re: #235 uncah91

Well, you seemed to be agreeing with Charles that Chait is trying to rehabilitate Hunter. I don’t think Chait is doing that at all. I also don’t think Chait is embarrassing himself.

He clearly understands the deep link between libertarians and neo confederates.

I was wrong, I didn’t quote the same section you did.

The snarky subtitle on his home page made me re-read the whole thing. The last paragraph does not reassure me that you are correct. Starts with

Segregation was in large part a policy of government, not the free market.

which I don’t agree with. Then (skipping one) there’s this:

Barry Goldwater expressed his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act in classically race-neutral, anti-big-government terms.

which I can’t go along with. His ‘terms’ may have been ‘race-neutral’, but it was not a ‘race-neutral’ issue, and I can’t conceive of being so ‘neutral’ on race that one could fail to support the Civil Rights Act. That paragraph ends with this:

It’s a reflection of the fact that white supremacy is a much more important historical constituency for anti-government ideas than libertarians like to admit.

Chait fails to follow the logic any further, and it obviously (to me) goes further.

On this issue, failure to be clear (if he was trying to express what you say) looks like coming down on the other side. I’ll keep an open mind, though.