These are some notes from a while back, prepared for a discussion of Caldwell’s book:
This is a compelling book. It’s straight forward and ruthless in its analysis.
I thought his assessment of Reagan was harsh but probably fair overall – Reagan had some great rhetoric about limited government but did not have the nerve to actually implement the policies his rhetoric suggested. Instead, he ran up massive government debt trying to expand democracy/freedom/American influence in the world while also continuing the legacy of civil rights entitlement programs established in the 60s. I will always like Reagan (he was eminently likable) and appreciate that he won the Cold War. But he also represents many of the problems with the modern conservative movement.
Overall, the thesis of the book seems correct – America’s constitutional framework has shifted dramatically, especially with the rise of civil rights. (Prior to that, it shifted with the Civil War.)
Whatever the legitimate gains of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s might have been, Caldwell is certainly right about what civil rights came to mean — civil rights has become a rolling revolution, with no end in sight. I certainly do not think most who voted in favor of civil rights legislation intended everything to happen that has followed, but many did warn at the time about what could go wrong. Many thought civil rights was just about giving blacks equality before the law. Any special privileges, like affirmative action, would be temporary, only implmented long enough to correct some injustices. Obviously, that has not been the case.
Somewhere along the way, the meaning of the term “equality” shifted from equal treatment under law to equalized outcomes – a shift from a classical liberal sense of equality to a Marxist version of equality. That’s been the key – and disastrous – shift.
But here’s a question that needs to be explored more: Was the real problem civil rights or the entitlement programs that came out of the 60s? Maybe those two strands cannot be neatly separated (Caldwell would argue they can’t) but I’d like to see the issue explored more fully. Civil rights did not necessitate the welfare state of the “GreatSociety” and the “War on Poverty” but we got both at the same time. The result (along with the 1965 immigration legislation) was the complete remaking of American society.
Given the fact that we now live under a new constitutional order, defined by civil rights and equality (in the Marxist sense), what are we who favor the old order supposed to do? How do you win an argument if/when your opponent turns the issue into a matter of civil rights? The progressives just run the same play over and over again and it seems there is no answer because civil rights advocates will always seem to have the moral and legal high ground in the eyes of the courts.
Example: we argue women should generally be homemakers based on nature/creational design. They counter that this is oppressive to women, burdens them unfairly, keeps them from enjoying equality with men socially and economically. It looks like an appeal to nature/creation vs an appeal to justice/equality. How do you win the argument when those are the terms? “He who frames the question wins the debate.” Justice (in the Marxist sense we have now adopted) is going to beat nature every time in our culture.
Who are the heirs of Goldwater? Who is championing Goldwater’s view of property rights and conscience vs the civil rights movement today?
TPC Pastor's Page 