Incoherent: “Civil Rights” And Modern Liberalism

Liberals increasingly seem to think that “civil rights” requires the implementation of the entire liberal agenda — from free contraception to freedom from exposure to unpleasant speech — and shields individuals from just about everything unpleasant except discrimination based on race, sex, or ethnicity.

So begins an essay of mine just posted on Pajamas Media. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is now being argued, either does or should protect union organizing … even though it does not, in the new liberal vision, protect individuals from being assigned burdens based on their race.

Go figure.

UPDATE [16 March]

Roger Clegg provides the following evidence of what both he and and I would like to think is “great minds thinking alike, or at least running along similar tracks” (but may just be proof that both pedestrian minds are in the same rut):

There is a paradox here: the left is very unhappy with laws and rules incorporating reasonable standards if they have a disparate impact on the basis of race, even when they are not in any meaningful sense discriminatory — this is true for voting and also for police and firefighter exams, school discipline, mortgage lending, you name it — yet perfectly happy with laws that overtly discriminate on the basis of race, like racial gerrymandering and racial preferences in university admissions, government contracting, and public and private employment, to give the most egregious examples.


Say What? (3)

  1. ezra abrams March 18, 2012 at 11:45 pm | | Reply

    and what is so bad about being confused and contradictory ?
    (obligatory wilde/emerson quote)
    at least we are trying; if we followed your advice, segregation would still be legal (yes, go back and read your early Buckley)
    At least liberals acknowledge the racism in our society, and the police brutality that strikes the poor, and blacks, and esp poor blacks
    maybe we are are not perfect, but at least we try not to deny reality

  2. CaptDMO March 20, 2012 at 3:46 pm | | Reply

    Let’s see…
    Isn’t a disingenuous plea of “disparate impact” equivalent to denial, dismissal, and plea for repeal the “equality” set fourth by the “Affirmative Action” interpretation of The Constitution? (as actually written)

    How does (ie.)”woman’s health” and “Free” fit into that?
    Now that Socialist, and Fascist, folk changed their name from Liberal to Progressive, is it OK to denounce Socialism, Fascism, “workers” party, (and Communism) again?

    Speaking of stereotyped, non-existent, “straw man” defenses of non-existant “rights” , when can we stop referring to folks who haven’t paid in full for their “borrowed” assets, underwritten by taxes, as home “owners”? When da’ gub’mint is a “silent” partner, you don’t “own” CRAP!

    I WOULD kind of like to see “affordable” electro-shock “therapy” available to folks who continue use “Occupy”, “98%’ers”, or political “activist”, in the same thought stream as the increasingly hackneyed “Hard Working Americans…” tax “payers”, and “peaceful assembly”.

  3. CaptDMO March 20, 2012 at 3:49 pm | | Reply

    “…as home “owners”, or college “graduates”…”

Say What?