I think Logan did a great job on this.--- In
[email protected], Logan Ferree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I originally wrote the following article at my blog, Freedom
Democrats,
> in response to a piece by Steve Sailer in The American Conservative
> (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/cover.html). For some
reason, his
> piece touched a nerve with me and I felt compelled to pass on my
thoughts to
> others. I am sure that there are some right-leaning libertarians
that
> disagree with me. In my opinion far too many libertarians justify
their
> hatred of "the other", be it Latinos or Muslims, by claiming that
their
> culture is somehow incompatible with liberty and freedom. Such
narrow
> minded hate blinds them to the dangers of drawing a line between
those who
> deserve freedom and those who apparently do not.
>
> Social Capital, Not a Wise Investment?
>
> Originally posted at Freedom Democrats, an online community for
> libertarian-leaning Democrats: http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/1144
>
> Steve Sailer at The American Conservative
> (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/cover.html) warns us of
the grave
> dangers to our social capital and trust posed by diversity,
particularly of
> the Hispanic sort. The future of America is dark, and it seems that
not even
> our high profile pundits and analysts can trust one another, as the
dispute
> between Robert D. Putnam and John Llyod illustrates. Just what are
the
> factors contributing to this bankruptcy of social capital?
>
> "But what primarily drove down L.A.¹s rating in Putnam¹s 130-
question survey
> were the high levels of distrust displayed by Hispanics. While no
more than
> 12 percent of L.A.¹s whites said they trusted other races ³only a
little or
> not at all,² 37 percent of L.A.¹s Latinos distrusted whites. And
whites were
> the most reliable in Hispanic eyes. Forty percent of Latinos
doubted Asians,
> 43 percent distrusted other Hispanics, and 54 percent were anxious
about
> blacks.
>
> "Some of this white-Hispanic difference stems merely from Latinos¹
failure
> to tell politically correct lies to the researchers about how much
they
> trust other races. Yet the L.A. survey results also reflect a very
real and
> deleterious lack of co-operativeness and social capital among
Latinos. As
> columnist Gregory Rodriguez stated in the L.A. Times: ³In Los
Angeles, home
> to more Mexicans than any other city in the U.S., there is not one
ethnic
> Mexican hospital, college, cemetery, or broad-based charity.²"
>
> Putnam, who was angered by Llyod¹s article in the Financial Times
that
> seemed to produce an anti-Hispanic spin, would certainly object to
Sailer¹s
> scholarship. I have to give props to Sailer for writing an in depth
article
> charting the literature indicating the importance of trust in a
society,
> even as it drifts toward xenophobia moderated only by his belief
that races
> can overcome their differences through Christ. He missed out on the
more
> timely book by Avner Greif on the family based trade institutions
of the
> Maghribi traders (Reviewed by Reason Magazine:
> http://www.reason.com/news/show/117079.html). But from Ibn Khaldun
in the
> 14th century to Alexis de Tocqueville in the 19th, the importance
of trust
> in building community institutions is illustrated.
>
> But while Sailer paints a dystopian picture of our country¹s future
flooded
> with dishonest brown-skinned immigrants, right in time for
Tancredo¹s
> announcement that he¹s forming a presidential exploratory
committee, I think
> there¹s something missing in his coverage. Namely, that social
capital isn¹t
> quite the wise investment that he makes it out to be.
>
> From Richard Florida¹s ³The Rise of the Creative Class²:
>
> "[University of Texas professor Robert] Cushing found that regions
ranked
> high on the Milken High-Tech Index and Innovation Index ranked low
on eleven
> of Putnam¹s thirteen measures of social capital. High-tech regions
scored
> below average on almost every measure of social capital. They had
less
> trust, less reliance on faith-based institutions, fewer clubs, less
> volunteering, less interest in traditional politics and less civic
> leadership. The two measures of social capital in which these
regions
> excelled were ³protest politics² and ³diversity of friendship.²
Regions low
> on the High-Tech Index and the Innovation Index were exactly the
opposite.
> They scored high on eleven of the thirteen Putnam measurers but
below
> average on protest politics and diversity. Cushing then threw into
the mix
> individual wages, income distribution, population growth, numbers of
> college-educated residents, and scientists and engineers. He found
that the
> high-tech regions had higher incomes, more growth, more income
inequality,
> and more scientists, engineers and professionals than their low-
tech, but
> higher social capital counterparts."
>
> So even if we buy into the fear of Sailer and Putnam about the
impact of
> ethnic diversity, our future dystopia will also be a land of high
tech
> economic growth. I¹m trying to put all of this into perspective and
try to
> determine how this all combines together. I¹ve read articles that
have been
> very critical of Putnam¹s research, so he could be exaggerating the
decline
> of trust and social capital in ethnically diverse community. Even
when using
> his measures, there isn¹t a correlation between economic growth and
social
> capital, the reverse is actually found. And if economic growth
contributes
> to happiness, shouldn¹t we be focusing on it and not some nebulous
idea of
> social capital?
>
> I know that I, a young soon to be college graduate entering into
the job
> market, would prefer an economically vibrant area, even if
ethnically
> diverse and low on social capital, to one with high social capital,
low
> diversity, but low economic growth. And I've already established
that Putnam
> may be off in his studies on social capital and distrust in the
first place.
> I for one will take my chances with the ethnically diverse
community.
>
> What disturbs me is that this is a growing pattern on the right.
George W.
> Bush and Karl Rove may want to reach out to Hispanics, but I see
the troops
> on the ground going in the opposite direction. The Republican rank
and file
> is angry over Bush's choice of Senator Mel Martiniz, a supporter of
> immigrant rights and himself a Cuban-American, as "General
Chairman" of the
> Republican Party (See:
> http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070116-122754-5361r.htm). In
my home
> state of Virginia, the Republican Party is represented by the likes
of
> former Senator George Allen, Congressman Virgil Goode, and State
Delegate
> Frank Hargrove (See:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011600
> 995.html). There is a racial, religious, and ethnic insensitivity
in that
> crowd that scares me, and I worry when they dress their hate up in
fancy
> words like "social capital." They are just trying to make their
extremism
> look presentable, like creationists dressing up their crackpot ideas
> "intelligent design."
>
> At the risk of violating Godwin's Law, I would be so bold as to
make a
> reference to a book I recently finished rereading, Heather
Pringle's "The
> Master Plan." It chronicles the misuse of science, particularly
archeology,
> by the Nazis to justify their racist ideology. For those of you who
know
> about my anthropological interests, you wouldn't be surprised to
find out
> just how much the idea of a totalitarian regime manipulating facts
and
> history to build up their own warped reality disturbs me. It's the
same
> careless treatment of the facts that I see today in the Republican
Party's
> misuse of the idea of "social capital." Or their silly creationist
> "science." Or the covering up of global warming. Or the disregard
to the
> reality on the ground in Iraq. Or the fundamentalist opposition to
the
> science of embryonic stem cell research. The list goes on and on.
And I've
> strayed too far from my original intent in blogging about Sailer's
article.
> That's all for now.
>
> <><>
> Logan H. Ferree
>
