Supply-Side Forum

[Dick_Fox]

The recent incident with Shirley Sherrod was very interesting. Most of the focus was on the NAACP accusation of racism in the Tea Party movement and then on Sherrod’s actions in her position at the Department of Agriculture first as racist retribution then, in a sense of repentance, appealing for racial harmony. What is striking about this to me is to understand the implications of racism in the two cases.

Let us assume that the Tea Party movement is racist. What power do the Tea Party members have to manifest that racism? They could yell racial epithets or spit on those of another race and perhaps they could march through the streets, but any power that they would have to use force to manifest their racism would be outside the law. It is doubtful that even in large numbers they could have much real impact on society.

But now let us look at Shirley Sherrod. As an individual Sherrod has the power to exercise her racism. Her initial response was to deny help to a white farmer simply because he was white, but even more she had the power. In her position she did not need a movement and she did not need to rally support. She had the power to manifest her racism immediately and seriously.

If we consider the discussions of racism there are common actions that are cited. There is the legal slave trade in the US prior to the Civil War. This slave trade was enforced by the various state governments and the federal government. Even Abraham Lincoln at the beginning of the Civil Way stated that he would not reverse slavery if the southern states would remain in the union. There should be little doubt that without the force of the state slavery could not have continued in the United States.

Then consider the Jim Crow laws. They were justified as “separate but equal” by the various governments that instituted them. The claim of government was that these laws were enacted to protect minorities, but in fact were actions by government to institutionalize segregation and inferior conditions for black citizens.

But why were these laws necessary? A law is passed to use the power of the state to enforce the prevention of certain actions. Why was a law passed to segregate schools? It was only necessary if there were those in society who would have integrated the schools without this government coercion. Why was a law passed to force blacks to sit in the back of a bus? Such a law would only be necessary in a society where blacks, whites, Asians, and all others were allowed to sit in any seat. Would bus companies rather be concerned with seating assignments or selling tickets?

It is the ability of government to enforce monopoly power that creates the conditions for prejudicial actions and racism. Without the coercive power of government getting behind racism it will fall like all prejudices to the overwhelming power of equality that the market forces on society. Where politicians see prejudice as a method of creating a constituency and building a base for elections, businesses recognize prejudice leads to loss of customers and reduced sales. While businesses cater to minorities to give them a competitive edge politicians attempt to demonize the minority in the eyes of the majority to win votes, and it is the politician who passes the prejudicial law to keep his promises of demonization.

As Bill Clinton said about Senator Robert Byrd, he had to join the Klan to get elected, and from this naturally flows that after Senator Byrd was elected he had to institutionalize the Klan’s beliefs into law to keep getting elected.
_________________
"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage."
F.A. Hayek

[WmLambert]

Two minor quibbles. Sherrod worked for a program that specifically only worked with minorities, and in the instance of that white farmer, needed to direct him to a program that would work with him. She made it sound worse than it was to make herself look better by rising above such things later on. Since the Breitbart video was shown to be excessively edited (he explained it was to show the race-hatred of the NAACP audience - not necessarily aimed at Sherrod) she has been turned into a heroine - but other sources shows both her and her husband look like severe racists, now.

About Byrd. He didn't just join the KKK to get elected. He was in the leadership at the time it was at its worst. He also didn't leave the Klan. It left him as the Fed brought it down, and he severed incriminating ties.

[Hareendra]

That's not excessively edited. It is one part of the video, unedited.

[WmLambert]

Any portion of a video that is cut and shown out of context, which makes it appear something other than what it should, may be called excessively edited. One needn't cut together words out of sequence to mislead.

In this instance Breitbart said he was focusing on the audience, grinning and clapping when she spoke about her racism against a whiteman. That she later did a 180 on them didn't change their initial reaction to what she was saying. The old "wink and nod" on display.

[Ed Rombach]

Check out the Tea Party Express.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GizNwzKo3n8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YiJfgMySVM
_________________
Hey Fredo, let's go fishing!

[Dick_Fox]

Thanks Ed. Those were powerful videos and even more powerful when you consider those men and women will not be called to appear on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or a host of other stations - should I say it, racist stations, because they keep these people off of their stations because of race.
_________________
"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage."
F.A. Hayek

[Ed Rombach]

[Dick_Fox]

Great support for my premise!!

From page 111 of the 1918-1919 Negro Year Book, published by the Tuskegee Institute and edited by Monroe N. Work:

Railroads Attack Validity Separate Car Laws.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee in a decision rendered in March, 1918, relative to white and Negroes being served in dining cars upheld the validity of the separate car laws of the United States, providing separate cars for white and Negroes. In December, 1918, the validity of the Kentucky law for the separation of races on trains was attacked in appeals to the Supreme Court by the South Covington and Cincinnati Street Railroads and the Covington and Erlanger Railway Company. These companies had been convicted in the lower courts for failing to provide separate coaches or compartments for Negroes.
_________________
"We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage."
F.A. Hayek

[Ed Hanson]

Dick

The referred decisions mentioned in your post were consistent with Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as fundamentally wrong.

The Court maintained the fiction that political equal rights demanded by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, even though (in this case) public highways could be places of blatant discrimination imposed and demanded by public law.

Economic would have ended the practice of separate facilities, if only the crushing hand of government law was not there to tip the scales, delaying the inevitable.

As so noted by your posts, racism in a law abiding State can only continue to be possible with Government intervention.
_________________
Politicians will ask you what you want,
Economists will ask you what you want more.
Ed H

[WmLambert]

Be very careful about looking at "Tea Party" candidates. According to the latest news, Democrats are creating "faux Tea Parties" with the express purpose of using the grass roots movement against itself.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/08/days-decide-activists-claim-tea-party-imposters-infiltrating-elections/

[Henry Meers]

William,

The joke's on them, there is no Tea Party to take over. I know what you mean, and the Democrats in Chicago excel at vote fraud; but the Tea Party people are closer to what De Tocqueville saw in America than what Daley does in Chicago.

People around here have tried to take it over for their own purposes, I wanted them to endorse me; it's like mercury. And, that's not all bad. When I was at Merrill, I thought it was terrible that Illinois had so many governnments; they should pool their money etc. After I left, it occurred to me that having so many protected us. Big government can be easy to take over and oppressive after that. There are no efficiencies in government.

Candidates can run today that the parties would have blocked in the last election. Rick Santelli and David Malpass were on CNBC talking about how this movement isn't Republican or Democrat; it's conservative, and the rest of the world is ahead of us on it.