Where Are The Black Libertarians?
Jonathan Blanks writes (in a 2014 piece) at Libertarianism.org about why he thinks there aren't more black libertarians:
Barry Goldwater, generally believed to be the most libertarian major party presidential candidate of the past hundred years, famously voted against the Civil Rights Act, the most liberating piece of federal legislation since the end of Reconstruction. He had his reasons--he didn't believe the federal government had the power to compel private businesses and individuals to accommodate those they didn't want to. Federalism and freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment compelled Goldwater to vote his conscience. On paper, it is a defensible--perhaps even laudable--act of principle, absent of context.But those principles had been used as weapons against black Americans, and esoteric concerns seem less important than being unable to eat or get a hotel you're willing and able to pay for as you drive across your own country. This sort of adherence to principle at the expense of the tangible freedom of millions of African Americans sent a clear message of whose liberty received priority. Fairly or unfairly, holding such a man up as a hero of liberty sends a mixed message, at best.
Subsequently, libertarians have been associated with the Lost Cause, Civil War revisionism, and the politics of white resentment. The infamous Ron Paul newsletters of the 1980s dripped with racist, homophobic rhetoric in order to drum up support--and fundraising--for the Texas congressman. Separate from that, Paul has given speeches asserting the South was right in the Civil War, preposterously arguing that chattel slavery was not the catalyst for the bloodiest war in American history, and repeating the canard of "States' Rights"--an argument often used to also support state-sponsored segregation. Paul's ascension to standard bearer of the modern libertarian movement in recent years invariably calls into question the motivations of its adherents and their dedication to civic equality of minorities.
Too often, libertarians discuss rights and what people will do if the government gets out of their way, but before government was active in furthering racial equality, history shows that both public and private actors worked in concert to deny equal opportunity and truly free markets--often under the guise of "freedom." This isn't libertarians' fault, but if libertarians want to have any voice in suggesting what the future should look like, we must grapple with the past and explain how and why this sordid history won't repeat itself. Moreover, American libertarians must not only confront the nation's racist past, but how the legacy of that racism affects people today. Part of the disconnect between blacks and libertarians is likely related to the perception of racism's prevalence and its impact on everyday lives of black Americans. If libertarians continue to downplay or dismiss racism's role in criminal justice, economic uplift, and perceptions of black Americans, black Americans are unlikely to accept ideas from people who don't see their own world for what it is.
Another of Blanks' pieces -- this one on MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, and complaints of King's that he feels are still relevant today:
Let us not wallow in the valley of despair."Free markets," "equality," "liberty,": three concepts that form the core of libertarianism and undergird the American Dream, but have, ironically, been cruel and hollow words to black people for the majority of our nation's history. This is simply because the rules under which those concepts operate didn't apply to black people. What is a free market when you can't even sit at the lunch counter to buy a sandwich, let alone apply for a job? What is equality when all your schools and school supplies are substandard? What is liberty when you're harassed by a police officer for being the wrong color in the wrong place?
In another of Blanks' pieces, he says. "It is not enough to be passively "not racist." We must be actively anti-racism":
Libertarians must recognize that racism still plays a practical and tangible role in the lives of American blacks. So long as libertarians brush racism aside as incidental or irrelevant to public policy, people who see and feel its effects in their neighborhoods, in their schools, and in their interactions with police, are unlikely to take what libertarians say seriously. Disparate treatment in education, criminal justice, and the economy are facts of life for many black Americans, and libertarians should take an active role in combating it, both through policy suggestions and in our personal lives....yes, libertarians should continue to argue vehemently against the Drug War, for school choice, and in support of other policies that have been shown to help all people. But it is simply not enough to believe that, given free choices, citizens will make decisions that maximize their own benefit, ultimately to the benefit of all people. The United States' long history with both public and private discrimination is a testament to the power of racial prejudice and its power to overcome rational self-interest. And given the numerous statistics now available--from unemployment disparities to tracking hiring practices to police harassment--it is clear that lingering prejudice contributes to unequal opportunities for American blacks, on top of the myriad obstacles they may face in their neighborhoods and schools.
Libertarians need to actively combat racial prejudice instead of relying on assumptions that the market will work it all out on its own. If libertarians are going to maintain that government answers to racism are usually inappropriate, then libertarians must be among those leading the private, society-driven remedies to injustice. It is not enough to be passively 'not racist'--libertarians must be actively anti-racism. To do anything else is to accept the status quo and hide behind the logic of markets, despite the deeply seated, inherent illogic of racism.
This means, inter alia, discussing racial impacts of substandard schools (perhaps allaying fears that school choice will lead to more segregation academies), the pernicious effects of antagonistic policing, and explaining whose jobs will likely be lost due to a minimum wage hike. It means trying to remedy the longstanding disconnect between those who push for punitive laws and those who suffer under them. It means supporting community programs to encourage entrepreneurship and funding scholarships for aspiring business leaders. It means talking to black people and audiences like intelligent individuals whose life and family histories may temper enthusiasm for free markets, and not a mass of people too ignorant or dependent to believe in a theoretical version of freedom unknown to them. It means vocally and unequivocally distancing ourselves from people with longstanding racial baggage, be it Confederacy revisionism or career obsessions with black pathology. Then, maybe, libertarians' "It's not us, it's you" message of liberty would turn into something different: a message better received by people with memories of how duplicitously the words "freedom" and "liberty" have been used in this country.
Here's Nick Gillespie at Reason on where blacks have been politically and whether they're likely to stay:
Over the past 70 years, no voting bloc has been more identified with the Democratic Party than blacks. Since 1948, when the Democrats inserted a civil rights plank in their platform, a majority of blacks have identified as Democrats. No Republican presidential candidate has pulled more than 15 percent of the African-American vote since 1960, when Nixon received 32 percent against John F. Kennedy....Democrats do not and should not have a lock on the black vote. The party is able to get by partly because of its longstanding defense of civil rights and its welcoming attitude to minorities. Such comity is mostly missing among Republicans, who at best ignored blacks when not accusing them of criminality and massive welfare fraud while offering a soft landing for former segregationists such as South Carolina's Strom Thurmond.
But absent concrete steps to address such urgent issues as criminal justice reform, school choice, occupational licensing, and the drug war, all of which disproportionately affect minority populations, there's no reason to assume that black support for Democrats will continue, any more than publicly regulated taxicabs, postwar shopping malls, or old Fortune 500 companies can hope to persist.
Predictions?
via @Scot_Blog
This is a worthwhile question.
But I think the dynamism it summons —the hope that individual black voters will move towards a more-individuated view of world events— is dwarfed by the genuine and broad rainbow of voters who presume their beliefs to be well-informed and deserving of authority over government power... Whether or not they are well-traveled and well-read, whether or not they've ever run a business or seen the interactions within even a single industry, and whether or not they've sustained strong personal relationships or encouraged them in the lives of others.
Just by the by—— At this hour it seems possible that the most enduring gift of my generation (outside of technical and engineering achievements that were probably going to happen anyway) is going to be a casual disinterest in the free speech and the 1st Amendment.
I'm ashamed, and haven't yet heard anyone describe in a sentence what we did to make this happen... But we did it.
Crid at May 21, 2018 10:09 PM
I've been watching the phenomena of Candace Owens and Kanye West with some interest, and I think the Democrats' grip on the black vote is loosening, and will loosen still more.
I also think that the majority of Americans, including black Americans, have become sick of the black activists' bullshit, from generating non-issues to flat out lies.
For instance, the narrative of Black Lives Matter, claiming that Black Americans are being singled out for killing by the police (when, in fact, reliable studies done by Roland G. Fryer, Jr. -- who is black himself, and by his own admission, grew up hating cops -- Peter Moskos, and Heather MacDonald all indicate that under equal conditions, cops are more likely to shoot white suspects than black ones.
Or their relentless boo-hoo-hooing about non-things, like "cultural appropriation." After watching the debacle in which an eighteen-year-old high school senior was the subject of online harassment for wearing a cheongsam to her senior prom, I've come to realize that "cultural appropriation" is simply a transparent ploy to shame white people for using elements as another culture, even as the members of the same culture plunder white cultural achievements, insisting that it's perfectly appropriate to do so.
Unfortunately for Jeremy Lam, who instigated this campaign of harassment against a high school senior, the Chinese who still live in China (unlike Jeremy Lam, who is a Chinese immigrant to the U.S.), responded overwhelmingly in support for her, and were delighted that she is choosing to partake in Chinese culture. A woman in India even offered to make her a sari, which the high-school senior plans to wear to her cotillion.
After reading Jeremy Lam's tweets, including his vehement racism, complaining about loud "niggers" and "white devils," I've come to the conclusion that the word best suited to describe him is "twat." In fact, the dictionary should do away with its definition of "twat," whatever it is, and just post Jeremy Lam's picture. He is the twattiest twat in all the universe. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone once did an episode called "The Biggest Douche in the Universe," a title they reserved for John Edwards. If they did an episode about the Twattiest Twat in the Universe, it should be Jeremy Lam.
I'm quite certain, as he bemoans the heinous and dastardly machinations of high school senior girls wearing Chinese dresses to their proms, that he, while living in China, never once wore a t-shirt, hoodie, blue jeans, Air Jordans, or any other clothing style originating in the West, nor did ever eat at a McDonald's or drink a Coca-Cola. Or use the internet, for that matter, since that's a white cultural achievement.
But I've rambled long enough. Crid's about to complain about the wordiness of my post, and probably shriek with unchecked rage that I would dare mention someone he's never heard of (Candace Owens), even as he threw a tantrum the first time I mentioned Alex Jones.
Patrick at May 22, 2018 1:27 AM
You're weird.
Crid at May 22, 2018 2:48 AM
> No Republican presidential candidate has pulled
> more than 15 percent of the African-American vote
> since 1960,
> Predictions?
Trump will beat this next election.
In any event, the article seems to conflate Libertarians with Republicans. Open borders is a Libertarian position that most people who voted for Trump don't support.
In general, Libertarians have an issue with understanding the difference between legal norms and cultural values, not just with racism, but also free speech -
http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/29/against-signal-boosting-as-doxxing/
Snoopy at May 22, 2018 3:35 AM
Crid.
Patrick at May 22, 2018 5:08 AM
I consider myself a small "l" libertarian. I do not belong to the libertarian party. I do not subscribe to all their beliefs. But, I have libertarian leanings so far as individualism and small government based on the constitution.
Government's duty is to give equal protection to all its citizens from both foreign and domestic threats. Beyond that, government's attempt to regulate people's private lives within their own homes is intrusive to me. What I'm talking about is the emergence of the Nanny State. People are free to be stupid if they wish to. The only restraint should be that your stupidity does not infringe on the rights of others to live as they see fit; even if that is not how you choose to live or what you choose to believe in.
Jay at May 22, 2018 6:41 AM
One of the problems is the Republicans have been nearly as guilty of protecting special interests as the dems. All such protections harm minorities. The most egregious harm comes from big city politicians who zone minorities out of town (I'm looking at you, San Fran), ban food trucks, make hair braiders go to beauty school, and impose rent control. These things remove opportunity for folks to move up the ladder. A high min wage prevents young black men, especially, from getting that first job that gets you on the ladder of employement. But the squashing of opportunity is unseen--you can't tell how it happened if you are the guy on the street. The effects are indirect. Removing barriers requires trust that they natural economic system will work, whereas politicians are motivated to prove they have done something, when "doing something" usually makes things worse for minorities.
cc at May 22, 2018 9:08 AM
One of the problems Charlotte, NC is having is that the people running the city chase big-salary job opportunities, the kind that make them look good and give them bragging rights in the next campaign.
However, focusing on the high-end jobs leaves out the mid-range jobs, the ones someone making minimum wage moves up to. That has left Charlotte with little-to-no upward socio-economic mobility for the poor and for those who lack a college degree or specialized job training. Despite being one of the fastest growing cities in the country, Charlotte has one of the lowest rates of socio-economic mobility.
San Francisco has done the same thing, focusing on attracting and keeping high-end tech jobs and companies, while eschewing low-end "dirty" industries that would employ poorer and less-skilled workers. So, Twitter gets an exemption from San Francisco's payroll tax while PG&E does not.
Conan the Grammarian at May 22, 2018 9:18 AM
"The party is able to get by partly because of its longstanding defense of civil rights"
Wrong. The Democrat party locked in the black vote by changing their racial spoils to favor blacks instead of oppressing them. The war on poverty by LBJ setup a welfare system designed to get Blacks addicted to government spending and thus tie them to the Democrat party which traditionally favors more government spending than the Republican party. This was also the start of heavily favoring the hiring of Blacks for low level government positions. Many places the DMV, post office, and many other government services are almost entirely populated by black employees. All of their manager may be white but all the low level workers are black. It is a racial spoils system.
On the wider question, I do think Black support for the Democrat party is eroding. I can't guess when it will fall apart but it does seem to be heading in that direction. And the one person I hold most responsible for that is former president Obama. Obama marked the end of a lot of white guilt that has been going on since the civil war. The story about how all blacks are oppressed and held down by whites is taught in most public schools without criticism or analysis. So a lot of people just unconsciously accept it. When the Charlotte riots happened in 2016 there was a black mayor, black chief of police, black attorney general, and a black president. All the way up to the top everyone was black. But the cause was 'white racism'? The usual excuses came across as something Monty Python would say. It hit the level of too absurd to be believed. So many white people let go of their historic guilt. Once that started to fade many black people stopped playing the race card. It just didn't work anymore. And once you lose the race card the Democrat party doesn't offer much. A low level government job with little hope of advancement? As more Blacks do better economically that just doesn't mean much. So from all of that the Black vote starts to fragment.
Or at least that is what I've seen.
"One of the problems is the Republicans have been nearly as guilty of protecting special interests as the dems. All such protections harm minorities. The most egregious harm comes from big city politicians who zone minorities out of town (I'm looking at you, San Fran), ban food trucks, make hair braiders go to beauty school, and impose rent control."
I'm not disputing with you CC about Republicans protecting special interests. But everything you listed after that is Democrat stuff. San Fran isn't exactly a big Repub town.
Ben at May 22, 2018 1:39 PM
Open borders is the importation of a more compliant people to fill the service jobs to compete with black labor. Mr. Trump has raised the black average wage; Mr. Obama drained them of what little personal wealth they had; Mr. Trump will actually do things for black people, except when he interacts with someone - e.g. Steve Harvey - the whole assemblage of grievance merchants shows up to scare them back onto the Democrat Party plantation, like Obama trying to get Jay Z to scare the rappers away from Trump.
Local black radio here in Detroit had a woman caller back during the primary; I remember she described Trump as a black man - he's brash, bold, flashy, likes a pretty woman - the extremely stuffy and angry Clinton operative black woman radio host with her guest Debbie Dingell promptly slapped that down - almost as much as she slapped the black man who asked what Clinton gave them a job, and whether it was worth trying Bernie Sanders because, "Jews would hire black folks".
El Verde Loco at May 22, 2018 5:34 PM
One prediction I would have made is that the essays would not mention Robert Byrd, ex Kleagle and conscience of the Senate.
I tried to figure out the so-called Southern Strategy. Far as I could discover, it was coded words.
So when a white family discovers their kids are going to be bused across town to a lousy school with no opportunity for extra-curriculars (he was going to play football. she was going to be in the madrigals), and they complain, the right sort of people accuse them of racism straight up. Vicious slanders from people whose kids are not going to those schools.
Those sneaky republicans would say, "darn shame". Can you even...?
Richard Aubrey at May 22, 2018 5:44 PM
The truth is, most people black and white pay less attention to who they are electing as their leaders, and the various policy positions as they do to their lunch menu.
It is extremely easy to say that you need to reach out to a certain demographic to bring them into the fold, but when most voters are voting for who their friends vote for, or who has a nice sign up, or they saw the guy on TV, policy doesnt count for squat.
Wanna know who goes to the polls? And switches parties? Deeply unhappy people who are pissed at the incumbent or thinks the other guy had a nicer smile.
I wasn't predicting victory for Trump necessarily because the dems have a built in fraud advantage, but people don't like Hillary.
The democratic party stalwarts in some key swing states, stayed home. And they didnt do so for any of the right reasons, which is that they understand the government of this republic, and want the other party to control the executive branch.
They stayed home in sufficient numbers, or voted for Trump because Hillary is a nasty piece of work.
Politicians dont get elected based on their policies They get elected because of money, and me-too-ism.
Race baiting works. That is why they keep using it.
Isab at May 22, 2018 10:49 PM
I don't believe the few black libertarians has anything to do with anything Goldwater said or Ron Paul wrote. Remember they were lock-step Democrats when prominent Democrats were openly in the KKK.
If it was just racism, then there would be more Blacks in the Green party.
There is a cognitive dissonance, caused by a Democrat controlled education system, a Dem controlled Media (If you think CNN is bad try BET or Jet) and Dem controlled Black Churches (Reverend Jessie Jackson, Reverend Jerrod Moultrie, and Reverend Sharpton). These three groups are where Blacks have been getting their information for generations.
Add to that an extreme us vs them attitude. Have a black friend who is a business owner. Listening to policies he wants/says, he is more right leaning than most Republicans. But he would be disowned from his family, friends, and church if he thought about pulling a lever for anyone besides a Democrat. So he will come up with any excuse for Dems wrongs to be ignored and Republican ones to be interpreted as racism.
The Kanye stuff shook that a bit, but Blacks also see how they would be treated by going off message.
Joe J at May 23, 2018 7:48 AM
What Joe J said.
I cannot stand the limp wristed concern trolling about Goldwater. I would bet over 90% of Americans regardless of race would not know who he is if polled. Ron Paul wouldn't be far behind.
Moreover, Goldwater WAS RIGHT. We're still dealing with the nefarious consequences of the CRA and will be for the foreseeable future. Freedom of association died when the CRA was passed. But the narrative is written by the victors, so because asshole racist Democrats wouldn't merely repeal the Jim Crow LAWS (emphasis always required) everyone is saddled with an onerous Federal bureaucracy and nobody truly owns their business for the rest of eternity.
Blacks tend to shun Republicans for the reasons Joe J mentioned, but they avoid libertarianism for the same reason the population at large does: we don't promise free shit.
Blanks is willfully obtuse if he thinks leading libertarians ignore arguments like prison/police reform, min wage opposition, and school choice regarding minorities' struggles.
I wholly reject that focusing on racial differences is the path to eradicating racism, and don't care how popular that notion is with various collectivists. Blanks suggest we cannot treat blacks as individuals unless we first treat them as interchangeable piles of victimhood with no agency. Fuck that. Apply the Golden Rule or call yourself a SJW and be done with it.
Sam at May 23, 2018 10:52 AM
About this:
"Too often, libertarians discuss rights and what people will do if the government gets out of their way, but before government was active in furthering racial equality, history shows that both public and private actors worked in concert to deny equal opportunity and truly free markets"
Except that Jim Crow was the exact OPPOSITE of government getting out of peoples' way. Discrimination and segregation were mandated by law. If a business owner in Mississippi had wanted to serve everyone equally, he couldn't without being prosecuted.
What did the free market have to say about Jim Crow? Well, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that gave us "seperate but equal" the plaintiff challenging legally mandated segregation on trains was financially backed by the railroad company that was being forced to segregate, because it would be more profitable for them NOT to segregate. So the free market was working EXACTLY as libertarians claim it would. Of course, try explaining something like that to someone who's been brainwashed to believe that the 3/5 representation clause in the Constitution was some sort of insult to blacks when it was designed to bring about the end of slavery.
bw1 at May 23, 2018 5:43 PM
An interesting read, Affirmative Action explained to a Martian:
https://afro-optimist.blogspot.com/2018/05/explaining-affirmative-action-to-martian.html
Joe J at May 23, 2018 7:01 PM
https://www.facebook.com/CollegeHumor/videos/10155478658112807/
NicoleK at May 24, 2018 11:08 AM
I think this sums it up nicely!
https://www.facebook.com/CollegeHumor/videos/10155478658112807/
NicoleK at May 24, 2018 11:10 AM
Sorry for the double post
NicoleK at May 24, 2018 11:11 AM
NicoleK, the NRA has been a strong supporter of blacks (and anyone else for that matter) owning and responsibly using guns since the civil war.
Ben at May 24, 2018 1:22 PM
Leave a comment