Racism, Collectivism & Richard Hanania

---

I wrote this piece in May of 2023, and a close friend and long-time mentor, with whom I did an independent study, provided editing support. My focus of study was to explore political dissent from 1850 to today, from Frederick Douglass to now, in writing and speech. I spent hundreds of hours with Frederick Douglass, Phyllis Wheatley, Malcolm X, W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King, and many scholars, authors, poets, church leaders, and intellectuals. Really, this came together as a survey of Black classical literature, which expanded my interests far beyond my imagination. I looked at the Europeans' response to the complete rejection of Western institutions and the move from the church to atheism, which reshaped how we carry out liberation movements, protests, and politics. It is fitting to release this at the height of one of the most contentious election cycles since Abraham Lincoln.

---

Thursday, May 25, 2023

Once upon a time, ‘collectivist’ used to be a worse insult than ‘racist,’ at least to those on the political right. The argument that Ayn Rand made 60 years ago in a little-read but pretty critical essay titled “Racism” is that “the simplest collective to join, the easiest one to identify — particularly for people of limited intelligence — the least demanding form of “belonging” and of “togetherness” is: race.” The TLDR: categorizing by race is for the soft of head, if not the hard of heart.

The collectivist, for Rand, cares only for groups and pursues collective interests at the expense of others. In doing so, the collectivist obstructs the rights of individuals outside their group, which places them in direct opposition to individual freedom. Could she have imagined that collectivism would be more common today than 60 years ago? Look at how we talk about woke or anti-woke, Republican or Democrat, CNN or Fox News, and worse. US culture is not just ‘polarized’ but collectivized, including collectives whose sole purpose is to decimate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. We could call it collective polarization: a power struggle between collectives. And if power is defined by identity, then identity is defined by power. Collectivists are enamored by power, drunk on it, in fact. 

Take Richard Hanania, for example. Now, here is a collectivist Rand would love to hate. He aims to deny broader parts of American society access to liberty and freedom. Hanania argues expansively that Latinos and blacks are a violent threat to white Americans and labels his claims ‘uncomfortable truths.’ Rand would say, “The theory that holds “good blood” or “bad blood” as a moral-intellectual criterion can lead to nothing but torrents of blood in practice. Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals.” If Rand were alive today, she might say Hanania’s politics are appalling, abhorrent, even an abomination, especially for someone as well-studied as him. She would hold him in contempt and say that his denial of rights to ethnic groups justifies preventing him from claiming, defending, or upholding any rights for himself whatsoever. Harsh, yes, but in many ways, it is the actions of the individual that can become a detriment to society, left unchecked, as it spreads, like a contagion, across the group, with an imagined self, seeking to harm other groups, in an endless cycle of collectivism.

I part with Rand in recognizing race and that we are a multiracial democracy that has expanded slowly over centuries to include more and more people. My father was 24 in 1964, but it wasn’t until the year that I was born that the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 prohibited discrimination in housing sales, rentals, or financing. I don’t have to deal with that. He did, however. Continued expansion of who is included should remain the trajectory in America. Multiracial is American, and Americans are multiracial. 

The collectivist denies this objective reality, favoring their interest in holding power, opposing policies that threaten the future of their collective, and using the law as a blunt force instrument for sorting society into containers, political and economic. The best collectivist can visualize data, isolate the conversation to a small scope, and argue for their cause rather than be responsive to the needs of individuals. It’s their need over yours, and the collectivist would keep it this way if they could, obstructing your rights to live out your life. Black Lives Matter, another collective, communicated its intent on toppling the power structure and removing the majority. Is this not peak illiberalism? Ayn Rand said, “There can be no such thing as the “right” of some men to violate the rights of others.” She remains correct some 60 years later.

The tension between restricting individual freedom and holding power is the root of all collectivism. When the collective concentrates on a set of shared values within the group but not beyond the group, it optimizes for achieving its ends. This is precisely the dynamic the collectivist uses to your detriment. First, they obstruct your access to political institutions in the name of free speech. Next, they prevent you from accessing your constitutional rights. Then, they abolish them altogether. Just look at the ‘Anti-woke’ movement. Anti-woke is an informal collectivist organization that was developed with the sole purpose of obstructing individual liberties. We saw that in George C. Wallace, who said, “In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” Who foresaw that collectivists like George C. Wallace would live on in hate-mongers like Richard Hanania today? Furthermore, collectivism leads to claims of supremacy, which are deeply embedded in a desire to dominate. If it is domination you seek, you are the sound of an autocrat when you speak, and the lord should have no mercy on your soul, forever damned in the bowels of hell.

Thomas Sowell, a well-known economist and social commentator, wrote a piece in 1979, Myths about Minorities, which sought to dispel false claims on race. He said, “Even the racial distinction between black and white is not as sharp in reality as it is in rhetoric.” He goes on to say, “Americans are far from having blended into one indistinguishable mass, but we are just as far from being a majority-minority society or a society in which racial and ethnic labels can be taken literally.” Sowell’s commentary adds nuance to Rand’s arguments on the foolishness of collectivism. Sowell makes it clear that a black minority and a white majority are purely rhetorical tactics used by politicians and interest groups seeking to denigrate individuals' interests.

Another American economist and academic, Glen Loury, wrote an incisive critique of American values in Racial politics, black and white. A New American Dilemma. He points out, “Neither democratic leaders nor republican leaders nor black leaders have much incentive to prevent this political fracas from exacerbating the general racial division of American society.” Loury extends Sowell’s statements and describes the rhetorical environment of American politics that Rand was vehemently against. Discussions on race are merely a means to achieve political ends but are out of line with the reality of American life.

Both Loury and Sowell make compelling arguments. The black-white dichotomy is entirely outdated, bodes well for the collective interests, and is highly effective at obstructing individuals intellectually or ideologically. Let us consider parting ways with the dichotomy, allowing a new, more representative language to emerge in our society. One that speaks to the souls of individuals, not collectives, and moves us toward sustainable democracy that is secure, predictable, and guaranteed.

As a citizen of the beacon of hope for democracy in the international system, I call on you to sit with Rand as I did. Do some introspection on democracy and freedom. Ask yourself what it means to you and if this is where you want to be. Rand speaks eloquently on today’s social and political environment; I will leave you with this quote.

“The pretense at any political philosophy, any principles, ideals or long-range goals is fast disappearing from our scene,” she wrote, “and it is all but admitted that this country is now floating without direction, at the mercy of a blind, short-range power game played by various statist gangs, each intent on getting hold of a legislative gun for any special advantage of the immediate moment.”