Guest essay by Ernest A. Canning
It is vital that the American people come to appreciate the danger to liberty as well as community posed by doctrinaire libertarianism.
Despite widespread coverage of Rand Paul’s absurd criticism of the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as applied to private businesses, there has been a dearth of analysis as to how this absurdity was brought about by the serious intellectual deficiencies in doctrinaire libertarian philosophy; a philosophy which led to a second astounding Rand Paul remark.
In the face of horrendous safety records on the part of both Massey Energy, which had been found to have violated federal safety regulations thousands of times over the past several years, and BP, which had steadfastly fought off safety measures for deep water oil rigs, Rand summarily dismissed the significance of both the deadly West Virginia mine disaster and the deadly explosion at BP’s deep water facility that has produced the worst oil spill in U.S. history with the cavalier, “accidents happen.”
What Rand Paul has done is open a window into “libertarianism,” which, contrary to the current Wikipedia definition, does not merge into “anarchism.” The principle distinction arises because, as explained by Noam Chomsky, anarchism challenges not only authoritarian government but all authoritarian societal structures, including the work place.
Libertarians like Ron and Rand Paul focus exclusively on individual liberty vis-a-vis the government. They fail to appreciate that, especially in the 21st Century, the removal of government as a check against unfettered corporate wealth and power leads to “the tyranny of a corporate controlled economy”…
Firestorm
As observed by Juan Gonzà¡lez of Democracy Now! (video below), Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky, set off a “firestorm” of controversy when he criticized those portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which applied to private businesses, implying, when he appeared on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show, that the 46-year old federal legislation infringed on the First Amendment rights of private businesses.
RAND PAUL:…I don’t believe in any discrimination. I don’t believe that any private property should discriminate either…But what you have to answer, when you answer…is an abstract, obscure conversation from 1964…you have to say then that you decide the rules for all restaurants. And then, do you decide that you want to allow them to carry weapons into restaurants?
As observed by Prof. Blair Kelley on Democracy Now, Rand Paul’s public/private distinction bears an eerie resemblance to pro-segregationist arguments that older Americans like myself can all too well remember. Amy Goodman discusses a fact, first reported by the blog barefoot and progressive, that “Rand Paul’s former communications director, Christopher Hightower…resigned in December after his MySpace page was found to have a post declaring ‘Happy N-Word Day'””but it used the full word””and showing a photo of a lynching around the time of the federal Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.”
But it is a serious mistake to believe that Rand Paul’s position is either motivated by racism or that this entailed a not-ready-for-prime-time gaffe of a neophyte politician, as suggested by the commentator to Brad Friedman during a May 21 segment on Russian TV. To the contrary, as Friedman noted, Rand Paul’s remarks flow directly from the “doctrinaire libertarian” philosophy more clearly articulated by Rand’s father, Ron Paul (R-TX) and the principles espoused by the original “Tea Party Movement” during the 2007/2008 Republican primary campaign before the movement was both co-opted and corrupted by the neo-fascist and health care industry-funded “Freedom Works,” under the auspices of former House Majority Leader
The problem is not lack of sincerity on the part of Ron or Rand Paul. It is a matter of the serious deficiencies in a philosophy which focuses exclusively on individual liberty, but, in fairness, I will cover first the positives in terms of policy that Ron Paul’s principled libertarianism produced.
Ron Paul policies that enticed progressive support
If you haven’t done so, you would do well to watch the series of videos posted by Brad Friedman as he distinguished the principled policy positions advocated by Ron Paul from the empty rhetoric of the 21st Century “know-nothings” aka the “Tea Baggers.”
At a time when the Bush/Cheney regime was running roughshod over civil liberties and pursuing imperial conquest overseas, Ron Paul not only opposed the perpetual wars being waged in Afghanistan and Iraq but challenged the wisdom of maintaining an Empire. “We’re spending nearly a trillion dollars a year on a machine maintaining this empire”¦.We are literally spending ourselves into oblivion,” Ron Paul said, adding:
This whole idea that we’re supposed to sacrifice liberty for security”¦Don’t we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both?
Ron Paul’s son, Rand, has staked-out a principled position against corporate welfare, stating:
Rand falls short of his father’s principled libertarianism
Unfortunately, some of Ron Paul’s principled policies do not appear to be fully shared by his son, Rand, who states at his campaign web site that he favors the trial of “terrorists captured on the battlefield in military tribunals” and believes “the primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense.” Although Rand told AntiWar.com’s libertarian-leaning Scott Horton that he was opposed to torture, he was also opposed to bringing George Bush before the bar of justice for war crimes, expressing what bordered on “the King can do no wrong” concept by noting that there were “arguments as to whether a President can be tried.”
Robert Scheer stated:
Rand not only confirmed Scheer’s observations during the Scott Horton interview, but enhanced concerns when he appeared incapable of distinguishing between al Qaeda and the Taliban, though he did say that he was opposed to a long-term occupation of Afghanistan.
Libertarian blind spots
There are two areas in which libertarian philosophy leads to absurdity.
a) Individual liberty without civic responsibility is destructive of community, an equitable economy and the environment
While no one doubts that individual liberty is vital in a free society, societies do not consist of groupings of autonomous individuals whose “liberties” never come into conflict. The libertarian concept of an unlimited right of individuals and corporations to pursue wealth, along with their misplaced reliance on “market fundamentalism,” ignores the basic obligations we owe one another and to our planet whose ecological balance is vital to the very survival of our species.
While libertarians rail against “big government,” the real problem is not government per se but the extent to which the very purpose of government has been corrupted by special interests.
A brief examination of the principles espoused by Res Publica, “a community of public sector professionals dedicated to promoting good governance, civic virtue and deliberative democracy” elucidates the folly in exclusively focusing on “individual liberties.”
Do we pursue our self interests all the time, or do we strive for compassion, courage, truth, and dedication? Do pursuits of status, money, or success distract us from what really matters to us?
Citizenship entails more than individual liberties. It entails co-responsibility towards one-another, towards our local, state, national and world communities.
Brad Friedman’s recent observation that Rand Paul “calls for removing government entirely from all but those functions called for directly in the Constitution” is only partially accurate. While Rand Paul recognizes one of the core purposes set forth in the Constitution’s Preamble (to provide for the common defense), Rand ignores a second, vital purpose (to promote the general welfare). Thus, Rand “has spoken about abolishing the Department of Education, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and perhaps the Department of Agriculture.” He “has expressed serious concerns about the Americans with Disabilities Act,” and, despite the provisions of the 16th Amendment which authorizes the federal government to collect an income tax, Rand Paul has gone so far as to question the government’s right to do so.
This too is consistent with libertarian philosophy.
Because libertarians focus exclusively on individual liberty, they see taxes as a burden rather than part of a mutual obligation we all owe to ourselves and to our society.
Yet it is the anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric which sways many of the less than well informed “Tea Party” followers who fail to understand that the true culprit is not “big government” but a “broken government” which lacks democratic accountability precisely because it has been corrupted by the very same economic elites who have taken over the “Tea Party movement.”
Under the cover of anti-government rhetoric, the hard-right, aided in no small measure by the corporate sector of the Democratic Party, has transferred power from public to private hands. The transfer is so pervasive that many laws have not merely been written on behalf of, but actually written by corporate lobbyists. Government agencies, like the Department of Agriculture, which were created to control corporate abuses of power have been emasculated because the people appointed to run those agencies hail from the very industries these federal agencies were intended to regulate.
The answer is not to abolish an agency like the Department of Agriculture, as Rand Paul proposes, but to eliminate the conflict between the public and private interest by removing all industry-connected political appointees and replacing them with individuals devoted to the public interest.
The problem is not democracy but what Chomsky described in Failed States as the “democracy deficit”””the significant gap between the policy positions of the American electorate and their elected “representatives;” a gap made possible because of the substance deficit in the corporate owned media and the deceptive means by which elections are determined by one-sided propaganda (paid-for political ads) that only billionaires and corporate-favored candidates can afford to buy.
In Wealth and Democracy, Kevin Phillips, quoting Samuel Huntington, observed:
b) The conflict between individual and corporate liberties
The second and perhaps most glaring libertarian blind spot is an inability to recognize the conflict between individual and corporate liberties””a blind spot that emerged even while Rand Paul addressed the issue of government corruption during the Scott Horton interview. Rand suggested that the problem of corporate First Amendment rights could be avoided with respect to contracts between the government and private corporations by inserting a clause that precludes that corporation from lobbying or donating PAC monies during the term of the contract.
While this would be a reasonable first step, the troubling feature of Rand Paul’s remarks was his assumption that the framers of the U.S. Constitution had intended to extend to corporations, including foreign-owned corporations, the same rights that apply to living, breathing human citizens.
As we previously observed in “Citizens United: A Case Which Will Live in Infamy”, within the context of a corporate-owned media which already controls 95% of what Americans see, hear and read, by extending unfettered “free speech” rights to the totalitarian in structure entities we commonly refer to as corporations, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case choked off the “free press” rights of the American people””that is the Fourth Estate role envisioned by the framers of an independent media that would ensure the right of the people to have unfettered access to vital, democracy-sustaining information. The Citizens United decision permits wealth to insure that the corporate-favored message is the only narrative the American people receive.
The core of Citizens United is not so much a matter of “free speech” as it is about the location of power. It is that James Madison’s prescient observation that “knowledge will forever govern ignorance” was given voice in the symbol chosen by Admiral John Poindexter for his Total Information Awareness Program“”a pyramid topped by an all-seeing eye, beneath which appeared the words, Scientia Est Potentia: Latin for “knowledge is power”””a symbol that is perhaps best understood by thinking of J.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings with billionaire oligarchs collectively playing the role of Lord Sauron.
Like most doctrinaire philosophies, Rand Paul’s libertarianism deals in absolutes. Having assumed that corporations are entitled to the same “free speech” rights as living, breathing citizens, Rand adopts the extreme position that Congress had erred by including within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provisions that would bar discrimination by private companies who serve the public. Since the Second Amendment includes the right to bear arms, Rand Paul equates a desire to sit down at a lunch counter bearing a weapon with the right of all members of the public to be served regardless of race, age or gender. While he abhors racism, Rand suggests that the government is powerless either to prevent racist exclusion or the exclusion of guns from the lunch counter because government intervention would infringe on the free speech rights of a private company.
Amongst the crucial factors which Rand Paul fails to appreciate is that where race, gender and age are immutable characteristics over which one has no control, carrying a firearm is not. More importantly, in advancing a public/private distinction for civil rights enforcement, Rand Paul fails to appreciate the all-encompassing presence of private corporations in nearly every facet of American life.
The absurdity of Rand Paul’s extremist remarks would perhaps have been more readily apparent if, for example, Rachel Maddow had cited privately-owned, commercial aircraft rather than lunch counters. Anyone with half a brain can readily appreciate why it would be a very bad idea to allow citizens to carry loaded weapons onto commercial aircraft. But, if we permitted commercial airlines to prevent African Americans from traveling by plane out of a concern for the airline’s “free speech” rights, we emasculate the civil rights of a major segment of the population and open the door to a return to a dark chapter in our nation’s history known as Jim Crow.
Those of us who have practiced law understand that rights cannot be treated as absolutes; that the rights of one individual often conflict with those of another; that both our legislatures and courts are designed to engage in a balancing of those rights, which, if not fettered by the corruption of special interests, should strive to protect individual rights to the extent possible while enhancing the general welfare. An individual may have a right to inhale carcinogens in cigarette smoke but that does not mean that he or she has the right to expose others to those carcinogens by smoking in a crowded restaurant.
The May 21 Democracy Now segment examining Rand Paul’s anti-Civil Rights Act rhetoric follows …
CORRECTION: The article above had initially identified Scott Horton as an “attorney”. In fact, the Rand Paul interview as referenced was with AntiWar.com’s writer and radio host Scott Horton and not Harper’s writer and attorney Scott Horton. The article has been corrected to reflect the appropriate Horton. We apologize to both of them for the error.
Ernest A. Canning has been an active member of the California state bar since 1977. Mr. Canning has received both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science as well as a juris doctor. He is also a Vietnam vet (4th Infantry, Central Highlands 1968).
Great article!
Wow, long article. Must’ve been working on that for a long
time. I find it amazing how many republicrats talk about the
downfall of being too principaled for Washington.. A place that has lower poling numbers than hell. What’s the unemployment rate in DC again? Bout five percent. Please America, don’t send another Dr Paul to Washington. This government is working EXACTLY like it supposed to.
@ Gay4Guns #2,
You seem to be faulting Canning for having a well-researched, well-written, and thoroughly developed article that is purposefully elaborated with proper citation, examples, comparisons etc…
What exactly is wrong with that?
I know the Tea Partiers frequently claim to have a beef with “liberal intellectualism” (a posture far too reminiscent of the Third Reich’s explicit disdain for “liberal Jewish Intellectuals.”) I know that 5 minute sound-bytes and detached slogans mean far more to that community than critical review, proper evidence or sound comparison.
But you really cant rely on the phantasmal fairy-tales and partial deletions cooked up by the likes of Orly Taitz , Betsy McCaughey, or even Karl Rove for that matter…, at least not if you want to have a serious and fruitful discussion on the issues at hand.
Rather than getting defensive and angry, try to see what Canning is really talking about. The problems America has been facing come from policies that make big business stronger and more influential than the will of the people. Is that completely verifiable observation so hard to digest, let alone read?
I know Breitbart would have you think otherwise, that (for instance) ACORN, HUD and homeless shelters are dragging the country down. But it wasnt on ACORN’s behalf that our government lied about reasons to blow the budget (as well as countless lives, and our inherited principles) on the invasion of Baghdad.
It was on behalf of big business (specifically, big business favored by key players in the Bush Administration.)
And the list goes on… The foreign interventions through which Reagan devastated Central America (and which have EVERYTHING to do with domestic immigration issues today) were fought on behalf of Big Business.
The free pass that favored BP against federal standards were on behalf of Big Business.
The issuance of military contracts to companies (eg, Haliburton) that favored the latter’s profit-margin over the safety and well-being of our own soldiers was on behalf of Big Business.
And so on, and so forth.
BTW, you call yourself “Gay4Guns”. Now, I don’t know if you are really gay, or if you are just using our name to be cute.
But if you are gay, then I’ll ask you to remember the Cracker-Barrel controversy 1991. I was at those protests, in South East Michigan. Contrary to Rands stupid claim that the “free market solves everything,” I saw first hand how the “right” for a private business to be bigoted fomented anti-gay violence not just in Belleville, but throughout the Detroit Metro-area and beyond.
@Earnest,
This was a great article!!!
You did a marvelous and thorough job detailing the important contradictions and omissions forwarded by the modern libertarian movement, and by its benighted messiah, Randy Rands.
You kept your article entirely about substance and solid points (when it would have been so easy to just ridicule Rand for the clumsy shmuck he is.)
In fact, I think you offered such a complete analysis that I don’t know what else needs to be addressed.
I would only add that I am a bit ticked by the fact that the Far Right is as selective, partial and misleading in their references to the Constitution (or to American History, for that matter) as they have been with their Biblical references.
Thanks for a great job, Earnest!!!!
You always bring a provocative and enlightneing perspective to this forum!!!!!
Nice article.
I think the civil rights bill, specifically the provision that detailed businesses that were involved in public accommodations, was about as good of a ‘compromise’ as you can think of between government power and private rights. That still permitted private businesses (those who DON’T serve public accomodations) to discriminate if they want to.
Also a good point about Rand possibly assuming corporations have ‘rights’ as people do. I’m not sure what the generic libertarian philosophy is on the personhood/non-personhood of corporations.
Anyway I have problems with some of the libertarian philosophies, but I think overall a move towards a more libertarian style of government would be a good thing for the nation, and even though it would create some new problems, the good things would outweigh the bad ones.
Thanks Earnest for a terrific article. The points you articulated are ones I’ve been trying to get across to people for some time. Your logical analysis and insights will be very helpful to me the next time I try to counterpoint staunch libertarian views.
I am truly appreciative of the kind words and thoughtful comments, and, while I do strive to be earnest, I should point out that there is no “a” in the name “Ernest.”
I principally focused on the shortcomings of libertarian philosophy. For those interested, I’d strongly recommend following the link I provided in the article to Chomsky’s brief description of anarchism, which is truly enlightening.
Thank you Earnest for a great article. Having supported Dr. Ron Paul in the last election, I wonder if any nouveau Teabaggers could possibly comprehend what you have written. Not that a Teabagger would be caught dead reading Bradblog.
Ernest it could have been a great article. You are dedicated and a good writer but sadly you are very misinformed on the topic of your article and as a result it’s a very bad article.
There are too many errors to go into that it would be better for you to start with the basics. Your bias is evident in almost every sentence. I’m sure it wasn’t intentional.
Almost nothing you wrote reflects libertarian philosophy.
What’s “absorb” is people have been brainwashed to believe that the 1964 federal civil rights act was the catalyst that led to “more” civil rights. It was the activism and non violent demonstrations of MLK, blacks and whites alike that lead to more “civil rights” for people of color not the force of Gov’t passing a law” that led to this. Sorry, but private property is private to me! Can I come into your home and steal your belongings? No , but the IRS can do it under the cover of “law”. There is no distinction between a public business and a private residence in a free society. The market place will decide weather the business is successful if they discriminate against Blacks or any people. Not much was gained from the Civil Rights act of 1964. There is just as much hate today as back in 1964. The force of Gov’t only takes not gives. How about me a white man, you think I can go down to the south side of Chicago next to Farrakhan’s church and not encounter any black racism because of the Governments 1964 Civil rights “law”? No! Stop acting like Gov’t has gave you your god given rights of freedom. Stop demanding the Gov’t take from one and give to another. Stop asking Gov’t to provide security and leave you with none. Stop taking Liberty! There is no “flaw” or “limitation” in the Libertarian position. Rand Paul cannot articulate it, that’s all.
Sorry, anonymous @9 but arguments that lack specificity are worthless.
If you want to post a substantive criticism and back it up, please do so.
Joe @10 — with all due respect, you seem to have missed the entire thrust of my piece.
As I said Ernest, it’s you who has to get the right facts about libertarianism. It would take too much space for me to write everything down. I’ll give you some of the basics.
Do you believe that you as an individual own your own body? That’s the most basic form of property rights, i.e self-ownership. That forms the basis of property rights.
You should look into it further because there are many errors in what you wrote.
With all due respect, Anonymous @12, your comment reflects that my article sailed right past your absolutist libertarian mind.
I am well aware of the primary emphasis that libertarians place on individual property rights, but like all other “rights,” individual property rights can come into conflict with and potentially threaten the general welfare.
Take, for example, Joe @10’s “private property is private to me.” Always?
Suppose “X” were to build a mini-nuclear bomb that “X” intended to keep inside his home. The bomb was built entirely by material “X” purchased and entirely with “X”‘s labor. Under libertarian concepts that bomb is X’s personal property. It’s kept inside his home and a man’s home is his castle.
Now are you going to seriously suggest that the government does not have a right to enter “X”‘s home and seize the bomb in the interest of public safety?
Extend that same reasoning to BP’s ownership of its deep water facility and the impact that private use of that facility has had on the environment. Perhaps, you then can understand why I referred to Rand Paul’s “accidents happen” as cavalier.
Now let’s look at your “self-ownership”–a valuable right and part of which forms the basis for Roe v. Wade, a decision which I believe was correct.
Your body may be your “personal property,” but if you contract the Ebola virus, the government has a legitimate interest in where you take that body; what you do with it.
This is a very good piece. It should be emphasized though that Rand Paul is *not* in reality a consistent libertarian either in the sense meant in the U.S. (which means opposed to big government and dedicated to the free market) or in the updated sense used elsewhere (which opposes authoritarian and coercive structures more broadly including corporations.) In fact, Paul advocates many highly authoritarian measures: militarizing the border w/Mexico, including the construction of additional bases, in order to stop people who are coming to this country due to market realities; military tribunals for (alleged) “terrorists captured on the battlefield”; a moratorium not only on visas from “about ten rogue nations” but also for “anybody that has travelled to those nations” (talk about collective guilt!);he supports a complete ban on abortion including in cases of rape and incest (so much for women’s autonomy over their own bodies!)and also a Sanctity of Life Ammendment(he wants to encode into law that life starts from the moment of conception); and he supports a ban on assisted suicide or voluntary euthenasia. One could go on and on but the information in there at http:www.randpaul2010.com and anyone can see what his public positions are.
Ernest @13,
First of all, building such a device is beyond the capabilities of a home hobbyist. Let’s just say it was something dangerous that might harm others outside of his home.
If he built it and kept it in his home then how would you know about it? You are arguing for a survailance society by that argument.
Let’s say the police-peace officers has probable cause to suspect that he had a dangerous device in his home.
Well what do you think would happen? It’s not rocket science.
The police officers get a warrant because a jdge approved it because they have probable cause and search his home and arrest him if he broke the law, remove the device if it’s dangerous, etc.
I don’t understand the problem you are bringing up.
Two points:
1) “Anonymous”, if you could pick a user name and stick with it, it’d be appreciated.
2) Quick question for ya: If I have a “No Black People” policy at my “private” restaurant, and a black man comes in and wishes to be served, what then? Should I call the police to help me enforce my “private” rules at the public establishment, as happened prior to 1964 (when they didn’t use violence, anyway, to enforce that rule)? The government is involved in this matter no matter what. So the question is, as Digby helped illuminate recently, whether the government is going to take the side of the private property owners (who are bigots, and have the right to be if they wish) or the side of greater good and civil rights.
So which side do YOU think the government should be on? Because they’re going to have to choose to be on one or the other, whether you like that or not.
Anonymous @15 wrote:
“I don’t understand the problem you are bringing up.”
________
No, I suspect not, which is the reason I said that my article sailed past you.
The issue is not whether “X” has the capability of building a nuclear device. Obviously, in the posed hypothetical, it is assumed that “X” has the capability of building such a device.
The issue is not whether the police discovered the device. For the purpose of the hypothetical, one must assume that the police/government become aware of it before they move in to seize it.
The issue is not probable cause to suspect a crime has been committed, though one would hope that the building of such a device would be regarded by the state as illegal and therefore that knowledge of its presence would be probable cause for a warrant.
The issue, as presented in my hypothetical is really rather simple and straightforward to all who are not locked within a libertarian, ideological straight jacket.
Put simply, the hypothetical I provided is a perfect example of the conflict between private property rights and the government’s legitimate interest in protecting health and safety.
Your concession that, in this instance, the government would have the right to enter “X”‘s home and seize his personal property (the mini-nuclear device) amounts to a concession that, at least in that instance, the government’s interest in protecting public safety outweighs “X”‘s private property right.
That concession reveals the fatal flaw in a libertarian logic that would place individual property rights above those of society in (a) BP’s reckless use of its deep water facility in flagrant disregard for the safety of its workers and the environment, (b) the thousands of safety violations by Massey Energy which led to the fatal West Virginia mine explosion, and (b) the civil rights of our citizens to be provided equal access to essential services irrespective of whether those services are furnished by the government or by a private corporation.
Ernest @17,
Why do you call it a concession? It’s not a concession at all. Do you think libertarians think in such a way that endangers those around them? If so you have been mislead.
Libertarians believe they have a right to their own property and their own actions as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.
Brad @16,
Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional. If you really believe those people we’re bigots then there wouldn’t be any need to enact laws forcing segregation.
If you really believe those people we’re bigots then why do YOU think they enacted those laws?
If you learn some history and not the crap taught in public schools then maybe you’ll find your answer.
In 19 those people means “not the ones who enacted the Jim Crow laws” but people in general.
Anonymous @19 wrote:
“Jim Crow laws are unconstitutional. If you really believe those people we’re bigots then there wouldn’t be any need to enact laws forcing segregation.
__________________
Your remarks are so profoundly uninformed, that it is difficult to respond without violating our blog’s proscription against personal attack.
But since you obviously don’t have a clue about either history or how our legal system works, I will try my best to remain civil and provide you with a basic legal/historical education.
Merely saying that a law is “unconstitutional” is meaningless to people who suffer from the effects of a law that may or may not ultimately be found by our courts to be unconstitutional.
It took 58 years for the Supreme Court, in Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) to correct the injustice of “separate but equal” of Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896). During those 58 years, public schools were segregated as a result of Jim Crow laws.
Jim Crow laws were not passed to force people to be bigots. They were passed by a bigoted majority in order to extend privileges to whites that would not be shared by people of color. In the words used by white Southerners of the mid-20th Century, they were passed to “keep the N-word in his place.”
Jim Crow laws segregating public restrooms, drinking fountains, public transportation, swimming pools, restaurants, libraries and numerous other functions both publicly and privately controlled remained on the books, and continued to be enforced in the South after Brown was decided.
The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were enacted by Congress in order to preempt this area of law in order to insure that federally protected rights of all U.S. citizens were not violated by state Jim Crow laws.