Friday, May 21, 2010

claim that the "free market" could take care of racial problems

So what is Rand Paul -- an ordinary white racist? Or a more sinister sort of closet racist?

In response to an onslaught of what he terms "liberal media attacks" after a recent interview with Rachel Maddow -- in which he argued against federal restrictions on business owners' "rights" to refuse service to whomever they like -- Libertarian whiz kid Rand Paul is now claiming that he actually supports the Civil Rights Act.

On his official candidacy site, Paul states,

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws."


Like his initial claims in the Maddow interview -- basically, that he's against racial discrimination, but also for allowing businesses to refuse service to whomever they like -- Paul's official response to the firestorm that he's provoked is nothing short of bizarre. It's a blatantly self-contradictory stance being expressed by a (suddenly) national figure (which, come to think of it, isn't all that unusual).

How can Paul logically be for the Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, and also for the "right" of businesses to do whatever they want, including discriminating on the basis of race? And how can he be for an act of law, but actually for the "intent" of that law? Basically, he can't. And yet, like so many other adherents to Libertarianism, he simply ignores the fundamental contradictions that arise when simplistic theories get tested in the real world.

I think it's great, and pretty entertaining really, that this example of Libertarian ideology -- which Rand Paul and his father Ron Paul both hold so dear -- has been exposed as illogical so early in his candidacy. Rand Paul's bumbling attempts to address his self-contradictory stance, all while completely failing to address it, just might bring about the kind of sunlight that could disinfect a lot of the rising and similarly bankrupt Tea-Party ideology (its adherents fervently support Rand's candidacy).

Such attention might also help to expose an apparently new common white tendency -- explaining away racist actions by saying they're not a problem, because the free market will take care of them.

Rand Paul made this particular argument when he said the following, in explanation of his position on business rights and civil rights: "I think it’s a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant."

Got that? Paul's implication is that businesses that refuse their services in a racist manner will suffer or even fail, presumably because in our "postracial" society, most people will spend their money at businesses that don't practice racial discrimination, because most (white) people aren't racists anymore. The free market is sacrosanct and magical, you see; if the dastardly liberals who supposedly control everything would just let market practices be "free," all problems would be solved. Including racism!

This is the same excuse given, for instance, by that racist justice of the peace in Louisiana. Remember Keith Bardwell, the one who refused to grant marriage licenses to interracial couples? He said that his refusal wasn't racist (of course), because he only meant to protect the children produced by such unions. Then, after the couple obtained a license elsewhere, Bardwell said this:

I'm sorry, you know, that I offended the couple, but I did help them and tell them who to go to and get married. And they went and got married, and they should be happily married, and I don't see what the problem is now.

Got that, all you racism chasers? Bardwell is basically saying, without saying it outright, that even if his actions were racist, that's not a problem, because the couple was free to get their marriage license elsewhere. The market took care of it! And Bardwell himself was supposedly just expressing his all-American, God-given personal right to serve, and not serve, whomever he liked.

I don't know if these two examples justly represent a "common white tendency" (can you think of others?). However, they do help to explain why such an overwhelming percentage of Libertarians are white, and also why a lot of them -- although they'd never admit it in public -- are flatout racists. As Niky Ring writes (in a post entitled "Libertarianism: the ideology of American racists"), "Why are people shocked when a libertarian flips over and there's a Klansman on the other side?"

That's not to say that all Libertarians keep pointy-hooded robes in their closets. But it is to say that it's not difficult to see why the ideology itself attracts so many adamant racists. Now that we have another ardent Libertarian on the national stage, one who's aligned with the similarly, thinly veiled racists of the Tea Party (you know, those crowds of white people clamoring to take "their" country back), here's hoping that the "liberal media" will keep up the "attack" on Rand's self-contradictory stance on the Civil Rights Act. Maybe they'll also be able to figure out just what kind of racist he is too.


[h/t: swpd reader Jon]

58 comments:

  1. As for another example, here's one that I mentioned to Macon, but couldn't find a citation for at the time: Back in October 2005, a barbershop in Louisiana posted a "Whites Only" sign. The barber in question said he couldn't give a "professional haircut" and send black customers to a barber across the street. Doesn't quite have the "free market" aspect, but the implication is "they get a haircut anyway, so what's the problem?" (the original story on the KATC-TV website is dead, but it's mentioned here, and here)

    It's the "Well it all worked out, so what's the problem?" attitude that I hear the most. And it's so disturbing (scary, even), because that just leads down the road of de facto segregation ("Well, the Black guy had to eat a different lunch counter, but he ate lunch, so what's the problem?").

    ReplyDelete
  2. "But it is to say that it's not difficult to see why the ideology itself attracts so many adamant racists."

    Of course. Both racism and libertarianism tell a very attractive lie: that successful white people earned everything we have solely on our own merit.

    Then libertarianism takes it even further, by letting us have our cake an eat it too:

    It tells us that the inequities POC face are due to their lack of personal responsibility or work ethic, not systematic disadvantage. So when a POC doesn't succeed, it's their fault.

    But at the same time, it lets white people believe that if we aren't successful, it's because the government is holding us back. So when we doesn't succeed, it's *not* our fault.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "How can Paul logically be for the Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, and also for the "right" of businesses to do whatever they want, including discriminating on the basis of race? And how can he be for an act of law, but actually for the "intent" of that law? Basically, he can't. And yet, like so many other adherents to Libertarianism, he simply ignores the fundamental contradictions that arise when simplistic theories get tested in the real world."

    Doublethink pure and simple. Moreover, whites scratch their heads as to why we have all black churches, fraternal organizations and institutions of higher learning. Well they’re going to do their own thing anyways, so in a way our racism helped the free market along.

    @Jess..
    "But at the same time, it lets white people believe that if we aren't successful, it's because the government is holding us back. So when we doesn't succeed, it's *not* our fault."

    And when a white person fumes on that one long enough he's liable to blow something up- or fly a plane into a building- or go on a suicide rampage, taking as many victims as he can with him. Because somehow he reasons, he’s been cheated out of the American dream. Holding both the government and minorities chiefly responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Jess (and at the whole post in general): YES!

    This "attractive lie" works for people who are cloaked in privilege and never have to take a long, hard look at systemic racism.

    Sadly, it is difficult to pull the threads of racism out of the political/public/cable news discourse and hold them up and say "see! here! this is your racism!" without using the framework explored on this blog: that racism remains invisible, or a non-issue, to many who have never had to examine it.

    Maybe that's all very Captain Obvious stuff, but I am working to keep my head in the game, check my sh*t, and I appreciate the discussions on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is a certain distinction that Paul is making here that ensures that he is not in fact, being self-contradictory.

    The distinction is between "public" and "private" - the former being the sphere over which government has control, the latter over which it should have no control.

    On Maddow's show he danced (actually, stumbled would be a better word) around her questions, managing to all but affirm that he supports businesses' rights to discriminate.

    In his apparent "reversal", and in his official statement on his website, he's actually still taking the same position - hinged upon a two words: "public" and, to a lesser extent, "laws".

    The quote:

    I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

    If you remove "public sphere" from the quote, then this would not be Rand Paul's position.

    His position is not anti-racism, it's anti-government. In Paul's view, the government should not be able to discriminate (e.g. Jim Crow laws), but individuals and private enterprises should be allowed to, even if it's a bad business idea.

    Now consider that Paul is a libertarian, wanting for smaller and smaller government, meaning more and more power for private enterprise. In a ideal Paul government, those bodies with the right to discriminate would hold the most power. So, in fact, in spite of his alleged "reversal" - which is actually just a clever re-wording - Paul is every bit against the CRA of 1964, and all for racism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The fact that you have "free market" in quote marks says it all, doesn't it? The government has always intervened just enough and in a specific way in the supposedly "free market" to benefit upper class white men. Of course Paul thinks the free market will take care of others--after all, it's always taken care of him, right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great post. Politically, libertarians are a minority among whites (though gaining popularity at an alarming rate), but almost all libertarians are white, and there's an obvious reason for that.

    And even white people who don't profess libertarianism tend to get stuck in this rut of thinking that poor PoC communities are just full of people who aren't working hard enough, because, you know, our democracy/free market is perfect and it doesn't discriminate, etc. Nevermind that the "free" market is run by white people (which clearly has a lot to do with those race-based class discrepancies...)

    ReplyDelete
  8. You know what I don't get? Why everyone is having such trouble calling Rand Paul a racist. Every editorial or blog post I've read discussing his views contains some variation of this sentence: "It wouldn't be fair to accuse Paul of being a racist." Even Really? Why not? From where I'm sitting he's harboring some clearly racist beliefs, e.g., advocating allowing businesses to exclude people on the basis of skin color, nationality, sexuality, etc.

    How does one this not make him a racist? And why is everyone so intent on qualifying their criticism of this man? Why does HE need to be coddled and handled w/kid gloves? Cuz his feelings are hurt? HIS reputation might be besmirched? What about the people he's consigning to be discriminated against? I guess they are not worth giving a shit about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In all fairness to Rand (and Godheval does an excellent job of explaining Rand's position), there is an argument for allowing an individual to make their own decisions. ANY INDIVIDUAL. Within a private sphere.

    I don't think Rand is focusing on race. I think he is relying on the libertarian notion that individuals should be able to act as they wish. Groups self-segregate everyday (in terms of race, but also class and status, and every other distinction).

    I don't live in his state, but I do find his ideas thought provoking.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Prefacing this by saying: Windy City Girl, I totally agree. It's driving me bonkers that it's not allowed to be said. It feels like there has been much tap-dancing around racial issues, and it seems to be getting worse as this obviously racist Tea Party nonsense grows in popularity.

    That said, I don't think saying "(Person) a Racist" is a good idea-- not because it's untrue, but because it becomes more easily derailed. Jay Smooth did a brilliant vid about that:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc&feature=related

    You are very right though, the white media is having trouble saying "yes, this is racist" in straightforward terms.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One of the main problems with the anything being dictated by the free market is that spending power is still mostly in the hands of a white majority. In areas where POCs are few, white racists would be able to get away with all kinds of things without losing money.


    @ windy city girl:

    "You know what I don't get? Why everyone is having such trouble calling Rand Paul a racist."

    Perhaps it makes sense to be sparing with the word "racist", because for many middle American conservative-leaning folks, accusation of racism are seen as just another way that the Left oppresses them. They wouldn't recognise racism unless the guy was burning crosses and whipping slaves. So calling him racist may actually engender sympathy for Paul among certain sections.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Windy city girl said...
    "You know what I don't get? Why everyone is having such trouble calling Rand Paul a racist. Every editorial or blog post I've read discussing his views contains some variation of this sentence: "It wouldn't be fair to accuse Paul of being a racist."

    People who seem reluctant to label Rand Paul a racist may have harbored some of those very same feelings at one time. Some whites find it hard to accept that any white person is capable of such hatred. Racist evokes memories of hooded white men terrorizing/lynching black people in the night- the very worst of human behavior. And that’s certainly not them they think.

    Jonathan Rhys Meyers gets drunk and tosses the N-word about as if he was Johnny Appleseed and no one dares to call him a racist, even if he burned a cross on someone's front yard in the process. Whites who know him say he acted stupidly- but fall woefully short of calling him a racist. Just blame it on the alcohol, not some deep-seated hate that’s been nestled inside for most of his life.

    But we blacks know better, “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” When Jeremiah Wright vented his frustration, shouting God damn America!” during a sermon, whites (including the media) were very quick to call him a racist. Very quick in fact, demanding that Obama denounce the man and alleviate their fears. Whites have become very good at turning the tables on the oppressed by declaring it is "We Minorities" who are the oppressors.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Colorblind (and re: Godheval),

    But the thing is, in the U.S. the public/private distinction as libertarians make it is merely theoretical. The federal and state governments are very much involved in the so-called "private sphere" (or at least, what libertarians would define as the private sphere, which means the economy, chiefly) in ways that libertarians themselves would pee their pants if threatened with the loss.

    Can you imagine, for example, a world in which the U.S. unilaterally declared an end to its import tariffs? (Hey--we've got to have a free market! Equal competition with all countries!) Or no more agricultural subsidies? Hint: it ain't the "family farmer" those things help.

    I fear that libertarians would not be very pleased with a world with a real public/private distinction. Only one with the type of "free market" that we currently have--the type of "free market" that the government runs in a specific way to benefit them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Same BS different day. It's the same old "Separate but Equal" rhetoric hiding under "states rights" and "business rights".

    These people want the safety and power of white space & they want to dare anyone of color to come in it. And they want the right to do it legally.

    This is why is bothers, and scares me, when white people claim that not being racist is just a matter of being politically "correct". They want to do & say all the right things on the surface but make sure that people of color know they're still not really welcome & stay in their place.

    This type of racism has not changed one wit since slavery. And the consequences are no less dire. It's not just a matter of being treated "nice" - these people are asking for the power of life and death over people of color and anyone who supports them.

    Racism is still a life or death matter for people of color and white people like the Tea Baggers and Rand Paul are questioning our very right to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  15. My thanks to Godheval for his wonderful and precise breakdown of the word game Paul is playing very poorly.

    While I don't believe Paul is anymore intentionally racist than most other average white dudes of privilege, this is what it looks like when extremist views must be consistently maintained across all fronts and in all examples.

    Being an anti-government libertarian in the extreme puts Paul in an awkward spot. He either has to support the entirety of the CRA and go against his extremist stance opposing all government intervention, or he must deny the CRA and maintain his stance against big government.

    Thus you get the Emerson quote: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Paul is being foolishly consistent. And, yes, also (unintentionally) racist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Colorblind:

    there is an argument for allowing an individual to make their own decisions. ANY INDIVIDUAL. Within a private sphere. .... Groups self-segregate everyday (in terms of race, but also class and status, and every other distinction).

    And these two things, when combined, are the problem with any "free market" solution to racism. Let's say one guy starts a Whites Only grocery store. He's an "individual" in his "private sphere" (it doesn't fall under public accommodation). So that's one person. But as you say, people like to self-segregate. So someone who wants to start a Whites Only hardware store is probably going to move in next door to this guy. And so on, and before you know it, there'll be a an entire Main Street where PoC aren't allowed to shop. And then a town, and then maybe even a county. (I'd like to think it would never reach the state level, but I'm probably being naive).

    We had the "free market solution" to White-Black racism for 100 years (1865-1965). And Whites proved themselves to be complete asshats about it. When we f*ck up that badly, we don't get to whine about government interference. Hell, even if you return the smallest form of government possible (basically, the Constitution), we f*cked that up back in 1787 with the three-fifths compromise. The "free market" had its chance, and a got hell of a lot more do-overs than it ever deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Colorblind,

    There's a big difference between groups "self-segregating every day" and white-owned businesses refusing to serve anyone but white people. As Jon R pointed out, the result of the latter can be horrific infringements on the lives of non-white people.

    Democracy Now! had an interview yesterday with Blair Kelley about Rand Paul's statements (she's the author of Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v. Ferguson). I was struck by this part of what she said:

    Imagine traveling as an African American during the Jim Crow era. You would not able to stop for a restroom. You would not be able to find food to feed your kids. You might not be able to find lodging to stay overnight. And so, many African Americans had to seek out black institutions to help them as they traveled. They had to go to their local black college, where they were on that journey, and try and ask them for food and somewhere to stay. This was sort of central to their experience. So, if we can imagine that, American citizens didn’t have the freedom to travel as they wanted to, with dignity, respect, that they could not anticipate what kind of treatment they would get from place to place and day to day. Imagine raising children in that kind of context. Imagine trying to stay safe in that kind of context.

    So, for me, for that history to be discounted as unimportant and not meaningful is really not a reflection of how horrible Jim Crow segregation actually was and how much we have to remember it and guard against having any kind of extension of discrimination or any sense that companies serving the public should be able to choose what part of the public they want to serve.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @walawell: That's exactly what I thought this was, a rehash of Separate but Equal

    This shit is ridiculous. What happens WHEN (not IF) it gets to the point where ALL of the "free market" (fucking ironic name) just happens to not want to serve POCs? What the fuck will we do then, huh, Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  19. From Sparknotes:

    "After more than three weeks as a black man, Griffin feels deflated and saddened at the thought of experiencing any more prejudice, hostility, or hatred. He decides to stop taking his medication for a while in order to lighten his skin color and see how white society will appear to him after leaving his experiences as a Negro behind. After spending a day out of the sunlight and off his medication, Griffin re-emerges as a white man. He checks out of his hotel, and heads for the white part of town.

    The experience is almost overwhelming. Where he has become accustomed to having his actions limited, his presence regarded with suspicion, and his words derided by whites, he now finds that everywhere he goes, whites are friendly and pleasant to him, while blacks treat him with submission and fear. He passes a black teenager on an empty street, and the young man, fearing that Griffin will bully him, threatens Griffin with a switchblade. Griffin checks into a luxurious hotel, and is almost shocked that he is allowed to enter the lobby unchecked. The white employees treat him with courtesy and respect, and a black porter bows and offers to carry his bag. Inwardly, Griffin's emotions are painfully conflicted. He feels elated at the freedom, mobility, and leverage he has suddenly regained, but deeply saddened at the realization that he is, once again, utterly removed from the experience of the suffering blacks.

    This white man got it after walking in a black man's shoes. Course if he tired of the experience there was always a way out. With Paul Rand, you don’t bombard a people with racist ideology all at once, but rather- you spoon feed it to them; speaking in generalities, using code words on a level that they can understand. David Duke did this with great effect.

    "He never blatantly spoke of race as a factor but referred to the 'growing underclass.' He used the tried and true demagoguery of class envy to sell his message: excessive taxpayers' money spent on welfare, school busing practices, affirmative action... and set-aside programs."

    This is happening now all over the country- the radicalization of the white man. They’re (non-whites) coming to take what you have. The government is in cahoots- taking away our freedoms/rights and giving it to them. We got to stand together, take the country back!” or they’ll be running everything.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >> "...So, if we can imagine that,..."

    But the thing is? Libertarians--and most white people--cannot imagine that. They do not and cannot see themselves in the past in any other role except for that of the wealthy land-owning white person. (Libertarian writer) Emmett Tyrell is instructive here: "Let us flee to a favored utopia. For me that would be the late 18th Century but with air conditioning....With both feet firmly planted on the soil of my American domain, and young American flag fluttering above, tobacco in the field, I would relish the freedom." And why is this a wonder? History is taught, and thus viewed, from a white perspective. Elementary schools in Oklahoma still reenact the Land Grab (oh, but it's the "land run" now, and it was "for everyone"). In historical fiction and "nonfiction," we are presented with white protagonists even when there is no logical reason to have one. When searching for a character in the text to identify with, a white person can only ever be expected to empathize with another white person. And goodness forbid we should ever talk about the white working class in history, because that is Communist!

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is probably OT for the original topic, but a really interesting question to ask white people is whether they can imagine themselves, in the 18th or 19th century, owning slaves. It's very, um, instructive to see whether they can make peace with the idea that they would have looked at a Black person and not seen a human being. (not trying to excuse non-slave-owning whites of the time. you understand.)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Willow said...
    "In historical fiction and "nonfiction," we are presented with white protagonists even when there is no logical reason to have one."

    Josie Wales comes to mind..
    One of my favorite westerns besides Little Big Man. This film takes place at the end of the civil war. A proud member of the Pro-Confederate Missouri Guerrillas as I understand it. In this version of history, it is the Union that is evil- not the Confederacy.

    "I think its them who owes us an apology," the kid remarks. But I kept asking myself, well where were the blacks when all of this was going on? Everywhere Josie went..not one black face.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jon and Macon,

    Jon's scenario would very likely happen. But, there is also the parallel scenario of other groups creating their own enclaves. And not necessarily race based. The short term would fall to the greater commerce of the long term potential.

    Money is money.

    Macon, I think Rand Paul is getting beat up on this for the wrong reason. He agrees with the intent of CRA, but he has problems with it within the legal, constitutional framework we live under. Just because something is right does not mean a federal government can force that dictate on everyone - within our constitutional structure.

    Challenging the process does not mean the same person challenges the intent. That is an important distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes.... This sort of logic is parallel to this:

    A man drives drunk and hits a person. The unfortunate person who was hit happens to survive the collision. So therefore, the drunk insists that because the person survived, he shouldn't be charged with drunk driving.

    "He lived, so what's the problem?"

    ReplyDelete
  25. Solution5050,

    There are federal laws. There are state laws. We have a system of government that is federalist in nature. "Federalist" does not mean federal supremacy, it means states have the ability to determine their own laws. I don't think your analogy with a drunk driver controls for this, or reasonable debate. The drunk driver would still stand for charges of drunk driving. He would not stand for manslaughter or murder if death did not occur. Yet, he would if the person died.

    That is the law, within every state.

    I think Rand Paul focuses on laws and the constitutional questions they raise.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Colorblind said: ["Federalist" does not mean federal supremacy, it means states have the ability to determine their own laws]………. And therein lies the problem and the need for the 1964 CRA. When left to their own devices the states systematically denied Black people our constitutional rights, in essence the states (former confederacy) proved unworthy of the responsibility of protecting the rights of all their citizens. More to the point, these states actually sponsored and supported terrorism against their Black citizens.

    I find it very telling that you and Rand Paul are more interested in protecting the individual rights of the racist, terrorist pigs and have little or no concern for those (groups) being terrorized.

    Colorblind said: [“I think Rand Paul is getting beat up on this for the wrong reason. He agrees with the intent of CRA, but he has problems with it within the legal, constitutional framework we live under.”]…………..this is pure bullshit, and could only be uttered by someone who has willfully chosen to ignore the legal inequities that have existed in the country since its inception, and has no regards for the 14th admendment of the constitution, and because of people like you and Rand the CRA of 64’ became a necessity. So you know, “WE” have never lived under the same legal and constitutional framework.

    Seems like you’re saying, you would intend for me to have my civil rights, but you would protect the rights of those willing to harm me, and deny me my rights. That’s your states rights for you!

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Colorblind

    While POC might "create their own enclaves" it is far more likely that they would end up with the shoddier conditions. Plummeting property values, being forced to deal with violent crime. You know, this already happens. Please read up on blockbusting and redlining. Blockbusting had to be made illegal because the "free market" loved the practice so well. Boy, it sure did a lot of good for those POC who live in food deserts with high crime, police negligence/brutality, and schools which fail their children.

    It's de facto segregation. "De facto" in this case means "in fact." It does not mean that it is less abhorrent than de jur. Failure of the law to acknowledge de facto segregation is, in effect, de jur segregation in a way that lets white people feel less guilty. Bless.

    Putting money and empty "freedom" rhetoric over the well-being of human beings (yes, even the brown ones) is no reason to elect somebody. It's Machiavellian. It's sociopathy.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Colorblind re: "He agrees with the intent of CRA, but he has problems with it within the legal, constitutional framework we live under.


    This reminds me of the rhetoric of the Mormon church during the failed ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. At the time, one of their slogans was, "We support the ER, just not the A." Since the whole idea of rights is enshrined in the law, that was pure doublespeak, and so is the Libertarian stance on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rand Paul and those of his ilk are doing nothing more than practicing "constitutional sophistry"...so-called big government or "states rights", what's the diff?...white supremacy will have a free hand to operate, regardless...people in power or advantage want no regulatory agency over them...what we call "freedom" is nothing more than the desire to serve our own self-interest, at whatever the expense to others.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Willow:

    Yeah, I'm only speaking about the "ideal" of libertarianism, not what would be the reality. The ideal is the only thing people like Paul consider, as it is a completely impractical political position.

    You start talking about how government and big business intersect and you're starting the argument against capitalism, too.

    Libertarianism can only ever be discussed in a theoretical framework, because it has never, and will never be viable in practice.

    And let me be clear - while I thought it was important to relay Paul's position clearly, I did not in ANY way mean to give him the benefit of the doubt, to suggest that he was not a racist. Because I don't, and I am certain that he is.

    But I think that it is important to truly understand a person's position in order to be better poised to argue against it.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ ColorBlind

    I totally understand reply, but it doesn't reflect my point.

    We all know what the law is and what would happen to the drunk. But I was just stating what the drunk INSISTS should be done regarding his fate instead of what would actually be done to him legally.

    That drunk represents the mentality of diminishing the act if the consequences seem to be minimal (or simply not as great).

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ Godheval,

    Yeah, figured as much, but I didn't want to ignore what you had said. ^_^ But I have found the whole "there is no separation of public and economic private" argument to be very useful for undercutting libertarian arguments, or I wouldn't have brought it up. We are in total agreement here.

    ~

    >> "...within the legal, constitutional framework we live under."

    And if the people who came up with the Constitution raped women, owned slaves, broke treaties, threw people out of their homes, and ordered the military to massacre Native Americans, would he be in favor of that, too?

    Seriously, people, if you treat a document written in the 1700s as more important than your own conscience, either you don't have much of a conscience or you're seriously deluded about what you think is right.

    Or is this just another case of white people thinking intent matters more than impact?

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think there is a principled, non-racist (but wrong, in my view) position Rand could be trying to express: that racism is wrong, but it is not the government's role to force private businesses out of their racism (along the lines of free speech). I don't agree with any of it. But to give the guy a chance to respond from his own viewpoint, my question would be: ok, if not the civil rights act, then how would you have battled racism in the 60's? Privately organized marches combined with legal efforts to ensure the public sphere wasn't racist? And if that took many more years than the civil rights act to achieve the progress we've seen from the civil rights legislation you would not have supported, would you say sticking to your principles was worth all the terrible suffering and delay? if so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Policywise, the difference between Libertarians and Republicans is that Libertarians oppose antiquated prohibitions on sodomy, marijauna, etc. We also oppose conscription and unnecessary wars. It's become fashionable to diss Libertarians (omg look at me, I'm smarter than a 14 y/o who has just discovered Ayn Rand, and clearly everyone who disagrees w/me must be just this sort of simpleton), but even if there are a lot of militia dumbfucks from Montana named Zeke who have labelled themselves Libertarians, I'd still elect a Libertarian over a Bill O'Reilly populist any day, thankyouverymuch.

    Do you really think the Libertarian movement is any more inherently attractive to racists than the Republican party? If so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  35. the difference between Libertarians and Republicans is that Libertarians oppose antiquated prohibitions on sodomy, marijauna, etc. We also oppose conscription and unnecessary wars

    Well, in theory, sure, but just dangle some tax cuts in from of them along with some dogwhistles that appeal to upper middle class white guys, and suddenly they're lining up to vote for Republicans, get us mired in wars, have us led by incompetents, start endorsing torture, and then frothing at the mouth about how Al Gore is the most terrible man in America.

    The short term would fall to the greater commerce of the long term potential. Money is money.

    It turns out that "racism" is a product that people are willing to pay for. Landlords are going to find it beneficial, both psychically and financially, to demand that stores be whites-only stores. Store owners are going to find it beneficial to market to racists who want a whites only environment, etc. This isn't a theoretical question. We've actually tried it in practice, and it's why the CRA was passed, being one of America's greatest legislative accomplishments.

    ReplyDelete
  36. How could anyone vote for this man? He's at cross-purposes with himself. Maybe he's not a racist, but comments like that do make him look like one. Saying that the free market would eliminate racism doesn't make sense to me. Seems to me that the free market itself could never eliminate racism: if the Civil Rights Act hadn't been passed, the business owners refusing services to Ps of C more than likely would never have changed, their successors would have continued on that path and there would be no progress, barring some miraculous epiphany or change in behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "How does one this not make him a racist?"

    The same way the ACLU can defend the right of the Nazi Party to march thru skokie--a jewish neighborhood containing many holocaust survivors of all things--and not be considered anti semitic, though that didn't stop their enemies from still making the allegation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think Paul's argument only works if you think that people just fall out of the shy unmotivated by any annoying things like race, sex, class, gender, or racism, classism, sexism, etc. It only works when you don't have a context. Or rather, when your context is the prevailing one, so you don't need to mention it. "Good" people who are "smart" with their money wouldn't do "bad" things like spend their money in a restaurant that discriminates, therefore, the problem goes away. It's silly, to be honest, but it's insidious and harmful because it ignores the unconscious, below-awareness behaviors that are built right into us because the system builds it right into us.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This is a really good post. It's a good example of how POC often have better radar regarding social/political issues that could ultimately be harmful to society. I can see why libertarianism would have a superficial appeal to many whites. You don't have to pay taxes! You can smoke weed! No government in your business! Yay! However, there's this whole racist element (intentional or not, doesn't matter) that I never picked up on until Rand Paul BLATENTLY mentioned the civil rights act. I'm sure there's been more things like that, but I haven't really studied the movement and more importantly don't have the finely tuned radar. However, I'd be willing to bet that many POCs didn't need racism to be specifically discussed to know this kind of thing was dangerous to them. IMHO, it would also be dangerous to any white person who was for example, of a lower economic status or disabled in some way. Some whites can be terribly naive when it comes to such things.
    Another thing ... which many of you probably know if you've taken ECON 101. All of these economic theories and models only work if you assume that people are always rational.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Ron and Rand Paul aren't really Libertarians but rather pretend to be in order to repackage their right wing ideology. A true libertarian believes you can do anything you want provided that it doesn't interfere with some one elses space.It's about Life,Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
    These are some examples of Libertarian positions and The Paul's are aginst the last four positions listed.
    1. No gun control
    2. A women's right to choose
    3. Free trade
    4. Decriminalization of drugs and prostitution ect.
    5. Legalizing same sex marriage

    Ron Paul is a racist based on statements made earlier in his career.
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

    Not all Libertarians have a right wing lean. Some are more liberal as seen here
    http://americanpirateparty.us/platform
    and here:
    http://forums.americanpirateparty.us/

    ReplyDelete
  41. So tell me, Joseph -- do you think that when a white business owner refuses services to black people, he's "interfering with" the black people's "space"?

    ReplyDelete
  42. macon d said...

    "So tell me, Joseph -- do you think that when a white business owner refuses services to black people, he's "interfering with" the black people's "space"?

    Absolutely ... Which is why the Pauls and other racists aren't true Libertarians ..

    ReplyDelete
  43. LolaAnn said...
    This is a really good post. It's a good example of how POC often have better radar regarding social/political issues that could ultimately be harmful to society.

    It's interesting that you bring this up, because I remember having this same discussion with a good friend who is from Japan, about this. She said that after being in the U.S., that she noticed that American POC tend to be more aware of social/political issues.

    OT, but I was having a discussion with a friend who is of mixed Indian/European heritage, who brought up something that I rarely gave thought to--she could never understand why WP have a fear of the government, when they created it.

    On a somewhat daily basis, I have to hear from my roommate and her boyf (both white) who keep bringing up what the government is doing to us, etc. I can't help it, but I'm looking at things through a Black American lens. Their statements kind of bother me because this is the "same government" that denied blacks the right to vote, the same government that gave it the OK to landowners in the West to shoot and kill Native Americans if they found them near their livestock, the same government that took Native American children from their parents to learn American ways. But I guess it's okay when the government is oppressing POC, no one gives a damn. When it starts to affect WP, then everyone gets up in arms. Sorry, for my rant, but this is something that I've been observing lately...

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ Willow:
    libertarians themselves would pee their pants if threatened with the loss [of]...for example...import tariffs...[or] agriculture subsidies

    Libertarians are among the staunchest advocates of free trade and opponents of farm subsidies, respectively. Are there other forms of government intervention in the economy that you think libertarians couldn't live (or, rather, would piss themselves) without? And do you really believe that when it comes to delimiting appropriate domains for government regulation, "there is no separation of public and private" -- or, there ought not be -- in America? If so, then you and I probably disagree tremendously on abortion and the PATRIOT Act, among other issues.

    Seriously, people, if you treat a document written in the 1700s as more important than your own conscience, either you don't have much of a conscience or you're seriously deluded about what you think is right.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that the Constituion stand in for individual morality, or that when solving our most poignant personal quandaries we should ask ourselves, What Would the Founders Do? However, for a lawmaker evaluating the merits of proposed legislation, the constitutionality of that legislation should be an important consideration. So, it would not offend me if my Senator entertained misgivings about a nobly-intended piece of legislation, the impact of which would be to potentially run afoul of the legal, constitutional framework at issue.

    ReplyDelete
  45. i do think its important to note many POC advocate free market solutions to racism. the NOI, Booker t Washington, Malcolm X, while not libertarians, focused on separatism, not asking whites for acceptance, and what boiled down to entrepreneurship.

    the most successful example of this strategy is wall st. for most of American history the street was dominated by the house of Morgan, where you had to be wasp to use to the top. facing this glass ceiling, jews formed goldman, bear, lehman, etc...who went on to dominate the street, even surpassing their old rivals by the 1980s, who were then forced to abandon their discriminatory policies in order to compete in an increasingly globalized world.

    speaking of globalizaion, ayn rand is enormously popular in india where socialism institutionalized india own peculiar racism: casteism. socialist regimes, since they consolidate power in ways that are almost impossible in a free market, end up providing the oppressed with less options. Indians, having suffereed for so long under this tyranny, are very open to the idea of capitalism not only as a right, but as a system morally superior to all others.

    frankly, i think the arrival of American style capitalism in former socialist lands like india and china is the single greatest threat to white supremacy, since racism rests on economic psuperiority. white racism cannot survive a world where non-white nations are on the top of the economic pyramid, imo.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Willow: This is probably OT for the original topic, but a really interesting question to ask white people is whether they can imagine themselves, in the 18th or 19th century, owning slaves.

    Well, I read the will of an ancestor some years ago and found out he was a slaveowner. To be honest, I'm still not sure what I think about it. But your question made me think of this TNC post: http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/05/toward-a-manifested-courage/57179/

    So, here's my answer: while the me that I am (growing up in the 70s) can't imagine owning slaves, I'd guess that a me that grew up in the 1770's could have. And I think that's probably true for 90% of people, unfortunately. Most folks in my neighborhood didn't hide little girls in their closet back in the early 40's, either (although there were several other families other than the Franks).

    On to Rand Jr.: I think he's got two big problems. First, he's not really libertarian (he's against Roe v. Wade, against gay marriage, etc., etc.). But more importantly, I think libertarianism and some other idealistic philosophies like communism and to an extent socialism - they're nice in a theoretical vacuum, but fail completely once the real world and human nature kick in.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @ Ebony,

    Brilliantly put! All the people who are so anti-government now that we have a Black president are the same people who, when the *&#@!$ Patriot Act was passed by a white President, said, "But it doesn't matter as long as you're a law-abiding citizen!"

    ~

    >> "they're nice in a theoretical vacuum, but fail completely once the real world and human nature kick in."

    "Under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, the opposite is true." ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Willow - Yep. That's why I think capitalism surrounded by more socialist structures (e.g., health care, progressive tax rates) is the best form of government we've got going so far. It fits human nature the best.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @ lib,

    Well, you say libertarians oppose "unnecessary wars." Meaning, we only get into wars of self-defense, right? Where other nations attack us? The thing is--and this is why it is so, so critical to teach history at least semi-honestly--the US typically strives to manuever into getting attacked so it can launch a war once we have decided a war is in the best interest of the white ruling class. We don't often fire the first shot, thus can technically claim the moral high ground, but military strategy has basically been 'to provoke an attack that will allow a war.' Have no illusions--this is how the U.S. justified its westward expansion, over and over.

    And again I stress--this hinges on the econmomic benefit of the white, mostly male upper class. This is marginally better than the fundagelical neo-Crusader mentality that currently drives the Republican Party, granted.

    I don't think that anyone is necessarily arguing that the Libertarian Party is fundamentally more attractive to racists than either the Republican or Democratic Parties--since most of the WP here, myself included, accept the basic idea that we're all inevitably racist, it's more like, different types of racists would affiliate with different parties. The Democrats have the WIWLs (well-intentioned white liberals); Republican ideology is more attractive to WP who are of the white supremacy mindset; the Libertarian ethos is attractive to a lot of people of the colorblind, post-ism mindset. That's making a lot of false distinctions, as there is much overlap and vagueness (and just watch, someone is gonna read that as 'you're claiming all Republicans are KKK!!11!'), but as a general guideline.

    That is very interesting to learn about opposition to agri subsidies, though. Thanks! There is no faster way to make a couple of the self-styled libertarians (apparently "libertarians") I know blow their cool than to raise the issue of ending farm subsidies! Ah, the Midwest. ^_^

    ReplyDelete
  50. In response to willow's question about whether WP can imagine ourselves owning slaves, I hope I don't freak people out when I say that I can easily imagine myself as a slave owner or as a slave, just as I can easily imagine myself as a Nazi war criminal or a Jewish victim. I see myself (and others) as very strongly shaped by the situation I have grown up in and can observe in myself how difficult it is to push against the force of social structure. This is why I direct my efforts towards creating more just structures that will make it easier for imperfect and weak individuals to do the right thing. And why I try to do the mental work necessary to strengthen my will to stand up when needed. This is why I so wholeheartedly disagree with the radical individualism of the libertarians: there is no such thing as an human being outside of a society. And societies put individuals in different hierarchical positions within them. I don't disagree about the tension between the individual and society, but I see it as a tension we all have to work in.

    There's another whole thread that doesn't belong here that is about how parents can work to raise children who pursue justice, and how that is affected by the social location we are in as we raise them. That is, the parenting dilemmas for privileged people who care about justice are different from the parenting dilemmas for oppressed people who care about justice.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @ Willow,

    I do think that fighting wars only in self defense is probably the best military policy, notwithstanding that any policy can be implemented manipulatively so as to serve the interest of the reigning elite.

    I guess I was miffed that Macon referred to libertarianism as a "bankrupt" ideology that "attracts so many adamant racists" (see also "Why are people so shocked when a libertarian flips over and there's a Klansman on the other side?") because, as you point out, other political camps house their fair share of racists, too. This is basically what I was getting at in my initial post, prior to the post I addressed to you: it seems popular to single out libertarians for derisive, dismissive treatment, but many of the people who propogate this meme aren't really equipped to offer better-reasoned alternatves to libertarianism. The Republican (fiscal conservative + social conservative) and Democratic (fiscal liberal + social liberal) parties are pretty widely acknowledged to offer viable policy perspectives, so I guess the question I'd put to these people berating libertarianism is: what is so inherently untenable and "bankrupt" about the (fiscal conservative + social liberal) orientation driving libertarians? I know those parentheticals are crude oversimplifications, but I think they map out with a fair degree of accuracy where libertarians stand vis-a-vis the two main political parties.

    Anyways, Willow, I haven't spent much time in the Midwest, so perhaps you and I have known different sorts of "libertarians" and that's partially why our views of the movement differ. Admittedly, even among the ranks of "real" libertarians, there are schisms with respect to some issues, but farm subsidies should be a hugely clearcut no-no, and I agree that these self-styled libertarians you describe are probably full of shit. Even Ron Paul, who panders more to heartland conservative types than a libertarian really should, is rabidly opposed to farm subsidies. (Another fun fact about libertarians, which some teabaggy types do not realize: traditionally, most of us have favored open borders and minimal to no restrictions re: immigration).

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ lib,

    I have a feeling that statement ("...a libertarian flips over...") was actually a reference specifically to the Tea Party version of libertarianism, which is morally bankrupt and inherently capital-R Racist. (to distinguish from just, any white-fronted ideology that exists in a racist system is most likely racist)

    As for what we find untenable about 'purist' (or whatever) libertarianism, it's the same basic criticism that several people in this thread have put forth: it's too optimistic. It assumes people are rational and always act in their own best interest, both of which are false. Furthermore, it assumes that everyone has an equal starting place, which is not yet true.

    To be all theoretical for a moment, social systems at rest seek to entrench themselves further. Libertarianism is a hands-off philosophy that seeks to leave the system, largely, at rest. Logical result: intensification of existing forms of oppression.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Willow:

    I don't think free market advocates literally assume that everyone is perfectly rational with equal ex ante endowments. Rather, they take the view that notwithstanding market imperfections, government intervention often makes things worse. Most libertarians don't advocate, literally, zero government regulation (that would make them anarchists). I personally think regulations of food and drug products, for example, should focus on disclosure rather than prohibition: make McDonalds publish calorie counts and ingredients lists, but don't prevent McDonalds from selling french fries. This corrects for one classic market failure (asymmetric information), but still lets people express their own preferences.

    But, yes, any ideology contemplated solely in its "purest," most fundamentalist form is going to seem impractical. Olderwoman's comment, for example, that we should create

    structures that will make it easier for imperfect and weak individuals to do the right thing

    resonates, when taken to extremes, as positively Orwellian.

    social systems at rest seek to entrench themselves further. Libertarianism is a hands-off philosophy that seeks to leave the system, largely, at rest. Logical result: intensification of existing forms of oppression.

    I see what you're getting at, but doens't this presume that the government is somehow distinct from these bad systems and is a force that will inevitably counter, rather than exacerbate, their entrenchment? In the instance of the 1964 Act, the federal government was obviously a force for good, and that's a moment when following a more libertarian philosophy would have had racist consequences. But by the same token, many Jim Crow laws never would have existed in the first place if governments had been more hands-off. Likewise, a libertarian government wouldn't prohibit misacegnation, birth control, abortion or same-sex marriage; such prohibitions have certainly helped to keep oppressive systems entrenched.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "But by the same token, many Jim Crow laws never would have existed in the first place if governments had been more hands-off."
    This is an ignorant statement. It is either a tautology -- there would be no laws if there were no laws -- or it is historical nonsense. Powerful people can and do impose their will on the less powerful, majority can and do impose their will on minorities with or without laws. In the case of Jim Crow, it was specifically the federal "hands off" policies that permitted the states to enact Jim Crow laws.

    In the case of slavery, it was fundamentally private acts by private individuals that involved one group of people exerting coercion over another group of people. Laws could either oppose that practice and seek to interpose force to stop it, or could reinforce that practice, but it meaningless to say that the law created the hierarchy of slavery. Rather, the hierarchy of people with an interest in slavery created the laws that reinforced slavery, until opponents not only fought the laws reinforcing slavery but demanded laws punishing slavery.

    Cycling back to "Jim Crow" and segregation. White majorities could and did drive minorities off their property through coercion and violence in the absence of laws specifically authorizing this conduct, White majorities could, did and do hinder the capacity of minorities to gain employment and acquire homes and consumer goods through their private actions reinforced by private peer pressure even in the face of countervailing laws.

    The law and its coercion is needed to protect minorities and less powerful people against the predations of majorities and the powerful, even as the coercion of law tends to favor the powerful. Reality is a complex tangle of competing forces, not some simplistic ideology.

    Not disagreeing that all principles carried to extremes are dangerous. As I said already, there are different valuable principles in tension with each other. The question is whether you can imagine living in a world in which other people's free choices make it impossible for you to exert your own free choice. If you can't, then you have been living a life of privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Why were there so many Jim Crow laws passed, I wonder. If businesses were so eager to segregate anyway, what was the purpose of passing laws forcing them to do something they were already doing? Isn't this sort of akin to, I don't know, passing a law requiring people to bathe regularly or something? I wonder if this doesn't indicate that there were at least *some* anti-segregation market forces at work that needed to be supressed by the racists in society.

    ReplyDelete
  56. angle bracelet: your ignorance is showing. Segregation and exclusion of Black people from stores, neighborhoods, etc. was also practiced in the north, where there were no Jim Crow laws. Um, it is still practiced today despite the civil rights laws. I realize that many people have been indoctrinated by zealous missionaries preaching market fundamentalism, but you might want to try to learn a little bit about reality instead of depending entirely on deductions from pseudo-religious principles. Even relatively simple principles of rational choice theory can provide a model for why majorities can tyrannize minorities, if you are willing to get beyond the religious mantra "markets good, government bad" and pay attention to inequalities in the distribution of resources and power.

    It is, of course, true that there were social forces pushing integration and equality and Jim Crow laws were used to push back against this. But "the market" is not the primary force that was at work at the time. You might consider reading a real history book about the period.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I am a libertarian. Rand Paul made the mistake of not differentiating between social and economic issues. How can he be in favor of civil rights legislation that limits business owners while being staunchly small government and pro free-markets? Remember that we libertarians are socially liberal: we like civil rights-abortion, egalitarianism, gay rights etc. (Rand Paul may not be solid on all the issues, I know Ron is anti-abortion). We feel that free enterprise is an extension of civil liberty and hate to see the government interfering with it, but this is from an strictly economic perspective. Were a business owner attempting to prevent, let's say, a racial minority from entering his/her establishment, most libertarians would view that as a citizen infringing on a fellow citizen's rights, and would not frown if the government stepped in to do something. However, we hate it when the government spends our money for us, and dont like it getting involved where money is concerned. Socially liberal, economically conservative-that's us. Eisenhower was an economic conservative who ordered the military into Alabama when black school children were denied federal rights, if you'll remember.
    I hope this has somewhat clarified things on libertarians, we really are nice people.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Libertarianism is the closest thing to my world view at present. And I concur with William that "Were a business owner attempting to prevent, let's say, a racial minority from entering his/her establishment, most libertarians would view that as a citizen infringing on a fellow citizen's rights, and would not frown if the government stepped in to do something". That said Libertarianism in itself does little in regards to social justice or insuring that minority's have rights. I do think federal laws forcing social liberalism are necessary though I'm not sure if that would effect the economics behind white privilege.Libertarian economics are not going to benefit POC until the playing field is made level.And that's only possible if white privalge is no longer a factor.
    --

    ReplyDelete

Please see the "commenting guidelines" before submitting a comment.

hit counter code