I have a close friend, whom I will call David for the purposes of this post, who presents me with an intellectual challenge. David is a well-informed 26 year-old African American man, and an unrepentant capitalist, Libertarian and disciple of Tea Party guru Ayn Rand.
Though David is a Libertarian in the philosophy's purest form, i.e. a believer in equality and opportunity for all who supports gay marriage, and applauds female momentum in the workplace, he also finds himself in agreement with the likes of Rand Paul, a Tea Party candidate for the Kentucky Senate, who once mentioned that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented the continual overreach of the Federal government. Now I am a very opinionated person, as you may have noticed, but I am not fond of surrounding myself with homogenous head nodders. My quest, as it always has been, is to learn and discuss. Obviously, my friendship with David is fertile ground for this mission.
Over lunch one day, I asked, incredulously, how on Earth a black man could stand in opposition to the Civil Rights Act?! His response, as logically explained as it was subversive, took on a decidedly Bill Cosby slant. His complaint was that an attempt to equalize opportunity for the African American community has instead enfeebled it, viewing as David does, that the Civil Rights Act is the parent of the current welfare system. Now one can take issue with that position, as I certainly did, but one of the things I like most about David is not only his fearless individualism, but the well researched way in which he defends his beliefs.
At one point in our tete a tete, I flatly asked David the following question: "If Tea Partiers are Libertarians, lovers of personal freedom and deregulation, shouldn't they be foursquare behind the gay community, as it continues its fight to participate in legal marriage?" David, who is quick to dissociate himself from the Tea Party Express, claiming with certainty that its members "don't understand their own ideology," agreed and pronounced furthermore, much as the NAACP did several weeks back, that the populist group should also disown the patently racist elements within its own ranks.
Much later, as I mulled over the content of this calmly spoken, but contentious personal debate, I found myself returning again and again to Shirley Sherrod. By now, most of us are aware of the tragic hatchet job performed on the tireless senior member of the USDA. Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart embarked, two weeks ago, on a disingenuous exercise in "gotcha journalism," an attempt to defend the Tea Party from accusations of racism that instead only underscored the malevolent underbelly of the movement. This suspect and utterly partisan "news source" was able to single handedly humiliate an innocent woman, along with the entire White House and our national media apparatus, as though the latter isn't already doing that well enough on its own. I will never forget, much to my chagrin, that I first heard the "story" of Sherrod's supposedly racist remarks at an NAACP event, from Anderson Cooper.
My quest here is not to vilify pop culture's lazy detection skills. Plenty of pundits, bloggers and journalists are already handling that. Instead my question, as relates to my conversation with David, is to wonder if we would have ever completely grasped the depths of injustice meted out to Shirley Sherrod WITHOUT the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s? As author Joan Walsh writes in her essay, "The Civil Rights Heroism of Charles Sherrod:"
"People who care about civil rights and racial reconciliation may eventually thank Andrew Breitbart for bringing Shirley Sherrod the global attention she deserves. Really. Her message of racial healing, her insight that the forces of wealth and injustice have always pit 'the haves and the have-nots' against each other, whatever their race, is exactly what's missing in today's Beltway debates about race."
Point taken, Ms. Walsh. It is quite ironic that Breitbart set his smear in motion, using one of the few everyday American citizens who can point to a formidable historical record in her defense. And without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would Mrs. Sherrod have ever held her position at the USDA in the first place, let alone be able to fearlessly defend it?
I haven't posed these questions to David yet, but I will. I am not wholesale opposed to Libertarian values, and in fact, there is much to be admired in a vision of unlimited personal freedom. But I think that the economic collapse of 2008, the following automaker bailout, and the current BP Gulf disaster have gone a long way toward demonstrating that unchecked liberty, at least on he corporate level, is less than ideal. I don't think it's a great leap in logic to extend this view to the human condition. It is only because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that an African American man and a Caucasian woman can openly debate Tea Party politics at a sidewalk cafe.
Though David is a Libertarian in the philosophy's purest form, i.e. a believer in equality and opportunity for all who supports gay marriage, and applauds female momentum in the workplace, he also finds himself in agreement with the likes of Rand Paul, a Tea Party candidate for the Kentucky Senate, who once mentioned that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented the continual overreach of the Federal government. Now I am a very opinionated person, as you may have noticed, but I am not fond of surrounding myself with homogenous head nodders. My quest, as it always has been, is to learn and discuss. Obviously, my friendship with David is fertile ground for this mission.
Over lunch one day, I asked, incredulously, how on Earth a black man could stand in opposition to the Civil Rights Act?! His response, as logically explained as it was subversive, took on a decidedly Bill Cosby slant. His complaint was that an attempt to equalize opportunity for the African American community has instead enfeebled it, viewing as David does, that the Civil Rights Act is the parent of the current welfare system. Now one can take issue with that position, as I certainly did, but one of the things I like most about David is not only his fearless individualism, but the well researched way in which he defends his beliefs.
At one point in our tete a tete, I flatly asked David the following question: "If Tea Partiers are Libertarians, lovers of personal freedom and deregulation, shouldn't they be foursquare behind the gay community, as it continues its fight to participate in legal marriage?" David, who is quick to dissociate himself from the Tea Party Express, claiming with certainty that its members "don't understand their own ideology," agreed and pronounced furthermore, much as the NAACP did several weeks back, that the populist group should also disown the patently racist elements within its own ranks.
Much later, as I mulled over the content of this calmly spoken, but contentious personal debate, I found myself returning again and again to Shirley Sherrod. By now, most of us are aware of the tragic hatchet job performed on the tireless senior member of the USDA. Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart embarked, two weeks ago, on a disingenuous exercise in "gotcha journalism," an attempt to defend the Tea Party from accusations of racism that instead only underscored the malevolent underbelly of the movement. This suspect and utterly partisan "news source" was able to single handedly humiliate an innocent woman, along with the entire White House and our national media apparatus, as though the latter isn't already doing that well enough on its own. I will never forget, much to my chagrin, that I first heard the "story" of Sherrod's supposedly racist remarks at an NAACP event, from Anderson Cooper.
My quest here is not to vilify pop culture's lazy detection skills. Plenty of pundits, bloggers and journalists are already handling that. Instead my question, as relates to my conversation with David, is to wonder if we would have ever completely grasped the depths of injustice meted out to Shirley Sherrod WITHOUT the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s? As author Joan Walsh writes in her essay, "The Civil Rights Heroism of Charles Sherrod:"
"People who care about civil rights and racial reconciliation may eventually thank Andrew Breitbart for bringing Shirley Sherrod the global attention she deserves. Really. Her message of racial healing, her insight that the forces of wealth and injustice have always pit 'the haves and the have-nots' against each other, whatever their race, is exactly what's missing in today's Beltway debates about race."
Point taken, Ms. Walsh. It is quite ironic that Breitbart set his smear in motion, using one of the few everyday American citizens who can point to a formidable historical record in her defense. And without the Civil Rights Act of 1964, would Mrs. Sherrod have ever held her position at the USDA in the first place, let alone be able to fearlessly defend it?
I haven't posed these questions to David yet, but I will. I am not wholesale opposed to Libertarian values, and in fact, there is much to be admired in a vision of unlimited personal freedom. But I think that the economic collapse of 2008, the following automaker bailout, and the current BP Gulf disaster have gone a long way toward demonstrating that unchecked liberty, at least on he corporate level, is less than ideal. I don't think it's a great leap in logic to extend this view to the human condition. It is only because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that an African American man and a Caucasian woman can openly debate Tea Party politics at a sidewalk cafe.
Posts
Great post as usual Becky. This David gentleman sounds like a godsend in an era of intellectual sterility. I'm sure that David would be quick to point out that the Tea Party has adopted Ayn Rand's literary and philosophical message but, if Ayn Rand were alive today, she would find the philosophy that many Tea Partiers claim to expouse to be a gross perversion of her own and would distance herself from all portions of their politics that fail to express the divinity and equality of all peoples.
ReplyDeleteShirley Sherrod is a noble woman with deep ties to the Civil Rights movement. I believe that her father was killed by white men who were never brought to justice and her uncle was lynched. It's abundantly clear to anyone who saw the entire video clip and understands the historical context of her statement that Mrs. Sherrod's message was one of reconciliation and moral growth, not bigotry and racism. The antics of Andrew Breitbart and Fox News are slander in its lowest, most inhumane form and should not be given the distinction of being characterized as "politics".
You are right in your assertion that, if it wasn't for the CRA of 1964, Mrs. Sherrod might not have been given the opportunity to serve her country as a member of the USDA. I assume that David would say that his feelings of malcontent with the CRA of 1964 are expressed in that assertion. In a world where individual rights are help in the highest esteem, Mrs. Sherrod would've earned her position not based on the color of her skin or as an attempt to rectify past wrongs pacify white guilt, but as an attestation to the education, skills, and experience that she possesses for the position. The highest form of achievement is that which we have to reach and claw for, not that which is handed to us (especially if it's handed to us out of guilt or pity). Conversely, we respect people more who have worked diligently for their accolades and not those who we feel cut corners or got skipped to the front of the line (look at the steroids scandal that has enthralled the collective sports consciousness over the past several years).
You assert that the Civil Rights movement and the CRA of 1964 made it possible for you and David to openly debate tea party politics at a sidewalk cafe. Before the CRA of 1964, men and women, blacks and whites, Jews and gentiles banded together in harmony (with the threat of death a constant companion) because the recognized the basic humanity in each other and understood that their existence on this planet was one of mutual assurance. (The CRA of 1964 didn't make it possible, it made it socially acceptable) They realized that their rights were inalienable, stemming from their divinity as human beings. Now, these same rights are no longer rights but rather privileges doled out as legislation at the discretion of the sovereign.
No one, not even David, could argue with the tremendous social progress that we perceive has been made as a result of the CRA of 1964, the New Deal, and the Citizens with Disabilities Act among other seminal pieces of legislation. However, David might ask: Is a right really a right if it has to be given and can easily be taken away? Most importantly, what has happened to the human race when we need a piece of paper to recognize the basic humanity in each other?
"This David gentleman sounds like a godsend in an era of intellectual sterility." - Seriously, I can't stop laughing. That is not to neglect the other points you make in your response D. Jones, which are certainly worthy of consideration. However my intellectualism is spent and I have reverted to juvenile.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, as evidenced by much of the behavior exhibited by Americans over the past year, we do, sadly, continue to need the Civil Rights Act. The Act is not just a piece of paper; but, instead the codification of our society's values that all men are equal. It explicitly repudiates the practices in our history that made groups of Americans unequal and denied them many of the rights guaranteed to all citizens by our Constitution and laws. It provides a set of consequences for those that act to violate that principle and ensures that those that formerly suffered injustice without any form of legal relief to atone for it, now have the choice and ability to pursue that legal relief if they would like.
ReplyDeleteIn complete contradiction to the "post-racial" argument, we are far from a society that has achieved equality. There are still tragic disparities between the ability for African-Americans (and Latinos/as) to be hired and the ability of Whites to get a job. This is evidenced by both a 2003 study done by Boston University and the University of Chicago (which found that, just based on an African-American sounding name, employers were 2 times less likely to call back applicants they assumed to be Black with an average resume and 3 times less likely to call back an applicant they assumed o be Black that was highly educated) and the 2010 unemployment rates, pointed out by the former Mayor of NOLA, that they unemployment rate for Blacks in this country is almost double that of Whites. There are still tragic disparities between the races in the conviction rates and length of incarceration of people that commit the same crimes. This is such a pervasive problem that it is reflected in how students in elementary and high schools are disciplined. There is a staggering racial divide in how students of different races are treated in school disciplinary systems. Those are just the most well-documented, well researched and most visible evidence of the structural inequalities that still exist today and the need to have a way to address these inequalities in our system of laws.
In addition, while there are basic human rights that one would HOPE will one day be given to every person on earth, in reality, the rights of people in a society exist only insofar as the laws, customs and regulations of that system will defend them. The Libertarian point of view is a very "pretty" one that would be okay, in a Utopian society where human beings did not act on greed, self-interest, a willingness to throw one's neighbors under the bus and where systematic inequalities did not persist even in our struggle to defend them over the last 50 years. There needs to be government to address those things that require an entity that has society's interest in mind. Yes, the role of government is limited, but we should not fail to recognize which limits are going too far. Becky Boop's examples of the recent financial crisis and the Gulfwater Horizon Disaster (and The Great Depression for that matter) are prime examples of the consequences of too much limiting of the entity that has society's interests as its goal versus those of us, corporations included, which each have our own interests as our goal. There is a balance between the role of government and the role of the individual and we should respect the importance of both sides of that balance.
I can see where David is coming from. In an effort to ensure equality, much of the fallout from the CRA movement did, in fact, ensure a certain degree of dependence on the federal government. I can't argue that the CRA on its face did that, but much of what has followed has in fact created a section of society that is not free to succeed - or fail - of their own accord. The goal of the Civil Rights Movement was to protect liberty and opportunity that all American citizens are born with the right to have. But somewhere along the line, there was a shift from protecting rights and freedoms for all people, to "leveling the playing field", which morphed into defining equality as equal results, not equal opportunity. "Leaders" in the African-American community (Revs. Jackson & Sharpton immediately come to mind) rarely confront policy that truly keeps black people (and poor people in general) at a marked disadvantage, instead focusing efforts on the likes of Don Imus (who is annoying as hell, but has no real power or influence). They would better serve the African-American community of they would push for a school voucher program, for example, so that parents in poor (both financially and academically) schools could send their children to a private school, to receive a better education and have a chance to support themselves comfortably as adults. The child of the CRA bred a group of politicians that encouraged the black community to turn to the government to assist them, with disasterous results for said community. No matter how well intentioned, the government is simply incapable of assisting all citizens with all needs, wants and desires. Short of national defense, there is very little the federal government can do well, in terms of cost and efficiency.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how David will respond to your question vis-a-vis Shirley Sherrod, but my intemporate thoughts are that while it is true that the CRA opened doors that should have never been closed in the first place, the additional laws that have been passed (i.e. "affirmative action" laws) have slowed down the progress of the African-American community. Economically speaking, salary discrepancies between blacks and whites were closing at a faster rate prior to the affirmative action laws of the 1970's then they have ever since. Meaning that, after the CRA, but before an employer was required to hire a certain number of non-white employees, African-Americans were keeping pace with whites in terms of the number of jobs held, and were rapidly closing the salary gap. And I would also say that Ms. Sherrod isn't as color-blind as she is now being portayed.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/larry-elder/2010/07/29/shirley-sherrod-quit-while-youre-ahead/ links to an intersting op-ed piece from another African-American libertarian, Larry Elder that discusses this further.
Anonymous, thank you for taking the time to intelligently and comprehensively share your response. I am certainly going to read the Larry Elder piece. You have added some healthy food for thought in a debate where there may be no right answers.
ReplyDeleteAnyone suggesting affirmative action is a solution in search of a problem is cordially invited to read these papers:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=422902
There is still a great deal of systemic racism of the kind that doesn't manifest itself in white sheets and burning crosses.