I had a rather heated political discussion with my mother tonight and, among the many future topics I gleaned from it, I encountered a confusion that seems to plague discussions of racism in the US, the confusion of private and public action.

Whenever you hear someone going on about continuing racism in America, I guarantee that the conversation will involve some sort of confusion of public and private racism. Usually it will follow this pattern: The initial statements will be worded to make it sound as if the government itself discriminates (public racism). When pressed, the speaker will start giving examples of individuals acting in racists ways (private racism). However, the remaining discussion which follow almost always glosses over the difference, returning to the assumption that the government is racist. In other words, examples of private racism will be used as if they prove that public racism continues to exist.*

This matters for many reasons, but the main reason I mention it is that it leads to bad government decisions. The government has a role in eliminating public racism, but it has no part to play in removing private racism. To confuse the two is to assign to the government functions and powers it should not have.

The state should be blind as to race where race has no objective role. Race can be a consideration in a very few government decisions, such as recognizing racial patterns of sickle cell anemia or Kaposi's sarcoma, but it should not be used in decisions where race has no objective role. Voting, office holding, arrests, prosecutions, civil decisions, and so on should all be neutral in terms of race. Eliminating any state or federal laws which are explicitly based on race, and even those which are clearly designed to have a racial disparity, is a valid function of government. We may disagree about which laws are implicitly racist, but eliminating racism from the government is not a liberal issue, both parties and all points on the political spectrum (excepting a few militants on either end) can agree that race should not change the behavior of government.**

What is not a function of government is eliminating private racism. And, sadly, this is an issue where conservative and liberals differ. To a liberal, it is the purpose of the state to make those who hold "the wrong ideas" to change their minds. In other words, it is the purpose of the state to eliminate private racism, and racism will not be over until not one person in America holds racist views.

Opposed to this over-reaching, impossible goal, the conservative position is this: Every individual is entitled to their own beliefs, and it is not the purpose of the state to change them. Should you wish to be a racist, you are free to do so. In fact, true conservatives (at least on the libertarian wing of the party) argue that racists should even have the right to run their stores and businesses using their own beliefs, as forcing integration simply because it is a "public accommodation" is to violate their property rights. But even if we do not go that far, it is still the conservative position that racism will be with us forever, and, if it ever does disappear, it will be because of social pressure and private changes of heart, not through governmental action, that it is not the role of the state to change man's heart, just to regulate his behavior.

And that makes this kind of a microcosm of the whole liberal-conservative divide. Conservatives know their limitations and have humility about their beliefs. We do not know if we are right or wrong on all things, so we do not want to impose our will on everyone else. Instead we want to let each put forth his own views and let the best idea win out. We will be happy once we have the government purged of explicit racism, individual racism is a matter for individuals to sort out on their own.

The liberals take a different view. They are not humble, and are perfectionists as well. They want to make sure that every individual trace of racism is gone, and will not be happy until the world has been turned into utopia. In other words, they want to build a massive state apparatus, dedicated to perfecting man. They have no problem trying to change the thoughts of others, and have no qualms about massive growth of state power. In their minds, so long as enlightened souls wield the power, there is no problem with the state meddling in every facet of life.

No matter what the liberals think, no massive state will ever cure mankind of all its ills. In the end it will just create more ills of its own. Instead of the socialist utopia of which they dream, we will just have a massive gulag, whose residents are still every bit as fallible as they were in the beginning. But when have the consequences ever stopped a bad idea? As long as it promises to make man better, to help the weak or correct an ill, there will always be plenty willing to sign on.

As I said before, if we ever destroy the nation it will be from an excess of good deeds.

------------------------------------------------

* Obviously, some public racism does exist, but it is the "good" racism, at least in the minds of those who speak on racial matters. EEOC, EHO, affirmative action programs, set asides on contracts, etc. are all racist by definition, as they base decisions on nothing but race in area where races is not relevant. But, as this sort of racism is approved by the left, I will ignore it for this essay. Just assume when I say "there is no public racism" I mean "there is no public racism not approved by the political left."

** Again, some on the left argue for some preferential racial treatment, but we are ignoring that for this essay.