Table of Contents
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Conservative Viewpoint
Conservatives hold a divided and historically layered view of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A significant strand of conservative thought - rooted in constitutional originalism and classical liberal commitments to individual liberty and limited government - opposed the Act at the time of its passage on grounds that certain provisions exceeded federal authority and infringed on freedom of association and private property rights. A separate, broader strand of conservative opinion supported the Act's core aims of dismantling state-enforced segregation while raising objections to specific titles. Contemporary conservatives have largely accepted the Act's legitimacy regarding government-enforced discrimination while continuing to contest what they regard as its overreach into private conduct and its later administrative expansion into a regime of group-based rights and mandated outcomes.
Core Arguments
State-Enforced Segregation Was the Legitimate Target
Many conservatives, then and now, argue that the Act's most defensible core was the dismantling of de jure segregation - the system of laws in Southern states that compelled racial separation in public accommodations, schools, and civic life. In this reading, segregation was an affront to equal individual rights enforced by state power, and the federal government was justified in striking it down. The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law provided clear constitutional grounding for ending state-imposed discrimination. Conservatives in this tradition view this aspect of the Act as consistent with, not a departure from, limited-government principles.
Objections to Title II - Freedom of Association
The most persistent conservative objection, articulated by Senator Barry Goldwater in his 1964 vote against the Act, concerns Title II, which prohibited racial discrimination in privately owned public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, and theaters. Goldwater and like-minded conservatives argued that while racial discrimination is morally wrong, the federal government lacks constitutional authority to dictate how private business owners conduct their affairs. Freedom of association - the right of individuals and organizations to choose their own associations without government compulsion - is, in this view, a fundamental liberty. Compelling a private owner to serve customers against his will, however repugnant the reason for refusal, crosses from protecting individual rights into regulating private conscience and contract. Goldwater explicitly stated he found segregation abhorrent but believed the correct remedy was persuasion, social pressure, and state-level legislation, not federal mandate. 1)
Commerce Clause Overreach
The Act relied heavily on the Commerce Clause as its constitutional basis for regulating private conduct - an application conservatives argued stretched that clause far beyond its original meaning. Originalists contend that the Commerce Clause was intended to regulate interstate commercial transactions, not to serve as a general federal police power over private social behavior. The Supreme Court's broad reading in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) ratified an expansive federal authority that conservatives argue has been used ever since to justify almost limitless federal regulation of private life. 2)
The Shift from Anti-Discrimination to Group Preferences
Perhaps the most vigorous contemporary conservative argument concerns what happened after 1964. Conservatives contend that the Act was sold to the public on the principle of colorblind equal treatment - that individuals would be judged without regard to race - but was subsequently transformed through administrative agencies, court decisions, and executive orders into a mandate for race-conscious policies, affirmative action, and proportional representation by group. They argue this transformation betrayed the Act's original promise and converted an instrument of individual equality into a vehicle for group-based social engineering. The concept of “disparate impact” liability, developed in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), is frequently cited as a turning point - shifting the standard from intentional discrimination against individuals to statistical underrepresentation of groups as evidence of illegal discrimination. 3)
Color-Blindness as the Authentic Heir
A major conservative position holds that the vision articulated by Martin Luther King Jr. - judging individuals by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin - is more faithfully represented by the color-blind interpretation of the Act than by diversity and inclusion frameworks. Conservatives argue that race-conscious remedies, however well-intentioned, perpetuate the racial categorization the Act was meant to end. Justice Clarence Thomas has argued consistently from this position in dissents and concurrences spanning decades. 4)
Historical Development
The conservative response to the Act in 1964 was not monolithic. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois was instrumental in breaking the southern Democratic filibuster and securing the Act's passage - the Republican Party, as conservatives frequently note, voted for the Act in higher proportions than Democrats in both chambers. The principal opposition came from Southern Democrats defending the Jim Crow system, and from a smaller group of libertarian-leaning Republicans, including Goldwater, whose objections were constitutional rather than segregationist in motivation.
During the 1970s and 1980s, as federal agencies expanded the Act's reach through disparate-impact doctrine, affirmative action mandates, and set-aside programs, conservative objection shifted. The argument moved from debating the original Act to contesting its administrative and judicial elaboration. The Reagan administration challenged disparate-impact regulations and affirmative action requirements, arguing for a return to the Act's original intent of individual, colorblind equality.
The Clarence Thomas-led conservative jurisprudential project on the Supreme Court sustained this argument into the 21st century, culminating in decisions such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), in which the Court held that race-conscious university admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause - a decision many conservatives viewed as a belated vindication of the Act's original colorblind promise.
Notable Proponents
Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) - U.S. Senator from Arizona and 1964 Republican presidential nominee. Voted against the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds, explicitly disavowing racial discrimination while maintaining the Act's private-conduct provisions violated individual liberty and federalism. His position became a touchstone for libertarian-leaning conservatism. 5)
Robert Bork (1927-2012) - Federal judge and legal scholar who argued in his academic writing that Title II represented an illegitimate use of federal power, later walked back partially during his 1987 Supreme Court confirmation hearings. His broader originalist jurisprudence shaped conservative constitutional critique of the Act's expansion. 6)
Clarence Thomas (b. 1948) - Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The most influential current proponent of the colorblind constitutional interpretation of the Act. Thomas argues that the Constitution is colorblind, that race-conscious government action is presumptively unconstitutional, and that the Act's administrative transformation into a disparate-impact and affirmative-action regime betrayed its founding premise. 7)
Abigail Thernstrom (1936-2016) and Stephan Thernstrom (b. 1934) - Historians whose work documented what they argued was the Act's bureaucratic and judicial transformation from colorblind anti-discrimination law into a system of group preferences, and who contended that black progress predated and did not primarily result from that transformation. 8)
Thomas Sowell (b. 1930) - Economist and social theorist who has argued across multiple books that anti-discrimination law and affirmative action have often harmed the intended beneficiaries, created perverse incentives, and rested on empirically unsupported assumptions about the causes of group disparities. 9)
Internal Debates
Conservatives disagree about several questions:
Was Title II ever defensible? Libertarian conservatives maintain that even granting moral condemnation of private discrimination, the federal government has no legitimate authority to compel private association - and that this objection holds regardless of what Southern states were doing at the time. More mainstream conservatives argue this is an academic point given that the alternative was preserving Jim Crow, and that the Act's Title II provisions were a justified pragmatic remedy for conditions created partly by state enforcement of the racial order.
Originalism versus pragmatism on the Commerce Clause. Strict originalists argue that Heart of Atlanta was wrongly decided and that the constitutional basis for Title II remains illegitimate regardless of outcome. Other conservatives accept the settled constitutional interpretation and focus their criticism on the Act's post-1964 elaboration.
How to characterize the original Democratic opposition. Some conservatives emphasize that the primary opponents of the Act were Southern Democrats defending segregation, and use this to contest the “Republican Southern Strategy” narrative. Others are more cautious, noting that the regional realignment of subsequent decades complicates simple party-credit-and-blame arguments.
Disparate impact entirely vs. reform. While most conservatives reject disparate-impact doctrine in its current administrative form, some argue for a more limited version that would preserve claims of facially neutral policies adopted with discriminatory intent, rather than eliminating statistical-disparity claims entirely.
Related Pages
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Main Topic
Footnotes
~~FOOTNOTES~~