Bill O’Reilly Does Not Understand What Racism Is

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

In a recent column, Bill O’Reilly calls Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri “fresh kindling for America’s racial arsonists.” The likelihood that a grand jury is not going to indict the police officer who shot and killed Michael Brown is seen by O’Reilly as some kind of evidence that racism does not exist in the United States. While O’Reilly correctly criticizes the cynical and inappropriate use of “the race card” in declaring anyone who opposes President Obama a racist, he incorrectly accuses anyone who dares to point out that there is racism in the United States as “race hustlers.” For a Traditionalist like O’Reilly, there are only two possibilities. Either the United States is “racist to the core, a place where ‘white privilege’ is this nation's past, present, and future” or there is no racism in the United States. Recognizing that there is racism in the United States does not amount to telling “young black Americans that they just can't make it, the deck is stacked against them” as O’Reilly claims.

There is a good deal of racism against blacks in the United States, and the most egregious are examples of institutionalized racism created and/or fostered by the government. The truth is that the stereotypical racism of white supremacists wearing sheets and burning crosses is a minor threat compared with the racism that government perpetuates. The following are just a few examples of the real racism that O’Reilly and most other collectivists on the right and left typically ignore.

1. The Federal Reserve

In the last several years, the American public has been realizing the corporatist and unconstitutional nature of the Federal Reserve. But how exactly could a privately controlled central bank be racist? By “printing” money—through the purchase of securities—the Federal Reserve causes inflation. But not immediately. The recipients of the “new” money—usually crony capitalists—benefit by being able to spend these funds before the inevitable inflation. Later, when the expanded supply of dollars causes prices to rise, those who are politically unconnected suffer the effects of higher prices. It is the poor who suffer the effects of this “inflation tax” the most as this is the most regressive of taxes. Many blacks had already been economically disenfranchised by the effects of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, Progressive economic policies, the counterproductive “War on Poverty,” etc., and the Federal Reserve just exacerbates that. In the century that the Federal Reserve has existed, its inflationary policies have taken away as much as 95% of the value of the dollar. When money buys less and less, the poor suffer. Over 27% of Black Americans live in poverty, so the Federal Reserve has adversely affected that community more than any other in the nation.

2. Progressive Business Regulations

The black unemployment rate is twice that of whites. So, any government policies which destroy jobs or impede job growth are inherently racist since these policies will affect blacks disproportionately. Progressive business regulations and burdensome business taxes are corporatist policies which aid large corporations at the expense of small businesses, workers, the unemployed, and the poor. Every dollar that a business is forced to pay to comply with business regulations is one less dollar that that business can use to pay new workers. Businesses that are forced to pay the cost of government regulations have done nothing wrong. They are essentially paying the price of negligence for which they are not liable. Businesses which commit acts which amount to negligence, recklessness, or torts that harm individuals should pay the price in court. Business regulations simply give large corporations—whose lobbyists often write the regulations on behalf of the government—the ability to bankrupt their smaller competitors. A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that:

[B]usinesses spent more than $2 trillion in 2012 to comply with federal regulations. More importantly, compliance costs for businesses in the United States averaged $9,991 per employee that year, with manufacturers incurring a per-employee cost of nearly double that amount, at $19,546. Small manufacturers with less than 50 employees spent a whopping $34,671 per employee, illustrating the massive burden placed on many of these firms.

In addition, occupational licensing requirements put further obstacles in front of blacks who wish to be entrepreneurial and start their own businesses. None of these regulations actually protect Americans from anything but greater prosperity.

3. The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs is an institutionalized form of racism which has devastated the black community perhaps more than any other government policy. Although blacks and Hispanics use and sell drugs at roughly the same rate as whites, 61% of the people incarcerated in state prisons for drug offenses are black or Hispanic. Human beings possess a natural right to liberty, and this includes the right to use and to sell drugs. The War on Drugs is nothing but a corporatist war against the people—particularly against people of African or Latin heritage. The beneficiaries are alcohol companies, tobacco companies, Big Pharma, drug cartels, private prison corporations, and law enforcement. The biggest losers are the blacks which are thrown into prison for nonviolent drug offenses and forced to work for the Prison-Industrial Complex like 21st century slaves. Locking up black men and women for nonviolent drug offenses and property offenses that are committed in an effort to get money to buy narcotics (which have been artificially inflated in price due to prohibition) destroys families, taking away parents from their children. This puts many black families even deeper into poverty. Unnecessary drug convictions then become like badges of slavery, preventing black ex-cons from being able to get jobs.

4. Social Security

Because blacks have a shorter life expectancy than whites, they tend to receive less in Social Security benefits. Upon death, a worker may not distribute accrued benefits through his or her estate to heirs. Therefore, black workers tend to benefit less than their white counterparts. If the United States had a government pension system by which workers could keep the proceeds which they pay in and distribute it to their heirs upon death, black families would be able to build wealth over generations instead of having those funds essentially confiscated for the “crime” of dying.

5. Minimum Wage

Minimum wage laws are perverse in that they harm the poor—of which blacks make up a disproportionate number—despite having been designed to help. In addition to violating the natural right to contract of both employer and employee, minimum wage laws produce two unintended negative consequences that greatly affect poor blacks. First, requiring employers to pay an artificially high wage means that businesses will hire fewer workers. Secondly, low-skilled workers will not be hired at all at minimum wage and will never learn basic job skills. The frustrating thing is that minimum wage would not even be an issue were it not for job-killing government regulations on businesses. A laissez-faire free market would most likely produce an abundance of jobs. As the number of jobs increases, supply and demand will inevitably increase wages.

(For a much more detailed discussion of Racism and Bill O’Reilly’s Traditionalism, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

On the Washington Redskins’ Name Trademark Cancellation

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

In a 2–1 decision the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelled the name trademark of the NFL’s Washington Redskins. The sole issue that was considered by the Board was whether the professional football team’s name violated Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). This law states that “No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it”:

Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 2(9) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act [19 USC §3501(9)]) enters into force with respect to the United States.

Therefore, the only question is whether the team nickname “Redskins” disparages American Indians. The first recorded use of the word occurred on October 9, 1813 in The Weekly Register. The article contains quotes from a St. Louis man concerning an expedition that was being led by General Benjamin Howard. The man said that this expedition was to “route the savages from the Illinois and Mississippi territories.” The man continued: “The expedition will be 40 days out, and there is no doubt but we shall have to contend with powerful hordes of red skins, as our frontiers have been lined with them last summer, and have had frequent skirmishes with our regulars and rangers.” Therefore, ‘Redskin’ was coined as a synonym for ‘savages’ in describing American Indians.

Dictionaries tend to support the view that ‘Redskins’ is a disparaging term. These dictionaries are hardly considered bastions of political correctness. Merriam-Webster states that the term is “usually offensive.” The American Heritage Dictionary calls it “Offensive Slang” and states that it is “used as a disparaging term for a Native American.” Dictionary.com characterizes it as “disparaging and racist.”  Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary calls it “insulting” and “offensive.”  Collins Dictionary calls it “taboo.”

The Washington Redskins’ trademark attorney Robert Raskopf says of the term:

It may or may not be used disparagingly, just like many other terms can. So we don’t really think there’s much to that claim, and once you cross the tiny little line that needs to be crossed and realize that we, the Washington Redskins, have made something honorable and successful and imbued that into this brand, there’s no way that anyone can say that we use that mark disparagingly. It’s a mark. What trademark law’s all about.

However, when asked by a radio host whether he would call an American Indian a “redskin” to his or her face, Mr. Raskopf hesitated before finally replying: “I understand that word isn’t in use as much as it once was. That’s not what this case is about. It’s what our word means.” If the word is not derogatory, why would Mr. Raskopf be so reluctant? Why should he hesitate to use ‘Redskin’ to refer to any and all American Indians to their faces?

The meaning of a word is determined by its use in a social context. In some instances, one can use a word to mean what he or she wishes. For example, one can coin a new use of an existing term. At some point some English user first used the word ‘winner’ sarcastically to mean not a victor but the very opposite—a loser. One can also use a word in a code context. One can imagine a CIA agent using the word ‘winner’ in e-mails, letters, or monitored speech to mean any number of things in order to get important messages to his or her superiors. However, for the most part one cannot use any and all words willy-nilly exactly how he or she wishes. In order for language to be useful as a medium of communication, the standard uses of words come to socially be understood as the meanings of these words. If this in general were not the case, it would simply be impossible for anyone to communicate using a natural language. If each and every speaker used each and every word like Humpty Dumpty—using the word to mean what he or she chooses it to mean—then a natural language simply could not exist.

Those who wish to defend the Washington Redskins are likely to appeal to poll data. For example, a September 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey poll found that over 90% of American Indians are not offended by the name Redskins. Does this matter? If it does, then it means that truth is democratic. It means that a group of people who are stoic can be the targets of slurs simply in virtue of being psychologically strong. Racial, anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic, and other slurs are derogatory because of how they are typically used and how they have historically been used and not by how effective they are in injuring. If most American Indians are indeed strong enough not to be offended by racial slurs, this does not give everyone license to use those slurs without moral reproach. American Indians have been the victims of genocide, ethnic cleansing, imperialism, government corruption, and just about every evil of the progressive welfare state. Does the fact that they have bigger problems than the name of a mediocre football franchise with a foolish owner and an injured and overrated quarterback mean that they are not owed common decency?

The important thing to note is that nobody is making it a crime or a tort to use the word ‘Redskins.’ Nobody is violating the First Amendment free speech rights of Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder or anyone else. Nobody is censoring anybody or anything. While there is a natural right to property and this includes intellectual property such as a trademark, the government—for better or worse—is required in order to establish, exploit, and defend such intellectual property. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) is the governing law on the matter concerning the establishment of trademark in American law. It is obvious that ‘Redskins’ violates that law, and therefore, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board was right in canceling the Washington Redskins’ name trademark. That law, like any other law, is not sacrosanct. It can be repealed and/or altered if need be. The law should be changed. While it makes sense for the federal government not to issue a trademark in a case where deception is involved, there should be no moralistic requirement for intellectual property. Were such a requirement placed on patents and copyrights, it would lead to widespread censorship and politicization of science and technology. But if the law is eventually changed, one would hope that the advocates of the change would not complain when and if some name that is a slur against their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. is trademarked.

Why Haven’t More College Liberals Become Libertarians?

by Gerard Emershaw

Libertarian Republican Senator and 2016 presidential contender Rand Paul of Kentucky recently gave a speech on civil liberties at California’s notoriously liberal Berkeley. This prompts the question of why college liberals have not become libertarians. The Obama neo-progressives in the Democratic Party are on the wrong side of most issues that traditionally liberal college students care about.

1. War

College students in the United States have traditionally been anti-war. It was, of course, the universities and colleges of this nation which spearheaded the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Despite having been strangely—and prematurely—awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama is not a man of peace. He has continued the War on Terror which he inherited from President George W. Bush. In fact, President Obama has escalated wars. He has continued the Afghanistan War. He sought unsuccessfully to continue the Iraq occupation, thwarting only by Iraq’s refusal to grant blanket immunity to American troops. President Obama has also waged war—er, “kinetic military action”—against Libya, conducted a bloody drone campaign in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, and zealously attempted to gin up a war with Syria. If traditionally liberal college students are still anti-war, then libertarianism with its axiom of non-aggression and its non-interventionism is the true doctrine of peace.

Perhaps the fact that there is not an active military draft is the reason that college students have seemingly become apathetic about war. If they cannot be drafted and their friends and relatives cannot be drafted, then perhaps it does not matter to them anymore. If volunteers are instead risking their lives in these wars, then maybe most college students just do not care. Though one would hope that these students do care about the innocent people who are suffering due to President Obama’s warmongering zeal. With the exception of President Jimmy Carter and unsuccessful candidates such as Eugene McCarthy, the Democratic Party has been a bloodthirsty war party since President Woodrow Wilson. It is unclear why college peaceniks have supported the progressive cause for so long given this violent streak of the party.

2. Civil liberties

Libertarians are champions of the Bill of Rights. While college students mostly seem to be indifferent to the Second Amendment, they have traditionally cared a lot about the First and Fourth Amendments. Libertarians like Senator Rand Paul support Constitutional rights over the growing despotism of the state. In contrast, President Obama smiles like a villain as he allows the NSA and other American spy agencies to violate the privacy rights of Americans and treat them like they are all criminals. The Democratic Party has long since stopped being the champion of civil liberties. So why do college students continue to support the party? Is it because President Obama is allegedly cool? Was he cool when he wore his “dad jeans” when throwing out a first pitch at a baseball game? Is he cool when he is on the golf course like any typical square politician? Is he cool when he allows the NSA to spy on everyone’s communications?

3. Drugs

It is no secret that many college students like to smoke an occasional bowl—or bong— of Mary Jane. Even those liberal college students who do not use drugs tend to disagree with the War on Drugs. Libertarians favor ending drug prohibition. The Democrats have had ample opportunity to end the War on Drugs, but they never do. President Obama has the power to pardon every single nonviolent drug offender languishing in federal prison. He has not. How can college students support a party whose leadership is okay with throwing people in cages like animals simply for using or selling drugs? Do they believe that these individuals deserve to be put in cages with murderers simply because they choose to use or sell substances which are like prescription drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes in many ways yet are not approved of by the powers that be? Do these college students believe that drug offenders should suffer just because the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries do not want the added competition? Really?

4. Race

Liberal college students have long opposed racism. “Color blindness” when it comes to race relations has long been practiced by these students. Just because the leader of the Democratic Party is black, it does not mean that the party is not racist. Continuing to prosecute the War on Drugs—which disproportionately harms minorities—should be evidence enough that the Democratic Party is racist. If it is not enough evidence, then the welfare state should provide more than enough evidence. The idea of the welfare state—as well as related programs like affirmative action—is that blacks and other racial minorities are not equal to whites. They simply cannot compete. Welfare programs make racial minorities and everyone else enrolled in the programs into dependent wards of the state. If these programs worked, then one would not expect poverty rates to be so high among blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. The truth is that these programs do not work. Most likely, they were never intended to work. They were intended to make obedient and dependent citizens who will not dare question authority. In that regard, these programs are a success.

Libertarians, in contrast, support free market and economic opportunity. They support the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. They defend the natural rights of human beings regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, etc. The same is true regarding gay rights. Libertarians do not believe that it is the business of government to worry about, let alone discriminate against, people on the basis of their sexual orientation. The Democrats, in contrast, have only recently begrudgingly begun to support gay rights.

5. Economics

College students are inevitably anxious about their economic futures. They often carry a lot of debt for their educations. Student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so it is often imperative that college students be able to get well paying jobs to support themselves and pay for their loans. President Obama’s Neo-Progressive Democrats are crony capitalists who support the status quo. As long as their friends on Wall Street and in the “Green” sector do well, they care not about anyone else. In fact, the more people who fail economically, the more people who go onto welfare. The more people who are on welfare, the more people who are dependent on the government. Economic failure creates more potential voters who will support the Democratic Party.

Libertarians, on the other hand, favor ending the Federal Reserve, cutting government spending, cutting taxes, and cutting federal business regulations. These things will promote the growth of the economy. If college students want a bright economic future, then why are they not libertarians?