Is America Racist?

On the heels of Barack Obama's recent speech on race and politics in America, the inevitable dinner table conversations centered around race and race-related issues are going to surface. Is America racist? How do we come together as one people to solve these problems? Why haven't we been able to get over our prejudices in society? These questions will stump people for years to come, and will continue to mystify and divide politicians in pursuit of votes.

I did not watch Obama's speech live or via YouTube. Instead, I chose to read the transcript after his speech concluded. I'm probably the only person in America that hasn't seen a live Obama speech and then fawned over his oratorical skills afterwards, and I'm OK with that. However, in the interest of full-disclosure, I'll tell you that I'm a sucker for charisma and polished delivery...so it is in my best interest to avoid a live Obama speech if I am to remain true to my belief that politics should be about substance instead of form.

Regardless of whether or not you think Obama's association with Revered Jeremiah Wright is ethical, the issue is bound to spark far-reaching controversy in America. While the liberals and conservatives are busy trying to out-PC each other on this issue, lost amidst the discussion is any mention of the role government plays in creating racism in society. Legislative blunders, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, did more to perpetuate racial myths than eliminate them. The CRA, passed under the guise of "integrating society" actually stimulated racial divisions by allowing the federal government to intervene in the affairs of private property owners and dictate to them how to handle their property.

Before illustrating my point using example involving race, I'm going to use another example drawn from a more recent issue. Consider the latest craze across the country to outlaw smoking, particularly in restaurants and bars. In states all across the country, smoking is being banned at an incredible rate. In fact, the state of Maryland is considering a smoking ban on people driving their cars when children under six years old are present! Where will it end?

I know what you are thinking: smoking is bad for you, it creates poor air quality, and is overall a disgusting practice. Hey, I agree with you...for the most part. I love cigarettes, and I'll smoke the occasional cigar, but as an avid runner and self-professed health nut I limit my intake of such chemicals to a leisure basis. Anyway, that's beside the point. The larger point I'm trying to make is, what right does the government have to step in and tell these bars and restaurants how to operate?

Restaurant and bar owners, as business and private property owners, are driven by profit. The good ones are obsessed with providing the best services, to the most amount of people, at the lowest possible price. That said, the decision of whether or not to allow their patrons to smoke is based entirely upon the principle of profit. In other words, the owner considers the number of smokers versus the number of non-smokers before implementing a policy to cover his property. If the owner allows smoking, and enough people become disgusted by the air quality of his restaurant, the owner will lose business (and therefore profit). Failure to change his or her smoking policy will therefore result in the loss of his business.

Now consider the case for government intervention. Let's say that same restaurant enjoys a steady stream of regular patrons, all comfortable with the owner's smoking policy. Now the government, in its benevolent role, enacts a state-wide smoking ban in restaurants and bars. What choice does the restaurant owner have? None, of course, and the owner of that restaurant will lose revenue. The result of government intervention in business is always the same: lost revenue, lost jobs, and (most importantly) the usurpation of private property rights.

There are several parallels between smoking bans and the Civil Rights Act as it pertains to private property rights and racism. In fact, in terms of resentment, the case could be made that the Civil Rights Act was worse than smoking bans. This is because restaurant owners rarely refused to serve non-smokers before the smoking ban, whereas they were free to discriminate against minorities prior to the CRA. But their biases against minority customers most likely intensified once the Civil Rights Act required them to serve minorities. The result of the CRA, then, was exacerbating prejudice through the loss of private property rights, as well as turning minorities into scapegoats.

What it boils down to is this: government is incapable of legislating against racism and uses policies such as the Civil Rights Act to expand its already ominous presence in our daily lives. Only through staunch defense of private property rights can we hope to achieve the more perfect union that Obama alluded to in his speech. Racial relations have succeeded in spite of, not because of, despicable policies such as the CRA. That mankind is able to succeed in shattering racial barriers and improving multi-cultural relationships is a testament to advances in scholarship, technology, and diplomacy more than any misguided public policy.

The true promoters of racism lie within our government. Obama's call for us to work together "as one people" to solve racial problems is rooted in the same mentality that lead to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. Such calls for action will continue to bog us down with racial problems by creating unnecessary barriers to individual liberty. Only when we understand that racism is an ugly form of collectivism, perpetuated by government, can we begin to dismantle the government-created barriers that separate us into groups based on superficial characteristics.

The talking heads are already proclaiming Obama's speech to be among the finest he's ever delivered, with one commentator going so far to say the speech was better than any speech by Martin Luther King. And, in terms of style and delivery, maybe they're right. My hope is that, at dinner tables across America, the conversation shifts from style to substance...from collectivist principles to individual liberty. Absent serious discussion, we're in for more of the same.

The real racists are government officials masquerading as saviors by endorsing legislation that prevents private property owners from exercising control over their property. And yes, private property rights extend to cover the right to be a bigot. Legislating against what's in people's hearts and minds is an exercise in futility that inevitably penalizes all property owners, and can only achieve the opposite of its intended result.