Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I don’t know if it was the Civil Rights Act, or the realization by some that pretending the Civil Right Act never happened or had no effect of American life, as a way of gaining power, was an effective tool when used in consortium with modern media.
It was the Beta version of the current use of victimization as a passive-aggressive way to obtain power, and really took hold in the wake of Martin Luther King’s assassination. People like Jesse Jackson discovered there was money and power in pretending it was still 1963, and attacking individuals and companies as the equivalent of George Wallace in the schoolroom door. It paid off both financially and in political clout, and since the media was sympathetic towards more government control, they had no problem electing Jesse as some sort of official spokesperson for black people (the movie “Barbershop” would later savage Jackson over assuming that role for himself).
Pre-internet and social media, though, you had to have access to the media in a major metro area, and also have zero shame or remorse when called out for trying to pretend nothing had changed in American race relations. You couldn’t be part of the victimization accusers in the comfort of your own
basementliving room. Now thanks to social media, you can, and that’s caused an explosion in polarization, because there are hundreds of thousands of people who think they can become a power player if they can get their accusation and claim of victimhood to go viral.I suppose you can argue it was inevitable that the Civil Rights Act would cause something like this. But it seems more that the irresponsibility of some people, and of the media in catering to those people, was the basis for the current problems. If the early victimization scammers hadn’t been legitimized by the media and politicians looking to use them to also add to their own power through government, we don’t end up where we are today.
If it can molded in any way the people in power want it to be molded, then it isn’t a constitution but a mirage.
I think it needs to be narrowly redefined as equal access to society instead of equal outcome.
I get tired of hearing complaints about this “under-represented” group or how we need more black fill in the blanks. There are zero barriers between a black person and any job except for those that have to do with himself – his intelligence, his desire to succeed, and his perseverance in reaching his goal. People are afraid to use the M-word – merit.
When you try to bend the rules to achieve equal (or proportionally representative) outcomes, you get reverse discrimination in the form of quotas, a lowering of the bar to guarantee success (which could have deadly outcomes if you’re taking about the medical field), and silly social engineering schemes like plopping Section 8 housing in the middle of the high-rent district. All of this results in resentment.
No, I don’t believe the law should be repealed. It should be rewritten to make it clear the fight for civils rights is over – there is no more “down for the struggle”. Stop using race as an excuse not to succeed in this great country. Quit inventing phantom terms like “white privilege” to explain away failure. Get out and participate in our great country as an equal in citizenship.
Caldwell has an interesting thesis. I listened to his new book, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. It’s available on Audible.
I’m planning to listen to it again. It’s a complicated and interesting thesis, and I’m still processing it. I think that Caldwell is on to something, but I think that the phenomenon has a deeper, and somewhat older, philosophical background than he suggests. That background is in postmodernism, but also in the antecedents to postmodernism such as structuralism and relativism. I’m not fully versed in all of these theories as a philosophical matter (I think that I have a good grasp of postmodernism).
I think that Caldwell is wrong in his suggestion that these ideas were expected to be temporary but somehow “escaped” democratic control. These theories are apparent even in Brown v. Board, which significantly predated the Civil Rights Act (1954 vs. 1964). They are also apparent in the Supreme Court’s religion cases, which stretch back to the McCollum case in 1948, though I think that the case with the greatest effect was Engel v. Vitale in 1962, which invalidated school prayer.
These radical changes were made principally by FDR appointees, so the theories that they ultimately adopted probably date back to the 1930s, if not earlier.
I think that there is a deeper issue, identified by Allan Bloom in his 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind. Bloom’s book is complex, but his central observation was a change in his students. He observed that, by the 1980s, his students were all moral relativists, and that their only moral virtue was anti-discrimination — the idea that indiscriminateness is a moral virtue because it’s opposite is the evil of having discriminated.
I’ve been developing a thesis on these issues. It is difficult to express, and a bit difficult to even think, because I too have been indoctrinated into the view that the Civil Rights Movement was a crowning moral achievement. In some ways, I still think that it was, but I think that it introduced serious problems. My conclusions in this area remain tentative.
The greatest enunciation of the Civil Rights movement was MLK’s assertion that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” I strongly agree with this principle.
I find that this principle broke down, in practice, in three areas.
(1) In the area of race, criticism of minority behavior became impermissible because it was viewed as a pretext for invidious race discrimination.
(2) In the area of feminism, implementation of the principle was complicated by the existence of significant differences between the sexes, both in traits and in family roles. These real differences were ignored, with the consequent problems falling principally on the children.
(3) The argument was extended to entirely behavior-based categories, such as homosexuals, which is simply a category error.
I don’t even think that’s a good idea.
One of the things in modern culture that has been a problem, specifically on the Right, is social media deplatforming. One of the small government entreaties is to build our own platforms…
And some people did. But payment processors and web-hosting started attacking them.
It’s at that point where you really need to build your very own society – banking infrastructure, web hosting services, payment processors, credit and loan agencies, etc in order to build your own platform.
But if you do build them, there’s no way to keep your platforms from being infiltrated by the virulent left. It is so convenient that so many lefties are in a CRA “protected” class – if they aren’t yet, they will be soon as long as we think the CRA has any legitimacy.
It is so convenient that the right is majority the only unprotected demographic in America – White Males. Guess who’s gonna make platforms favorable to the right? Odds are, white males. Guess who will need to diversify under AA? White male companies.
We can’t even build our own platforms.
And then, not to mention what the CRA has done to education in this country. Disguised as disparate impact studies, useful programs were dismantled, school integration forces every school to offer the same services with the same demographic makeup.
By equal access to society, I mean no barriers to enjoying things like sitting wherever we want to on the bus, drinking from the same water fountain, being served in any restaurant, etc. Minorities have the right to pursue happiness just like the rest of us, and I get tired of the complaints of barriers in place. The “white privilege” advantage we allegedly maintain is a figment of the race-baiting industry’s imagination, and a tool for generating revenue.
I guess I don’t understand your point. I’ve had too many Coronas (proven antidote for the coronavirus) . . .
I misunderstood yours, giving your “equal access to society” a broader definition than what you describe.
I think communities should have the right to self-associate without the government slapping them around telling them they are so racist for whatever diversity (or lack thereof) they end up with. HOAs with rules against certain demographics? That’s their prerogative, for whatever reason they may have come up with that rule.
I think its better for the cohesiveness of our country to not strive for every location to be exactly the same in terms of demographic ratios, programs, access to institutions, etc. If some community in NH wants to be an atheist stronghold with no prayer in schools, no bible, no creation, the 10 commandments removed from their courthouse, and no building permits for churches, more power to them. But they don’t get to then go around agitating for all the rest of the communities to be just like them.
The fight for civil rights will not be over until every white person is killed, ran off, or made a slave.
And THEN who will they blame for still not having Paradise?
Some of his conversations on the talk:
& here:
Who needs to have Paradise when you can have power by promising to bring Paradise?
Aaron,
I disagree with his basic premise. The 1964 Civil Rights Act just established a standard of behavior for the individual. If you were violating this standard of behavior in a particular situation and solid proof could be shown of your bad behavior then you could be sued for the damages of that specific behavior.
It was the Quota-Based Affirmative Action rulings in 1973 that changed everything. This wasn’t about an individual’s discrete actions. Instead, this ruling took a Gd’s eye view of all of society. A magical determination of what reality “should be” if some imagined racism hadn’t existed was used as the standard. Gross unjustified statistical analysis became the justification for a massive invasion of society by the government. The formula for determining the when where and how of this massive invasive remedy was left to the courts. As only Gd proper could have really figured out how to “right the collective wrong” this was the very definition of a program that was causing new problems rather than solving old ones.
If I remember correctly, my above opinion is largely also the opinion of Clarence Thomas. At least he expressed something like what I’m saying in his confirmation hearing. He too thought that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was OK but that once the quota-based stuff started we were going down a dangerous rabbit hole.
Regards,
Jim
What is the second constitution? Lacking an explanation of that, I don’t buy that explanation.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was certainly important in that it empowered the government to intrude in the affairs of private business and private citizens to a degree never before done in this country. I don’t see how the great divide in our country originated there, though. We always had divisions over how powerful a role the government should have.
The so-called divisions that we have now are because there is significant pushback against progressive, managerial rule of our country. The managerial ruling class that replaced the capitalist ruling class a hundred years ago is no longer receiving the adoring adulation it had come to expect as its due. Those being ruled are getting uppity. That’s where the division, such as it is, comes from.
It’s analogous to the elimination of slavery. Slaveowners had tended to think that while there may have been problems with the institution, their slaves loved and respected them. Then when the slaves became legally free, they were shocked to learn that not all the former slaves had held them in such high regard as they had thought. It was a psychologically traumatic experience. We’re witnessing a similar shock to the psyche of the current ruling class.
I have to disagree with Mr. Caldwell. The Civil Rights Act did not give Washington anything. It gave the courts the function of insuring that the constitution was correctly being implemented. The Act recognized, rightly, that state law was not meeting their constitutional obligations.
Rules were not being “bent” but enforced. And because this had been so systemic for such a long period of time, it required strong measures. What these measures were was to allow the court a power of review without first having been brought a case for judgement. And as congress has the power to create courts and determine their function, this was entirely within the constitutional powers of the legislative branch.
Now, where I differ with the courts is they are accepting of creating gerrymandered districts which insure minority representation. It does not follow that if 30% of the state population is an ethnic minority that 30% of the representatives must be of that same ethnic minority. My view is that this creates districts in which candidates do not have to address a full range of issues for the full range of voters, allowing for weaker candidates.
Agreed and bussing was the stimulant that set off the real hostility. Now we have colleges with riots led by mostly POC students who are probably not qualified to be there and resent knowing that it is true. The Dartmouth library protest a few years ago was a great example. Black students invaded the library and harassed white and Asian students studying for finals. Why did the black students not feel the need to study as well ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=OJAuVQlLxD0&feature=emb_logo
We also as a society became afraid to “judge” anybody – everybody’s supposed to be able to let their freak flag fly, and if you disapprove of someone’s behavior, not matter how socially deviant/destructive, its your problem, not theirs.
It has been irrelevant for a long time, since at least the so-called Civil War. It took the State a mere 9 years to pass the Sedition Act. It was struck down, but the people who call themselves the State shifted to ignoring the Constitution in ways that didn’t directly attack the Bill of Rights, like Jefferson’s illegal Louisiana Purchase.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a direct attack on the 1st Amendment, gutting the right of association. Most of what the government does is illegal, and most conservatives have accepted various encroachments, usually based on certain “emergencies” like the “War on Terror,” or the 2008 Financial “Crisis.” Or the encroachments are justified as necessary because of the realities of “modernity” or “globalism.”
The Constitution has failed spectacularly. But I cry no tears for it, since I view it as a coup and a betrayal of the American Revolution.
Got mine in the mail, it was a great read.
Bill, I don’t think that you are correct in this argument.
The Civil Rights Act was a significant expansion in federal power, because it applied to private behavior. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applied only to state behavior. The Equal Protection Clause could already be enforced by the courts, before the CRA, and this was done — as in the Brown v. Board case, 10 years before the CRA.
You are correct in part, because the Voting Rights Act was also passed in the 1960s, and it did create new procedures and remedies for issues relating to voting and gerrymandered districts. However, this was a relatively small part of the overall civil rights legislation of the 1960s.
Another factor is explained by Mike Gonzalez in “The Invention of Hispanics” (Claremont Review, Fall 2019). Marx expected the workers to rise up. But workers had hopes of improved economic condition, so they didn’t. Gramsci and Marcuse (whose essays were sent to LBJ by aides) saw that you needed something that could NOT be changed as income can be. Race (and then gender, etc.) could create a more permanent and maybe more willing to be organised alienated group. Gonzales shows how, for example, the Ford Foundation’s president worked and spent hard to convince Mexican Americans that they are an oppressed minority like the Negroes, an idea they vigorously resisted–until the 60s with new “leaders” and incentives for claiming that status offered by LBJ and the Great Society. To quote Gonzales:
I’ve long wondered why and how “the party of the working class” became the party of the rich and the marginal. Now I know. By now, the new categories are accepted by universities, corporations, local libraries, town councils, the media, you name it.
Jim, I agree in part and disagree in part.
The 1964 CRA did not establish a standard of behavior. It prohibited private “discrimination” in various areas, on the basis of race, sex, and some other characteristics, without defining “discrimination” or specifying how “discrimination” was to be proven. It applied in private activities ranging from employment, to providing goods and services (hotels and restaurants, for example), to housing.
My impression is that few people have thought about the answer to this question: How would you prove a discrimination case? As a lawyer, it is natural for me to think in these terms.
Try to think it through. Imagine that you’re a lawyer, and you agree to represent a black guy as your client, making an employment discrimination case. To be more specific, imagine that he was a candidate for promotion to a management position, and didn’t get the promotion. You can elaborate the example if you wish — perhaps he works for a drywall or electrical contractor and hoped for a promotion to team foreman, or perhaps he works at Walmart as a checkout clerk and hoped for a promotion to shift manager.
How would you prove that the decision was motivated by racism, rather than by a legitimate decision that another candidate was more qualified?
You mean like the shop foreman for a union calling referring to the black affirmative action apprentice in the formerly white local as “my rughead” as in “I’ll have my rughead do that?” I heard that one in the ’70s.
Two parts should be:
Equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment. And congress already had the power to legislate interstate commerce under Article I.
But it was not being enforced. That was the problem. And certainly states and state courts were not providing equal protection. As they are required to do.
It was not an expansion of federal power, it was the correct application of federal power.
Once you become a business you are now under federal control for commerce. Same for renting or selling housing. Once it is advertised, publicly or privately to a larger group, it is commerce. If you only rent to relatives, then this is not widely advertised and you are ok.
And in your person life, who you associate with, you are free to discriminate as much as you want. I do, but based on behavior, not color.
How does addition of a new law force obedience to another? If the problem was that existing laws were not enforced, then surely that is a problem for the non-legislative branches to correct.
If failures of enforcement justify non-authorized parties to pick up the slack, is that not an argument for vigilantism?
It is disturbing because I do not believe that Republican voters are racist and would desire to tear up the Civil Rights Act and allow open discrimination in housing and employment. And a large majority of Republican voters would support, today, that same legislation. Some of the changes implemented, and not specified by the civil rights act, such as racial quotas, many Republicans would differ with.
The US was unique because by design political power originated locally, if problems exceeded both personal, family and private sector reach because of the nature of collective goods, they went to community, from their to city, region then state. Only national Defense and foreign policy were by nature Federal. That changed beginning with TR and Wilson and has built relentlessly since then, with changes in defense explaining most zero federal budget deficit years. The rest just grew. Always with some justification, which interested folks always can present. Now we seem to accept that HEW and other Federal agencies have jurisdiction across the US. We allow the Federal government to control or influence private sector activities throughout States, Cities, towns and even individuals. That is why we were different and if we can’t find our way back we will drift relentlessly toward ever greater and more corrupt Federal control. The Feds are relatively honest, serious, mostly dedicated but the fact is they cannot have any grasp on local issues in thousands of towns in the most diverse multi ethnic nation in the history of mankind. This isn’t delegated power from the Feds as in the EU. Power originates locally and gets moved up only if local authorities, controlled by local citizens require it. It worked but it was imperfect because all humans and their activities are imperfect, and all have interests. The Federal government is even more imperfect because its interests are different and it’s knowledge of the specific problems at the ground level is zero. We seem to have lost this insight but it’s fundamental.
I profoundly disagree. What you are describing is not much more than the Articles of Confederation. Madison and Hamilton, and the other “federalists” knew that the federal government had to have more power, and specifically, with the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to control to a great extent, the relations of states to each other.
The civil war was the culmination of the disagreement over states rights (note South Carolina had been pushing this as far back as the early 1800s w/r relations with native tribes). If you want to look at an expansion of federal control, look at the interstate highway system. With a single blow, the federal government placed new requirements on states.
But the idea that the CRA has somehow created this divide is simply wrong. The 2nd amendment creates a divide, abortion creates a divide, economic disparity creates a divide. Many issues contribute, including civil rights but as a much smaller contributor. In the 60s civil rights was a large issue, but not as divisive as the Vietnam War.
What equal protection of the law was not being enforced? Racial discrimination in private housing was not illegal before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.