A Right is a Restriction

The use of the term “right”, as in ‘Americans have a right to…,’ has become watered down and incorrectly used in far too many instances. Generally, a right is a restriction on the authority of the government. By reserving certain powers to individuals, a right limits the strength of the government and prevents abuses of its citizens. However, a right is not an obligation to provide. While governments are, in some instances, obligated to provide certain items, these obligations are not rights. The distinction, while seemingly slight, is an important one that is often muddled in the popular arena.

Rights, as properly understood, are simply a restriction. They offer no direct provision to individuals. To understand this better one only needs to understand the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. For instance, Americans have the right to free speech and the right to religion. In the first instance, the right prevents the government from limiting what any individual can say. In the second instance, the right prevents the government from imposing a religion on any individual. In neither case is the government required to provide something to an individual. Other rights, such as the right to bear arms, can be understood in the same way. The right to bear arms is a restriction on the government’s monopolization of power. It prevents the government from encroaching on the personal lives of individuals, by restricting power.

However, many politicians incorrectly use the term ‘right’ to refer to certain things the government provides. Often this language is used in an attempt to expand entitlements and services. By using this language, politicians aim to make the provision of such items unassailable. This use, however, is incorrect when dealing with the rights an individual has vis-à-vis the government.

The ‘right to a minimum wage’ and the ‘right to healthcare’ are two such false rights. The reason these are not true rights is because they require the government to provide a service. A ‘right to a minimum wage’ demands that the government provide the means and structure for an individual to be provided with a certain wage. The ‘right to healthcare’ that is generally discussed when politicians try to cobble together a health reform package essentially demands that the government either directly or indirectly (eg. by establishing a legal system to force the provision from private sector) provides healthcare to every American. Since rights are defined as the restriction not the expansion of government roles, these claims cannot be rights. A properly defined right to healthcare would simply be defined as a restriction on the government not to prevent individuals from purchasing healthcare. Obviously, this is a relatively meaningless right and not what most proponents of a ‘right to healthcare’ discuss.

Civil rights are also an area where this distinction is very often incorrectly applied. Citizens undoubtedly have the right not to be persecuted or discriminated against based on racial, sexual, or other characteristics. The government is not allowed this power. However, civil rights do not mean that the government has an obligation to provide anything to people based on these same characteristics. In fact, if such an obligation existed it would most certainly violate other citizens’ rights (read: affirmative action).

The point of such a distinction is to correctly define the use of the term ‘rights’ in order to better understand the role of the government. Many policies on the left, and some on the right, tend to dismiss this definition of ‘right’ in order to expand the role of government and provide benefits to narrow slices of the electorate. However, by applying such a definition it is relatively easy to come to a conclusion as to the appropriate role of the government.

[As an added caveat the correct use of the word ‘rights’ does not imply that the government has no positive obligations. What is not a right reserved to the people (or states) is often a role for the government to play. For instance, the government has an obligation to protect its citizens from each other (policing) and from external threats (military). This positive action is something the government must provide its citizens. However, it does not mean that such a positive obligation is a right that the citizens possess.]

Gates Plays the Race Card at Harvard

The race baiting prompted and promoted by Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. is a repugnant display of an outdated and backwards way of thinking. As has been continuously reported over the past few days, Professor Gates was arrested after cops responded to a break-in call. The most unfortunate aspect of the situation is that, lead by Gates himself, the matter has devolved into a race issue.

According to all parties, the police officer responded to a neighbor’s call regarding a break-in attempt at Gates’s house. As it turned out the purported burglars were Gates and his driver. Rather than thanking the officer for a speedy response and for potentially saving his property Gates, by his own admission, immediately blew up. He stated that his initial reaction was, “[that a]ll the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I realized that I was in danger. And I said to him no, out of instinct. I said, ‘No, I will not.” He immediately refused to cooperate and questioned the officer’s intent, stating “Why, because I'm a black man in America?”

This is the crux of the problem. Gates’s immediate, knee-jerk reaction was to assume that the officer’s behavior was racially motivated. Such a thought process most definitely comes from his intense intellectual focus on black issues. Gates has mired himself in a narrow-minded and outdated way of thinking, where the predominant argument revolves around supposed black oppression.

The logical and unbiased response to the situation would not have been to immediately assume racism. From the accounts given by both sides, it is easy to see how the neighbor could have perceived the situation as a burglary. The police, operating only on the fact that a witness allegedly saw a burglary in action, arrived to investigate the situation. The officer’s job is to investigate and ensure that the citizen’s property (and possibly life) is protected. Any citizen not preprogrammed to scream racism would recognize this on its face. A natural reaction would be to cooperate with the officer, immediately try to clear up the misunderstanding, and thank him for his service and desire to protect one’s property.

However, Gates was unable to do any of this. Instead Gates resorted to berating the officer, refusing to cooperate, and escalating the situation. He continually challenged the officer and pushed the race issue— well before he was arrested. As the police report indicates, the officer was merely doing his job and was surprised and confused by Gates’s aggressive racial charges. Only after Gates continued his verbal assault was he arrested for disorderly conduct. This was a direct result of his aggressive behavior— NOT the color of his skin.

Ultimately, this is a problem that occurs far too often in America. There is no indication in either side’s story that there was an issue of racism except in Gates’s head. It is unnecessary for every instance that involves a black citizen and white cop (although as pictures indicate there were black cops present as well) to devolve into calls of racism. The problem is not one of racist cops, but of a worldview that insists on viewing white America as racist and refuses to embrace a post-racial America. Gates admits his disdain for post-racialism in his interview with The Root. This obsession with fighting non-existent white racism only serves to concoct racial tensions where they did not exist before.

This is the real underlying problem. It needs to be corrected in order for America as a whole and the black community in particular to fully accept the successes of the Civil Rights movement and move on to tackle real issues. Gates should be ashamed of his tantrum and the harm he has done to quest to end racial issues in America.

A Civil Union Between Gay Marriage and Republicans

One social area where the Republican Party needs to reevaluate its stance is the issue of gay marriage. For two major reasons, the GOP is facing a losing battle. For the sake of electoral success, the party needs to reevaluate its current position.

First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.

Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.

Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.

Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.

An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.

Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.

Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.

A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.

Reverse Racism, Sotomayor, and Some Firemen

The term “reverse racist” is about a meaningless term as one can get. What’s the difference between a racist and a reverse racist? The artificial distinction seems to imply that someone who is prejudiced against minorities is a racist, while someone who is prejudiced against whites is a reverse racist. But why is a distinction necessary? Racism is racism, pure and simple. If one is discriminatory based on race, it is racism. That’s it.

It seems that the use of “reverse racist” is mired in a philosophy that systematically separates races and automatically defers to the Democrats’ talking points and language. Racism is often an accusation hurled at the right from the left. Whites have historically been pegged as racist (often because they were). However, it is seemingly un-PC to call a minority racist. It touches on some sort of sensitivity to use the language of victimhood for the supposed [historical] perpetrator. So instead, the right soft-toes around the Democrats’ feelings and coins a new term- “reverse racism”.

This is at best inane and worst outright harmful. Racism, to whomever it is directed at, should be labeled as such. By having two terms, the argument is still one of white vs. black- not one between discrimination and non-discrimination. It is foolish for America’s conservatives to give the Democrats free rein to structure the debate around skin color and claim that only one or two groups in America are truly victims. Rather, Republicans need to brand racism propagated against whites not as reverse racism, but simply as racism. It is the same beast.

This is essential to shifting the focus of the equality and discrimination debate in America from one of skin-color to one of tolerance. In this day and age, skin-color should not matter. The so-called Civil Rights movement should no longer be one of emancipation for blacks and other minorities, but one of eradication of race based thinking, regardless of the racial category of the victim. The emancipation movement for blacks has already succeeded. It is high time we recognize this. The Left is very reluctant to do so, as there are a milieu of special interests and politicians (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) whose existence is based on racial tensions. The Republicans only fuel this mode of thinking by acquiescing to Democrat standards of language use.

This issue has been widely prevalent in regards to Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court. While I would not go so far as to call her a racist, Judge Sotomayor’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano is clearly racist and discriminatory (See my prior discussion here http://anewrepublican.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-race-is-your-fireman.html). She approved of a system that blatantly and unfairly signaled out (and failed to reward) individuals based on skin color. Republicans have been doing a great disservice by terming it reverse racism. It implies that Sotomayor’s decision does not have the same gravity as it would have if the races of the firemen involved were inverted. In fact, the Ricci decision is as heinous as if New Haven refused to promote any black firefighters simply because of their skin color.

It is time to take charge of the debate. Republicans have to move the focus from the partisan, racial agenda set by the Democratic Party to a new post-Civil Rights conversation. We have to appeal to the notions of equality and fairness. We have to seek to eradicate racism and raced-based thinking. We have to stop automatically terming any differences between blacks and whites as racism and focus on true discrimination- regardless of who it is targeted at. Defining the debate not as skin-color versus skin-color, but as discrimination versus non-discrimination will broaden the appeal of the Republican Party to minorities who previously bought the demonized racist image broadcast by the Democrats. Until we do that, the Republican Party will continue to suffer by playing the game under the Democrats’ rules

What Race is Your Fireman?

A landmark reverse discrimination case, Ricci v. DeStefano, was heard by the Supreme Court on April 22. (See here for a list of relevant documents http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/april09.shtml#071428). The outcome of this case could have a profound impact on the current state of racial policies in America. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will put a dent in the racist affirmative action policies that have become the accepted norm in America.

In short, Ricci v. DeStefano pits white and Hispanic firefighters against city officials in New Haven. The firefighters’ claim is that they were denied promotions due to their race. After a promotion exam yielded a racial disparity, leaving no black employees eligible for promotion, the city tossed out the results of the exam. They bypassed the highest scoring individual (who was white) in favor of promoting a more ‘diverse’ group of firefighters. (See ABC http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/SCOTUS/Story?id=7393908&page=1 and MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30346519 for further discussion).

This is an atrocious overreach of a policy, affirmative action, which is supposedly designed to remove racial inequities and ease America’s history of racial tension. Not only are New Haven’s actions unfair, but they are quite counterproductive. America is supposedly runs on a merit based system. We award promotions, bonuses, and raises to those who have performed well. Gains that are made in spite of merit are frequently disparaged. Look at the criticisms of Wall Street bonuses. Critics of large bonus always argue that the bankers did not deserve them. America operates on nearly every level as a meritocracy.

This is good for a number of reasons. First and foremost it incentivizes. It gives individuals reasons to be good at what they do- and get better. It encourages people to be hardworking and efficient. Secondly, through these incentives it helps to create a better society for all. The best-of-the-best rise to the top, forming stronger and more stable institutions. Most people would agree that they want the most qualified firemen and women leading the fire company. Few people would care what skin color the person has who saved their life. Presumably, New Haven felt this way too. After all, they originally developed and used a merit-based test to decide whom to grant promotions too.

However, this all fell apart when, for some reason, the racial makeup of the fireman did not match up with the merit-based hierarchy. It is unclear why the city felt the need to place racial diversity over merit. One possibility is that they believe the system would be much better with a broad swath of races at every level. Alternatively, they were overly concerned of charges of racism by the minorities who scored at the bottom of the exam. In order to avoid the standard litigation that would result if no blacks were promoted, New Haven probably felt that an affirmative action program was the safest recourse.

Unfortunately, this is far too common a problem in our society. We have moved far in the past forty years from a society steeped in racism. Much of this is because brave men and women fought against injustices that prevented people from rising, despite their merit. However, as we achieved this great success, we rapidly moved into overreach. Proponents of affirmative action are not looking to have equal access based on merit, but rather a greater number of ‘minorities’ present at higher levels. This is simply based on skin color. We are now too often left with an unfortunate reverse discrimination such as what we see in New Haven. Black individuals were promoted not because they were more qualified, but because they had better skin color. This is turning the corrupt system, prevalent in America prior to the 1960s, right on its head.

This is absolutely unfair. Just as the pre-Civil Rights system was unfair to blacks, this system is unfair to whites. Martin Luther King and his ilk fought for justice and equality, not a new color-coding of the system. Unfortunately, we have become so hypersensitive to discussions of race that we are unable to have open discussions about it. This allows bullies, such as Al Sharpton, to push their partisan, self-interested agendas with little impedance. Any arguments to the contrary are dismissed as racism.

This non-merit system is disastrous for our country. Not only does it give disincentives to work (after all why would I work hard if I know I am just going to passed over for promotion because my skin color is wrong), but it creates sourness and discord between Americans. The Civil Rights movement’s aim was to create reconciliation between the races (this is why MLK succeeded as its leader and not Malcolm X). We have swung the pendulum to the middle; we need to stop it from swinging too far to the other side.

Everything should be based on merit. Race should not be a consideration in the hiring, firing, and promotion process. There may very well be a reason behind the discrepancy in the scores of blacks, whites, and Hispanics on the New Haven promotion exam. We need to investigate why blacks performed worse. However, simply ignoring the reason for this discrepancy and covering up a possible deeper problem is not the answer. Affirmative action is not a solution, but a purposeful self-blinding. It prevents us from seeing the solutions to real problems; and frustrates America’s forward progress. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take the steps necessary to end such practices.