The Shame of "Racial Politics"

This past Sunday, Democrat Florida congresswoman and chair of the DNC Debra Wasserman-Schultz accused Republicans of wanting to “drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws” when arguing against GOP proposed voter identification laws. You know, I already had my blog posting written for this week and was just going to let this ridiculous statement slide, but it got me thinking about the liberal (pun completely intended) use of the “race card” in politics today. Although not an exclusive tool of Liberals (see Willie Horton ad, 1988), in recent years the Left has mastered the art of divisive racial politics.

When politicians play the “race card” it usually ends up demonstrating more of a concern for their own political self-interests than any genuine concern for the particular race involved, and reveals a glaring lack of confidence in their own policy and ideological argument’s ability to stand on its own merits. I will not presume to know the congresswoman’s true intent, but reading her entire quote gives us a clue. "You have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally-and very transparently-block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote for Democratic candidates than Republican candidates." So, is she more concerned about possible black voter disenfranchisement or the potential for fewer black votes being cast for her party? Would she be just as vociferous, and shamefully demagogic, if blacks voted predominantly for Republicans? If Ms. Wasserman-Schultz had had confidence in the strength of her argument, surely she would not have had to resort to inflaming the racial passions of her listeners and potential voters. However, rather than being the fall-back position of a losing argument, the “race card” has increasingly become the default setting of far-left ideologues. If you oppose the President’s policies or the direction he is taking the country, you are a racist who resents the fact that a black man is in the White House. If you propose Medicaid, food stamp, or other welfare reforms you are anti-minority.

Libertarians feel no need to divide people, and likewise voters, by race, and then pit one group against the other for political advantage. The concepts of liberty, individual freedom, self-reliance, independence, and personal responsibility are universal and transcend race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or nationality. All people should beware of politicians, from whichever political party, who must tear others down and inflame passions and prejudices in order to win an argument or obtain some political advantage. The Libertarian Party “Statement of Principles” says in part:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

Now, just a very brief history lesson for Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz and anyone else who might be interested. Jim Crow laws were implemented in order to keep blacks and whites separated in public places. They were, just what their name says, LAWS. Laws passed by Democrat controlled state legislatures in the South. Laws signed by Democrat governors. Laws enforced by Democrat sheriffs. They were the very definition of state sponsored racism. Many laws are put in place to discourage people from acting in a certain way or to encourge them to behave in a particular manner. If people are naturally inclined to behave or not behave in the manner desired by those in authority, then there is no need for the law. If all motorist naturally drove at a “reasonable” speed, there would be no need for speed limit laws. Likewise, if people naturally separated themselves by race in public places there would be no need for laws mandating that they do so. Jim Crow laws were born out of a fear that if blacks and whites were left to their own (natural) inclinations they would commingle. They were laws mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in a certain way, which were later replaced by laws (Civil Rights Act of 1964) mandated and enforced by an elected government to compel people to act in an opposite manner. If government had not interfered in the first place, we likely would have achieved racial desegregation, if not earlier, at least much more peacefully.

Jim Crow laws are an extreme example of the State imposing laws inhibiting the individual’s natural right to free association, and a perfect demonstration of the consequences of an overly intrusive government – two things that would not happen with a Libertarian government.

Stop the spending, end the “wars,” cut taxes, and leave us alone!

Think Libertarian.

<==== Please, vote in the "Freedom?" poll if you have not already.