The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were specifically enacted with the purpose of eradicating slavery and duly -- constitutionally -- empowered Congress to pass legislation in furtherance of this purpose. To say such laws are "unconstitutional" is simply in error -- previous to the lawful and constitutional passage of those amendments, such laws would have indeed have been unconstitutional and an unlawful overreach of granted Congressional power.And the reason that Congress decided that it need that authority was because certain states were violating the rights of their citizens, of failing to do the thing governments are created to do. The Constitution thus comes more fully in line with the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence.
After their lawful passage, however, Congress did have that authority.
Peasants in feudal society weren't technically slaves, but they were peons, persons with sharply-curtailed rights and certain obligations (including deference) to their social betters/masters. I think a fair reading of "slavery" includes the idea of "peonage," too. Unless there is some critical constitutional point here to be vindicated, I do not see any defensible purpose in arguing these amendments outlawed slavery but gave full constitutional blessing to regime of enforced peonage.Precisely. Slavery and peonage are offenses against liberty, that can only be maintained by the use of force. As Governments exist to secure liberties, our government should be willing and able to act against one person's attempt to destroy the liberty of another. Hence, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a necessary and constitutional redress against 400 years of slavery and peonage.
Would it have been better if it was not necessary? Assuredley. Are there things about the way the Civil Rights Act as been used that I consider wrong, and offenses to liberty? Without doubt. But the law, as intended, has no legal or ethical flaw.
Rand Paul's stepping into Rachel Maddow's bear trap illustrate the chief reason why I ceased being a Libertarian, despite my political preferences being strongly cast in that direction. I don't trust politics or politicians to do anything right. Governments are adequately competent, with sufficient oversight, at fighting wars, operating courts, and coining money. Everything else they corrupt. I favor a small government that interferes only when necessary to prevent the violation of liberties, as above. The rest but builds Caeser's dais as far as I'm concerned.
So why don't I belong to the LP? Put simply, they're a bunch of nerds, who act as if politics was some kind of junior high school debate being refereed by an objective moderator, and no matter how many times reality show them otherwise, they keep telling themselves that someday everyone will just understand.
The Libertarian Approach to Politics.
Libertarians cherish philosophical purity above all other considerations. Now, I have no quarrel with philosophical purity. Holding up thoughts and ideas against a conceptual framework is the essence of rational life. I instead object to the habit of setting up philosophical purity as the only needful thing, and all other considerations as sins against same. Libertarians persist in believing that all they need to be is right, and will never ever learn that they need to be effective.
Politics is not a philosophical enterprise. It is a social enterprise informed by philosophical principles, the means by which security and order are maintained. Politics decide life-and-death issues; to partake in it requires, first and foremost, that you earn the public trust. This means some effort at learning the art of public debate.
First Principles in politics may be self-evident truths, but the correct course of action to any poltical issue is not. Rather, it must be arrived at by reason and adopted by persuasion. You cannot claim leadership by your own virtue; you must convince others that you merit it. Failure to absorb this basic reality doomed Shakespeare's Coriolanus, and shrunk Libertarianism from a serious political movement to something akin to a Gnostic cult.
Take Paul's answer to Maddow's question, which he answered as though it was possible in this circumstance to give an answer that would do him any good. Rachel Maddow is not an honest broker. She is not an objective journalist (such a thing does not exist). She is a progressive ideologue. Her question was not intended to elicit a serious debate on the relative merits of the Civil Rights Act, but to catch Paul in an act of political heresy. Yet Paul insisted on arguing his case, instead of perceiving it as a complete distraction from the entire substance of his campaign.
Paul need not have lied to avoid this trap, merely call it out as such. Saying "Rachel, the idea that I'm going to attempt a repeal of the Civil Rights Act is frankly, a calumny. No one who knows me can argue otherwise. I'm a little mystified that people keep asking me about it. What possible relevance does it have to the issues facing this country right now? I have to wonder what kind of red-herring play is at work," would have the virtue of being honest and good politics. It would provide reasonable voters with the impression that he is a trustworthy man, and not a crank seeking to overturn an overdue correction of our nation's political culture.
Was he right on the merits? Possibly. In a society that gives the racist the right to free speech, the right of free association is not a huge stretch. But it's by no means the most important thing to be debating right now. I will be blunt: I do not care a cow's fart for the right of some benighted swine to say "I don't want your black ass in my restaurant." He can get in line for grievances right behind the the people who want to ban the word "retarded". Have a seat. Your call is important to us.
And the true-faith libertarian will doubtless accuse me of hypocrisy, of being willing to sacrifice the liberties of others. To which I reply: Yes, I Am. In order to live together in society, you have to learn to curtail your own desires at some point. Most of us learn that in nursery school. Libertarians seem to think it the sin by which the angels fell. I don't. If curtailing the liberty of a racist to indulge his paranoid fantasies about the mud races does anything to salve the injuries to the liberties of African-Americans, then I consider it a price worth paying.
When the Libertarian movement convinces people that they do not provide a home for Confederate revanchistes, that they are prepared to bear the responsibility of governing, then they will discover their ability to positively affect the life of this Republic. Until then, they should memorize this:
It doesn't end well.
Better it is to die, better to starve,
Than crave the hire which first we do deserve.
Why in this woolvish toge should I stand here,
To beg of Hob and Dick, that do appear,
Their needless vouches? Custom calls me to't:
What custom wills, in all things should we do't,
The dust on antique time would lie unswept,
And mountainous error be too highly heapt
For truth to o'er-peer. Rather than fool it so,
Let the high office and the honour go
To one that would do thus.
No comments:
Post a Comment