior."

The argument against this is that racism is so unique an evil that the state just has to intervene to reform the moral character of all of those unenlightened troglodytes out in the hinterland. But this ignores the real history of how racism was conquered in America. It was not government control over the actions of private individuals that broke racism. What broke it was a moral reform movement that relied on something far more powerful than any law: the power of persuasion. Martin Luther King had his faults on other issues—he was at least a "moderate" socialist in his economics—but he got one big thing right: that the key to his campaign against racism was non-violence. He grasped that legitimate moral authority was a force more powerful than any gun.

The actual history of the past sixty years is the story of an enormous cultural transformation in which racism has—thank goodness—become an absolute social taboo. When was the last time you heard of a Civil Rights Act enforcement against a business for excluding blacks? Do you think anyone would even attempt such an exclusive policy? Project what would happen: there would be an immediate national campaign led by politicians and celebrities of all stripes. There would be marches and picketing, boycotts and ostracism. (And it should go without saying that folks like me would support such a boycott.) The shopkeeper or restaurant owner or country club board that tried to enforce a segregated policy would find their lease canceled, their customers disappearing, their advertising refused, and so on. They would be out of business within a week.

Look what happened to Don Imus, for crying out loud. An offhand comment that was insufficiently respectful of black athletes got his radio show summarily booted off the air. Our culture's rejection of racism—or at least of racism by whites against blacks—is enforced by a system of social ostracism more pervasive and severe than anything the government could ever come up with. It has, in fact, degenerated into a priggish code of social conformity, in which one is only allowed to express pre-packaged, pre-approved opinions on anything remotely connected to racial politics—as Rand Paul has just discovered.

The big lesson is: morality is more powerful than a gun. Persuasion is more powerful than coercion.

In fact, the context for the Civil Rights Act was the existence of a set of laws enacted to enforce segregation. But the very need for the Jim Crow laws—which were mostly written in the early 20th century—was an admission that the social code of racism was already in danger and beginning to slip, that the racist establishment of the old South could not permit people to begin breaking down those barriers and had to actively outlaw racial integration.

In other words, the government dictating what private individuals could do in their own business establishments was the problem that needed to be solved. The Civil Rights Act did demolish the whole legal structure of segregation, and for that reason I would have voted for it—had I, er, been alive at the time—despite its flaws. Rand Paul has since said as much, too. But he still won't be forgiven because his real moral crime is that he did not agree to paper over the act's flaws.

Not content to wipe out the Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights Act fought racism with the basic authoritarian premise of the left: that which is not permitted is forbidden—and that which is not forbidden is mandatory. In the left's world view, there is no legitimate room for individual choice, judgment, and persuasion. Everything is decided centrally in Washington, and then we all have to fall in line. Since racism is an evil to be opposed, then Congress has to dictate that racial harmony and integration be imposed on our private actions by government fiat.

But when you start using force to impose morality, you always hit more than your intended target. In the case of the Civil Rights Act, those provisions spawned an abusive civil rights enforcement regime in which businesses could face the accusation of "discrimination" even if they committed no overt, objectively definable act, but merely if the racial composition of their workforce doesn't fit some arbitrary mathematical formula. This spawned the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton shakedown culture—using trumped up accusations of racism to blackmail corporations into hiring leftist "racial sensitivity" consultants. And that's not to mention the "redlining" hysteria of the 1990s, in which banks were forced to demonstrate that they weren't racist by lowering their mortgage lending standards in slum neighborhoods—a precursor to the whole "affordable housing" bubble.

By saying that the government could reach into private establishments and judge their motives and dictate their actions, the Civil Rights Act endowed government with an enormous arbitrary power and subjected every private citizen to the burden of proving a negative: proving that he is not racist.

Rand Paul's analogy to the First Amendment is perfect. Remember the old saying about how "I may disagree with everything you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it?" Where is that spirit today, on any issue? We are racing toward the kind of petty authoritarianism where if anyone does anything you don't like—up to and including putting too much salt on their food—you can come in with a club and beat them over the head. Where is the morality in that?

The left can't hide any more behind the idea that they only want to control actions and not ideas—because they have long since signed on to proposals to control ideas. "Hate speech" laws are their answer to Rand Paul's argument about the First Amendment. If he says that people have a right to do offensive things, just as they have a right to say offensive things—the left replies: but we don't think people have a right to say anything that offends us. They have openly rejected persuasion in favor of coercion—with no limits.

Hence the absurdity of the high moral dudgeon against Rand Paul. Morality? As another Rand said—in this case, Ayn Rand—morality ends where a gun begins. Advocates of the unlimited use of force don't get to claim the cover of morality. Unrestrained government is by its very nature immoral government. It is the use of force unrestrained by principles. And that's an immoral act from which we have far more to fear than the last feeble vestiges of racism.

Those who want to restrain the power of the government within the moral limits set for it by the Constitution are the ones who are leading today's real civil rights movement—and we should not allow ourselves to be intimidated for a moment by those who seek power by stealing the authority of the last civil rights movement.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

reply

Yes and the victims of reverse racism which is epidemic in this country need to sit on their lily white asses and smile while getting slapped around by belligerent illegal aliens

A couple of excellent quotes...

Not content to wipe out the Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights Act fought racism with the basic authoritarian premise of the left: that which is not permitted is forbidden—and that which is not forbidden is mandatory. In the left's world view, there is no legitimate room for individual choice, judgment, and persuasion.

and...

Martin Luther King had his faults on other issues—he was at least a "moderate" socialist in his economics—but he got one big thing right: that the key to his campaign against racism was non-violence. He grasped that legitimate moral authority was a force more powerful than any gun.

good article but im not so

good article but im not so sure about this part "The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence in his own mind. " It seems like the way to get rid of racism or any behavior would "requires the destruction of an individual's confidence in his own mind." The red chinese would get everyone in a village together and put each others opinions on trial so to speak. The social stigma created through the process not only kept the criticised person in line but the whole group. I believe that is what we are seeing when we watch oprah etc. even the audience is picked on many occasions. That is in part why people want to justify them self immediately anytime a subject remotely similair to racism comes up. Want to know my view on racism its none of your business. I could care less what your view is either.

About the quote: "The spread

About the quote: "The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence in his own mind."

The full quote was:

The spread of racism requires the destruction of an individual's confidence in his own mind. Such an individual then anxiously seeks a sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group to tell him what to believe. Because he thinks of himself as a racial entity, he feels "himself" only among others of the same race. He becomes a separatist, choosing his friends—and enemies—based on ethnicity. This separatism has resulted in the spectacle of student-segregated dormitories and segregated graduations.

(http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_...)

I think this is making an abstract philosophical point about the difference between rugged individualism vs. social collectivism. Racism is a product of collectivism where people seek a "sense of identity by clinging to some group, abandoning his autonomy and his rights, allowing his ethnic group (collective)to tell him what to believe."

This is a deep existential issue that stems from that little voice inside our heads that constantly whispers to us, "Who am I?" If someone answers that question, "I am a black person." Then that person will most likely identify himself ontologically and existentially in terms of "being" black. He feels himself among a racial group like the "black community". Certain manners of speaking, body language, ideas, and occupations might be rejected because he might feel that his trying "to be" white.

An example of this existential dilemma is a story told by Fox Business talk host Charles Payne. He tells a story how he grew up wanting to be a business man and black people in his community picked on him because he was "trying to be white." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Ne9t6tsXo&feature=related

Fortunately, Charles Payne maintained confidence in his individual mind and didn't succumb to the primitive racial collectivism of his community.

Nice article.

However, it's going to be pretty hard to articulate that amount of text to the average voter out there, when their favorite TV channel is screaming, "He's RACIST!" into their ears.

The reason why the PTB use the methods they use, is because they are very short blasts of emotionally-laden knee-jerk type stimuli, which can be counted upon to energize the sub-80 IQ masses.

To wit:
Typical Dem rhetoric is, "He's RACIST!"
Typical GOP rhetoric is, "You're either with us, or you're with the TERRORISTS!"
Typical Libertarian/Paleoconservative rhetoric is what is in this OP.

Now,consider the public-at-large out there is reading at best on a 6th-grade level, and probably don't understand half the words in the OP, much less understanding the concepts. 21 paragraphs of expository writing on levels beyond the general public.
The liberal base that is appealed-to by their rhetoric probably is totally illiterate, and can barely grunt, much less talk. Even the ones with a modicum of intelligence have never been exposed to critical thinking, and so they are just as crippled.

The "movement" needs to get a distilled emotional banner to get behind, so that communication can occur to the masses.
It must be Pavlovian. Basic stimulus.
You can't "stimulate" an intellect which isn't there.
It needs to be elementary. In fact, focus groups of elementary school students in an inner city environment might be good to determine what can be digested by the general public.

Our message is clear, but it's too deep for the existing audience.
We need a good "grunt" to appeal to the sub-80 IQ crowd out there.

Agree Big T...

IMO, the use of Bandler's stories are the way to get to these people.

If you ever read William Griggs stories, they are a perfect example where either short or long, they captivate the reader. Heck, I just donated to him because I enjoy reading them so much.

Incorporating stories is something I know I need to do more of in my writing as I can get wrapped up in the technical side of things (us men are logical beasts eh?).

"50 years ago, a business owner in Montgomery, Alabama...."

I need to go back and listen to some more tapes...

Nice observations...

Author of Buy Gold and Silver Safely
Next book: Illusions of Wealth - due out soon
Also writing book We the Serfs!

A couple years back on the DP

this topic was brought up and to my recollection, a poster was banned and the threads deleted. I have not seen it brought back up til now. Dpers need to know how to answer this challenge to our philosophy.

Front Page please

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn
http://youtu.be/eWVrdFrpXHE

Terrific article.

I hadn't heard of these people before, but will be looking into them.

National Review also defended Rand and said 'do we really want to teach our politicians to hide what they think?' NR wants to elevate the debate. I hope that is possible.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

Excellent ....

..article.

reedr3v's picture

Orwell, thanks for posting this excellent

article that strips away the pretense of morality in BigGov advocates, and awards the moral high ground to the Liberty movement which is the only place it can reside.

Your welcome

The liberty movement needs to give more responses to this in order for it to survive. I respectfully disagree with Rand Paul that the Civil Rights issue is only a "gotcha question" in an effort to smear him and the liberty movement. I think it is an important question (and many other questions) that need to be answered in order for the libertarian movement or the constitutional conservative movement to survive.

If libertarianism is going to go mainstream, then they are going to have to eventually start answering HARD questions. Instead of seeing this as as a "liberal conspiracy" to smear the "far-right", I see this as a sign of strength.

Libertarians need to unapologetically defend our positions. We are not racists, we don't have a hidden racist agenda. We need to give serious intellectual arguments about the issue.

Here is another excellent article called, "DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURALISM: THE NEW RACISM": http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_...

Precisely!

Bravo!

It isn't "winning elections" that is going to restore the Constitution, it is changing SOCIETAL MOOD. Education in the hard issues and teaching CONSISTENCY of the freedom philosophy is the ONLY way we can concretely win.

Thomas Jefferson: “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Viva La Revolucion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs

Thank You!

Nice article.

Awesome post!

Awesome post!

This is too good to be missed!

If this drops off tonight then I'll have to check tomorrow and pull it back out!! It's too good to miss!

Goodnight bump!

"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

Don't miss this..it's a 'MUST READ!'

Just have to give this another bump for more to read this!

********
Goodnight All!

"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

Excellent article! Thankyou!

Please add the link to your post!

"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

There is no link

This opinion piece is from an email subscription called The Intellectual Activist. The website is http://www.intellectualactivist.com/ But there is no direct link to the article unfortunately.

I see, thanks for sharing this excellent article.

I signed up for a 30 day trial on that site too! He is absolutely correct in this analysis, IMO.

I agree, Jacob Hornberger's piece below is another
great commentary!

***

"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

Robert Tracinski writes good

Robert Tracinski writes good opinion pieces. However, he drifts away from Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy. A lot of his writings are about the war in the Middle East. He agrees with Ron Paul on everything except foreign policy.

I think Robert Tracinski would be best described as a neo-libertarian or neo-conservative/libertarian. Foreign policy aside, I think he makes a lot of good statements. His criticisms of the left are excellent and he is not afraid to call out RINOs.

http://www.neolibertarian.com/

Another good piece

Jacob Hornberger wrote a good piece also http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=875