Thurmond and Segregation
On the passing of Strom Thurmond there are many articles expressing the traditional condolences and eulogies. Without a doubt Strom has been an important figure in recent American political history. I will allow the more talented and mainstream press to fill in the details of the eulogies. I would prefer to use this as an opportunity to point out how Strom reflects one of my deep felt beliefs about racism.
There are two ways to consider Strom and his views on segregation. Either he really was a racist that reformed, or he was a politician that said what it took to be elected--in which case his electorate reformed. Not that the civil rights movement ever embraced Strom, but according to the well researched eulogies many Blacks did. Either way, Strom changed.
I believe that the real solution to racism will take 100 years. You can start the clock back at the 1957 Civil Rights Act that Strom filibustered for over 24 hours. Over time new generations have come on line that are not saddled with the racist baggage of the past. Over time old stalwarts of racism will die. Over time other old stalwarts will change. And with these changes racism towards Blacks will die as surely as racism towards other groups has died over time. It will take longer for Blacks than many other groups since the problem was much greater and more ingrained in culture than any other group has experienced. But, it will end. For all my criticism of Sandra Day O'Conner's recent court decision, she is right that in 25 years the need for "remedies" should pass away.
Here is to hoping that racism and all the negative things that have resulted because of it will pass away.
Jun 26, 2003
My First Contributer
One of the goals for my blog is to be more than a normal blog. I know that may not mean much since blogs can have many forms. Let me explain. Initially I had a vision for creating an online magazine. I would write stuff, and invite others to also create content. My hope would be to have amateur opinion holders express their views. Of course, I would create a lot of the content myself and use it as a reference to submit my own articles for further publication. I shared my thoughts with a couple of friends. One of them simply replied: "Oh, you mean a blog?" To be honest I was not for sure since I only had a passing sense of what blogs were. I did a little research and concluded a blog was the way to go, but with a link to an index of articles by subject. Even then, I don't want my blog to so much focus on the rapid fire approach as much as thoughtful pieces. For example, I am currently researching a piece on term limits--not timely at all, but possibly a significant issue.
The blog is in place. I am still learning things. Like how to keep a regular schedule. I still have typos and I am not sure that all that many people read it. Up until now the index has only had stuff from me. I realized as I created the index that I could simply point right back to archived blog entries. This may also be the avenue for including the submissions of others--by the way, I invite all readers to submit articles. To that end I have received my first submission.
This piece, in an unemotional way, offers an alternative method for evaluating the issue of abortion. Based on the idea of Pascal's Wager, this approach poses the question: are you willing to bet that abortion is not murder? This is close to what has often been my personal conclusion. Since I can not be sure exactly when a new life begins, and since technology continues to push the envelope on how early a baby can survive outside of the mother's womb, I must err on the side of protecting the unborn child. In essence I am willing to gamble that abortion is murder. I hope readers will enjoy this as I have.
The Abortion Wager
One of the goals for my blog is to be more than a normal blog. I know that may not mean much since blogs can have many forms. Let me explain. Initially I had a vision for creating an online magazine. I would write stuff, and invite others to also create content. My hope would be to have amateur opinion holders express their views. Of course, I would create a lot of the content myself and use it as a reference to submit my own articles for further publication. I shared my thoughts with a couple of friends. One of them simply replied: "Oh, you mean a blog?" To be honest I was not for sure since I only had a passing sense of what blogs were. I did a little research and concluded a blog was the way to go, but with a link to an index of articles by subject. Even then, I don't want my blog to so much focus on the rapid fire approach as much as thoughtful pieces. For example, I am currently researching a piece on term limits--not timely at all, but possibly a significant issue.
The blog is in place. I am still learning things. Like how to keep a regular schedule. I still have typos and I am not sure that all that many people read it. Up until now the index has only had stuff from me. I realized as I created the index that I could simply point right back to archived blog entries. This may also be the avenue for including the submissions of others--by the way, I invite all readers to submit articles. To that end I have received my first submission.
This piece, in an unemotional way, offers an alternative method for evaluating the issue of abortion. Based on the idea of Pascal's Wager, this approach poses the question: are you willing to bet that abortion is not murder? This is close to what has often been my personal conclusion. Since I can not be sure exactly when a new life begins, and since technology continues to push the envelope on how early a baby can survive outside of the mother's womb, I must err on the side of protecting the unborn child. In essence I am willing to gamble that abortion is murder. I hope readers will enjoy this as I have.
The Abortion Wager
Sodomy
I intended to ignore this issue. To be honest I just think it is a non-issue unless you are gay. Presumably I could venture the entire 'this is a legislative issue that the courts should have stayed out of' argument. But, at the end of the day conservatives still need to decide where we stand when the legislative battle takes place. Not to go off on a tangent, but it seems that sometimes we get caught up in arguing the legalities of venue when we might just want to confront the issue.
I confess to being an avid reader of National Review Online's The Corner. I tell you this because I am essentially posting my reactions to posts from The Corner. And NRO. There has been much banter about an Op-Ed piece that Jonah Goldberg published which essentially made the case that conservatives have lost the cultural war on gay issues and should negotiate a surrender.
Today, Jonah had this to say:
But what about the drug war? As I've written several times, when I asked some of the editors whether NR would be opposed to the drug war if they thought it was winnable, they said "Hmmmm, great question. I'm not sure." In other words, the conservative-libertarian case against the drug war is not that the intent of the drug war is immoral but that the costs of the drug war are immoral compared to the benefits.
Now I don't think the two things -- gay rights and the drug war -- are all that similar. But for those of you who believe that "giving up" or compromising is always wrong, you might think about this a bit.
This is what I sent to Jonah in an email about the similarity:
--------------
They are not all that dissimilar. Both are frowned upon by religious belief and social norm, yet offer the clear argument that what I do as a consenting adult is my choice. As a moral issue they both are bothersome. While I am not aware of studies on this, it might be argued that both are addictive. Sure, people may find one more repugnant than the other, but from an ideological agenda perspective they are equal.
As conservatives we are essentially stuck on the same old arguments in both cases. We just feel it is wrong to do these things. Cultural norms need to be respected and if a community of people want to legislate community values where does the constitution rightfully get in the way of this?
Of course one might argue that we are bigoted against the druggie and the sodomizer.
Conservatives really only split when we wonder if legislation should reinforce cultural norms. For me, the real concern is tools for teaching my children. I think this is what legislated cultural values ultimately are about. How do I explain to my kid that sodomy and drugs are bad him? I should be able to give educated explanations about lower life expectancy in both cases, but how much harder is it for a kid to understand that it is bad in spite of being legal? Has anyone tried to think how illogical all the anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns sound? "I can do it but you can't." "Why?" "Because I am old enough to know what I am doing." I never bought that as a teenager--not that I am addicted to anything.
This may be weak, but at the end of the day I like the cultural norms we have and I would kind of like to keep them around.
-------------------
And I think it would be interesting for readers to read my reply to the original Goldberg Op-Ed piece:
-------------------
Your facts are correct. We ARE losing the fight. But the question is why? And can we turn it around? We are losing because it has been effectively painted as a religious conservative nut issue. And to be honest, arguments about slippery slopes are hard to prove and only represent fear. We need to change the debate points and rethink our approach.
As long as the debate is fairness vs. slippery slopes then we lose. We lose because we also believe in fairness and the slope from 10 years ago to today has not been all that hurtful (or so we think). It is not that I deny the slippery slope, it is that it is not a persuasive argument.
At the end of the day, the real objective of Sullivan and friends is to no longer have someone look at them and think: "you faggot!" They falsely assume that social prestige items like parades, marriage, and parts in sit-coms will change this. For many it may. But, from what I can see what has had the greatest effect is that as gays have come out publicly more and more people discover they "know" someone who is gay. I personally have a cousin and high school buddy. This makes me unwilling to be "unfair" and willing to stop thinking: "you faggot!"
The real argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with slopes. But to point out two things: 1)Natural cultural progression is already normalizing gays and in the finest conservative tradition doing nothing will overcome the bigotedness. 2)State sanctioning of marriage has a cultural/libertarian reason unrelated to religion. Married people make decisions that affect the lives of others (namely children) and so society has a compelling reason to become involved. Gay sex will NEVER produce a kid without any contractual protection, BUT heterosexual sex may. Are there any illegitimate children from gay weekends in the Poconos? No. The state has no compelling reason to sanction the marriage. All the other "rights" that the state has attached to marriage by default can be attached by alternative measures or private contract since there are no accidental parties to a gay union. Adoption? Simply stipulate in the adoption agreement what role the state plays in the adoptive relationship.
Too many people, including heterosexuals, mistakenly view marriage with romatic notions about status. Maybe within a church this may be true, but I can stick to a religion that rejects gay unions and marriage as status only. The state is involved for one and only one reason. Gays need not apply.
I intended to ignore this issue. To be honest I just think it is a non-issue unless you are gay. Presumably I could venture the entire 'this is a legislative issue that the courts should have stayed out of' argument. But, at the end of the day conservatives still need to decide where we stand when the legislative battle takes place. Not to go off on a tangent, but it seems that sometimes we get caught up in arguing the legalities of venue when we might just want to confront the issue.
I confess to being an avid reader of National Review Online's The Corner. I tell you this because I am essentially posting my reactions to posts from The Corner. And NRO. There has been much banter about an Op-Ed piece that Jonah Goldberg published which essentially made the case that conservatives have lost the cultural war on gay issues and should negotiate a surrender.
Today, Jonah had this to say:
But what about the drug war? As I've written several times, when I asked some of the editors whether NR would be opposed to the drug war if they thought it was winnable, they said "Hmmmm, great question. I'm not sure." In other words, the conservative-libertarian case against the drug war is not that the intent of the drug war is immoral but that the costs of the drug war are immoral compared to the benefits.
Now I don't think the two things -- gay rights and the drug war -- are all that similar. But for those of you who believe that "giving up" or compromising is always wrong, you might think about this a bit.
This is what I sent to Jonah in an email about the similarity:
--------------
They are not all that dissimilar. Both are frowned upon by religious belief and social norm, yet offer the clear argument that what I do as a consenting adult is my choice. As a moral issue they both are bothersome. While I am not aware of studies on this, it might be argued that both are addictive. Sure, people may find one more repugnant than the other, but from an ideological agenda perspective they are equal.
As conservatives we are essentially stuck on the same old arguments in both cases. We just feel it is wrong to do these things. Cultural norms need to be respected and if a community of people want to legislate community values where does the constitution rightfully get in the way of this?
Of course one might argue that we are bigoted against the druggie and the sodomizer.
Conservatives really only split when we wonder if legislation should reinforce cultural norms. For me, the real concern is tools for teaching my children. I think this is what legislated cultural values ultimately are about. How do I explain to my kid that sodomy and drugs are bad him? I should be able to give educated explanations about lower life expectancy in both cases, but how much harder is it for a kid to understand that it is bad in spite of being legal? Has anyone tried to think how illogical all the anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns sound? "I can do it but you can't." "Why?" "Because I am old enough to know what I am doing." I never bought that as a teenager--not that I am addicted to anything.
This may be weak, but at the end of the day I like the cultural norms we have and I would kind of like to keep them around.
-------------------
And I think it would be interesting for readers to read my reply to the original Goldberg Op-Ed piece:
-------------------
Your facts are correct. We ARE losing the fight. But the question is why? And can we turn it around? We are losing because it has been effectively painted as a religious conservative nut issue. And to be honest, arguments about slippery slopes are hard to prove and only represent fear. We need to change the debate points and rethink our approach.
As long as the debate is fairness vs. slippery slopes then we lose. We lose because we also believe in fairness and the slope from 10 years ago to today has not been all that hurtful (or so we think). It is not that I deny the slippery slope, it is that it is not a persuasive argument.
At the end of the day, the real objective of Sullivan and friends is to no longer have someone look at them and think: "you faggot!" They falsely assume that social prestige items like parades, marriage, and parts in sit-coms will change this. For many it may. But, from what I can see what has had the greatest effect is that as gays have come out publicly more and more people discover they "know" someone who is gay. I personally have a cousin and high school buddy. This makes me unwilling to be "unfair" and willing to stop thinking: "you faggot!"
The real argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with slopes. But to point out two things: 1)Natural cultural progression is already normalizing gays and in the finest conservative tradition doing nothing will overcome the bigotedness. 2)State sanctioning of marriage has a cultural/libertarian reason unrelated to religion. Married people make decisions that affect the lives of others (namely children) and so society has a compelling reason to become involved. Gay sex will NEVER produce a kid without any contractual protection, BUT heterosexual sex may. Are there any illegitimate children from gay weekends in the Poconos? No. The state has no compelling reason to sanction the marriage. All the other "rights" that the state has attached to marriage by default can be attached by alternative measures or private contract since there are no accidental parties to a gay union. Adoption? Simply stipulate in the adoption agreement what role the state plays in the adoptive relationship.
Too many people, including heterosexuals, mistakenly view marriage with romatic notions about status. Maybe within a church this may be true, but I can stick to a religion that rejects gay unions and marriage as status only. The state is involved for one and only one reason. Gays need not apply.
Natalie and F.U.T.K.
Thanks to a friend I got to see a tape of a Country Music Television special on the feud between Country Music stars Natalie Maines and Toby Kieth. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Country Music fan and would otherwise have missed the special. Furthermore, I am still legally a Texan and I am proud that the President comes from Texas.
One simple observation--hopefully Natalie Maines will someday grow up and look at the tapes of her interviews and realize how childish she has been. Sort of like when I read entries from the first journal I ever kept. She just doesn't get it. Maybe she never will.
She needs to understand that just because you are free to speak does not mean you are free from the repercussions of your speech. Afterall, everyone else is free to dislike what you have said.
Thanks to a friend I got to see a tape of a Country Music Television special on the feud between Country Music stars Natalie Maines and Toby Kieth. In the interest of full disclosure I am not a Country Music fan and would otherwise have missed the special. Furthermore, I am still legally a Texan and I am proud that the President comes from Texas.
One simple observation--hopefully Natalie Maines will someday grow up and look at the tapes of her interviews and realize how childish she has been. Sort of like when I read entries from the first journal I ever kept. She just doesn't get it. Maybe she never will.
She needs to understand that just because you are free to speak does not mean you are free from the repercussions of your speech. Afterall, everyone else is free to dislike what you have said.
More on Affirmative Action
It is interesting to me how both sides try to spin the court decisions. But, for all of Justice O'Conner's smarts she essentially said: we don't know what to do. There is not much to spin in that. I honestly wish there was. But, in essence we are right back where we were before the decision.
While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this. For the most part the piece was quite fair and for the first time gave me a reason for Affirmative Action that was not hyped. To simplify it, the argument is that if Blacks had not been historically held back (slavery), then logic would conclude that in an undistorted contest for admissions that they would be admitted in more representative proportions. Therefore, holding back a deserving white boy in order to reward a rich black boy is not even an unfair concept.
If this is really where the Left is coming from, then we need to talk through this argument.
Keep in mind, like I said above, this is the most persuasive approach I have yet to hear. Diversity doesn't hold water, and the piece says it well enough (in fact, it was this level headedness on diversity that helped in part to make the Affirmative Action argument persuasive).
For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that 'yes, Blacks got screwed for a long time and historical institutions are keeping them down.' But, how long does the measure of keeping you down have to go back? My first ancester to America changed his last name to sound English in order to avoid obvious identification as an Irish immigrant. Sure, he came here by choice, but nonetheless this name change reflected a legitimate concern for prejudices about his ethnicity. Has the negative effect of being Irish already worn off? I think it has. The Pilgrims were religiously persecuted before coming to America. Surely there was a negative impact on them because of the religious life they chose. Sure, they chose, but what of their children? Is there a negative legacy for them to overcome? On the west coast the railroads were built by Asian indentured servants. Surely there is a negative legacy for them? How about the Japanese in WW2 iternment camps? How about the Vietnamese boat people? Canadians? Okay the last one is a joke, but how many Canadians get tired of jokes about being the 51st state? I grew up in Hawaii and saw other groups similarly impacted by one or another historical event.
The irony is that as long as your group successfully takes itself by the bootstraps and pulls itself up, you are out of luck. So, the indentured servants of today (Indian and Chinese programmers) will never get a chance for preferences since their kids are really smart and do well in school. The argument is that only groups still suffereing, for one reason or another, need special help. Ultimately the Liberal approach wants to judge people by groups and find ways to equalize all groups. One wonders if this means that some day they will declare everything fair and announce that the starting line is tomorrow for all free competition. I doubt it.
I don't dispute that Blacks as a group are in a bad position. I don't even object to marketing efforts to encourage Blacks to apply to schools. I think I can even tolerate scholarships to poor Blacks. But, I am not sure that it will ever be possible to have anything be completely fair. It is one of the unfortunate realities of a free society that some people will fail. And sometimes they will fail because of things out of their control. But mostly a free society will offer them options to overcome or mitigate the things out of their own control.
My Dad grew up a farm boy. He was a simple government civil servant. He never invested in the stock market. I can remember sitting in a college finance class and having no idea what a stock option was. Future's markets? What is that? Yields? Bonds? I thought those were just the things I got from my Elementary school for being a good student. The rich kid next to me in class understood it all and could deal with the questions easily. I had to work at it. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, but my point is that maybe we should focus on individuals. If a Black kid wants to make the case in his application essay that he is better for facing the adversity of coming from a poor Black family with a single mother, I want to hear that case. And if the college admissions committee reads that essay and concludes that this is a person who deserves a break, then great. I am just not convinced that we need to calculate group status and assign prejudiced rewards in hopes of changing the results of the group calculus equation.
It is interesting to me how both sides try to spin the court decisions. But, for all of Justice O'Conner's smarts she essentially said: we don't know what to do. There is not much to spin in that. I honestly wish there was. But, in essence we are right back where we were before the decision.
While looking for something completely unrelated, I found this. For the most part the piece was quite fair and for the first time gave me a reason for Affirmative Action that was not hyped. To simplify it, the argument is that if Blacks had not been historically held back (slavery), then logic would conclude that in an undistorted contest for admissions that they would be admitted in more representative proportions. Therefore, holding back a deserving white boy in order to reward a rich black boy is not even an unfair concept.
If this is really where the Left is coming from, then we need to talk through this argument.
Keep in mind, like I said above, this is the most persuasive approach I have yet to hear. Diversity doesn't hold water, and the piece says it well enough (in fact, it was this level headedness on diversity that helped in part to make the Affirmative Action argument persuasive).
For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise that 'yes, Blacks got screwed for a long time and historical institutions are keeping them down.' But, how long does the measure of keeping you down have to go back? My first ancester to America changed his last name to sound English in order to avoid obvious identification as an Irish immigrant. Sure, he came here by choice, but nonetheless this name change reflected a legitimate concern for prejudices about his ethnicity. Has the negative effect of being Irish already worn off? I think it has. The Pilgrims were religiously persecuted before coming to America. Surely there was a negative impact on them because of the religious life they chose. Sure, they chose, but what of their children? Is there a negative legacy for them to overcome? On the west coast the railroads were built by Asian indentured servants. Surely there is a negative legacy for them? How about the Japanese in WW2 iternment camps? How about the Vietnamese boat people? Canadians? Okay the last one is a joke, but how many Canadians get tired of jokes about being the 51st state? I grew up in Hawaii and saw other groups similarly impacted by one or another historical event.
The irony is that as long as your group successfully takes itself by the bootstraps and pulls itself up, you are out of luck. So, the indentured servants of today (Indian and Chinese programmers) will never get a chance for preferences since their kids are really smart and do well in school. The argument is that only groups still suffereing, for one reason or another, need special help. Ultimately the Liberal approach wants to judge people by groups and find ways to equalize all groups. One wonders if this means that some day they will declare everything fair and announce that the starting line is tomorrow for all free competition. I doubt it.
I don't dispute that Blacks as a group are in a bad position. I don't even object to marketing efforts to encourage Blacks to apply to schools. I think I can even tolerate scholarships to poor Blacks. But, I am not sure that it will ever be possible to have anything be completely fair. It is one of the unfortunate realities of a free society that some people will fail. And sometimes they will fail because of things out of their control. But mostly a free society will offer them options to overcome or mitigate the things out of their own control.
My Dad grew up a farm boy. He was a simple government civil servant. He never invested in the stock market. I can remember sitting in a college finance class and having no idea what a stock option was. Future's markets? What is that? Yields? Bonds? I thought those were just the things I got from my Elementary school for being a good student. The rich kid next to me in class understood it all and could deal with the questions easily. I had to work at it. I don't want anyone to feel sorry for me, but my point is that maybe we should focus on individuals. If a Black kid wants to make the case in his application essay that he is better for facing the adversity of coming from a poor Black family with a single mother, I want to hear that case. And if the college admissions committee reads that essay and concludes that this is a person who deserves a break, then great. I am just not convinced that we need to calculate group status and assign prejudiced rewards in hopes of changing the results of the group calculus equation.
Jun 24, 2003
The Supremes
Two men get their shotguns and go to a pond. They each set up camp in something ostensibly called a duck blind. The first man watches for ducks and aims his shotgun at ducks. Which if he hits, he retrieves to take home and stuff in one way or another. The second man blindfolds himself and shoots randomly into the air. At the end of the day he looks around on the ground to see what he hit. If he sees any ducks he takes them home and stuffs them. I ask you: who is a duck hunter?
Yesterday, as far as I can tell from the way CNN is reporting the decision, the Supreme Court essentially said that using race as an automatic condition is not okay, but using race as a final determinant on an individual basis would be okay. That to me seems like saying if it is okay to look at race, just not too soon--and thus my duck hunter metaphor. If I look at race now or later does not make race a non-issue?
Let me try to make clear my view on affirmative action, race and all related problems.
To begin with I think that as conservatives it is not weakness in our argument to admit that many studies seem to confirm that certain minorities tend to have less opportunity. It is fair to say that part of what America is about includes opportunity for all. I have no reason to want to keep any minority "down". I am just not convinced that Affirmative Action is any truer to the American ideal than was slavery. I am even willing to go one step further in the interest of respect--let's just stipulate that Affirmative Action has done some good things. The original conception was a short-term shot in the arm to stimulate the participation of blacks in the cultural aspects of society that create wealth. The hope was to create a healthy middle class in the black community that could then provide the strength for the rest of the community to succeed. Where it fell apart has nothing to do with race, but with the same problem that plagues ALL attempts at government programs to solve problems. Eventually the program comes to have a life of it's own and can never be eliminated. Those who have a stake in the survival of the program invent new arguments and expand the program along the way. And so, Affirmative Action becomes "diversity".
Yesterday the court made a mistake. Some conservatives, including President Bush will try to spin the best out of the decision. But at the end of the day, the court said that Michigan's methodology was bad, but that the goal of "diversity" was acceptable. Conservatives should be disappointed.
What should the strategy be? I think conservatives win the day when we stick to bedrock principles. Efficiency in anything is best achieved when we remove distortions. We need to forcefully make the case that no one benefits from programs that target certain racial profiles in a freshman class, not to mention government contracts. Do we need an approach that gives the economically disadvantaged an extra chance? We can consider that compromise since it is essentially fairer than using race, but at the end of the day we should focus on limiting the power, scope and influence of government. Maybe government should simply stop asking the race of contractors and student applicants. Public Universities could still have an essay that asks applicants to detail some personal adversity they have faced and how they have overcome this in life. If the applicant wants to focus on overcoming racism or being poor then that is their choice. I have no problem with a desire to have a freshman class that includes individuals who have overcome great challenges and may not have high grades to match those efforts. I also have no problem with efforts to encourage under-represented groups to apply to schools through marketing efforts. There is an opportunity cost and a fair amount of cynicism associated with these efforts, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of demonstrating good faith on the issue of race.
Finally, understanding conservative ideas generally requires the patience to take a long-term view. While Blacks are still poorer than Whites, there is fair evidence that the Black middle class is growing. Why not remove the stigma of group welfare and wait a couple of generations to see how the growing Black middle class affects the profile of America in 25, 50 or 100 years? I believe that as old racists die off and successful Black role models increase in numbers that opportunities for Blacks will increase. Furthermore, the tools for wealth creation will increasingly be shared by all.
Two men get their shotguns and go to a pond. They each set up camp in something ostensibly called a duck blind. The first man watches for ducks and aims his shotgun at ducks. Which if he hits, he retrieves to take home and stuff in one way or another. The second man blindfolds himself and shoots randomly into the air. At the end of the day he looks around on the ground to see what he hit. If he sees any ducks he takes them home and stuffs them. I ask you: who is a duck hunter?
Yesterday, as far as I can tell from the way CNN is reporting the decision, the Supreme Court essentially said that using race as an automatic condition is not okay, but using race as a final determinant on an individual basis would be okay. That to me seems like saying if it is okay to look at race, just not too soon--and thus my duck hunter metaphor. If I look at race now or later does not make race a non-issue?
Let me try to make clear my view on affirmative action, race and all related problems.
To begin with I think that as conservatives it is not weakness in our argument to admit that many studies seem to confirm that certain minorities tend to have less opportunity. It is fair to say that part of what America is about includes opportunity for all. I have no reason to want to keep any minority "down". I am just not convinced that Affirmative Action is any truer to the American ideal than was slavery. I am even willing to go one step further in the interest of respect--let's just stipulate that Affirmative Action has done some good things. The original conception was a short-term shot in the arm to stimulate the participation of blacks in the cultural aspects of society that create wealth. The hope was to create a healthy middle class in the black community that could then provide the strength for the rest of the community to succeed. Where it fell apart has nothing to do with race, but with the same problem that plagues ALL attempts at government programs to solve problems. Eventually the program comes to have a life of it's own and can never be eliminated. Those who have a stake in the survival of the program invent new arguments and expand the program along the way. And so, Affirmative Action becomes "diversity".
Yesterday the court made a mistake. Some conservatives, including President Bush will try to spin the best out of the decision. But at the end of the day, the court said that Michigan's methodology was bad, but that the goal of "diversity" was acceptable. Conservatives should be disappointed.
What should the strategy be? I think conservatives win the day when we stick to bedrock principles. Efficiency in anything is best achieved when we remove distortions. We need to forcefully make the case that no one benefits from programs that target certain racial profiles in a freshman class, not to mention government contracts. Do we need an approach that gives the economically disadvantaged an extra chance? We can consider that compromise since it is essentially fairer than using race, but at the end of the day we should focus on limiting the power, scope and influence of government. Maybe government should simply stop asking the race of contractors and student applicants. Public Universities could still have an essay that asks applicants to detail some personal adversity they have faced and how they have overcome this in life. If the applicant wants to focus on overcoming racism or being poor then that is their choice. I have no problem with a desire to have a freshman class that includes individuals who have overcome great challenges and may not have high grades to match those efforts. I also have no problem with efforts to encourage under-represented groups to apply to schools through marketing efforts. There is an opportunity cost and a fair amount of cynicism associated with these efforts, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of demonstrating good faith on the issue of race.
Finally, understanding conservative ideas generally requires the patience to take a long-term view. While Blacks are still poorer than Whites, there is fair evidence that the Black middle class is growing. Why not remove the stigma of group welfare and wait a couple of generations to see how the growing Black middle class affects the profile of America in 25, 50 or 100 years? I believe that as old racists die off and successful Black role models increase in numbers that opportunities for Blacks will increase. Furthermore, the tools for wealth creation will increasingly be shared by all.
Jun 23, 2003
Bitter Democrats
David Brooks makes the point that Democrats are in trouble. They are out of power and feeling the pain. This is great for high fiving and talking about in Conservative or Republican circles, but as David Brooks himself points out we are not really in power--only the Democrats think we are. As I have said with Hillary, don't be fooled--there are plenty of smart Democrats out there who have plans. Frustration with Bush does not translate to complete powerlessness.
What Conservatives should get out of the Brooks piece is an anthropological understanding of how Democrats really think. He gives several examples of which my favorite is the recent attempt to turn the table on the argument about what type of bias the mainstream media has. But to my point, this is the strategy. Say it enough times and the 20% of the electorate that matters will eventually believe it--they will believe that the media is conservative, they will believe that Bush is a crook and a fascist, they will believe that Bush is cutting spending. They will not have time to read all the blogs and listen to Rush and watch Foxnews. They will simply conclude that all the Conservative criticisms of the Democrats are nothing more than the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary told them all about. And come 2008 they will elect a Democrat. Conservative have our work cut out. We must debate the issues and take our message to the 20%. We need to explain to them why we need a Republican. And then we need to explain to Republicans why they need to be Conservative. High five tonite with your friends and then get back to work tomorrow.
David Brooks makes the point that Democrats are in trouble. They are out of power and feeling the pain. This is great for high fiving and talking about in Conservative or Republican circles, but as David Brooks himself points out we are not really in power--only the Democrats think we are. As I have said with Hillary, don't be fooled--there are plenty of smart Democrats out there who have plans. Frustration with Bush does not translate to complete powerlessness.
What Conservatives should get out of the Brooks piece is an anthropological understanding of how Democrats really think. He gives several examples of which my favorite is the recent attempt to turn the table on the argument about what type of bias the mainstream media has. But to my point, this is the strategy. Say it enough times and the 20% of the electorate that matters will eventually believe it--they will believe that the media is conservative, they will believe that Bush is a crook and a fascist, they will believe that Bush is cutting spending. They will not have time to read all the blogs and listen to Rush and watch Foxnews. They will simply conclude that all the Conservative criticisms of the Democrats are nothing more than the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that Hillary told them all about. And come 2008 they will elect a Democrat. Conservative have our work cut out. We must debate the issues and take our message to the 20%. We need to explain to them why we need a Republican. And then we need to explain to Republicans why they need to be Conservative. High five tonite with your friends and then get back to work tomorrow.
Bill Gates on Spam
So, the other day I got forwarded that old time favorite email about Bill Gates giving money to all the people who forward that same dumb email to test the size of the internet. Is Bill going to pay up or not? I know it is a hoax and my point is simply that there are a lot of irritating things that come through my email inbox--and some of it from people I like. Recently the discussion of what to do about spam has gotten some more attention. Today, Bill Gates gives his opinion in the Wall Street Journal. In the interest of full disclosure: I use Microsoft products and make all the trendy complaints about Microsoft's power in the marketplace. That being said, I was doing fine with everything Bill had to say until he got to the end. He pointed out that there are legitimate costs in productivity. He also made a pitch for how Microsoft is both finding technical solutions to offer customers and collaborating with competitors to fight spam. But, as I said before, he lost me at the end. Here is the quote: "Congress could help by providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practices. Our proposal is to create a regulatory 'safe harbor' status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body." I have no problem with industry leaders coming together to develop standards, but I am not in favor of coersive government incentives. Bill, please stick to the things you can do yourself and keep the government out of it. And back to my story about the chain letter: what comes after Spam is regulated? Chain letters also create productivity costs. Are we going to have a subject label called "CHN"?
So, the other day I got forwarded that old time favorite email about Bill Gates giving money to all the people who forward that same dumb email to test the size of the internet. Is Bill going to pay up or not? I know it is a hoax and my point is simply that there are a lot of irritating things that come through my email inbox--and some of it from people I like. Recently the discussion of what to do about spam has gotten some more attention. Today, Bill Gates gives his opinion in the Wall Street Journal. In the interest of full disclosure: I use Microsoft products and make all the trendy complaints about Microsoft's power in the marketplace. That being said, I was doing fine with everything Bill had to say until he got to the end. He pointed out that there are legitimate costs in productivity. He also made a pitch for how Microsoft is both finding technical solutions to offer customers and collaborating with competitors to fight spam. But, as I said before, he lost me at the end. Here is the quote: "Congress could help by providing a strong incentive for businesses to adopt e-mail best practices. Our proposal is to create a regulatory 'safe harbor' status for senders who comply with e-mail guidelines confirmed by an FTC-approved self-regulatory body." I have no problem with industry leaders coming together to develop standards, but I am not in favor of coersive government incentives. Bill, please stick to the things you can do yourself and keep the government out of it. And back to my story about the chain letter: what comes after Spam is regulated? Chain letters also create productivity costs. Are we going to have a subject label called "CHN"?
It's the Spending Stupid!
Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, has a piece on National Review Online making the case that the cause of the deficit is federal government spending growth. I think he is correct in identifying this as the problem. He points out that by simply slowing the growth of spending from 5.6% to 4.6% the budget could be balanced by 2008 even while spending on political favorites. He says: "The balanced budget that results would include a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare recipients, would fully fund the president’s defense requests, would pay for the recent war in Iraq, and would still allow Congress to enact a bigger tax cut than the one that took effect in May."
Let me first make very clear: I agree! However, I think Mr. Feulner misses a great opportunity to take the right people to task. As I have said before, I think Bush is great, but he has never met a spending bill he didn't sign. Bush is afraid to confront congressional spenders with the same black and white view with which he confronts the evil doers. Why? I think he is making a political calculation. If he allows Congress to spend what they want then his only critics will be in the Democratic party. Even then, they will get little traction since there will be no hard evidence that Bush has cut ANY program (outright or in terms of growth rates). The bottom-line is that Bush does not want to confront politicians on spending. To be fair, Mr. Feulner correctly takes Congressional deficit hawks to task, but he should have named names. I am willing to chance a bet that if all the proclaimed "deficit hawks" voluntarily gave up all federal spending in their own state or congressional district that we could also balance the budget by 2008. Do you think the Federal government spends money in Maine, Arizona, or Ohio? These are all states with two Republican Senators where at least one of them is a very vocal deficit hawk, yet they all tout spending they have secured for their state. Bush and Congressional Republicans need to get serious about balancing the budget. And I think if Mr. Feulner is serious about a balanced budget his organization needs to take Bush and Congressional Republicans to task.
Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, has a piece on National Review Online making the case that the cause of the deficit is federal government spending growth. I think he is correct in identifying this as the problem. He points out that by simply slowing the growth of spending from 5.6% to 4.6% the budget could be balanced by 2008 even while spending on political favorites. He says: "The balanced budget that results would include a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare recipients, would fully fund the president’s defense requests, would pay for the recent war in Iraq, and would still allow Congress to enact a bigger tax cut than the one that took effect in May."
Let me first make very clear: I agree! However, I think Mr. Feulner misses a great opportunity to take the right people to task. As I have said before, I think Bush is great, but he has never met a spending bill he didn't sign. Bush is afraid to confront congressional spenders with the same black and white view with which he confronts the evil doers. Why? I think he is making a political calculation. If he allows Congress to spend what they want then his only critics will be in the Democratic party. Even then, they will get little traction since there will be no hard evidence that Bush has cut ANY program (outright or in terms of growth rates). The bottom-line is that Bush does not want to confront politicians on spending. To be fair, Mr. Feulner correctly takes Congressional deficit hawks to task, but he should have named names. I am willing to chance a bet that if all the proclaimed "deficit hawks" voluntarily gave up all federal spending in their own state or congressional district that we could also balance the budget by 2008. Do you think the Federal government spends money in Maine, Arizona, or Ohio? These are all states with two Republican Senators where at least one of them is a very vocal deficit hawk, yet they all tout spending they have secured for their state. Bush and Congressional Republicans need to get serious about balancing the budget. And I think if Mr. Feulner is serious about a balanced budget his organization needs to take Bush and Congressional Republicans to task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)