In the 1940s, '50s and '60s, the American Left dedicated itself to opposing and reversing deeply-rooted segregationist policies that prevented black Americans from voting, earning a good living, obtaining quality education, and mixing socially with whites. The goal, as described by Civil Rights icon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was a society in which people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In other words, the aim was a colorblind society in which everyone enjoyed substantially equal rights and equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcomes, since the “content of [our] character,” not to mention our innate gifts, would inevitably vary.
These were worthy goals, and the American people, who are generally fair-minded and open-hearted, were gradually won over. By the 1970s and '80s, almost the entire architecture of de jure segregation and discrimination had been obliterated, by governmental fiat and by popular demand.
Of course, the legacy of unfair treatment remained, and the progress of black Americans, in terms of income, education, housing, criminal justice, and in numerous other fields, was not as quick as some would have liked. The progress, however, was real, and it was remarkable, given the long history of ingrained racism that has so scarred our nation.
Starting in the 1990s, however, “progressives” made a strange pivot. Controlling more and more of the elite institutions that dominate our politics, our culture, and our economy, they began to consider whether discrimination, which had seemed odious when imposed by people who thought differently than they did, might be much more appealing when promulgated by the enlightened few (i.e. them). Simultaneously, leftists were growing anxious because of the declining relevance of civil rights and racial equality as rallying cries for Democratic Party unity and progressive reform, given the achievement of most of the civil rights movement's original goals. How, under these circumstances, could people of color be frightened or cajoled into voting blue?
The answer, shockingly, was to turn the Left's obsession with racial justice and equality on its head: to move from the pursuit of non-discrimination and colorblindness to the advocacy of race preferences and anti-white bias.
People of color would be told to redouble their fear of whites and “white supremacy,” and to depend on big government for protection from these scourges. Whites, in turn, would be told that simply obeying civil rights laws and treating people of color as equals would not be enough. They would have to renounce their “privilege,” forsake their “toxic whiteness,” lament the horrors and shame of Western Civilization, and submit to reverse discrimination so as to speed the country on the path to equality of outcomes.
While the American people, including people of color, have shown little sign of embracing this new and radical program, elite institutions, from colleges and universities, to corporate boards, to government bureaucracies, have proved much more pliable. Voters, meanwhile, have hardly punished the advocates of neo-segregation. On the contrary, they rewarded them in 2020 with control of the House, the Senate, and the presidency.
And so it came as no surprise when the Democrats, newly empowered in Washington, D.C., decided that one of their first acts would be to entrench racial discrimination – of the “positive,” anti-white variety – in their signature bill: the “American Rescue Plan.”
Everyone, regardless of race, would be eligible for those tantalizing COVID relief checks, but other forms of aid, including assistance to farmers and restaurant owners, would be handed out based on strict racial hierarchies, determined by the Democrats themselves, in consultation with the high priests of wokeness, and written into the bill explicitly.
These were, in effect, trial balloons, meant to test whether the American people could abide such audacious racism, and whether the courts would allow measures like these to stand, given the obvious conflicts with previous legislation, including the guarantee of non-discrimination embedded in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Last week we got a partial answer to these questions. While the discriminatory measures in the “American Rescue Plan” were barely noticed by the American people, they were noticed by the courts. The federal courts, moreover, are positively brimming with Trump appointees, many of whom are contemptuous of critical race theory, wokeness, and the underlying neo-Marxist doctrine that whites are always to be seen as oppressors, and non-whites as the oppressed.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals thus struck down the portions of the “Rescue Plan” that afforded non-whites preferential access to federal assistance. The majority decision was written by a Trump appointee: Amul Thapar.
For anyone who still believes in the original goals of the civil rights movement, namely colorblindness, equality under the law, and non-discrimination, this can only be seen as a huge victory. It may be among the most consequential victories for conservatives that the courts have meted out in recent years.
That is because, if the Democrats are increasingly shameless in their advocacy of discrimination, and appear willing to stake their political futures on a stridently racist form of “anti-racism,” they may at least hesitate to embed this philosophy in future laws, knowing as they now do that the courts may strike the relevant provisions down. In fact, whole acts of Congress – integral to the Democrats' program of governmental expansion – could be jeopardized, if the Democrats are not careful, because the courts seem to regard the principle of equal treatment as non-negotiable.
And so, arguably, history has come full circle.
The federal courts, which were instrumental in advancing the cause of non-discrimination back in the '40s, '50s, and '60s, before (sometimes long before) voters were ready to embrace the concept, may now be key to defending racial equality, legal fairness, and the accumulated achievements of the civil rights movement. Sadly, moreover, the courts must perform this sentinel role at a time when at least portions of public opinion have once more shifted in the direction of narrow-minded tribalism: a depressingly large percentage of Americans seem to view the persecution of whites as noble and necessary. About a quarter of Democrats admit to having an “unfavorable” view of whites, for instance, and even more believe that race should be a factor in college admissions and hiring.
We most hope that the American people come to their senses, and that the domination of our elite political, cultural, and economic institutions by anti-white racists can be reversed. It must be, in the long term.
In the short term, though, we can be glad that fair-minded, colorblind judges and justices are sitting on the bench, doing the job that President Trump and a Republican Senate “hired” them to do: defending the Constitution, upholding the rule of law, and protecting the rights of Americans of every race, color, and creed.
When the storm of leftist race-hatred has passed, we will thank these judicial stalwarts for answering history's call.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member