Achieving Success without Government Intervention
The U.S. government’s treatment of American Indians was despicable. Everyone knows that, at least in a general way. The forced resettlement of the Choctaws, of which the “Trail of Tears” is the most infamous episode, is undoubtedly among the sorriest instances of governmental duplicity, venality, and incompetence in our abundant history thereof.
We have become accustomed to “oppressed minority groups,” with grievances far more imagined than real, demanding compensation at the expense of people who had nothing to do with the alleged injustices, or preferential treatment that necessitates abandoning equality before the law. So it is shocking to read of an instance where a “victim group” has chosen a different path. That is precisely the subject of Peter Ferrara’s The Choctaw Revolution.
Ferrara relates the intriguing story of how the Choctaw tribe of Mississippi improved their lives not through political coercion, but by freeing themselves from paternalistic, enervating federal policy. It is a story that might just open the eyes of those who always proclaim their compassion for the oppressed, yet clamor for more government intervention to help them.
Ferrara is a well-known Washington policy analyst who has made his name mainly by exposing Social Security as doomed. Now he has given us a detailed look at federal Indian policy, an area as fraught with interventionist nonsense as Social Security is.
Through repeated treaty violations and land grabs, the government turned the Choctaws (and most other Indian tribes) into wards of the state, dependent on Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) bureaucrats for education, health care, housing, roads, law enforcement, and more. Ferrara quotes Chief Phillip Martin on the situation they faced: “The government could give us the bare essentials to survive, but if we wanted more, we would have to earn it ourselves.” That was easier said than done.
Seeing that the federal government was doing a pathetic job of providing the Choctaws with the essentials, Martin decided that it was time to stop relying on the BIA and to start contracting for services directly. This is a right recognized for Indian tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act, but as the Indians should have known from history, having a right on paper and being able to exercise it are two different things.
Martin found the BIA bureaucrats fighting his efforts to contract for services at every point. That the Choctaws would have been better off without the bureaucrats was irrelevant. Ferrara writes, “Instead of pursuing the broad public interest as they are supposed to do, they pursue their own narrow parochial interest in their own turf, power, funding and jobs.” The BIA repeatedly withheld information and technical assistance, arbitrarily imposed onerous requirements, delayed approving Choctaw initiatives, and even threatened retaliation against them for trying to exercise their rights. Eventually, after years of perseverance, the Choctaws were successful in contracting the BIA almost completely off their reservation, but it was a nasty, unseemly battle for freedom. Ferrara quotes one honest BIA official on the results of their fight to run their own affairs: “The tribe is doing an exemplary job. They’re a more professional outfit than we ever were.”
Another typical political fight the Choctaws (and other tribes) have had to wage is the avoidance of federal taxation of gambling casino proceeds. The profits from casinos go to fund improved housing, roads, education, and other things for Indian tribes. They also represent marginal competition for the big gambling interests in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. Nevada and New Jersey congressmen have introduced bills to subject Indian casinos to federal regulation and taxation, claiming without any evidence that they are “riddled with corruption.” Donald Trump, quite willing to use politics to further his interests, lobbied personally for the bills. So far, however, the Indians have defended successfully against this attack.
Ferrara closes with a list of useful suggestions for improving government policy toward Indian tribes. He argues that “tribes should have the freedom to run their own lands” and advocates treating Indian reservations as enterprise zones free from capital gains taxes and regulations on both Indian and non-Indian business enterprises.
Of course, the entire country should be given that treatment, but if we must proceed in small steps, beginning with Indian reservations is sensible. Why not allow some of the poorest Americans the freedom to prosper, as the Choctaws have begun to? It would be a wonderful demonstration of the benefits of liberty.
