Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

This is a thought provoking, if increidbly troubling article.
Having grown up with the classical liberal abhorrence of racial prefferences, I celebrated the 1964 Civil Rights act, even as I opposed affirmative action and quota. Even when I came to see the Constitutional and moral failings of the 1964 act (ie government intrusion into private business), I always saw it as well intended. Certainly "Jim Crow", segregation, and Bull Connor policing are incompatable with a free society.
How then can we recognize and rectify past misdeeds without surrendering moral authority and the right to define our nation?
How can European Americans retake moral authority and leadership without racism or undermining the principles of equality we have come to believe in?
1 posted on 05/19/2005 12:55:53 AM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Paleo Conservative; Cacique; Clemenza; nathanbedford; billbears; West Coast Conservative; ...

ping


2 posted on 05/19/2005 12:59:53 AM PDT by rmlew (Copperheads and Peaceniks beware! Sedition is a crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rmlew

Auster rightly condemns the ill effects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but then he demands that "whites" reassert control of the culture. How in the world does he expect the country to do that? We don't have anything in the constitution delineating the power of whites or blacks to control things. We have a constitution that is supposed to be supplied equally to everyone. The solution is not to give unconstitutional power to some particular ethnic group (Blacks, etc.) or arbitrarily appointed group representing the so-called majority (white europeans). It is to apply the law equally because we cannot and should not have particular ethnic groups controlling anything. Sane and reasonable people of whatever skin color or ethnic designation should take control of guiding society...not some ridiculous "white" majority.


3 posted on 05/19/2005 1:15:13 AM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.qi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rmlew
To criticize the profound harm done to our society by the civil rights movement and its aftermath is not to defend all of the South's pre-civil rights racial policies.

Yes it is. Contrary to your protestations, you are defending just that.


7 posted on 05/19/2005 3:45:40 AM PDT by rdb3 (One may smile and smile and still be a villain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rmlew

American's desperate, good intentions do not make good law. They often result in awful laws. And, as usual, in the case of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Americans with good intentions foolishly pressured legislators with bad intentions to pass a law that would only exacerbate the problem.

Simply put, celebrating the 1964 Civil Rights Act if you are a classical liberal is like celebrating Marx's Das Kapital if you are a capitalist. The fundamental concern of a classical liberal is to ensure that individual rights are protected for all. Yet, as the author points out, the authors of the Civil Rights Act intended not to ensure that minorities were guaranteed THEIR civil rights, but to "delegitimize...white people's most basic rights of free association and of property, since such rights were now seen as having only one end in view: the oppression of blacks."

You ask:
How then can we recognize and rectify past misdeeds without surrendering moral authority and the right to define our nation?
How can European Americans retake moral authority and leadership without racism or undermining the principles of equality we have come to believe in?

Simply put: none of that is government's job. This is where the 60's leftists succeeded in suckering you and America. Your job is to make a good life for you and your family. Government's job is to provide for a common defense and keep your family from physical harm by others. It is not to make up for past misdeeds. It is not to provide you with moral authority. It is not to remedy the scarred psyche of millions. It is not to provide equality of opportunity, but equality BEFORE LAW.

Life sucks. Government is not supposed to be and cannot afford to be a safety net to prevent that, and anyone who pretends that it is and can intends to take advantage of your charity, either by not giving personally to charity themselves, since 'the government is taking care of it,' or by having some other personal benefit from the nanny state, such as Social Security, student loans, Medicare, etc.


8 posted on 05/19/2005 2:38:59 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson