The Libertarian Perspective — May 27, 2010 2:54 am

Response to Sam on Racism and Rand Paul

By Alex Sherbany

Sam, I agree with you that Rand Paul is off base in his remarks about the Civil Rights Act, but I have a few quibbles about the way you make your argument. (I see that when you aren’t going after Ayn, you are going after Rand with equal intensity. Young libertarians seem to love the Rands as much as young collectivists seem to despise them!)

Now I expected you to find fault with Rand Paul’s lukewarm remarks on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as I did. But why stretch your case, and your credibility with readers, by asserting that he is a racist? I think the charge of racism reflects an extreme and ultimately untenable view of what constitutes racism, and what separates racism from legitimate political disagreement based on underlying principles. This part of your post, in which you criticize “conservatives” and “over-polite liberals,” is especially puzzling to me:

But if we can’t say it’s racist to oppose the de-institutionalization of racism, then we’re pretty much saying that you’re only racist if you wear a white hood,” this is what I meant. If racism is a “stain on the soul,” then almost nobody can be accused of being a racist, because we can’t reliably look into people’s souls.

If racism is solely or even mainly defined as an action, then the Oxford English Dictionary must be written by “conservatives” and “a fair number of over-polite liberals,” because it primarily defines ”racism” as a belief. (For that matter, Wikipedia too.) Here are both OED definitions for racism:

  • noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

Those Brits do always strike me as a tad over-polite. But regardless of the primary definition, do you at least acknowledge that there are principles at stake in government efforts to curb racial discrimination? That it is possible to oppose a policy intended to reduce racial discrimination without being racist? Can’t you oppose racial discrimination, and support racial equality of opportunity, but still have legitimate qualms about State coercion of voluntary associations, individuals, and businesses? Suppose the government could reduce racial discrimination by instituting some kind of mandatory racial sensitivity training. Clearly it is not racist to find fault with such a policy.

And surely you do not agree with Press Secretary Robert Gibbs when he says that a discussion of the principles underlying an act of Congress has “no place in our political dialogue.” 

If I had to speculate, I’d say that Rand Paul probably has a deep commitment to libertarian principles, if not a deeply nuanced understanding of how something like the Civil Rights Act might be consistent with Nozickian theory or the writings of Julian Sanchez, and felt that he might risk infidelity to some of these principles by endorsing every provision of the Civil Rights Act without any hesitation. It’s  not as juicy a story, but I think you really need to have near-zero confidence in Rand Paul as a man of some principle, or a warped understanding of racism, to conclude that his remarks or his libertarian views are racis.

Finally, for what it’s worth, you say in your original post that he is “against the Civil Rights Act,” which is not really accurate; his statements then and now indicate the rather different conclusion that he is not unequivocally for every provision of the Civil Rights Act. His official position is that he supports the Act, and would have supported it at the time. This might be nitpicking, but since you phrased the title that way specifically to prompt a response like this, I couldn’t help but take the bait.

Related posts:

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Ron Paul's Campaign Problem
Tags:
Author: Alex Sherbany '11 was the Managing Editor for the Harvard Political Review from 2009 to 2010.
  • Sam Barr

    Hey Alex,

    The point of my first post, as well as my response to Peyton, was precisely that I don’t think Rand Paul is a “man of principle.” His libertarianism is philosophically incoherent, I argue, if he thinks that it’s okay for the government to endorse the super-controversial moral judgment that abortion is murder, but that it’s objectionable for the government to endorse the (hopefully) far less controversial moral judgment that the races are equal and ought to be treated equally.

    So, no, I don’t assume that Rand Paul is a man of principle. Again, if we had any reason to think that Paul is a consistent libertarian ideologue, then that is all he would be.

    As for the issue of defining racism, I realize that my definition is more expansive than some, but I see no reason to call it “extreme and ultimately untenable.” And the dictionary is really no help when we’re talking about the political meanings of terms. Liberal means one thing in the OED, another thing in America, and even another thing in Europe.

    Of course we can think of policies that would reduce racism but be objectionable for non-racist reasons. (Re-education camps for racists, for instance.) But the point is that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act aren’t like that. Yes, it is legitimate to worry about whether laws like these might lead to the government’s over-involvement in private enterprise. Those are, as you say, “legitimate qualms.” But they are, as I see it, not nearly weighty enough to override the enormous moral importance of breaking down the legal and social institution of racism. Reasonable libertarians, e.g. Sanchez and Nozick, realize that their ideology is limited in this way when it confronts society-wide injustice.

    So why is Paul, then, not simply an unreasonable libertarian? Because, again, there is no evidence that he is. He doesn’t hold to the libertarian ideology in many other areas, let alone do so unreasonably.

    You ask why I stretch my case and harm my credibility by bothering about terms like “racist”? It’s because the right has managed to distort our political discourse such that the real crime is not being racist, but calling someone or something racist. Remember the baloney over the “race card” in the summer of 2008? A few liberals pointed out that a McCain ad used racialized imagery of white women threatened by a black man. Instead of simply arguing that, in fact, the ad was racially neutral, the Republican/conservative response was to de-legitimize any and all interpretations of this sort. To talk about race at all was to “play the race card.”

    The assumption underlying this strategy is that racism no longer exists, or at least is no longer a problem. So, even as Republicans accuse Democrats of foreclosing rational discussion about race, they commit that very crime by categorically denying that anyone or anything can be racist. I object to this, and I want to rescue the word “racist” because I think that problematic assumptions and images about minorities persist in individuals and in society. So I raised the issue, knowing it would turn some people off, because I think it is important that we push back against the Republican attempt to define racism out of existence.

  • Harry Binswanger

    I hold no brief for (or against) Rand Paul, but I do oppose government forcibly dictating how private property owners use their property. Is this “racist”?

    On the basis of my intellectual understanding of individual rights, including property rights, I have always opposed Title II of the ’64 Civil Rights Act. So where’s the racism?

    Racism is judging a person qua member of a race, not as an individual. It is the same kind of thing as judging by social class or gender–a form of collectivism.

    I support individualism, which defends the autonomy of the individual and his right to make his own decisions, not to be coerced by any “authority”–not even “society.” Individualism doesn’t allow the state, the society, or any group or any individual to force the individual to conform to their ideas–right or wrong–about how he should live.

    For the autonomy of the individual to be sacrosanct, the government must refrain from interfering with all kinds of irrational acts–as long as they don’t deprive others of their freedom–e.g., taking drugs, indulging in pornography, going to the “‘wrong” church, and stooping to racial discrimination.

    There’s no moral alternative–you can’t say: the government protects only the freedom to take moral action (“moral,” as defined by the government).

  • Sam Barr

    Harry,

    If you hew to that libertarian philosophy in all circumstances, regardless of consequences, then of course it is not racist to oppose Title II. My problem with Rand Paul is that he is a selective libertarian—and he has chosen to challenge, for some reason, the government’s power to impose the moral ideal of racial equality. I can only assume he does so because he finds that ideal excessively controversial—more controversial, even, than the moral judgment that abortion is murder. You, of course, are more than welcome to dispute the government’s power to impose any and all moral judgments and ideals.

  • Alex

    I, like Peyton, think you ask a very reasonable question: why does Rand Paul appear to be a libertarian on some issues but not others?

    I sometimes find myself asking the very same question of contemporary American liberals and conservatives in general. Even among the leading libertarian organizations of the Left and Right, the ACLU and the CATO Institute, we can see clear distinctions in emphasis. Conservatives and liberals are, in a sense, “selective libertarians.” At the very least they marshal the rhetoric of liberty to advance very different political causes.

    I can concede that Rand Paul is not a fully consistent libertarian ideologue. He does seem to care about individual liberty more when it comes issues of private property and taxation than when he is faced with issues such as abortion and sexual liberty. But I have a hard time figuring out why this makes him a racist. Does that make all libertarian conservatives or “right-libertarians” racist?

    It seems to me that it is not obviously irrational for someone to care more about property rights than the right to terminate a pregnancy or smoke a joint. (Though I don’t necessarily think of abortion rights and opposition to the War on Drugs in those terms).

    Maybe Rand Paul is primarily worried about the growth of Big Government and the collectivist state, and feels that certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act are more dangerous in that respect than restrictions on abortion or other aspects of autonomy. Maybe he cares more about conserving traditional liberties (from a sort of Burkean/Oakeshottian perspective of defending a tradition of liberty rather than abstract liberty). Maybe his religious convictions, or the political convictions of the Republican electorate, are such that he believes he must endorse restrictions on abortion on those grounds. I don’t know.

    But I think his response to Rachel Maddow’s question about the Civil Rights Act is far more suggestive of his opposition to state control of private property than his supposed opposition to racial equality.

  • Sam Barr

    Alex,

    Of course I’m not saying that any “right-libertarian” is a racist, at least not in the way you and everyone else understands that term. I’m saying, to put it crudely, that if you oppose key portions of the Civil Rights Act (not to mention the Fair Housing Act), you had better be a down-the-line libertarian ideologue, and be able to prove it, if you don’t want people leaping to the forgivable conclusion that you have a little problem with black people.

    Of course it’s not “obviously irrational for someone to care more about property rights than the right to terminate a pregnancy or smoke a joint.” I never said it was. All I’m saying is, if you’re the type of person who worries SO freaking much about the road to serfdom that you’re unwilling to endorse government’s interference with race-based subjugation, then it’s hard to see why those concerns don’t translate into non-racial areas. For instance, Paul isn’t a strict property-rights libertarian either. He’s already come out for coal subsidies. I’d wager he’ll come out with some half-assed position on Social Security too.

    Now, maybe you say that this is because he’s running for office, and in his heart of hearts he really is a pure property-rights libertarian. Maybe. But then what does that say about the Kentucky electorate, that they would elect (let’s assume) someone who talks the libertarian talk when it comes to race, but won’t walk the walk when it comes to the money that goes into their own pockets?

    I think your discomfort, and that of a lot of people with this kind of talk, is attributable to the sense that being a racist is the very worst thing someone can be. And it’s funny, you’d think I would agree with that, but I don’t. Being a Klansmen is one of the very worst things a person can be, but being just a “racist” needs to be defined more expansively. As Avenue Q has it, “Everyone’s a little bit racist.” Everyone sees race, and everyone makes judgments and associations, conscious or unconscious.

    So when I say Rand Paul is probably a racist, there’s no reason to be shocked or agitated. All I’m saying is, he seems a little too quick to find ways to justify not helping black people. The same is true of a LOT of Americans, including a lot of liberals and Democrats, and you can call it what you like, but for what it’s worth, I’m going to call it racist. Maybe that will help it sink in, get people to think about it. Or maybe it will backfire. But if we’re being honest, I think that’s what we have to call it.

custom writing