Somehow I missed replying to this (or even reading it, until now).
busy, busy, busy.
There's a real problem of excessive abstraction in David's
presentation, though I try to tie the concepts of "racism" and
"conservatism" down to real-world cases wherever possible. He's
defending the honor of conservatives against charges of racism without
defining the two key terms. This is a crucial problem since the word
"racism" is so often used simply as part of slogans with no real
thinking behind it. "Conservative" is also wooly: Margaret Thatcher
and the IMF are seen as a conservative even though their actions are
radical or even revolutionary.
Maybe it would be more productive to talk about whether or not some
specific "conservative" _principles_ or _theories_ (like the Becker
theory mentioned below) imply racist results in actually-existing
society. (Arguing about whether these principles or theories involve
personal racism seems futile, of course, since almost no-one _admits_
to having racist principles.)
me:
>>> Bizarrely (and I hope not disingenuously), David omits what I said
>>> before the quoted passage, i.e., >> though there are racists
>>> associated with the TP, I don't think the TP is itself racist. (And
>>> there are racists associated with the DP, too. ...)<< Those sentences
>>> are what "that said" refers to in the first quote from me above.
>>>
>>> That is, I was not trying to prove the thesis that the TP is racist. I
>>> do not know where David got the idea that I was trying to do so.
David:
> You did initially say that the TP is not racist. But you then, presumably
> not out of thin air, said "that said," and argued that the only reason you
> could see why conservatives honor black conservatives is simply to avoid the
> racist label, which implies that conservatives truly don't believe what they
> are saying about black conservatives (i.e. they like them and respect them
> and honor them). <
I did not say "only" or "simply," counselor. Objection! the prosecutor
is badgering the witness and putting words in his mouth!
It's not "only" or "simply" a matter of "honor[ing] black
conservatives is ... to avoid the racist label." I haven't the
slightest idea where David got the idea that I said this.
For example, one reason why Bush#1 chose to appoint Clarence Thomas to
the Supremes was that he knew that some _liberals_ and Democrats would
have a hard time voting against him because _they_ feared being
labeled "racist" and that others would vote for him out of genuine
support for ethnic diversity on the Court. I'm sure there are other
reasons, such as the usual "reward your friends/punish your enemies"
principles of politics. (Thomas had been a loyal soldier in the GOP
army.) The fact that Thomas is relatively young for members of the
Court was a big plus for Bush#1: he could shape legal history for a
long time. I guess that Bush#1 actually chose someone who was more
right-wing than he was, because Thomas has a bunch of other advantages
for him.
Any specific event in history, as I've said over and over again, has a
bunch of different causes behind it. (It's "over-determined.")
> At minimum, that means you believe that the fact that conservatives honor
> black conservatives is not evidence they are not racist, <
Right. By the way, it's only _some_ conservatives who honor Black
conservatives. There are some conservatives -- and non-conservatives
-- who are stone-cold racists and do not honor Blacks of any sort.
> which raises the question of what evidence would convince you conservatives
> are not racists, <
First, not all conservatives are racists (in the personal sense) since
there are a variety of types of conservatives. For example, many
Blacks are religious and cultural conservatives, opposing feminism,
abortion rights, and gay rights, without a drop of personal racism.
So I reject the proposition that _all_ conservatives (or even all
TPers) embrace personal racism.
That is, it depends on what one means by "conservative" and "racist."
In common parlance, there are (at least) two types of conservatives.
The views of the two main types overlap, while actual individuals get
their ideas from either version to different degrees on different
issues, while sometimes sharing "liberal" views on some issues to
differing degrees.
The first main type is the _traditionalist_ (or Burkean), who favors
keeping laws and social institutions the way they have been in recent
memory in order to preserve "order" and the privileges associated with
the existing order. This person may not be consciously racist (e.g.,
thinking, as my father did, that Blacks were less intelligent than
Whites for genetic reasons) but defending existing institutions can be
racist
-- as a sin of omission, not thinking about the racist implications of
one's ideas on other fronts or actions (as when using IQ tests as the
main measure of education merit while ignoring cultural and linguistic
biases of those tests); or
-- racist in objective impact (as when supporting the _status quo_ for
the sake of "the old ways of life" and "order" keeps Blacks at the
bottom of society's hierarchy, without any personal intent to do so).
Note: institutional racism is not just based on conscious racist
attitudes put into action. It's also based on the passivity or
acquiescence of other people, who may not be personally racist.
The other main kind of "conservative" is the self-styled
"libertarian." This is not completely separate from the
traditionalism: the self-styled libertarians should be called "money
libertarians," since these folks fight hard to defend the private
ownership of society's wealth and thus the existing structure of
privilege and power, embracing a kind of traditionalism. Again, a ML
person may not be consciously racist, but believe (after reading
Milton Friedman's presentation of Gary Becker's ideas) that deepening
the role of "free markets" in the economy will automatically solve the
problem of racism. This seems a matter of being "objectively racist"
and may or may not go along with personal disdain or paternalism
toward Blacks.
> and legitimately implies that you believe that the fact conservatives honor
> "mediocrities" is evidence of racism.<
No, supporting mediocrities can be one expression of racism in action;
it's not the only one. It also may not be an expression of racism at
all.
It's a standard _kind_ of in-group informal affirmative action[*]
program (often violating explicitly-stated principles of meritocracy).
Bush#1 chose a mediocrity -- Dan Quayle -- as his Vice President
without it being a matter of personal racism. Rather, it was a matter
of one in-group hand washing another (though I bet there were other
reasons). Similarly, a lot of conservatives like David Brooks
supported Bush#2 even though they saw the latter as mediocre. I don't
think of Brooks as personally racist. (I don't know for sure, however,
since I hardly ever finish his columns.)
Nixon and Bush#1 both backed mediocrities (Carswell and Thomas,
respectively) to be appointed to the Supes. Both did this for a bunch
of different reasons (over-determination again). I don't know if both
of these folks -- or the political allies they were helping and
expecting help from -- count as "conservatives."
By today's standards, Nixon was a liberal, maybe to the left of Obama
(if such comparisons make any sense). But during his time, Nixon was a
conservative (or at least people thought of him as being so). The fact
that he supported Carswell -- a mediocrity, according to one of his
supporters, Senator Roman Hruska (R-Nebraska) -- was not evidence of
racism in the sense discussed here (since Carswell was White). Rather,
it was Nixon's usual mix of opportunism. But he did overlook
Carswell's racist side (his support for racial segregation during his
failed election effort in 1948) and allied with various conservative
Southern Senators (who tended to be personally racist), so Nixon could
be seen as racist in terms of objective impact.
By today's degraded standards, Bush#1 was also a liberal (despite
using the word "liberal" as a political weapon). By the standards of
his day, people saw him as more conservative than what the DP had to
offer (Dukakis). I don't think of Bush#1 as personally racist (since
I've read that his country club in Texas allowed Blacks in, unlike
similar clubs there). But he was clearly racist in practice, for
example, allowing the "Willie Horton" ads to be used against Dukakis.
He was willing to compromise with racism rather than being
wholeheartedly against it. But his support for Clarence Thomas was
likely more a matter of a complicated political calculation balancing
all sorts of factors (see above).
Liberals and Democrats also sometimes support mediocrities (while
mediocrity is largely in the eye of the beholder). As mentioned, they
are sometimes racist, too.
me:
>>> The conservatives probably don't _see_ Sowell as mediocre (and they'd
>>> never admit to doing so). Their adulation of him ("wow, a Black man
>>> who toes our Party Line!") has been taken to heart: "Oh, he must be
>>> good, since we've been saying so for so long." One of the most common
>>> political phenomena (afflicting Leftists too, alas) is believing one's
>>> own propaganda.
David:
> For the record, I think you are completely wrong on Sowell. He is the
> favorite public intellectual for many conservatives/libertarians precisely
> because he is so good at expressing clearly the desired sentiment, not
> because he is black. I do not think the feeling toward him is
> self-deception.<
He hasn't had an original idea in decades. All he does is serve up the
standard "free market" pap often without reheating it. Even his stuff
on Marxism (back when he saw himself as a Marxist) was mediocre.
ML types like Sowell because he tells him what they want to hear, as
David says, but _some_ are willing to overlook his mediocrity partly
because supporting a Black man makes them feel warm inside. The latter
gives him greater earning power than Whites with similar opinions and
credentials.
David had written:
>>> With respect to Thomas on the Court, no different than Obama
>>> appointing Sotomayor.
me:
>>> But Sotomayor is much much more qualified for the position (by
>>> mainstream corporate standards!) than Thomas is.
> Totally wrong. Sotomayor was generally perceived as an average/below average
> judge of (relatively) limited intellectual scope. She would never have been
> considered for the position if she was not a woman and Puerto Rican. Thomas,
> on the other hand, was considered not simply because he was black, but
> because he was a black intellectual conservative -- i.e. that those appointed
> him believed him to be a smart advocate for a developed legal philosophy.<<
I'd like to hear from another lawyer on this question -- someone who
doesn't take the Federalist Society's word as true.
David:
> I have been on this list for 12 years... <
you should have tenure by now...
--
Jim Devine / "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -- Albert Einstein
[*] BTW, I favor explicit (open, rule-bound, and accountable)
affirmative action as a way to break down institutional racism. It
usually does not go against official meritocratic standards (since
there are often a large number of candidates who can live up to the
explicit standards). The in-group affirmative action, on the other
hand, often goes against those standards because it's not transparent,
rule-bound, or held responsible to democratic principles. It tends to
reinforce or preserve institutional racism. In any society it helps
preserve the power and privilege of the ethnic, cultural, religious,
and/or economic elite.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
