Yes. Those saying no seem to be pretty utopian in their ideology.
I don't see anyone making utopian arguments here. People not being pragmatic perhaps. Those are too very different things, as utopians often have no trouble being extremely pragmatic in seeking their goals.
Most of the utopian rhetoric at the time was in favor of the CRA (not at all to say that one had to be utopian to support it).
You guys (assuming you would have voted no) aren't utopian, just plain naive. You really think discrimination in jobs and accommodations would have ended on their own? When things like that are ingrained into the entire society, they don't change without something of the scale of the Civil Rights Act.
I guess it's also very easy for white men to think about this in completely theoretical terms, isn't it? It's not like you would have been impacted regardless of what transpired without the CRA.
The idea that the only impact of a bill with this sort of bureaucratic and economic significance is that it has improved opportunities for minorities strikes me as naive.
If someone says that the free market would take care of discrimination, that’s unrealistic and ideological. Prejudices are often powerful enough to overcome the profit motive. And if segregation is held at a high premium, it can create demand.
Given what blacks were going though at the time, the significance this bill held for them, I imagine I’d support it in spite of some significant difficulties. Different circumstances call for different priorities. Likewise, one should be able to go back in and make reforms to a bill like this
- but then too often any hint of criticism toward any aspect of such a landmark legislation is considered reactionary, unpatriotic, bigoted, or worse.
Poll
