Liberals Play the Race Card to Perpetuate the State
By Mary Theroux • Monday July 27, 2009 12:30 PM PDT • 3 Comments
I agree that the Gates incident is being misinterpreted by conservatives: one indeed has the right to security in one’s home, and should not be subject to arrest or harassment therein. However, liberals are similarly misinterpreting the incident, and are just as culpable in attempting to use it for their ends to perpetuate and extend the power of the State.
In the Maye case, drug enforcement agents violently invaded Maye’s home in a tragic example of the horrible consequences of militarizing the police force in the war on drugs. Maye was well within his rights to defend his home, by violent means against violent invaders who reportedly did not identify themselves or otherwise provide him information contrary to his impression that armed criminals were invading his home.
Our book Drug War Crimes documents the true costs, benefits, and consequences of drug prohibition, of which the Maye case is one tragic example. The evidence presented in the book yields a disturbing finding: the more resources given to the Drug War, the greater the homicide rate. The book then examines various alternatives to drug prohibition and identifies the most effective solution.
While the facts of the Gates case are now and perhaps forever mired in the politicization of race, an important distinction is that in this case the police responded to a security call by a concerned neighbor. Until we have successfully privatized security, the vast majority of people are going to be dependent on the State’s police force for dealing with such safety concerns.
The entire incident blew way out of proportion when an oversensitive Gates responded to a security concern through a filter of racism, becoming verbally offensive. However, he did provide the policeman with ID establishing that it was in fact his home. At that point the policeman had fulfilled his security responsibility and ought to have left, and had his mother taught him as mine did, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me,” he would have. Instead, he took offense personally, he had power and he exercised it.
If these are indeed the facts, then, yes, this was an abuse of police power, and the arresting policeman ought to be held accountable for whatever damages his actions caused Gates. Had he been a private policeman, the liability for paying those damages would be borne by his employer, with almost certain consequences to his employment status.
As a government policeman, of course, his employer has only the money it gets by coercion from taxpayers, and presuming Gates is one, he will thus only be doubly victimized if he sues for damages.
As our book, To Serve and Protect outlines, we need desperately to privatize all aspects of crime control, bringing police into full private accountability for their actions, which is the only way any power is kept in check.
“Race” is thus being used to obfuscate the real root problems the incident illustrates and their proper policy prescriptions. In our new book, Race and Liberty in America, the writings, speeches and experiences of freedom fighters from Frederick Douglass and Lysander Spooner to H.L. Mencken and Martin Luther King, Jr., reveal government as the problem, not the solution to racial discrimination. In claiming the mantle as heirs to such civil libertarians, Obama, Gates, and others badly distort the actual history of racism and its perpetuation possible only through the protection afforded by racist laws enforced by the State (Jim Crow and other laws passed by vested interests in contradistinction to voluntary, private behavior). Gates is more accurately the heir of the über-Statist W. E. B. Du Bois, for whose eponymous Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard he serves as Director. Du Bois of course died an unrepentant member of the Communist party in 1963—well late enough to have been aware of the horrible ramifications of the ideology’s practices worldwide—including the tragic fates of the many American blacks as well as whites who succumbed to pro-communist propaganda by emigrating to Soviet Russia in the 1930s (for more on which see here and here)—and continuing ramifications through such ongoing tragedies as today’s Zimbabwe.
Obama, Gates, liberals, conservatives and all others desiring a true end of racism would thus do far better to abandon the failed model of identity-based politics and fully embrace the classical liberal tradition as detailed in Race and Liberty and America.
Tags: Africa, American History, Civil Liberties, Criminal Justice, Drugs, Law, Personal Liberty, Police, Politics, Racism, Russia, Socialism, Taxation, The State, Urban Issues ![]()




















Two of America’s most pampered and least productive groups, ivy league prof’s and college town police go toe to toe with their best representatives and produce a tragi-comic event with more irony than a Victor Hugo novel. To top it off they both believe they are “expert” in race relations! Could it get more absurd? Yes!! Pres. Obama jumps in without the facts calling names and pointing fingers. It was like seeing Beavis and Butt-Head meet the Keystone Kops.
I appreciate Theroux’s clear-headed assessment of the situation and am sure the books referenced are as helpful as any I have read by Walter Williams or Anne Wortham. But can anyone help me understand how it is our culture manages to propel the worst among us into leadership positions?
Brian | Jul 30, 2009 | Reply
Thank you, Brian.
The explanation you’re looking for is in our book, Beyond Politics.
Best wishes,
Mary
Mary Theroux | Jul 31, 2009 | Reply
Mary
Sorry for the delay in my response, but my work pulls me away. Thanks for the reference to Beyond Politics. Reviewing the synopsis I can see nothing I would disagree with but then I am fully aware of the Public Choice school of thought. I agree that people and their nature remain the same whether they are in the public sector or the private. And so providing them the raw power of the public sector will inevitably lead to the abuse of their fellow citizens.
But simply showing that people abuse power in the public sector and that this can be prevented by more fully utilizing the private sector has no appeal to human nature.
Bastiat observed that democracy reveals that everyone seems to want to live at everyone else’s expense. I see this element of human nature as everyone wants to live big on minimal effort. A kind of biological efficiency that has contributed to our great success as a species. This desire can lead to stealing and killing if one can get away with it. Politics is the most popular and successful way to get away with it. Sadly we can’t seem to live without this part of our nature and yet with it we become thieves and murderers. The paradox of human nature.
Bastiats solution was to make this behavior more painful than working for a living and that certainly has been tried. I would like to find a decision process that can be more popular than politics but less destructive.
Brian | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply