Other Sellers on Amazon
+ Free Shipping
+ $8.22 shipping
The New Color Line Hardcover – November 25, 1995
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Customers who bought this item also bought
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The authors talk a lot about how it is essential to have good will among citizens for a democratic government to work. The reader may come to the conclusion that in a free society you may have to give fellow citizens freedom of association and even the freedom to discriminate, rather than coercing people by the power of federal bureacracy to hire without discriminating. It is pointed out that if an employer does not hire on merit alone, his business will be uncompetitive in the market. Essentially, we have an ineffecient market now because the best qualified are not hired according to ability. The social thinker Gunnar Myrdal thought that democracy could not get rid of racism, perhaps because of this lack of good will, and decided it would be better to enforce equality with the power of the state in his highly influential book An American Dilemma.
The New Color Line covers the Brown court decision in which the authors give evidence of this being the beginnings of what is called rule by judges or judicial tyranny today. Legal precedent was swept away for touchy feely sociological arguments based on doubtful research that the judges would base their decisions upon. "Creative judicial decisions" similar to "creative bookkeeping" that did not have any basis in the constitution were imposed on the populace. The authors also give evidence that the some of court's decisions came about by unethical dealings. Civil rights were also to be totally decided by congress through legislation, and not by the judicial branch. Separation of powers has ceased to exist.
One may come to the conclusion that democracy is only is good as the character and intelligence of the people in positions of power. If the constitution and law is ignored and a legal decision is unethically brought about, and people in power seemingly don't understand the perils of not sticking with the constitution, democracy ceases to exist. One wonders if they really merit their positions, but we're appointed only for ideological reasons. Actually the original civil rights act has explicit language forbidding privilege through quotas but these laws have been ignored by judges.
The authors Roberts and Stratton seem to be traditional liberals who believe in equality before the law, good will between citizens of different races, and equal opportunity, but not special privilege. The question is though, will some citizens be satisfied with just equal opportunity which will plainly show that there is no equality of talent and therefore no equality in income? A false utopian equality of result is desired more than just a meritocracy with a discontented underclass of lesser talents who will be lesser paid. Also, one may conclude by reading the book that integration with equality before the law was not successful as an ideal. In a few short years, it seemed more like a power grab by the government and the newly privileged than just an interest in equality before the law. And again, is there really enough good will between the races to have one nation? I think I like authors better who think along these lines such as Jared Taylor.
This book offered an actual in-depth inspection of the danger of allowing the courts to rule - something the Founding Fathers warned about but continues to go on with barely a mention. I think the Founding Fathers would have been disappointed in our apathy. They fought a revolution for less.
I am looking forward to reading Robert's and Stratton's next book.