The anniversary of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is an opportune moment to reflect on his message and the present state of Civil Rights and race relations in America.
It appears to me that much of the legislative eco-system that has grown out of the Civil Rights movement is intrusive, oppressive and inefficient. By extending the reach of the state so deeply into personal and social matters it contributes to undermining families and mediating social institutions like the Church and in so doing it threatens our liberty and our social cohesion.
The Civil Rights Movement and the Left
Since its inception in the 1950's, the civil rights movement has been affiliated with the liberal left. There are few known Civil Rights champions in the Republican party today, and libertarians, for whom equal rights, defined as equality before the law and unbiased enforcement of the law, have not been associated with the movement. Yet Dr. King correctly linked the goals of Civil Rights movement to "the heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God", finding precedent in the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and the US Constitution. How is it then, that people on the right, many of whom share the values articulated by Dr. King, have not played a significant role in the movement he once led ?
I believe Civil Rights supporters gravitated to the left early on primarily for two related reasons: First, because social and economic equality had long been a credo of the left and secondly, because the left’s agenda involved the use of political power to compel government to effectuate its desired outcomes. The Civil Rights struggle was focused on southern states that used legislative and police power to subjugate blacks, which were widely supported by the white majorities in those states, while the majority of the rest of the US population had come to detest the institutionalized racism of the south. So it was natural for Civil Rights leaders to look to the federal government both as a forum to lobby for legislative changes that would improve the lot of blacks, and to use federal law as a justification to intervene into the affairs of southern states on behalf of blacks. For these reasons –and because the conservative and libertarian right opposed federal intervention into the internal affairs of states- the practical aims of the Civil Rights movement became fused into the broader liberal left agenda.
(US) Liberals believe change and best results are achieved through activist and interventionist government, rather than through equality before the law and effective and impartial enforcement of rules governing the interactions of free people. Because they do not appreciate the possibilities and morality of spontaneous orders, they view social issues solely through the lens of political struggle between competing interest groups; thus they can only conceive of achieving their goal of realizing "the lesson beneath any theology…that we must act toward all creation in the spirit of equal souls and equal votes" by state intervention; only the government can 'make' white folks accept blacks by busing black kids into white schools, and white employers will be made to hire black workers and must be told what to pay them.
Civil Rights and the Right
But increasing the power of the state carries some risk for an –often disliked -minority:
-What if racists gain the upper hand in an expanded government and use it as tool to keep blacks down?
-What if whites recoil at an attempt to 'force' them to accept blacks into their lives without their consent? Does this not risk a backlash?
-What if intervention into the labor market and imposition of social welfare programs -beyond income subsidies that allow recipients to spend the cash as they wish-serve to impede the opportunities for blacks to progress by reducing market opportunities?
-What if affirmative action policies cause people to discount the legitimate achievements of black professionals?
-What if the rights of individuals get drowned by collectivist rewards and penalties administered by group affiliation?
Unfortunately, because the political 'right' in the 1950’s included both racists and libertarians, there was no chance for the libertarian ideals of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' to permeate the Civil Rights movement. Black people probably surmised, correctly, that those who advocated a 'hands off' policy on states rights and economic intervention, were not their friends.
But more than forty years after the death of Dr. King, with the persistence of a black underclass and many of the vexing issues of race relations remaining unresolved , it is high time to reassess the appropriate practical action to achieve the noble aims of the Civil Rights movement and to make the case that a libertarian approach is more humane and more likely to succeed than is the government interventionist approach tried so far . It is more humane, because the libertarian ideals of equality of individuals under the law, unbiased enforcement of laws and the right of individuals to pursue their own course in life, constitute the basis of fundamental human rights. It is more likely to succeed because populations, and particularly those at the bottom and minorities, have always fared better economically over time in a free market system.
What Needs to Happen
However, conservatives must acknowledge that, underlying their argument is the assumption that libertarian laws will be enforced fairly. If not, as in the ‘old’ south, the struggle for existence among blacks becomes political and the only possibility for relief from oppression is resort to winning battles over legislation and the police power of the state, no matter the risks involved.
Conservatives and others on the right in public life who are deeply moved by the moral and theological foundations of Civil Rights, who agree that "lasting power grows against the grain of violence" and who believe, as did Dr. King, that the US is founded upon the ideals expressed in our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address, need to make clear their affinity with the Civil Rights movement and must endeavor to make black people and other 'outsiders' feel genuinely welcome in their presence.
It appears to me that much of the legislative eco-system that has grown out of the Civil Rights movement is intrusive, oppressive and inefficient. By extending the reach of the state so deeply into personal and social matters it contributes to undermining families and mediating social institutions like the Church and in so doing it threatens our liberty and our social cohesion.
The Civil Rights Movement and the Left
Since its inception in the 1950's, the civil rights movement has been affiliated with the liberal left. There are few known Civil Rights champions in the Republican party today, and libertarians, for whom equal rights, defined as equality before the law and unbiased enforcement of the law, have not been associated with the movement. Yet Dr. King correctly linked the goals of Civil Rights movement to "the heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God", finding precedent in the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and the US Constitution. How is it then, that people on the right, many of whom share the values articulated by Dr. King, have not played a significant role in the movement he once led ?
I believe Civil Rights supporters gravitated to the left early on primarily for two related reasons: First, because social and economic equality had long been a credo of the left and secondly, because the left’s agenda involved the use of political power to compel government to effectuate its desired outcomes. The Civil Rights struggle was focused on southern states that used legislative and police power to subjugate blacks, which were widely supported by the white majorities in those states, while the majority of the rest of the US population had come to detest the institutionalized racism of the south. So it was natural for Civil Rights leaders to look to the federal government both as a forum to lobby for legislative changes that would improve the lot of blacks, and to use federal law as a justification to intervene into the affairs of southern states on behalf of blacks. For these reasons –and because the conservative and libertarian right opposed federal intervention into the internal affairs of states- the practical aims of the Civil Rights movement became fused into the broader liberal left agenda.
(US) Liberals believe change and best results are achieved through activist and interventionist government, rather than through equality before the law and effective and impartial enforcement of rules governing the interactions of free people. Because they do not appreciate the possibilities and morality of spontaneous orders, they view social issues solely through the lens of political struggle between competing interest groups; thus they can only conceive of achieving their goal of realizing "the lesson beneath any theology…that we must act toward all creation in the spirit of equal souls and equal votes" by state intervention; only the government can 'make' white folks accept blacks by busing black kids into white schools, and white employers will be made to hire black workers and must be told what to pay them.
Civil Rights and the Right
But increasing the power of the state carries some risk for an –often disliked -minority:
-What if racists gain the upper hand in an expanded government and use it as tool to keep blacks down?
-What if whites recoil at an attempt to 'force' them to accept blacks into their lives without their consent? Does this not risk a backlash?
-What if intervention into the labor market and imposition of social welfare programs -beyond income subsidies that allow recipients to spend the cash as they wish-serve to impede the opportunities for blacks to progress by reducing market opportunities?
-What if affirmative action policies cause people to discount the legitimate achievements of black professionals?
-What if the rights of individuals get drowned by collectivist rewards and penalties administered by group affiliation?
Unfortunately, because the political 'right' in the 1950’s included both racists and libertarians, there was no chance for the libertarian ideals of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' to permeate the Civil Rights movement. Black people probably surmised, correctly, that those who advocated a 'hands off' policy on states rights and economic intervention, were not their friends.
But more than forty years after the death of Dr. King, with the persistence of a black underclass and many of the vexing issues of race relations remaining unresolved , it is high time to reassess the appropriate practical action to achieve the noble aims of the Civil Rights movement and to make the case that a libertarian approach is more humane and more likely to succeed than is the government interventionist approach tried so far . It is more humane, because the libertarian ideals of equality of individuals under the law, unbiased enforcement of laws and the right of individuals to pursue their own course in life, constitute the basis of fundamental human rights. It is more likely to succeed because populations, and particularly those at the bottom and minorities, have always fared better economically over time in a free market system.
What Needs to Happen
However, conservatives must acknowledge that, underlying their argument is the assumption that libertarian laws will be enforced fairly. If not, as in the ‘old’ south, the struggle for existence among blacks becomes political and the only possibility for relief from oppression is resort to winning battles over legislation and the police power of the state, no matter the risks involved.
Conservatives and others on the right in public life who are deeply moved by the moral and theological foundations of Civil Rights, who agree that "lasting power grows against the grain of violence" and who believe, as did Dr. King, that the US is founded upon the ideals expressed in our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Gettysburg Address, need to make clear their affinity with the Civil Rights movement and must endeavor to make black people and other 'outsiders' feel genuinely welcome in their presence.
Posts
Great article! The goal should be to make affirmative action and perhaps even discrimination suits unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAronoff portrays an interesting dilemma for libertarians. Presumably they opposed state & local laws requiring discrimination even if they supported individuals' rights to discriminate. If one level of government is meddling excessively in people's lives, can a strict libertarian accept a remedy offered by a higher level of government?
To the extent that state law required discrimination