The Literary Profession is in Crisis

An excellent New York Observer piece on the latest Modern Language Association conference (check out its opening sentence). It makes for depressing reading, of an altogether different kind than the sort presented by Roger Kimball and Hilton Kramer here.

There was a time when I considered English Graduate School a prospect. No longer. I wonder if the History profession is any better...

Posted by Chien Wen Kung at 10:11 PM |

 
Education and the Government

Brad Plumer writes (at FreeDartmouth) "Fundamentally speaking the federal government has nothing to do with education, unless I‘m mistaken. There is a clear constitutional mandate for defense spending, etc., but none for educational spending." Having been accused of religiously supporting capitalism by my good freind Karsten (who was, alas, a writer here once) for everything save education and having some interest in education which has led me to rebuke many ideologies (ie, libertarian thinking), let me outline some thoughts on the matter that are ultimately revisable as new advice comes to light. (I just came back from the library and got some books on justice so it should be fun.) Let's outline some thinkers that I agree with who I beleive adequately set the tone for the optimal governmental approach to education.

George Washington: "Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened." In a democracy, an enlightened public is necessary. What the critics of coporate media emphasize ( and I would like to number myself among them and hope that Karsten would add that to the list of things in which the god(dess) of capitalism does not prevail) is that coporatization of media and the creation of profit-driven news does is dumb-down the public. As the quality of citizens decrease, so does the civic sphere in which citizens operate. If we remeber, one of Tocqueville's greatest fear about democracy was that it would encourage mediocracy among its citizens.

Thurgood Marshall, dissenting (San Antonio v. Rodriguez): "(The Court had ruled that it is constituional for states to use local taxes as a base for public schools. As to the constituionality of Marhall's position, I cannot vouch, but the spirit of the dissent is correct.) The majority's holding can only be seen as a retreat from our historic commitment to equality of educational opportunity and as unsupportable acquiescence in a system which deprives children in their earliest years of the chance to reach their full potential as citizens...In my judgment, the right of every American to an equal start in life, so far as the provision of a state service as important as education is concerned, is far too vital to permit state discrimination on grounds as tenuous as those presented by this record.

Mr. Marshall's dissent brings out something important: if a republic is based on a free and educated citizenry, how are citizens to exercise their rights without knowing what their rights are? The debate about public education should be, in my mind, how can we construct an educational system that will give the least advantage as well as the most advantaged the tools to fulfill the basic duties of citizens in America? Vouchers, boarding schools, and Catholic schools begin to help the poor by easing the iron grip of the highly unqualified but thoroughlly unionized and equally tenacious public school teachers. If I had the power, I would have stringent standards to becoming a teacher and make it a capital crime to be an unqualified teacher in the public schools.

Clarence Thomas, in his usual brilliance, concurrs in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris "Frederick Douglass once said that “[e]ducation … means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of man into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be made free.”1 Today many of our inner-city public schools deny emancipation to urban minority students. Despite this Court’s observation nearly 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education, that “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education,” 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954), urban children have been forced into a system that continually fails them. These cases present an example of such failures. Besieged by escalating financial problems and declining academic achievement, the Cleveland City School District was in the midst of an academic emergency when Ohio enacted its scholarship program."

The point is that education is the key to progress. To deny this education to any is to create an underclass to whom the principles of justice are, at best, can only paternistically applied.

Posted by John Stevenson at 2:47 PM |

 
Lesser Credentials?

A while back I published my thoughts on affirmative action, but this incident at Colgate exemplifies the problem of mismatching students and university. It also talks about the "freinds" of blacks who are sensitive to their needs. Less freinds and more teachers please.

The uproar began when Barry Shain, a tenured white political scientist at Colgate, wrote in an e-mail message to a female black student that minority students were often seduced into unchallenging courses where liberal professors, who were "sensitive" to their needs, gave them inflated grades. That practice, Shain continued, harmed black students, who were generally less well prepared academically than their white peers. He further complained that a growing number of courses encouraged students to examine their feelings as a way to explore racial issues. The message was widely disseminated to other students without his knowledge.

The specific charges in Shain's message created less of a stir than his breach of the university's racial etiquette. He had publicly exposed the tacit assumption that black students hold a subordinate academic status at Colgate. The violation of that silent code predictably upset many black students, who resented the attack on their academic credentials. The claim that liberal professors gave them inflated grades distressed them much less than the implication that their teachers saw them as academically inferior. The assumption of that inadequacy may create a self-fulfilling prophecy, leading to slackened standards and lowered demands for minority-student achievement.

An interesting phrase from the report though: "With the exception of a few high-performers -- often women from the West Indies or Africa -- most black students do not achieve academic distinction." Why is this so? It should also be noted that West Indians and African immigrants have the highest, second highest or third highest average salary in the nation (usually competing with Asian immigrants and Jews). Thomas Sowell is fond fo showing how in an age of racial discrimination people who are physically indistinguishable from blacks outperfom 'whites.' At a black men's luncheon in the Spring, I acerbically commented to my peers that we should stop all of our griping at the College about racial discrimination and slavery reparations seeing how most of the people in the 'black' community are both first and second generation immigrants and the sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers. That was a conversation killer. I finished my Egg-drop soup peacefully.

"That social life is ruthlessly segregated, and its dominance only further distances disadvantaged black students from the college's centers of life." I spoke at lenght with a New York Times reporter that some students are not encourged, by their peers, to integrate. I co-authored an op/ed in the D about after writing an editorial about it.

Moreover, any honest survey will find that a majority of Americans don't support affirmative action; we don't want ideological apartheid now do we?

Posted by John Stevenson at 1:46 PM |

 
Imprisoned Indepdendents and Details

Villain: Colin Powell?
Colin Powell is probably the first prominent black American to forget completely the connection between African- Americans and the oppressed of the world. In that sense, he has joined the arrogance of the new imperialist United States of America, and he has failed the remarkable tradition started up by James Baldwin, WEB Du Bois, Martin Luther King, Maya Angelou and others. In warmongering against Iraq, he fails his people.

The Independent spewing the impoverished ignorance of trendy European 'liberalism' today. This could be translated as "You're black; agree with us." Did I miss the meeting for all of the 'oppressed' of the world? Maybe ChienWen was there and can tell me what agenda I am supposed to be supporting?

2. Another reason to oppose the war (from Derbyshire)
Q: Do you yourself favor a war with Iraq?

A: Yes, but only if we have the will to really do it, ruthlessly and unapologetically, slaughtering masses of the enemy. Of which I see little evidence.

3. If there are any predictions about Justice Janice Brown joining the Supreme Court: you heard 'em here first. Also, Scalia will never be Supreme Court chief: his peers dispise him and he is disagreeable. Although, an equally disagreeable man, Justice Thomas, would not make a bad Supreme Court Chief either. (Brown for Chief Justice!)

Posted by John Stevenson at 1:11 PM |

 
FYI, Mr. Samuels, you quoted John, not me! (I took Latin, so I had a feeling "university" wasn't unity and diversity put together.)

Let's be fair here: academic feminism is not monolithic (something Laura is fond of reminding me). Unfortunately, the radicals are those that tend to hit the headlines (for the wrong reasons). I just wish the moderates would criticize their more radical colleagues more often, as what Martha Nussbaum did to Judith Butler. Nussbaum, who's a classical and legal scholar, is someone I admire a lot: she's a feminist, but not the sort who worships Foucault and seeks to foment social revolution. Her Cultivating Humanity seeks to defend multiculturalism based on classical principles, and it makes for an excellent read. Another feminist scholar who deserves attention is the Columbia historian Caroline Walker Bynum, a formidable medievalist whom my Dante professor this summer studied with. She approaches the themes of gender and sexuality, but not in the dogmatic way that conservative critics love to attack.

I still am skeptical of Women's and Gender Studies as a department, even if it seems unlikely to go away. Laura once told me that Women's Studies was a temporary phenomenon whose intention was to get the academy to recognize women, gender, and sexuality in history, literature, and culture; once that was accomplished, the department would fade away. Now this sounds a lot like the Russian Revolution to me: Lenin would just fade away into the proletariat once he achieved his goals, right? As things stand, Women's Studies is well-entrenched - many would argue excessively so - in academia; you can scarcely take any humanities or social science class without at least touching upon gender and sexuality. And I wonder whether many liberal academics exaggerate the state of academia prior to their ascension. Merging with the rest of the academy would result in far more positives than negatives. It would be a sign of maturity, not complicity. Even Roger Kimball might have to concede this point. Research about gender and sexuality will not suddenly cease just because Women's Studies went away.

The argument that Women's Studies is engaged in cutting-edge, interdisciplinary research, and that merging it with the rest of academia would destroy such interdisciplinarity, doesn't cut the mustard with me. That word "interdisciplinary" is particularly egregious. Almost all subjects are interdisciplinary: literature classes frequently draw upon historical events or philosophical currents, while the distinction between government and history, or anthropology and sociology, is at times very thin. Additionally, disciplinarity is in many ways a good thing, even if disciplines, like cultures, overlap. They provide methodologies and theories by which to conduct research. Perhaps that's why you'll see books marked "Sociology / Women's Studies," but almost none marked just "Women's Studies."

Posted by Chien Wen Kung at 10:58 AM |

 
Chienwen writes, "The responsibility of the feminist scholar is to deconstruct and reconstruct the constitutive rules to priveledge an egalitarian order." I realize that he does not advocate this view in his post, but I agree with his concise rendition of the academic mission of many of our professors. I fear, however, that these thinkers grossly overestimate the influence of academia on the greater society, and trivialize intellectual pursuit as a means to social revolution rather than a good in itself.

As for our masthead, the claim that "university" is a conflation of "unity" and "diversity" is a false etymology worthy of Plato expressed in the jargon of contemporary academic institutional politics. Universitas is the nominal abstraction of the Latin adjective universus, whence our "universe," simply meaning "turned into one", hence "all." A university, therefore, studies all things in one place. Diversus, on the other hand, the perfect passive participle of the verb divertere, to divert, as in "all this talk about diversity diverts the attention of students from the reality of racial balkanization on campus," means "turned apart", and so "diversity" as conceived by the current group of academic administrators actually signifies the opposite of "university" as conceived since the middle ages. The novelty of their conception makes them revolutionary, and I think that they would agree, though I disagree with their ideals and methods.

Posted by Ryan at 8:42 PM |

 
Something that's been kinda buggin' me for while

Over the past 2 years, I've occasionally heard some mutterings under breath, or asides that sound like this:
"we didn't elect this president"
"well, not that we should be lecturing on free and fair elections"
"maybe the next election won't be stolen"

I hear these sorts of things on mainstream tv, in conversations with people at Dartmouth, and most often in the blogs of those from the left. It didn't bother me at first. Kinda like a benign bug, crawling on my leg. Not a major worry....except the bug won't go away and I'm starting to find it really annoying.

First, no matter how the election of 2002 will be judged 50 or 100 years from now, no one likes post-defeat complaining. Especially the sort that lasts a long time. After being beaten by the Patriots last year during the NFL playoffs the Raiders, the Steelers, and the Rams all were quoted as saying they were the better team, that they were "robbed" by a few errant calls by the officials. Get over it and move on, this sort of talk just wreaks of death, of a loser and poor sportsmanship, so much of a sense of self-righteous entitlement. "We should have won."

Likewise, Al Gore "should have won" the last presidential election. Perhaps defeat is most bitter for those who are so self-assured of victory, they forget to fight on the field where it counts? For me several issues come to the fore. First, the franchise in the United States is not a right. No where in Constitution is it enshrined. However, "Equal Protection" under law is a HUGE constitutional right. Believe it or not, Equal Protection is more important than voting according to the Constitution we all live under. So that Supreme Court case that "gave" the election to GW wasn't just a gift. The Court re-affirmed a whole bunch of previous decisions. Had Gore asked for a state-wide Florida re-count instead of a re-count in only the districts that would have in theory benefited him, the Court would have ruled in his favor. The court ruled that recounting some votes rather than all would violate the equal protection right of those not counted; their votes would count "less." Also, the issues of irregularities in Florida were only magnified by the media which has an insatiable lust for these sort of things. I'm not bemoaning a liberal bais, just stating that the press loves a scandal. (see Jacko holding his baby over a balcony) Voting irregularites in a populace as large as that of the United States are more common than anyone would like, but it is statistically difficult to get it 100% right. Should we do our best to get people to vote and their votes counted? Absolutely, but the election of 2002 was not won or lost in only Florida, there were close votes in New Hampshire, Oregon, Wisconsin...and lest we forget, Gore lost Arkansas and Tennessee.

After Reviewing the Play. Second, several different media companies and interested parties, hand-recounted the votes in Florida that everyone fought over for all of a month and the result: depending on the how strict or loose the criteria for what would have counted or not counted, Bush would still have won the election in Florida, or won by only the slimmest of margins. I didn't take the time to look it up, but I remember when they released the results, there would have been a HUGE media stink had Gore been able to win by a large margin with a full recount. Bottom line, "after reviewing the play, there is not sufficient evidence to overturn the ruling on the field."

Lastly, this country never has elected its president via popular nation-wide election. Complaints over the "popular vote" are bunk. This country was founded as a republic, not a MTV/ABC-insta-poll democracy. Our constitution was written to direct the will of the majority, but protect the minority from the Mob. The Electoral College is an important institution that we all don't know enough about to value, but on a emotional level find easy to dislike. "Democracy" is our most treasured value. We live in a Republic, kids. When we got around to forming our government, we remembed what happened to all the past democracies who were ruled by popularity. (See Federalist No. 10) If the American President were elected by direct popular vote, we would all be saying hello to President Spears or Kournikova.

Posted by El Mariachi at 5:21 PM |

 
From FreeDartmouth and TalkingPoints: the new Senate leader's Cirivulum Vitae. Can you say: 'qualified?'

Posted by John Stevenson at 3:43 PM |

 
Male-Centered Reality

I decided that I am not going anywhere. I will continue posting as I see fit. I know no holidays! (ChienWen look at this!)

ChienWen: "The term "rewriting" reminds me of the feminist assertion that all previous knowledge is male-centric - I am not making up this claim, having heard it at Agora and read it in books - a view that you have to wonder about." Is this an absurd claim? Some feminist allege that the constitutive rules of social interaction are governed in a manner that favors men over women. The responsibility of the feminist scholar is to deconstruct and reconstruct the constitutive rules to priveledge an egalitarian order. What do I mean by the jargon 'constitutive rules of social interaction'? This term can be defined by an example: chess. Without the rules that compose the game, the pieces on the board would have no meaning, no ability to move. It is the rules that govern the adversarial roles and that govern the movement of the pieces. What some feminist allege is that the rules have been constructed to privelege men and marginalize women.

There are a few cases that lend credence to this theory: ideas on society and war, the legal system and the 'academic virtues.' There is a book by an international relations scholar called Gender and War. He talks about how war was gendered: made an exclusive all-male sport becuase the average man fights better when war is gendered. He talks about how on average men and women have equal fighting ability; the bell curve distrubition is equal. There is a significant percentage of women who are better than the average and below average male fighter. Nevertheless, the author found that across cultures, in all of them, war centered around maleness. Gendering war gives a significant boost to the fighting ability of the average and below average male; and a stastically insignificant bonus to the above average fighter.

The legal system is addressed best by Catherine Mackinnon (from 'Crimes of War, Crimes of Peace' given at an Oxford-Amnesty Lecture found in Steven Shute's On Human Rights). She talks about the common law system; it is built upon the experience of someone. Since women were formally excluded from the building of the common law system for so long, Mackinnon contends that it does not recognize experience particular to the woman's condition, like rape for instance. The law needs to be reoreinted to include the perspective of women.

Lastly, the virtues: rationality, objectiveness, etc. are considered 'male' because they reify and objectify reality. Women are more empathethic and like to deal with the concrete other-- the thing in itself. Men, according to this logic, prefer to deal with the abstract other-- philosophical representations of reality used for the sake of classification and objectivity. An example would be pornography: men defend it under 'free speech' laws: abstract concepts that support the systemic eroticized domination of women. Feminist decry pornography becasue of the harm done to the concrete 'other': women subject to sexual voilence. Speaking on an ordinance to supress pornography, "MacKinnon said the ordinance didn’t go far enough. While it would ban this material in some places, it would permit it in others. It assumed that "pornography" must be permitted to exist somewhere. "...I do not admit that pornography has to exist," MacKinnon said. Pornography is "hate literature" which encourages violence against women. MacKinnon told the commission members that if they were willing to try a new approach they could ban pornography not necessarily spring from "narrow-mindedness, anti-sex bigotry and hysteria." Much of it represents a real concrete experience of sexual violation. Not just the desire to eradicate a bunch of bad ideas that are floating around in some people’s heads, but some concrete violations of women’s civil rights, as to which, to date, we have been entirely frustrated in our ability to be heard. (NOTE: Not all feminists agree with Mackinnon's and Dworkin's (Andrea's not Ronnie's) approach.

We cannot dismiss feminist theory out of hand for saying that there is male bias in most things. I don't particularly agree with it all. But I do think that their premises are interesting. And one does need to deal with the philosophy and approach as is.

Posted by John Stevenson at 3:25 PM |

 
Academia and Politics (a favorite topic)

While re-reading Lord of the Rings, I came across this line, uttered by the elf Gildor, whom the four hobbits encounter while still in the Shire:

"The wide world is all about you: you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot for ever fence it out." (82)

Turning to the Dartmouth webpage, I find a link to an article called "Rethinking History," which describes how a student's research with History and Women's Studies professor Annelise Orleck "literally changed the way I look at the world. [Professor Orleck] taught me that women’s history is not just about rewriting history with women in it, but a way of reevaluating and expanding our notions of politics and protest."

What kind of relationship should academia have with politics? Should intellectuals, who are supposedly more intelligent than most people, enter into political arena and attempt to apply their superior intellect towards solving political and social problems? The second question seems moot: numerous people with PhDs, especially in economics and political science, have gone on to work in government or advise politicians. But this does not appear to be what Professor Orleck is referring to; indeed, this relationship would be too comfortable, too narrowly-conceived, as the use of "reevaluating and expanding" suggests. The relationship between academia and politics that she and other left-radicals (I use this term only to describe, not to condemn) favors is adversarial. In Representations of the Intellectual, Edward Said characterizes the intellectual as "exile and marginal, as amateur, and as the author of a language that tries to speak the truth to power" (xvi) In other words, the intellectual is defined by his ability to apply his intellect to matters of real human concern, such as the struggle for Palestine in Said's case, or the struggle for women's rights, in Professor Orleck's case. And in all cases, the intellectual must side with the less powerful, because the powerful seek to distort the truth to further their own ends, and the intellectual, as Said says, abides by "universal principles" (11).

What are the flaws in Said's logic? The first seems to be that power is necessarily a bad thing that intellectuals, a priori, must oppose. I'm not even going to mention Lord Acton here - or Saruman, or Sauron. Certainly, the United States government is powerful, and so too is the pro-Israeli lobby in Congress. But there are other forms of power in existence (as Gandalf acknowledges in the first movie - okay, cut out the LotR references NOW!). Osama bin Laden and the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism are powerful, and so too were Nazism and Communism. How does the intellectual discriminate between various forms of power? Said does not say. But from what he says about his enemies, he would appear to view the world in rather Manichean terms. Hence, in his collection of essays, Reflections on Exile, he dismisses Daniel Pipes' In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power as "at the service not of knowledge but of an aggressive and interventionary state...whose interests Pipes helps to define" (205). He castigates Bernard Lewis, the Princeton history professor, for "unrestrained anti-intellectualism, unencumbered by critical self-consciousness" whose "exploits" are "almost purely political" (204). Nobel-Prize winner V. S. Naipaul is "unrestrained by genuine learning or self-education" (116), while Samuel Huntington, in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, "is really most interested in continuing and expanding the Cold War by means other than advancing ideas about understanding the current world scene or trying to reconcile different cultures" (571) So there you have it: on the one side, you have Said and his fellow adversarial intellectuals - Mary McCarthy, James Baldwin, Jean-Paul Sartre, Noam Chomsky, Simone de Beauvoir, Malcolm X, and Virginia Woolf (all of whom are on the cover of my edition of Representations). Against these people, and the ideas they represent, are Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, V. S. Naipaul, Sam Huntington, and presumably, Allan Bloom, David Pryce-Jones, Roger Kimball, etc., all of them Orientalists given to "trimming, careful silence, patriotic bluster, and retrospective and self-dramatizing apostasy" (Representations, xiii).

In his critique of Huntington, Said says that he finds the words "culture" and "civilization" "extremely sloppy," because they represent for Huntington "reified objects, rather than the dynamic, ceaselessly turbulent things that they in fact are" (581). Now I agree in part with this critique: civilizations, particularly the larger ones ("Western," "Islamic," etc.) do indeed have complex and multicultural histories. But Huntington in fact acknowledges that "Civilizations have no clear-cut boundaries and no precise beginnings and endings" (43) in his book. For the political scientist, however, a workable model of the world is necessary if any thesis is to be advanced. While they may be complex - how Western or Eastern is Turkey, for instance? - "Civilizations are nonetheless meaningful entities, and while the lines between them are seldom sharp, they are real" (43). Said would do well to engage in a bit of reflexive thinking here: people tend to be as heterogeneous as civilizations, and to label them indiscriminately as Said does is at once hypocritical and reductionary.

The second flaw in Said's logic has to do with its selective application. Said and his fellow left-radicals see power everywhere: in big business (though strangely, not in big government), white people, males, fraternities, and even "society at large." What seems to have eluded them is the conspicuousness of their own power. Said likes to think of himself as an "exile and marginal" (Representations, xvi). That cannot be further from the truth. He is a University Professor at Columbia who has a considerable intellectual following (there's even going to be an "Edward Said Professorship in Middle-Eastern Studies" endowed soon, I heard) both inside and outside academia. Within the university, people of his political temperament are in the majority, and they make very little attempt to conceal what they believe in. Numerous books have been published seeking to expose how academia's leftist ideological bias affects students; in reality, the exiles and marginals in academia today are conservatives.

Enough of Said - what about Orleck's claim that "women’s history is not just about rewriting history with women in it, but a way of reevaluating and expanding our notions of politics and protest?" ("Women" could be substituted for just about any other minority.) The first half of this statement has some good sense in it: women's history contributes to intellectual life when it tells us about aspects of the past that have previously been overlooked. But women in history have not really been as criminally neglected as some would claim, as the examples of Sappho, Heloise, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Yang Gui-Fei, Isabella of Aragon, Abigail Adams, Queen Victoria and others suggest. The term "rewriting" reminds me of the feminist assertion that all previous knowledge is male-centric - I am not making up this claim, having heard it at Agora and read it in books - a view that you have to wonder about. The history of history is full of disagreements about methodology, sources, perspectives, and more, and it seems rather simplistic to denounce historians as different as Edward Gibbon and Fernand Braudel as sexist (Braudel tended not to talk about actual individuals). While it is true that most historians in the past have been male, it does not follow that they necessarily espoused a male-centric view of the past. Many of them made the greatest effort to be objective and scientific in their use of evidence (it's impossible to dispute those who say that objectivity and science are also male-centric). They were not perfect, for sure - Gibbon wrote The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire using mostly secondary sources - but then again, neither are the radical revisionists.

Should the teaching of history serve a political purpose, as Orleck seems to think it should? The first question has to do with the role of the university in society. The university as a whole, of course, must cater to diverse and un-academic pursuits, hence the profusion of extracurricular activities with explicitly political aims. The classroom, however, exists solely to pursue knowledge and truth; it occupies a privileged position that I think is worth protecting against the ravages of ideology, partisan bias, popular culture, and other corrupting influences. Politicization is inherently dangerous because it tends to be un-intellectual. Politics simplifies - as anyone listening to George W. Bush will tell you - whereas the intellectual life is largely about grasping complexity. I am not levelling any charges against Annelise Orleck, who as I understand is a great teacher. At least she acknowledges her ideological bias, which is more than can be said about a lot of professors. I do, however, believe that the person wishing to change society through politics will succeed best if he understands just how rich and complex society is, and that this understanding is more likely to be cultivated, paradoxically, in an atmosphere devoid, as far as possible, of political bias.

Oh well. Back to Lord of the Rings, I guess.

Posted by Chien Wen Kung at 2:18 AM |

 
I will be leaving the country tomorrow, so I won't be reading any posts, or responding to anyone's comments until I get back around Jan 2. Happy Holidays.



Posted by Andrew at 4:17 PM |

 
Some Details, before I go

I know I menitoned that I was not going to post anymore (ChienWen can pick up the slack) but some things just struck me.

The first two are from my colleagues at FreeDartmouth.com
1. Waligore's article: In the US News article, the President says "A second phase of the war on terror, and an important part of the peace platform, will be Iraq. And we have worked closely with friends and allies in convincing them to join us and insisting that Saddam Hussein disarm. As you know, I have made it clear that if he won't disarm that we will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him. My hope is that he will disarm."

I know a alot of the peacemongers out there and they wouldn't dare to suggest that a war in Iraq was a part of a 'peace platfom.' I was wondering what all of you thought about the effects of a war in Iraq (not should we, but if we do then what). Will the region accept what is going on with a lot of noise, a lot of demonstrations, some harsh rhetoric but no action? Or is this the first battle of Armaggeddon*?

2. Visit from Hanan Ashrawi: Kumar has posted these so I don't have to take the time to (I too was on the mailing list; I blitzed my comments to Rocky without the recepient list attached to commend them on their selection and recommeded some future guests.) Well, the College is also bringing Mary Robinson (former UN High Commissoner for 'Human Rights' and former prime minister of Ireland) to campus. The National Review has called MR a war criminal; I wonder what they think of Dr. Ashrawi. (Ashrawi's visit to a college at in Colorado near the Septemeber 2002 remembrance was seen as very controversial; student activist, with their penchant for theatrics and proclivity away from intellectual and verbal moderation, called Ashrawi something akin to an apologist for terror. (I'm sure it was no worse than Aly Rahim holding a sign saying that Sharon was a war criminal last Spring.) Relavant articles: A and B.

3. Someone asked me to link to FrontPage Magazine. I find a very interesting article there about the violent history of Kwanzaa. I am not sure whether a link will be provided or not; I will consult with ChienWen when he returns from the West (with the rest of the elves).

* Technically, calling it Armaggeddon couldn't be strictly true for a number of reasons. Armaggeddon means Har-al-Meggido (in the hills of Meggido), which are in Israel or Syria/Lebanon. The Christian and Jewish prophecies (I don't know enough about the Muslium prophecies to accurately portray their beleifs) forcast that Armaggeddon would have to happen after seven years of peace vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict premised on the rebuilding of a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount, a divison of Jerusalem, and a resumption of animal blood sacrifices. (Other battles, namely four large ones, will be fought in other conflicts.) For three and half years, a political and religious figure will exercise pre-eminence over the world (in popular mythology known as the Antichrist and the False Prophet); they domination will cease when they mount an allied invasion of Israel to enforce the peace treaty, which the Jews will break somehow. That battle is known as the war of the Armaggeddon; it is at this battle when "the Lord shall fight for them as he did in the days of old" (Zechariah 14) and the Messiah shall descend to the Mount of Olives to be welcomed by the surviving members of the 'House of Israel'. (Zechariah 14) A distinguishing characteristic of the One who saves them, the Messiah, that is mentioned in Zechariah 12 is that He is pierced.

Posted by John Stevenson at 3:40 PM |

 
A perspective on Affirmative Action/Racial Preferences

Mike,

I guess I’ll share my thoughts on this issue you brought up. First though, your little anecdote reminded me of something that happened to me just the other day. A couple days ago I decided I needed a haircut and instead of going to one of those flamboyant NJ salons where everyone looks like Marisa Tomei from My Cousin Vinny, I thought I would go to somewhere close where I knew I could get an appointment right away without all the fuss. So I went to a small, kind of blue-collar establishment not too far away, which doesn’t get too much business. Anyway, somehow I got to talking with the woman cutting my hair, and I mentioned that I go to college up in New Hampshire (she didn’t know what Dartmouth was). Out of nowhere this sparked sort of a tirade about affirmative action. My thoughts on that issue are rather complicated, and I didn’t really want to get into a big discussion with this woman, so I just kind of smiled and sat there silently while she went on cutting my hair.

I guess I was just shocked at how she rather brazenly broached the subject and then talked about it without any inhibition - not really knowing who I was or what I thought on the issue. For all she knew, I could be a fraction Hispanic or Native American and a strong supporter of racial preferences. I was a little surprised because I hardly ever hear opinions like hers on the alleged unfairness of racial preferences, while they seem somewhat common (at least based on polling data on the subject) in America. It occurred to me how openly discussing opinions like these is considered rather rude or unpleasant in the elite world of academia. I guess that’s partly because in such an environment students are petrified of saying anything racially controversial (especially if they’re white) lest they be branded a racist, or maybe it’s just because the alleged victims of racial preferences aren’t really around to give their opinions on the matter – since they didn’t get accepted in the first place. I suppose also that when the President of your college says it’s “worse than untrue” to believe that racial preferences discriminate against certain people, one naturally tends to be a bit intimidated from challenging the prevailing liberal orthodoxy.

Having said all that, I’ll tell you some of my thoughts on this issue. I don’t believe a pure meritocracy is fair; certain people come from economically and socially disadvantaged backgrounds so an effort at achievement by a student in such a background would yield less results than the same effort by a student from a wealthy and privileged background. Therefore, to be fair, admissions officers and employers should give greater consideration to an applicant from a disadvantaged background than an applicant of the same qualifications from an advantaged background. As a result, I support a non-race based affirmative action, which seeks to factor in an applicant’s level of disadvantage with the qualifications of that applicant, in order to approximate true effort and true capability. Moreover, this system would disproportionately benefit minorities anyway, as minorities disproportionately tend to be economically disadvantaged in society.

The problem with focusing affirmative action on race is that it assumes that a minority by default is disadvantaged when this is not always the case. If I were a member of an ethnic minority (I assume German or Irish doesn’t count anymore), I would find a system, which assumes that my race automatically renders me less capable of achieving, to be very offensive and demeaning. For example, why should the son of a wealthy black lawyer, who went to private school and lived in a wealthy environment, be considered less capable of achieving (and therefore given employment & admissions advantages) than a white person living a trailer in Appalachia, Kentucky, who is virtually starving to death? Now, admittedly cases like these are relatively uncommon, but they do occur, and it’s these exceptions which are totally unacceptable. Moreover, while I gave an extreme example of unfairness, cases like these occur quite frequently in lower degrees.

There are different kinds of arguments for racial preferences. One echoes the discredited Slavery Reparations argument, that somehow the US government is responsible for favoring minorities because of the discrimination and even slavery of the past. Accordingly, even if a system of racial preferences discriminates against whites, it’s not a problem because it’s just reparations for previous injustices done by whites. This argument fails to recognize that a similar skin color does not make modern white people responsible for offenses committed by unrelated white people, of different ethnic backgrounds, often who lived in different countries, hundreds of years ago.

I think it’s interesting that the people who support racial preferences have the same race-conscious view of humanity that the Nazis had. In fact, just like the Nazis, supporters of racial preferences give “credit” to applicants whose ethnicity is only a fraction “disadvantaged.” The Nazis believed that if you were more than ¼ ethnically Jewish, then you deserved to be categorized completely as Jewish, and they based government policies accordingly. Well, today if you are ¼ Hispanic, then that makes you completely Hispanic and you are treated accordingly. This creates a funny dilemma for the people who advance the reparations argument: Let’s say a person is a ¼ black relative of a former slave, and that person is also ½ white descendent of former slave owner, and ¼ Hispanic. The (imaginary) National Reparations Department will be in the awkward situation of levying a charge on the white ½ of that person, giving a payment to black ¼ of that person, and who knows what to do with the Hispanic quarter (I suppose the Hispanic fraction would be paid something too, but how much relative to the black and white fractions???). The strange possibilities and combinations are endless for a person who adopts this race-conscious view of humanity. Obviously, I don't mean in any way to equate modern racial preferences with Nazism or segregation or slavery, but I think these cases demonstrate that such a race-concious perspective can be both arbitrary and dangerous.

Finally, there is the argument that “diversity” has an inherent value in and of itself, and therefore giving advantage to minority applicants is justified because they provide a service to the school. I agree that diversity is valuable (although it’s not the sacred cow, Dartmouth administrators make it out to be), but the race conscious view of society is poisonous, unnecessarily divisive, and fallacious. Existing is not a service. Being of a certain race is not an accomplishment. If one seeks diversity, then he should seek diversity of experience and opinion and there is where the emphasis should be placed by recruiters. In many cases racial differences coincide with fundamental differences of experience, due to historical circumstances, but not always, and not by definition. Oh, and then there is the little matter of governmental race discrimination being unconstitutional, which I hope the Supreme Court will rule in the Michigan Case.

The last thing I want to mention is that “Affirmative Action” - if not associated with “Racial Preferences” - is a good way to seek out this kind of experiential and opinion diversity. If “Affirmative Action” means (as it originally did) actively encouraging people of diverse backgrounds to apply for a job or school, or raising awareness in new communities, or enabling new people to apply, then I support it. If it means using a fallacious race-conscious system to discriminate in favor of some races and against others in the admissions process, then I reject it on moral principle and constitutionality.


Posted by Andrew at 9:22 PM |

 
Check out Dartmouth's Dave Kang, writing about North and South Korean anxiety over American policy on the peninsula in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times.

Posted by Michael at 5:38 PM |

 
Affirmative Action and White Perceptions

I vacillate between supporting and opposing affirmative action (giving preferences to minorities and the disadvantaged). I do have a firm opinion on how affirmative action affects the perceptions whites have of minorities. That effect is not positive.

I recently had a conversation with a white acquaintance who asked me if my friend Brian, a senior in high school, had been accepted early decision (ED) to UPenn. I replied that Brian had been deferred. My acquaintance's immediate reaction was: "Oh, that's too bad. Only minorities were accepted ED." He automatically assumed that Brian had failed to gain early acceptance because of the unfair preference given to minorities, not for any other reason. What is even more intriguing about this case is that my acquaintance was referring to several students of Asian descent from his school who were accepted early to UPenn--students who were most likely not the beneficiaries of affirmative action given the large number of highly qualified Asian applicants at elite colleges.

My white acquaintance expressed sentiments that I often hear from whites, especially among parents of high school seniors. Affirmative action unravels the social fabric of the nation by engendering a great deal of white resentment for the benefits minorities receive. Affirmative action can take someone without racial prejudice and infuse him with racist biases.

The West Wing recently featured affirmative action in an episode. One of the Republican candidates for president made a statement in which he opposed affirmative action. Democratic President Bartlett's advisor, Toby, felt President Bartlett should respond by voicing support for affirmative action. Toby also approached the press secretary with his idea. Interestingly, the press secretary said that she was the wrong Democrat to talk to about affirmative action because she strongly opposes it. Turns out her father was a high school teacher with high aspirations who "invariably missed a promotion because some less qualified black woman" received it instead. Instead of finishing his career as superintendent, her father finished his career as chair of the math department at a junior high school. The press secretary then even made the seemingly irrational assumption that her father's current Alzheimer's symptoms could be a result of his failure to achieve his goals in high school administration. She linked affirmative action with her father's unhappiness and increasing absentmindedness.

The West Wing example is extreme, but it demonstrates the negative effects affirmative action can have on white feelings and perceptions.

Posted by Michael at 5:01 PM |

 
Lott; Blood in the Water

A couple months ago, John Stevenson offered me an invitation to participate in the “Blog” discussion on this web site. I have been intending to start posting for a while now, but as of late have completely forgot about this web site. It seems like you guys have moved beyond the discussion of Trent Lott, but I think I will offer my perspective on that issue anyway since there have been some new developments.

I think it was appropriate for Senator Lott to step down as majority leader. While I don’t believe he is a racist, he as a majority leader has a certain responsibility to represent the Republican agenda in his statements and actions. In the same way that President Clinton should have been held accountable for perjury and other dishonest behaviors, Lott should be held accountable when he makes a statement, which undermines the Republican political agenda, but more importantly, which demonstrates a misunderstanding of the proper conservative ethos on race and politics. His comments (made twice beforehand in past decades), which suggest support for racial segregation, directly contradict - or show a lack of understanding for - the modern conservative agenda of colorblindness, which is based on “Equal treatment under the law” from the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The modern conservative movement, is thus based on the same racial principles of the former “liberal” and civil rights movement (under Lincoln) during the 1860s and (under MLK) during the 1960s. In fact, many liberal Democrats during the 1960s who advocated the end of segregation, like Dr. Bill Bennet, have now switched parties and become the leaders of the modern conservative Republican movement (In Bennet’s case, since 1986). After his inappropriate comments about the 1948 campaign, Lott subsequently endorsed “across the board” governmental racial preferences on Black Television, further demonstrating a lack of understanding of these principles, and making him unfit to be a main representative of a political party which should be based on them.

That brings me to another point. While supporting Senator Lott’s resignation, Republicans must avoid caving on policy issues to Democrats, who are trying to paint the entire Republican Party as racist, and who are (paradoxically) attempting to categorize conservative principles of opposing racial preferences in admissions and hiring as “racist.” Both Hillary and Bill Clinton, along with a number of other Democrats have made statements to this effect in the last couple days. It is important for Republican politicians to confront the Left on issues of race, and explain why a principle of governmental colorblindness is not only moral, but in keeping with the greatest triumphs of civil rights in the past.

In reality, the conservative Republican agenda - allowing people to invest a small portion of Social Security money, allowing school choice, welfare reform, and not discriminating against urban charities that happen to be religious – is very positive for the underprivileged minority communities. In particular, a policy of holding failing public schools accountable while allowing ambitious students in these schools to seek better education would be greatly beneficial. Today it is the Democratic Party and the teachers unions, which are standing in the schoolhouse door, preventing some underprivileged minorities from achieving educational liberation.

Finally, when advocating conservative policies, the Republican Party should not be intimidated by demagoguery or the slanderous accusations from some Democratic politicians. In the wake of their humiliating mid-term election defeat, Democratic politicians have reverted to page two of their three page playbook: race-baiting. Now after the Lott controversy, the Democrats have smelled blood in the water, and they are going back to what they know best, and what is most comfortable for them. Following Lott’s resignation from the Majority Leader position, a number of prominent Democrats, from Bill Clinton to Senator Ted Kennedy have attempted to paint the entire Republican party as essentially racist, or more subtly, as having a “race problem.” Senator Clinton lectured us that it would be “naïve” to think otherwise. Al Sharpton recently claimed at a rally that Trent Lott would work to take away African Americans’ civil rights if he remained as majority leader….but this is only the tip of the iceberg.

Along with scaring voters about claims that Republicans want to poison people’s water and take away senior citizens’ social security, the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton has mastered the tactic of fomenting racial fear and divisiveness. One of Clinton’s 1996 ads in Missouri read on a popular black radio station: “When you don’t vote, you let another church explode. When you don’t vote, you allow another cross to burn. When you don’t vote, you let another assault wound a brother or sister. When you don’t vote, you let the Republicans continue to cut school lunches and Head Start." Likewise, demagogue Jesse Jackson summarized American Politics this way in 1995: “In South Africa, we call it apartheid. In Nazi Germany, we'd call it fascism. Here in the United States, we call it conservatism.” More recently, Jackson described George Bush’s “Nazi tactics,” in the 2000 Florida race. Also during the 2000 election, the NAACP ran the following campaign ad in Texas where the camera was in the perspective of being dragged from the back of a pickup truck: “My father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and dragged three miles to his death, all because he was black. So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to support hate-crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again." — Renee Mullins, daughter of racial murder victim James Byrd, in an NAACP-sponsored 2000 political ad. And most recent of all – July 2001 – Julian Bond at the NAACP convention said of President Bush: "He has selected nominees from the Taliban wing of American politics, appeased the wretched appetites of the extreme right wing, and chosen Cabinet officials whose devotion to the confederacy is nearly canine in its uncritical affection." He was undoubtedly referring to John Ashcroft, and maybe even Linda Chavez (who since resigned from the nomination to Secretary of Labor). This is akin to a Republican saying Senator Wellstone - by all accounts a good and honorable liberal statesman - was a member of a "Stalinist wing" in the Democratic Party. Of course, one could also find some controversial ads ran by Republican candidates, but they have not nearly reached the severity and frequency of those run by the Democrats in recent years. Even the notorious (and inappropriate) campaign ad by Senator Jesse Helms several years ago against racial quotas does not come close to this level. What’s remarkable about these examples is that they come from mainstream liberal political figures – ex-Presidents, ex-Vice Presidents, and so-called “leaders” of the civil rights movement - not from the fringe of the Left, as Jesse Helms is in the Republican Party. So, why aren't these mainstream liberal political figures held accountable for their statements, like Senator Lott was?


I have already said that I believe he should resign on principle, but I think some of the character attacks on Lott are unfair and politically opportunistic. The selective criticism and double standards of some Democratic politicians, in regards to the Trent Lott situation, should be clear. Just a few examples: Democratic Senator James Byrd, a former Klu Klux Klan member, had about three weeks ago (immediately before the Lott controversy) repeated his past use of the n-word on public television in describing a person. In 1993, President Bill Clinton bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a notoriously segregationist senator William Fulbright, who Clinton described as his “mentor.” I personally don’t think Bill Clinton is a racist, but if one applies the standard used to claim Lott is a racist – that there is a past history - then we might be reminded that as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton made the birthday of Robert E. Lee a state holiday or that Clinton did nothing to abolish Arkansas’ “Confederate Flag Day” state holiday. Or one also might be reminded that at on September 24th of this year, Democratic Senator Carl Levin praised Thurmond’s 1948 race, admiring that he received 39 electoral votes, “the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history."

The Democrats will find it much more difficult to demonize Senator Bill Frist, who will likely be the new Senate Majority Leader - although some have already started trying. Frist graduated from Harvard Medical School and was one of America’s leading children’s heart and lung surgeons. Since he has become a member of the US Senate, Frist has been an AIDS activist and has gone on several trips to Africa to do volunteer surgery and other medical work. Frist is a fairly moderate Republican, but I hope he will have a backbone in pushing a conservative agenda and not cave to slanderous attacks on his party and policies.


Posted by Andrew at 11:20 AM |

 
Civil Rights Act

In response to Michael Reeves: In order to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you need to collect statistics on race. John's original argument was that race is a social construction, and because of that it should have no part in the calculation of government. But in enforcing the civil rights act, you would lending government credence to the concept of race. Doesn't even saying you can't discriminate on the basis of 'race', but you can for other reasons, lend credence to the concept of race, in violation of John's original argument?. (By the way, know what you mean if you ever say: we should drop affirmative action and vigorously enforce civil rights laws.) You might say that we have to take into account the fact that race has been used in the past, and we cannot ignore that discimination still exists. Precisely. That's why I said that John cannot be race-blind (excluding a priori any consideration of race from Government's calculations), as oppossed to race-neutral in most cases (saying it's better not to enact a policy dealing with race, after taking race into consideration). I thought John accepted this (or was willing to allow this might be a better possibility-- which tells me he wants to at least consider whether race might be useful in some circumstances, which might implicitly concede the point). This point is important because people like Ward Connerly (who bizzarely thinks that segregration isn't necessarily racist) have been pushing to eliminate the use of race in any government agency. That means, as I noted a month or so ago, that you can't collect statistics on how many blacks are arrested on highways versus whites. Maybe you disagree with what policies have been and should be enacted based on these statistics, but a truly "race-blind" government would not even collect them. This is the logical extension of saying that government should not lend credence to race because it is a social construction. I also think this is an important point, and I'd appreciate arguments against it, because once you allow that race might be useful in some circumstances, we enter a debate into when and how how government should use it in its calculations. John has some points about affrimative action way back, and I won't get into them, except to note that many of them are based on pragmatic, not principled reasons, which is fine, but they are then open to refutation on pragmatic grounds. (John does invoke justice, but I haven't looked closely enough to tell what conception of justice he's talking about and whether it implicitly smuggles in some illegitimate absolutist assumptions.)

I also make this point to say that taking race into account does not a person is necessarily racist, as conservatives (and John Stevenson?) often say or imply is the case. I don't agree that an African american who fought in the trenches of the early civil rights battles is racist like Trent Lott because he supports affirmative action. (But I'm not saying that Blacks can never be racist.) So I might extend the point I have made so far that taking race into consideration and sometimes not having race-neutral policies does not automatically make one a racist. Obviously, it depends on what reasons you take race into account- not all reasons, like supporting white supremacy or killing all whites, are legitimate. But I would say that one of the most legitimate reason for taking race into account would be the past history of discrimination based on race, and trying to rectify that legacy. John has noted below some reasons to be against affirmative action, but I'm curious whether he agrees with many conservatives who say that to support affirmative action is the definition of being racist?

A quick note on the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. There ARE some things that John and other conservatives might not like, such as certain ways of enforcing the civil rights act. But all of the ways of actually enforcing it (whether or not more strigent and potentially more objectionable ways invoke race more) lend credence to the concept of race. Mike says these acts are "generally compatible" with race-blindness. No, you could say they are generally race-neutral (though more info on the voting rights act might show us otherwise). As I outlined below, race-blindness was an ad hoc way of refering to saying race is always unacceptable. The problem is once you allow that sometime using race is acceptable, you are no longer "blind" to race. You "look" and then you decide. And Mr. Stevenson's talk about social construction (and I suppose comprehensive doctrines, and the stuff about not allowing these claims in the public sphere) goes out the window. We need new, non-absolute principles to think over this, ones that haven't been provided. So again, John would need to support his position on the basis of different premises. Or he can accept the logic of his old premises and say we must get rid of the Civil Right Act (which Dinesh D'Souza does do), or maybe possibly try to find a third way by adding some nuance to his argument. So Mr. Reeves invocation of "generally", really does nothing here, which I think John realizes.

P.S. John, check out Nathan Glazer in that Kymlicka 1997 volume, you might like him and decide you do see problems with the notions of groups that go into enforcing the Civil Rights Act. I think this discomfort with group protections is why some conservatives oppose the voting rights act (or at least its current/first incarnation-- Reagan wanted to weaken it), though I could be wrong on the specifics of that.

Posted by Timothy at 2:09 AM |

 
Waligore writes:

John can advocate his opinions and conclusions, but if bases them on his previous arguments, he also has to be against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (or be far more nuanced than he has been so far.). John said race is a social construction. OK. He then says that government put these social constructions by putting them into law. Why? Because it would lend credence to them.

I believe John's position of race blindness, as Waligore elaborates in "Race Blindness vs. Race Neutrality" (12/20/02), is generally compatible with the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Acts. The Voting Rights Act intends to prevent the disenfranchisment of voters who otherwise meet the age and residency requirements. The government does not need to know your race. If you are of age and live in the district, you can vote. The Civil Rights Acts intends to give people access to public goods and jobs to qualified individuals. The government does not need to know your race. You can drink from any water fountain you desire or pursue any occupation and no one shall turn you away on the basis of the color of your skin. Granted, the Acts do include provisions that have led to some race-based policies such as the majority-minority districts. But generally, supporting race-blind policy does not lead to an automatic rejection of the Voting and Civil Rights Acts.

Posted by Michael at 1:45 AM |

 
Waligore intones:

I'm not asking for false modesy, but could Mr. Stevenson lose his undeserved Napolean-sized ego?

Apparently, Waligore's acute understanding of political philosophy obscures his ability to detect John Stevensons' latent sarcasm. John simply adds some sarcastic pomp to his rhetoric to make it enjoyable reading. His artful banter should not be confused for pretention.


Posted by Michael at 1:22 AM |

 
John says: "by conception of good governance is a political entity that allows as many people as possible to persue their conception of the good. It is a priority of the good over the right. Why is this? Because no person can ever find principles upon which all can agree without falling into relativism or absolutism." This is strange. I'm saying this in a different (and less unfavorable) way than I have criticized Stevenson before. I'm not sure how this a workable framework for a society. I'm not sure how the principles that regulate between differing conceptions of the good operate. What do you say to a liberal who thinks his conception of the right should rule? Or a Christian fundamentalist? But no matter, I can't say it couldn't serve as a starting point. I wonder if Stevenson thinks Rawls had an interesting question, even if he didn't have the right answer. (Rawls tried to solve this problem of agreement by speaking of reasonbly be expected to agree.) That last sentence of John's is particularly odd as it seems somewhat relativist, but maybe I don't understand exactly what relativism is here. I thank John for his concession and allowing that saying race-neutral may be better than race-blind, but I admit I'm not certain how the above quoted paragraph leads him to that conclusion. But that's the major difference I had with him (thus far), that I cared to hammer. Of course, i think there are implications to this admission (such as that his previous conclusions need new support after the premise of race-blind principles in disavowed).

John tries to say jurisprudence, not political philosophy leads to race-blind principles. (he said race-blind policies, but I'll assume constitutions deal with principles, not policies). We need not get into it, but surely he knows that this a controversial interpretation of the 14th amendment, and a recent one at that. And in arguing over the 'best' interpretation, surely he knows that this involves legal and political philosophy, not assertion. And even if true as a matter of positive law, I would think John would want to defend why this is the right positive law for us to have. I would say part that part of the reasons we have laws taking into account race and culture is past discrimination of groups. A central issue is how you deal with this past. I don't think you always do this by ignoring groups in law.

Anyway, it appears, that Stevenson has seemingly largely agreed with the main point I wanted to make. He says that civil rights and Voting Rights act are allowed because of a past history. I wouldn't put it that way, but he's admitting there isn't that principled line to draw between them and affirmative action (so it seems) or even slavery reparations. If he's basing it on being allowed to pursue a conception of the good life, pretty much anything potentially goes. Not to say he has to agree with the latter two, but he can't go against them on the basis that lend credence to a social construction. (I'm assuming he's backing off that, correct me if I'm wrong). It seems that if you could convince John that reparations and affirmative action (or even group rights?) would best promote the pursuing 'the good life' he would have to agree. I wouldn't base my whole philosophy on that, but he'll add more I'm sure. I'm not sure what Stevenson's philosophy amounts to at this point or what it means. I don't mean that statement in the sense that I'm confused or see something obviously wrong, but I don't get how the useful of what he says, though unlike other posts I won't rule out that it could be. In another words, John, how can we judge constitutional principles (and policies)? When you say your stuff about allowing the most people to pursue their conceptions of the good, what standards can we judge principles and policies to say we have achieved this? And why should others accept allowing everyone to pursue their own conceptions of the good? Does this include ALL conceptions of the good, including those that want to impose theirs on everyone else? It sounds like you're the 'hyperliberal' that Charles Taylor speaks of: liberalism (broad sense) as a horizon. But some of these questions are ones that no one has terribly good answers to, and develop more philosophy we must.

Oh by the way, Nozick doesn't say much, if anything, about multiculturalism. And political theory is a journal, not a magazine (but Kukathus' article is also in Kymlicka's 1997 edited volume). Happy reading. Adios.

Posted by Timothy at 11:50 PM |

 
Tendencies

I suppose the post hoc rationalizations are fine as long as we say, "Person X has conservative leanings" or "Individual Y holds many liberal views."

"An aside in Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent article, “God’s Justice and Ours”, provides a useful and timely reminder that efforts to overrule Roe v. Wade through “personhood” litigation are doomed to failure. In the course of his article (which focuses on the morality of the death penalty), Justice Scalia writes: “My difference with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one: I do not believe . . . that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws" that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter.”

Posted by John Stevenson at 8:05 PM |

 
Doctrines and Politics

John, would you say it is always wrong to advance a public policy based on arguments from your own religion, race or culture? (and if your race-blind society is a conception of the good as you say, aren't you doing that, and contradicting yourself by engaging in a 'performative contradiction'?)

I like to shy away from words like 'always'. Nevertheless, I beleive that it is generally bad for public policy arguments to be based in race, religion, or culture. I had an argument during Thanksgiving with a Catholic fudamentalist freind of mine. (I myself could be labeled a fundamentalist sense I beleive literal interpetation of the Scripture, in miracles, that God actually wrote the Bible, etc...) She suggested that the government should use Christian precepts of holiness to regulate the public sphere. (ChienWen was with me so he heard her making these arguments.) These doctrines should never be made to affect public policy only private choice.

Example: abortion. Personally, I am anti-abortion. (In a perfect world) I think that it is infanticide and that the responsible person would have restrained from intercourse. In cases of rape, this is where a welfare state becomes very important. All the resources of the public should go to help her keep her baby if possible. She has suffered from an egregious crime; she should not be forced to bear the pyschological punishment of abortion and unsupported single-motherhood. If she does not wish to raise the child, a vast adoption network should be available. In terms of public policy, this choice should be left to the individual. Abortions should be provided for those who desire them. My comprehensive doctrine tells me that all who do evil will be punished for their crimes. My philosophy would advocate a well-funded, well-regulated adoption and abortion medical system to provide the most room for choice.

Then explain your race-blind policies. My philosophy does not lead to race-blind policies (see former post). The Constituion is clear on this point in the 14th admendment though. Race-blind is the way to go.

Room should be provided for people to exercise and preach about their comphrensive doctrines. The government should make sure that everyone has this oppurtunity.

Posted by John Stevenson at 7:48 PM |

 
Getting it Good-- not Right

Correct: "Rawls based his theory on the right (eg. principles of justice agreed to in the original position), not the good...If Stevenson is basing his on the good, then how can principally argue against those who advocate different conceptions of the good? Rawls wanted principles that everyone, REGARDLESS of their comprehensive doctrine, could agree to (with regard to the state). Why think race-blindness is superior to Christian or Islamic fundamentalism (not to mention liberalism)?It's too bad, because we haven't even gotten to the start of the conversation of how much and in what spirit government should accommodate claims by minority cultural and racial groups, which becomes a far, far more interesting and complex discussion...). But being against those laws are the implications of his philosophy. John can advocate his opinions and conclusions, but if bases them on his previous arguments, he also has to be against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (or be far more naunced than he has been so far.)"

This is why I am not a Rawlsian liberal. My conception of good governance is a political entity that allows as many people as possible to persue their conception of the good. It is a priority of the good over the right. Why is this? Because no person can ever find principles upon which all can agree without falling into relativism or absolutism. We cannot ever find the one way to order society other than one that allows pursuit of the good. This allows for a proliferation of values, cultures, and traditions which gives the individual the most choice possible while providing guidelines for ordering societies. Therefore, the government should, in so far as it is able, allow everyone to persue his conception of the good life. Maybe then I should, as Tim points out, modify my thinking from 'race-blind' to 'race-neutral.'

Then let's concede this point to Tim: 'If there hadn't been a history of race discrimination, why put it into law?' However, to what extend can the American political regime recognize the group at the expense of the individual? Our regime is based on personal rights beholden to individuals, which is why the minority sub-cultures within America cause so many legal problems. Race-blindness does not flow from my principles, as Tim has pointed out; it is, however, inherent in the Constitution. That, however, is jurisprudence and not political philosophy. I advocate then that the VRA and the Civil Rights Act stand because systems of slavery and Jim Crow limited the pursuit of the good life of many individuals, even though they were targeted for their group status. (I fear that affirmative action does that also but af-ac was addressed in a post below.)

That leads me to my next assertion: the principle of the good over the right should be the way we address the issue of minority subcultures. (I say this without having finished some books on my reading list for Multiculturalism: Barry's "Culture and Equality", Taylor's "Multiculturalism", Nozik's "Anarchy, the State and Utopia", Kymlicka's "Multicultural Citizenship", Rawls's "The Law of Peoples" and Kukathas's "Are there Any Cultural Rights?" from Political Theory, the magazine. My opinion may change on this one.) We should not use liberal democratic values (gender equality, autonomy, etc) to invalidate minority cultures. We do want to ensure that they have the full privileges of US citizens so that if they wish they can cancel their allegiance to the group or ally with subgroups as they see fit. My personal opinion is that anyone who chooses the group over himself is a fool but these options should be available for those who disagree with that assertion.

Posted by John Stevenson at 7:28 PM |

 
Stevenson writes:

"While political labels are useful, they are ultimately deceptive. Why? Because reality is complicated. Taking a label, or for convience sake playing a role in political theory ultimately limits the effectiveness of the person in question. Independence is a theorectical approach to the ontological dilemma of complexity."

Stevenson's thesis reminds me of a famous quote about starting with the facts and not selecting the facts to fit the theory. Does anyone have the exact quote or who said it?

I agree that selecting an ideology before analyzing the issue does not make sense and is counterproductive, as Stevenson stipulates. I would argue for post hoc political labeling as opposed to a priori political labeling. If after analyzing the abortion issue, a person adopts a "pro-life" stance, label that person's position "conservative." Over time, if a person consistently adopts a conservative position on issues, label that person a "conservative." Rick Santorum (R-PA) is most definitely conservative in ways Barney Franks (D-MA) is not. Santorum and Franks should approach issues from an "independent" perspective, even though they know they will probably come out on the conservative or liberal side respectively. Pundits can infer Santorum's or Franks' expected position on an issue but should not make any definitive statements until they have heard their analysis on the issue.


Posted by Michael at 7:06 PM |

 
The Later Rawls and Martin Luther King

John, would you say it is always wrong to advance a public policy based on arguments from your own religion, race or culture? I'm curious what you make of Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, arguing from natural law. And more generally, the Christian (or spiritual) basis of the civil rights movement (and abolition). Rawls, in his late work, the idea of public reason revisited, came around to the idea that it would be OK to advocate such a position taken from one's comprehensive doctrine, as long as it could eventually be formulated in general terms. In my last post, I don't think I made clear the difference between the early and the later (and still later) Rawls, as it sometimes blurs together. But I wanted to ask if you think it's legitimate for people to advocate for governmental policies based on their comprehensive doctrine? (and if your race-blind society is a conception of the good as you say, aren't you doing that, and contradicting yourself by engaging in a 'performative contradiction'?)

Posted by Timothy at 7:04 PM |

 
Rawls and Stevenson

Stevenson said: "I never once mentioned the original position. I merely stated that in my theoretical framework the government should not enforce nor privilege one comprehensive doctrine over any other."

No, Stevenson merely stated something. There was no evidence of a theorectical framework. I mentioned the original position, because it seemed like Stevenson was trying to rely on Rawls, and I was trying to show why he could not do so. This seems a disturbing pattern for Stevenson that he (probably unknowingly) appropriates academic jargon and then misuses them; it appear the terms have a theorectical background, but he so strips them from their context that they not have a clear meaning anymore, or at least what meaning they did have does not support what Mr. Stevenson wants them to. And in absence of any explanation of Mr. Stevenson's 'theorectical background' and how he's using these terms, I have to assume he is confused.

For example: "There are many ideas about how society should be organized. The government's responsibility is to permit as many people as possible to persue their conception of the good life. My conception of the good life is a race-blind society. Others prefer a more racist approach to living, reflecting in their ideas about for whom to vote and how colleges should admit students for instance. The government should allow as many of these ideas to flourish as long as it hurts none."

If Stevenson says his 'conception of the good is a race-blind society' then that idea is, by Rawls' definition, a comprehensive doctrine. Rawls based his theory on the right (eg. principles of justice agreed to in the original position), not the good. If Stevenson is basing his on the good, then how can principly argue against those who advocate different conceptions of the good? he certainly can't say public discourse should be shaped by his own conception of the good. and most certainly, he has to advance REASONS for his opinion, not just say this is my opinion, which is in effect, what he has done. It's not political theory. He can be a 'communitarian' if he likes, saying, hey, my conception of the good is in accord with the shared understandings of this community, but then his earlier statement that race is a comphrehensive doctrine and cannot be part of such a discussion loses meaning. He doesn't want to be a relativist, I'd assume. My point is that Stevenson has given us no reason as of yet to think Race-blindness should be a principle of justice. If it's not a principle of justice, then Stevenson's use of Rawls' term 'comprehensive doctrine' is strange: why then is one comprehensive doctrine better than another? Again, taking one term, but not another leaves me confused as to what Stevenson is saying. Rawls wanted principles that everyone, REGARDLESS of their comprehensive doctrine, could agree to (with regard to the state). Why think race-blindness is superior to Christian or Islamic fundamentalism (not to mention liberalism)? Stevenson's postion so far: this is what I believe. Nice dogma, but not much different (as of yet) than other dogma. I would think he believes in objectivity, which involves presenting reasons others can accept. His is not so far a theorectical framework in any interesting sense of the term. Stevenson can't even seem to get Rawls right, much less talk discuss objections brought up by his critics! Instead, the conversation with himself, rather than others, continues. It's too bad, because we haven't even gotten to the start of the conversation of how much and in what spririt government should accomodate claims by minority cultural and racial groups, which becomes a far, far more interesting and complex discussion.



Posted by Timothy at 5:11 PM |

 
Race Blindness vs. Race Neutrality

Let me try to explain once more why I have dissappointment with John Stevenson's posts. Do I believe he is against the civil rights act and the Voting Rights act? No. ( But I didn't expect him to say Bosnians could transcend their identity either, but let's leave that aside for now). But being against those laws are the implications of his philosophy. John can advocate his opinions and conclusions, but if bases them on his previous arguments, he also has to be against the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act (or be far more nuanced than he has been so far.). John said race is a social construction. OK. He then says that government put these social constructions by putting them into law. Why? Because it would lend credence to them.

Don't civil rights laws and the voting rights act lend credence to race by putting them into law? If they are not real, but are social constructions, then writing them into laws, doing census work, etc., is harmful. One conclusion could be is that the government should never take into race and all policies refering to race should not exist. Another lesson is that the logic is flawed: lending credence to race as a social construction does not automatically the government should not do something about it. But if we accept the latter, then Stevenson really hasn't said much of anything, and needs to make further pragmatic arguments about his position. His arguments are then not based on principles, but on balancing, etc. This is why I was so aghast when Stevenson a Bosnian could transcend their identity in an undivided state. Sometimes the government does need to take in account race, culture, and ethnicity, particularly when past conflicts, discrimination (and genocide!) mean the legacy is not yet gone. hell, even the supreme court lets race matter under strict scrutiny (if there is a compelling interest).

Perhaps part of the confusion is what John means when he appropriate jargon like 'social construction'. I has assumed he was saying that race makes no sense biologically and it is a social construct.Maybe he just means races are real, but the meanings we put on them are socially constructed? I think he would advocate the former if pressed. But why put such a misconception into federal law? the civil rights law itself (and particularly how the Equal employment opportunity commission enforces it) puts the socially constructed term of race into law (as well as religion I might add). If there hadn't been a history of race discrimination, why put it into law? Also, the voting rights act DOES treat races in partly group terms, and looks at blacks not just as individuals. It is partly responsible for the creation of majority-minority districts. The point is that the government can put race into law, lend credence to the concept, yet on balance do more harm than good. Money is a social construction, but it's also a social fact. One reason is because these social constructions have powerful identities and real social effects. And establishing that all cultures are bad social constructions rather than simply social constructions is another way to go, but a different tact. Just as constructing identities hurt minorities, ignoring that history of discrimination can also hurt them. Stevenson cannot know a priori which way it is. Stevenson can't make this absolute of a statement based on such weak premises. But his weak premises are most of what he has based the rest of his argument on. Again, my point in this long argument was not to say that it is impossible to reasonably argue the government should be race-neutral in most cases. My point was to make (an admittedly ad hoc) distinction between race-blindness and race-neutrality. To be race-blind is to conclude from first principles that the government should never take race into account, without even looking at the facts of the case. Stevenson's only basis for saying the government shouldn't using race is that it lends credence to it, which we would mean he would have to be race-blind (or have implicit, missing premises), with all of the implications that brings. You can argue for race neutrality (rather than race-blindess): perhaps after looking at the situation you decide the best policy is to be race-neutral, but whether or not race (and culture) should be important is taken into account, even if it is decided to be best left aside in this case. But Stevenson's method of argument has not involved merely a presumption of race-neutrality in most cases; for that I think his 'philosophy' is shoddy and his use of terms very, very confusing. What has been frustrating is that he had not said why his 'philosophy' allows him to support the Civil rights Act and other things. I'm glad he does not conclude a priori that race is an irrelevent factor in Indian affiars, but it might lead him to think he can't be absolutely race-blind.

Posted by Timothy at 4:54 PM |

 
"A later response is required, especially as he now attempted to appropriate Habermas." I have never read Habermas, though as of late, I have heard very much about him. What pieces of Habermas should I read to get a handle on his philosophy?

Posted by John Stevenson at 2:22 PM |

 
War

The drums of war pound louder. Mike Reeves asked about the UN's role. I beleive that Kofi finds his role in world affairs clearly detailed in the weekly memo from Cheney's desk. I hear that Bush forwards a copy to Sharon and Blair regularly. As for France's suggestion that the US may be making things up, check this.

Posted by John Stevenson at 2:17 PM |

 
The Marketing of a Public Intellectual

John Stevenson said: "Unable to view the archives, I cannot remember what I posted in 'An Answer (I hope)', which was a direct answer to a lot of Tim's queries after the term ended and I had time to think. Unfortunately, the demands of College life and the role of the public intellectual-turned-free food guru took up most of time... As for Tim's opinions of myself, it is most unfortunate that our paths haven't crossed in real life; however, he keeps me thinking and has performed an invaluable service to the world. And if I am merely marketing myself, I do hope that I am doing a good job.".

I had a friend at an opinion magazine who has been credited with running their blog. I congratulated him in an email and reminded him that a few years ago, when I asked him what he wanted to be, he confidently, yet with some reluctance, said he wanted to be a public intellectual. He wrote back to say if he had ever said that, I should have punched him right there. Being a columnist and a blogger does not make one a public intellectual, and the latter term is often derogatory. Phrases like "the demands of College life and the role of the public intellectual" seem pompous, and, for whatever it is worth, decidely bad marketing. Anyway, Stevenson's post a while ago on Bosnia was very short, his more recent ones are not. A later response is required, especially as he now attempted to appropriate Habermas. (Stevenson's position would seem to be: everything could potentially be wrong and discussed in the public sphere, except my positions of ethical presentism and ethical individualism, which cannot/should not be challenged in public debate.) By the way, I'd like to feel good about Stevenson's compliment that I have helped him think, but I can't get past his utter arrogance when he says that by doing so I have "performed an invaluable service to the world." I'm not asking for false modesy, but could Mr. Stevenson lose his undeserved Napolean-sized ego?

Posted by Timothy at 2:09 PM |

 
This Just In

Lott has been successfully toppled.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:27 PM |

 
Cleaning out the Op/ed Section

Marxism: A wonderful piece in the Economist today. The conclusion is absolutely riveting and 100% correct. (It also agrees with my theory.)

It is striking that today's militant critics of globalisation, whether declared Marxists or otherwise, proceed in much the same way. They present no worked-out alternative to the present economic order. Instead, they invoke a Utopia free of environmental stress, social injustice and branded sportswear, harking back to a pre-industrial golden age that did not actually exist. Never is this alternative future given clear shape or offered up for examination.

And anti-globalists have inherited more from Marx besides this. Note the self-righteous anger, the violent rhetoric, the willing resort to actual violence (in response to the “violence” of the other side), the demonisation of big business, the division of the world into exploiters and victims, the contempt for piecemeal reform, the zeal for activism, the impatience with democracy, the disdain for liberal “rights” and “freedoms”, the suspicion of compromise, the presumption of hypocrisy (or childish naivety) in arguments that defend the market order.

Anti-globalism has been aptly described as a secular religion. So is Marxism: a creed complete with prophet, sacred texts and the promise of a heaven shrouded in mystery. Marx was not a scientist, as he claimed. He founded a faith. The economic and political systems he inspired are dead or dying. But his religion is a broad church, and lives on.

Autobiography: There is also an excellent piece on Eric Hosbawnm

Dixiecrats: An exploration of the segregationist presidency. See the 1948 platform.

Posted by John Stevenson at 9:55 AM |

 
Against Dogmatism: Dialogue vs. Diatribe

After the study by Professor Sacerdote appeared, an “emergency call to action emanated from the relevant offices that deal with lefty “black” issues. The meeting(s) ended with a few plans of “action,” one of which was a meeting with the President of “The Dartmouth” to “discuss our concerns with their presentation of information to the larger Dartmouth community.” Rather than having a vigorous discussion on the implications of the study, specialized interests swooped in to permanently extirpate any discussion of slavery and its effects incompatible with their worldview. In his column entitled, Repressive Tolerance, fellow blogger Chien Wen Kung chided those “unencumbered by knowledge” for weighing in on the matter in such an intolerant fashion.

The question that Chien Wen did not venture to answer was: why would otherwise intelligent people sabotage academic freedom and engage in junior varsity race baiting? I believe the reason are three: one, whites lost the moral authority to speak on issues of race of the 1960s; two, white guilt grants power to minorities who embrace the protest identity; and three, this allows the protest intellectuals to hold the whites hostage and control the scope of the debate.

Since the 1960s liberation movements, "whites" have lost the moral authority to speak on race. It has become useful for minorities, the oppressed, and the marginalized to drum up historical guilt as a means to power. Knowing that others are morally bankrupt in the area of race, shifting debates to that territory gives minorities a “home field advantage”; whites have to remain either jaded or guilty. Thus, charges of racism to the professor or irresponsibility to "the Dartmouth" are ethically unjustified. Construction of an ethnic identity that is buttressed by notions of white guilt perpetrates the false image of helpless minorities whose fate is contingent upon the whims of "whites." In this symbiotic relationship, an illusion of guilt is exchange for an illusion of power. Examples?

In Overdue Reparations, Pamela A. Hairston begins “allow me, a descendant of slaves and survivor of Jim-Crow, one last word.” In Overstepping One's Bounds, Andrew Arthur Schmidt maintains, “Slavery's cultural and economic ramifications clearly reverberate today, in every American community… Sacerdote's unconscionable conclusion shows either blatant racism or, I would hope, complete ignorance.”

Notice how the objections to Professor Sacerdote’s study are presented: appeals to a racialized reality emphasizing the weakness of the black condition (and thus deserving of white pity) and not the resiliency of the black spirit. Hairston stifles the debate by asserting that she is a “survivor of Jim-Crow” and a descendant of slaves; Schmidt is less surreptitious in his subterfuge proclaiming, “Sacerdote's unconscionable conclusion shows either blatant racism or, I would hope, complete ignorance.” How does one reason with statements such as these? Notice also the categorical use of the word ‘clearly’ in Schmidt’s quotation above; there can be no arguments, the proposition is axiomatic. Welcome to the world of diatribe in lieu of dialogue.

Having admitted, as a nation, that Jim Crow was an immoral suppression of African-American liberty and that racism is an unacceptable paradigm through which to evaluate reality, why such blatant appeals to (white) guilt? If we live in a moral universe, and a world where we want as many people as possible participating in the cultural discourse that will heal the nation of its less than perfect past, then all participants in the discourse, especially minorities, need to be more aware of the moral power of race.

Legacies of white guilt can no longer compose the narrative of black identity and cast a dark shadow on the achievements of minorities; either we are helpless or we have the ability to move forward ourselves. The narrative started in the immediate aftermath of the Civil Rights movement when a disoriented leadership began to clamor for positive discrimination on behalf of non-whites because of the negative action taken against them. As Thurgood Marshall gravely quipped to his conservative colleagues on the Burger Court, “You had your chance to discriminate. Now its our turn.”

The German historian Michael Stürmer understood that “he who fills the memory, defines the concepts, interprets the past and wins the future.” Thus, our history has to be more than waiting for white redeemers if we are to escape from the vicious dialectic of white penitence and black helplessness. Even under the most challenging of circumstances-- Jim Crow, hyper-segregation, divestment, and slavery-- blacks prospered through claiming their fates and working from where they were.

Therefore, as an intellectual community, we need to take three steps. First, we must no longer allow questions of identity to play off the guilt of the socially designated oppressor(s). No one should be made to feel guilty or responsible for race relations because no one inherits the sins of the father, as the Book of Jeremiah so eloquently posited; each man stands for himself. Second, we cannot allow identity and ideology to castrate the rational deliberation of ideas, which is fundamental to a democratic society. We must always be ready to admit that our position may be false. Reparations and other such notions may be the wrong approach. Third, we must remember that at the core, we are all human beings. Though wrongs once may have been committed, the future begins anew tomorrow. Our goal must never be solely the furthering of our own agenda but instead a commitment to the creation of a public sphere where all are free to participate as individuals rather than as manifestations of the divisive categories of race, class and gender.

Posted by John Stevenson at 9:11 AM |

 
Coherence and Recognition: Necessity and Preference

Do 'independent thinkers' "need" recognition? No, but we sure as hell prefer it. By recognition I mean, for those of us who like to spend time reading blogs and thoughts of our peers, there are now four blogs for Dartmouth students and alums. (DartObserver, FreeDartmouth, Dartlog, Hate-School) Recognition entails a link from one site to another. I did not intend for there to be any more hidden meanings to my statement. In the spirit of affability, I merely pointed out for interested readers of this blog that another blog, of totally different character has appeared on our radar screens. Later in the day, I actually strolled over to Free Dartmouth for an extended stay, I find a very attractive site that had gone .com in a day.

Some interesting opinions, with interspersed humor, were also present. My peers would be enhanced by a 'recognition' process on my part. I took the opportunity to address some of the points that I thought could use a little clarification even though I had an opinion on most of the subjects expressed. Since we are two distinct blogs, only the most egregious errors will I correct. Tim had to correct Emmet and the gang on Dartlog from time to time; so will this blog occasionally reprimand FreeDartmouth. Just as we are not the anti-Review blog, so are we not an anti-Free Press blog. (In so far as I have written for them in the past and hope to do so in the future, this definitely cannot be so.)

Unable to view the archives, I cannot remember what I posted in 'An Answer (I hope)', which was a direct answer to a lot of Tim's queries after the term ended and I had time to think. Unfortunately, the demands of College life and the role of the public intellectual-turned-free food guru took up most of time. However, let me try to address some of the problems here. (Try refers to the perpetual disappointment that Tim always has with my answers.)

If by 'enforcing civil rights laws' Tim means enforcement of the anti-discrimination statues (such the anti-lynching laws, the Voting Rights Acts, Welfare Reform of 1996?or was it 1994?), then of course I support them. If by 'civil rights law' you mean movements that fall under the aegis of specialized interests then of course I don' t support those. We were wondering if you could clarify what you mean by this term. As for Federal Indian laws, I have been doing research on them. The federal government's relationship to Indian tribes and the government's Indian law is very complex and very strange. I am not sure where I stand on 'Indian law' because I am not really sure how it operates. There is an entire government bureau that deals with Indian law; this attests to the enormity of that problem. I have often referred to the fact that identities are socially constructed. For this I have received the charge of being a postmodern conservative. Tim merely wants me to recognize that sometimes others construct us and therefore we wouldn't be able to recreate identity at will.

This doesn't affect my political philosophic speculations: regardless of whom is constructing what the government should not lend credence to these ideas by enforcing them and passing legislation to that fact. As Scalia quipped, "There is only one race [in the eyes of the Constitution]. It is American." Why is this so? Because as I charge, race operates as a comprehensive doctrine. Being thoroughly chastised for abusing Rawls, let me explain my logic on this one. Race and group-thinking have become proxies for explaining and interpreting culture and values. Remember the logic behind majority-minority (M-M) voting districts, (racial) diversity, and Afrocentrism? It was the idea advance by Eddie Said: race and ethnicities determine cultural outlook. The peoples who can truly understand (in this instance) Arab civilization are non-Europeans who have shared the colonial burden. M-M districts were created because black leaders could supposedly be 'in touch' with minorities in a way that whites weren't. Diversity maintains the idea that your skin colors your outlook on life; race is a structural force that shapes you. Entire identities, histories and characters are created to birth a coherent and simple framework through which to judge the world. Race is a psychology that one buys into, a comprehensive doctrine, which transcends the actual skin pigmentation.

Tim proceeds to pontificate about the original position to display his actual knowledge of political philosophy (as opposed to my pretentious appropriation of it). I never once mentioned the original position. I merely stated that in my theoretical framework the government should not enforce nor privilege one comprehensive doctrine over any other. There are many ideas about how society should be organized. The government's responsibility is to permit as many people as possible to persue their conception of the good life. My conception of the good life is a race-blind society. Others prefer a more racist approach to living, reflecting in their ideas about for whom to vote and how colleges should admit students for instance. The government should allow as many of these ideas to flourish as long as it hurts none. The freedom of American life has permitted me to pass left- and right-wing racism by without second thought. As for Tim's opinions of myself, it is most unfortunate that our paths haven't crossed in real life; however, he keeps me thinking and has performed an invaluable service to the world. And if I am merely marketing myself, I do hope that I am doing a good job.

Posted by John Stevenson at 8:52 AM |

 
Blog Recognition

As for the Dartmouth Observer blog extending Free Dartmouth 'recognition' and asking for it in return, I ask: why do such 'independent' thinkers need recognition? (Is Stevenson talking about 'recognition' like the kind that minority groups ask for under the rubric of multiculturalism he so dislikes?) Sure, there are now at least 3 blogs with people from Dartmouth posting. I'll recognize that. If he's asking for anything more that that, he'll have to be specific.

But Stevenson's recent comments (mentioned below) are a continuation of incoherent and confusing thought on Stevenson's part. When I read Stevenson's observer posts (at least those about political theory) I got really frustrated as he kept saying things like 'race is a social construction, and governmental policy should never involve taking into account such unreal things.' He wouldn't say, despite repeated questioning over a month or two, whether he favored getting rid of things like enforcing civil rights laws and Indian reservations, which obviously involves using the 'social construction' that is race in governmental policy. Perhaps you can agree with the conclusion that the government should be largely race-blind, but I don't see how one agrees with the flawed logic Stevenson uses to go from his premises to his absolutist stance of race-blindness. Stevenson insists on using terms like 'social construction', but does not seem to grasp the fact that, at least SOMETIMES, it is others who are the ones who socially construct our identity. Whether you agree with Stevenson's opinion, he has an opinion, not a philosophy (or at least not a philosophy that isn't laughable). When asked if Serbian nationalism is less real to its victims because it is socially constructed, Stevenson said that yes, he did believe that Bosnians in the Yugoslavia could 'transcend' their identity. The final straw for me came with this Observer post, when Stevenson finally stopped using vaguely 'postmodern' and 'constructivist' academic jargon to argue government should never base policy on race, only to use John Rawls' liberal terms!! Stevenson said something like 'my philosophy is that race is a comprehensive doctrine'. I didn't really feel like arguing with him again by going over again how he had misused Rawls' terms. (In brief: race itself is not a comprehensive doctrine, through culture and religion could be. And the veil of ignorance does not forbid taking into account the existence of comprehensive doctrines, it just does not allow those in the original position to have knowledge of their particular comprehensive doctrines. Besides, unless Stevenson somehow claims the principles of justice mean that those in the original position would all agree to be race-blind (how? Rawls didn't), race-blindness would not be a principle of justice. Once the veil of ignorance was lifted, it would be morally permissible to take race into account when formulating public policy. There is also a long tradition of criticizing the early Rawls on the issue of comprehensive doctrines, including by none other than... Rawls! ) If he wrote that in a paper, a political theory professor grading it would scribble '???' in the margins and rightly so.

A professor once told me the way to deal with the right is not to give them recognition. That has not been my philosophy. As those of you who know me know, I was fully engaged with conservatives on campus. I roomed with an editor of The Dartmouth Review, and I'm spending New Year's with some particularly morally blind posters on dartlog.net. (Some of my best friends are conservatives! ...yet I don't fail to publically critiize them in print.) But what recognition should people give Stevenson and his observer? You don't have to completely agree with Rawls of course, to use his terms, but to those with a bit of knowledge, Stevenson seems to be just spouting nonsense. I'll tell you what I won't recognize Stevenson as; a particularly special or independent thinker. I know Stevenson only by his comments on the observer. From them, he has not shown himself to be an intellectual, but full of pretention. Perhaps if I knew him personally I would not think the same way. But I don't see anything particularly original or 'special' in Stevenson's posts, certainly nothing to base an entire 'independent' way of thinking on. So I have to say that his self-applied label of 'independent' is just that: a label, and a marketing move at best.



Posted by Timothy at 12:50 AM |

 
The Virtue of Independence

While political labels are useful, they are ultimately deceptive. Why? Because reality is complicated. Taking a label, or for convience sake playing a role in political theory ultimately limits the effectiveness of the person in question. Independence is a theorectical approach to the ontological dilemma of complexity.

First, political labels and partisan sympathizing usually lead to dogmatism. As demonstrated below, both the right and the left have dogmatic views of the world that they reinforce by superimposing ideology onto a stituation. Like the old debate of whether God exists, one's position, in the partisan model, is decided a priori; facts are then selectively deployed in a manner favorable to the position proffered as a solution. The halfway house position usually taken to defend one's commitment to the truth is that one is a 'cautious conservative' or a 'questioning liberal.' What this simply means in non-euphemistic language is that this person will assert his partisan position until someone of greater knowledge or superior reasoning ability demonstrates his ineptitude.

Second, partisan bias and strong feelings are no substitute for the reasoning process. Eschewing political labels does not mean that one does have a well-defined philosophy, a strong opinion on the matter or is idiosyncratic. Independence means that each case is judged for the particulars before being applied to a larger universal. Independence stressed the process over the result. I do not care what you think after you read my writings; I do care howyou are thinking. I expect debate to point out the flaws in any argument and to ensure that a priori nothing is ruled out.

Therefore, independence is a commitment to an approach that solves two key debates. The first great debate is the argument between relativism and absolutism. Independence adopts skepticism in this regard. The second great debate is about the perfectability of man and the power of the government. Independence adopts pessimism in this regard. Armed with the twin weapons of pessimism and skepticism, the independent thinker eschews partisan labels so as not to be called 'inconsistent.' Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds thus creating the needing for the wheelchair of partisan labeling.

ChienWen, what are you thoughts on political label and partisan thinking? Mike Reeves?



Posted by John Stevenson at 4:40 PM |

 
Details from the op/ed section

A chilling commentary by Ms. Malkin.

Tommy Freidman: "Right now the Bush bumper sticker reads: "You Can Have It All: Guns, Butter, War With Iraq, Tax Cuts & Humvees." This is nonsense. America has never won a war without the public's being enlisted and summoned to sacrifice."

As much as I disgree with the recklessness of the Bush Admin. (Campign Platform as it stands: "Butter, Guns and Oil"), I have to disagree with TF. In the post-Cold War, we can afford to dominate on the cheap. I do hope that foreign affairs expert TF hasn't forgotten about the Gulf War, part I or Kosovo. Maybe Haiti and all the other interventions we've gotten ourselves into. Or even Afghanistan? The only sacrifices that I can remember from the PGW is not watching cartoons to see footage of Stormin Norman, Colin and American troops in some desert. (I also remember footages of flashing lights over Bagdhad and Tel Aviv.) The most I remember of Kosovo was an article in the Wall Street Journal comparing it to the Korean War three months after the fact. As for the Afghan War, well that's history.

On Dec. 9, United Airlines made the largest bankruptcy filing in aviation history. It joined US Airways, which also is flying under Chapter 11 protection. Overall, the airline industry will lose billions of dollars this year. United attorney James Sprayregen said his company will hemorrhage between $20 million and $22 million a day this month. The U.S. airline industry's massive losses are forcing carriers to cut costs deeply, which will affect workers, routes, service — and maybe even safety. United, which has already negotiated some worker concessions, says it will require even more slashing to emerge from bankruptcy. Given these cutbacks, allowing foreign carriers into the domestic market could improve life for American travelers.

I agree.

The best one yet, an article by Shelby Steele. Very thought provoking. This is all terrible for Republicans and conservatives because the best thinking on social problems and race in recent years has come from their ranks. Conservatism (or classic liberalism) has wanted to correct for the paternalistic and racialist social engineering of 1960s-style reform without seeming to be against reform itself. How do you say, I'm against policies designed to help you, but I'm not against you?

On race-bating, read the latest by Larry Elder, a libertarian and something suprisingly lucid by Ann Coulter, who usually has the cohorence of a 12-year old.

Lastly, a Brit weighs in on conservatism in America.


Posted by John Stevenson at 2:32 PM |

 
More Campus Blogs

In the spirit of recognition, I recommend the blog by student Bradford and friends talking about the perils of College life. It really is good commentary on College life. I personally recommend this. A link to the main page has been posted on the side.

Posted by John Stevenson at 1:27 PM |

 
Whither U.N. Diplomacy?

The current U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq per U.N. Resolution 1441 demonstrate the great strengths and even greater weaknesses of international institutions and diplomacy. The media is providing thorough coverage of the U.N.'s weapons inspectors and ambassadors and analyzing their statements as if they matter, bestowing them with legitimacy and authority. On the other hand, the major states involved in the inspections (the five permanent members of the Security Council and Iraq) are playing a game of international hide-and-seek. Iraq produces a 12,000 pages weapons declaration, supposedly detailing all of their munitions' capabilities. The Security Council accepts the document, reviews it, and then gives an edited version to non-nuclear Security Council members. Some permanent Security Council members claim Iraq has omitted weapons sites from the document. Countries viewing the edited version (i.e. Syria) claim they cannot be a part of the conclusion because they do not have full access to the document. Iraq claims they have completely complied with the Resolution. Without a highly visible "smoking gun," all parties can reach conclusions that suit their interests without any need to justify their claims. This deadly game of hide-and-seek begs several questions:

1.) If the Security Council has enough knowledge to discern whether or not Iraq omitted information, why do they need a weapons declaration in the first place?

2.) How can the permanent Security Council members expect the cooperation of other temporary members if it does not share all pertinent information with them?

3.) Does the U.S. have the ability to produce a weapons declarations on its WMDs without making any mistakes? The U.S. has highly organized and fairly efficient Defense Department and military. How could we expect the disorganized Iraqi military to produce an accurate document detailing its weapons?

4.) How do we decide whether an omission was intentional or a mistake?

5.) Will a Security Council finding of a "material breach" by Iraq and approval of an invasion temper anti-Western sentiment in the Arab world should we attack Iraq?

6.) Does the U.N. matter?

Posted by Michael at 12:27 PM |

 
Affirmative Action and its Discontents

(Quick Note: Krauthammer delineates the three strains of thought labeled 'conservative'. He clearly elucidates why the neocons left the leftists on affirmative action.)
Brad Plumer opines on Tuesday: "So what gives? Does racial diversity equal intellectual diversity? Does affirmative action accomplish either of these? Does it push the light of liberalism a little further against Lott and the forces of darkness?" What do we mean by affirmative action: leagacies, sports-type recruits (unless they start officially giving out sports scholarships to make it obvious), and any non-meritocratic way of entering the College.

Why a meritocracy? It proves that the candidate in question is disciplined, can work hard and is focused. This is why i am a strong supporter of so-called 'class-based affirmative action'. Most people agree that being a lower class limits the oppurtunities that one has by reducing the absolute number of options. However, merit is not an absolute measure; it is relative. A meritocracy measures how well one has suceeded relative to one's starting position in life and rewards accomplishment on that level. So if they was a poor person who has worked hard, come a long way, and demonstrates intellectual ability they are just as qualified as the 4.0 student. This is necessary because elite education is the great equalizer. Once you get this high, if you can do the work, it doesn't matter where you came from. (I am happy to say that this is a just system for elite colleges because they have the time and energy to pick the qualified applicants. As a person who started off in a very poor environment, the skills that I learned fighting the forces at work in the modern day urban ghetto, that I later applied to my studies pulled me into a boarding school (for poor people) and propelled me into a valedictory and a seat at the College. Merit, and the grace of God not to be considered lightly in our calculations, qualified me and created a work ethic that has lead to relative sucess here at the College. Since I enjoy the academic life so much, I think that I shall persue my PhD in international studies (international poltical theory, international law theory, military analysis).)

The forms of affirmative action enumerated in the first paragraph are unjust because they undermine the meritocracy that I see as crucial to maintain the character of the elite colleges. Long ago, these colleges were affirmative action havens, for rich WASPs, and steadily become more meritocratic every passing year. Unfortunately, legaices alone amounted to anywhere from 10-25% of the entering classes; this number should be less than 2%. If one factors in every elite college that do not give out athletic scholarships, the number of people who actually earned their where into there seat is abysmally low. This is we fight when we oppose affirmative action: it is unjust.

Moreover, affirmative action is unethical. It is paternalism at its highest form. It suggests that in a College that values merit, a groupd of elitists are willing to bend the rules to bring in candidates they view as desirable. Appeasing alums (leagies), guilt (race admits), or creating spectacles (sports) are not sufficient criteria to justify someone's entrance into the College. Moreover, the paternalism is often condenscing, "If we did not, the diveristy (usually a code word for numbers of minorities but let's expand the definition to include them all) of the campus would drop." That is to say, minus their benevolence the College would become homogenous. Their is no factual basis for this statement. Relying purely on merit would not, in and of itself, make the campus homogenous: their are many paths to acheiving academic merit. For me, it was a brush with the hard-knock life; for others, it was pure will (I am thinking of Ms. Mulderig who has through pure force of will entered this College and mastered her field of interest: medical anthropology). For some, it will be because Dartmouth gives them access to capital (I am thinking of my Napalese freind). Merit is not limited to one type of person or personality. It is arrogance to think so. (Justice Thomas in Adarand v. Pena has some beautiful words to that effect: "I write separately, however, to express my disagreement with the premise underlying JUSTICE STEVENS' and JUSTICE GINSBURG'S dissents: that there is a racial paternalism exception to the principle of equal protection... [T]here can be no doubt that racial paternalism and its unintended consequences can be as poisonous and pernicious as any other form of discrimination. So-called "benign" discrimination teaches many that because of chronic and apparently immutable handicaps, minorities cannot compete with them without their patronizing indulgence. Inevitably, such programs engender attitudes of superiority or, alternatively, provoke resentment among those who believe that they have been wronged by the government's use of race."

Lastly, affirmative action can be pernicious. Plumer lists the two that are easiest to grasp: "I've heard two arguments against affirmative action that sound nifty, but I have no idea if they sound nifty to people "in the know". One is that minorities that benefit from affirmative action are stigmatized by their peers, not respected nearly as much because they haven't "earned" their position. The other is that minorities actually feel inadequate because they received a free ride ". Scalia in a brilliant dissent from Adarand v. Pena opines the third reason: "To pursue the concept of racial entitlement--even for the most admirable and benign of purposes--is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred." Lastly, such elitist meddlings mismatch students with universities. As I once shared at a PoliTalk, somewhat harshly, only 10% of the nation can be in the top 10%. It is an unforutane truth. Moreover, there are different levels of univeristies because not everyone can compete on the same level. Some people cannot compete at the College and should go to other schools like UMass or Mt. Holyoke (even, gasp, community colleges) where they can compete among peers. Meritocracies seperate the sheep from the goats and better distributes individuals according to their ability and not according to some institution's/elitist's need for 'diversity.'

Posted by John Stevenson at 10:12 AM |

 
Do 'Conservatives' Say Racism Doesn't Exist? or Is Reality Optional?

Tim suggests on Monday at Free Dartmouth that "Maybe then conservatives will stop saying racism doesn't exist." (if we began to look at the racist past of both parties. Now of all the alternative voices to the race matters consensus on the Left, classic liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all agree that racism is not an omnipotent and ubiquitous force that prevents upward mobility for certain people. They never said that it doesn't exist. Only the most unreasonable person would suggest that racism does not exist. (And I, of all people, having expirienced racism, would ne intellectually dishonest to forget that fact.) What they (liberals, conservatives, libertarians) maintain is that depsite racism, upward mobility still occurs. Why? Because racism is a diposition that suggests that groups of people (based on race or ethnicity) are inferiror to another group of people because of that characteristic. What conservatives et al. fight is discrimination, which is acting on that idea of inferirority. This is why they condemn acts of bigotry, racial paternalism (the most popular form of discrimination on the Left), and outright denial (the most popular form of discrimination in the South). Ignoring the existence of racism is silly; conflating racism and discrimination is egregious.

Posted by John Stevenson at 9:21 AM |

 
Full Time Opposition

A hearty congradulations to my colleagues at the Free Press. As Mr. Eisenmann pointed out they have created a new blog, whichhas been whirring with activity. That brings the count of Dartmouth Blogs to three: two voices of the establishments of Right and Left(Review and Free Press) and the Independent Voces Deserto right here. It will be nice having someone else to disagree with other than the Review but unfortunately it will drain the Left from this site pushing it sqaurely in the center-right. Thus, we shall loose some ideological diversity. However, it will allow Laura to find her voice again (i am the lone feminist here now) and Tim can preach to the choir there. We wonder if Eisenmann will be content to agree among the Left or will he continue to taunt both of us. (He is one of the more independent voices of the Left and comes off more moderate than myself.)

Having lost the narrow Israel-like coalition of alternative bloggers (Labour just walked out), it seems that we will have to reach out to the new groups forming on campus: the Dartmouth Independent Forum, the Dartmouth Objectivist Society, and some old freinds of mine the Dartmouth Libertarians. Also we might want to reach out to the Christian group Voces Clamantium. That will bring many into the blog debate and provide much fodder for discussion and discourse. (Atleast until school starts. Blogging during a term is difficult.) I extend recognition to our sibling blog, Free Dartmouth, as we also were recognized and recognize Dartlog. We only ask that they too recognize us. Let the discussion begin.

PS (They look better than we do. Of course, they would naturally say this is because their worldview is more attractive than ours. I concur. It is difficult to be an independent thinker; it is always less attractive to take the more difficult road. Also, more criticism of the new Bush tax plan please, Free Press. I have only seen a couple entries. Lastly, ChienWen you going to have to politics now buddy.)
Not really on the political spectrum: Stevenson

Posted by John Stevenson at 8:58 AM |

 
Another Dartmouth Blog

Another Dartmouth blog has appeared on my radar. Free Dartmouth is "A forum for independent, progressive, and liberal, thinkers and activists at Dartmouth College" run by our friends at The Dartmouth Free Press (well, mine at least). Check it out.

From the Left
(of John Stevenson),

Eisenman out.

Posted by Jonathan at 1:17 AM |

 
The quality of media coverage remains an important topic of discussion. Since the end of Dartmouth's wonderfully short finals period, I have been consuming large quantities of (cable) television media. After digesting the news provided by Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, Comedy Central, ESPN, and others; I have come to several new conclusions about cable news.

First, Fox News has truly invigorated the cable landscape and forced CNN and MSNBC to shape up and offer balanced coverage. The revamped Crossfire on CNN offers contentious political debate in front of a live audience. Their segments are short, but meaningful. My personal favorites of the four hosts are Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson who seem to be more intelligent and fair during debates than the stalwart hard-liners James Carville and Bob Novak. Connie Chung and Larry King have maintained their images as venerable journalists, but frankly I find most of their topics and guests boring and have little interest in hearing about the latest crime or listening to old chums of Marilyn Monroe. I have been increasingly impressed with Aaron Brown's NewsNight, which offers longer and more substantive segments than Crossfire and tonight featured prominent black conservative Shelby Steele talking about Republicans and race. MSNBC is lagging behind with the dreadfully boring (and sometimes scary) Buchanan and Press in the afternoon and the more promising Nachman and Donahue and the trademark Hardballwith Chris Matthews in the evening. Buchanan and Press must go, but Nachman, Donahue, and Hardball offer interesting guests and balanced debate. Surprisingly, even Donahue has mustered enough courage to bring prominent and intelligent conservatives on his program to counter his unabashed liberalism.

Second, Fox News is becoming too conservative. Initially, the channel had to lean right to counter the liberal bias of CNN. Fox News continues to move to the right and would do well to hire an eminent liberal (or even center-left) anchor. And no, Alan Colmes does not count as he is nightly overshadowed by the more charismatic Sean Hannity. The channel seems overtly hostile to liberals or those criticizing the Bush administration. Tonight I watched one Fox anchor personally attack Scott Ritter, a former U.N. weapons inspector, as he cautioned invading Iraq. Fox News has also fallen victim to the worst forms of sound-bite journalism and should look to the more thorough and reflective coverage provided by some shows on CNN and MSNBC. Viewers can only stomach so much of Fox News' cavalier journalism, and they need to re-equilibrate their coverage so that it is truly "fair and balanced." I used to be a "Fox Fan," but I find myself watching other stations more and more.

Third, Comedy Central and ESPN provide viable news alternatives for those who can longer tolerate the pretentious, flashy, sound-bite journalism of the major cable news channels. Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart offers an informative and entertaining treatment of hot topics in the satirical tradition of Voltaire, Jonathan Swift, and SNL's Weekend Update. The Daily Show was the only program I found yesterday that showed clips of Trent Lott's interview on BET, and Stewart and guest Charles Barkley (who has a new book) were insightful and offered good commentary on race in America. When the parodies of news shows offer better coverage than the "real" news, we have a problem. ESPN's Pardon the Interruption (PTI) and Comedy Central's Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn are other good news alternatives. PTI discusses mostly sports, but occasionally treats cultural and political issues in its "Countdown." Nick and Tony love debating each other and are both entertaining and thought-provoking. Tough Crowd follows the Politically Incorrect model (Colin Quinn sarcastically challenged viewers jaded with the format to come up with a new forum last night), except all guests are comedians. Quinn gives everyone an opportunity to air their views and does so while drinking a beer--what a great show. Warning: Comedy Central and ESPN seem to increasingly cater to male audiences, and some feminists may be offended by the programming. I find them to be healthy counterpoints to Lifetime, "Television for Women."

Note: I love discussing media coverage as I feel it deeply impacts the social, political, and moral fabric of our nation. I only mentioned cable venues above because any discussion of network coverage would be too one-sided (cf. Bernard Goldberg). I am interested in lobbying departments at Dartmouth to offer courses that analyze the media. Courses on this important topic are too few and far between.

Posted by Michael at 12:21 AM |

 
Good day to all Dartmouth Observer readers and bloggers!

I have been reading the Observer for several days now; and, as I told John Stevenson, I felt a need to opine. So opine I shall. I hope to make a positive contribution to the blog and look forward to all criticism.

Have a very merry holiday season,

-Michael A. Reeves-

Posted by Michael at 10:34 PM |

 
I am going to see "The Two Towers" tonight! Yea for mindless fun.

Posted by John Stevenson at 5:27 PM |

 
Popular Culture is EVIL

And now, for something totally different...

The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash on why Jennifer Lopez is, well, a bitch. It's hilarious and disturbing at the same time, although I can't say it's surprising.

For a greater insight into the mind of America's Sexiest Woman, who is currently engaged to America's Sexiest Man (Ben Affleck, who's no less repugnant), read this document. It came out ahead of Osama bin Laden's terrorist manual, Timothy McVeigh's prison memos, and a 1942 US government report on Adolf Hitler in The Smoking Gun's Document of the Year Award 2001.

Until we return to Mozart, Shakespeare, and Michelangelo, the world will go up in flames. Flames, I tell you!

Posted by Chien Wen Kung at 9:07 PM |

 
On D'Souza's latest book

Before voicing my own thoughts, here are those of former Review editor-in-chief Andrew Grossman on Dartlog:

==

"George Packer, in The Nation, shockingly pans TDR alum Dinesh D'Souza's new book Letters to a Young Conservative. One particularly choice quote: "one can imagine an intelligent conservative like David Brooks begging liberals to find their voices so that conservatism doesn't stiffen like the liberalism to which D'Souza and his pals at Dartmouth delivered a few swift kicks on the eve of the Reagan revolution."

The Nation really seems to have missed the point on this one. The book doesn't seem to have been meant as to meet the sort of standard Packer argues it misses. Something like Lionel Trilling's The Liberal Imagination isn't a fair point of comparison but of a different genre altogether. The mismatch is obvious and just makes The Nation look silly and the review utterly uncredible."

==

Mr. Grossman is right when he says that Letters to a Young Conservative is nothing like The Liberal Imagination. The former is political commentary; the latter a piece of literary criticism (and very good literary criticism, by the way). D'Souza has a specific audience in mind, that of the instinctively-conservative student unsure about how to stem the tide of liberalism on campus. The book should be evaluated, first and foremost, against these standards. In this regard, it succeeds brilliantly. The book is well-written, witty, and brief; it's perfect for the incoming freshman whose conservatism is in its formative stages and who seeks reassurance that he's going the "right" way.

However, D'Souza's book needs to be held up to more intellectually-demanding standards because it's aimed at the college student and not a Midwestern redneck. I fear that this book will be too successful: its effect will not be to produce intelligent conservatives capable of articulating sophisticated and reasonable viewpoints, but dogmatists and reactionaries who regard anything remotely left-sounding as contemptible. As The Nation points out, there is that sneering, condescending tone towards liberals running through the entire book. Budding conservatives who internalize his writings run the risk of not exposing themselves to dissenting points of view that are genuinely well-reasoned. That reading list at the end of the book - how many of D'Souza's targeted readers will actually pick up, say, The Closing of the American Mind and give it serious thought? After finishing D'Souza's book, how many of them, will, in the spirit of intellectual curiosity, read, say, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty or Edward Said's Orientalism?

We might never know what the effect of his book is on people (unless some future President says during his inauguration address, "It all began when I read Letters to a Young Conservative while in my sophomore year in college..."). Speaking from personal experience, however, I can testify to the dangers of allowing first impressions to dictate one's subsequent thinking. One of the first books I read on the question of the literary canon was The Western Canon by Harold Bloom. I am very fond of this book, but it took me a while before I could acknowledge its flaws, so powerful were its initial effects on me. The position I've arrived at has evolved over time to one of (I hope) moderation, though with strong conservative sympathies.

D'Souza's book does not, I think, encourage this sort of intellectual development. That does not mean that it isn't valuable, of course. There is plenty of left-wing dogma around (and right-wing dogma as well) that the book can deal adequately with. Against more intelligent thinking, however - of the sort that D'Souza doesn't encounter too often on his speaking trips - the book comes up short. Budding conservatives should begin their intellectual inquiry with books that do not package ideas as ideology, but present intelligent ways of thinking about the world. And the dissenting viewpoint is terribly valuable.

Posted by Chien Wen Kung at 8:40 PM |

 
Karl Rove, The Anti-war Movement

Good article on Karl Rove and a good article on the abscence of a anti-war movement.

The article also briefly touches on why I was not happy with the Campus Anti-war movement: it is dominated by the extremist Left who wouldn't recognize rationality in a cold dish. I encourage all to read my article in the Free Press for my thoughts on war.

Posted by John Stevenson at 2:25 PM |

 
Rethinking the Republican Record

My colleagues from Reason sum it very well:
Lott's ultimate failing is that of the Republican Party, who might as easily be mistaken for the Party of George Lincoln Rockwell as of Abraham Lincoln. When it came time for Lott to articulate how he was going to mend his ways and pitch ideas to black constituents, he had nothing to say. For decades, the GOP has studiously avoided advancing their supposed vision of a colorblind society to blacks. If they had spent the past 30 or 40 years addressing black audiences as well as white--preaching what they claim is a gospel of low taxes, economic growth, entrepreneurship, and education--they'd have some credibility. Those are colorblind ideas and programs and they would benefit blacks and whites equally. But the fact that the GOP has seen fit to cede 90 percent of the black vote to the Democrats says something about them. And it's not flattering. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I could accept that he was just trying to make an old man feel good and didn't properly think through the issues surrounding that election when he made the comment. I also don't think he is racist. However, his ridiculous pandering (apparantly he now believes in affirmative acion) and lying (he seems to have completely missed the 60s and didn't notice the civil rights movement until this past weekend) mark him as a man who will say anything to maintain his power.

Another fellow blogger:
Think of the leading Republican blacks. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Congressman J.C. Watts, newly-elected Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele - what do they all have in common? None of them has ever won an election in the black community. They have either been appointed to their high positions, or been elected with white votes.

My admiration for these leaders is enormous. Indeed, among all classes of people, I probably regard minority-group Republicans the highest, according them honor for having endured the burden of both racial and partisan discrimination.

But none of them, nor any white Republican leader, has spoken out strongly and clearly enough to expose the persistent and awful racism of the Democratic Party.

The slavers were Democrats, both Massah and his whip-wielding overseer. The Kleagles of the KKK were Democrats. When Franklin Roosevelt won the allegiance of black voters it was one of the most magnificent con jobs of all time, because they got nothing out of the New Deal. Forty-one times, Roosevelt rode the train through the red-clay Georgia countryside to Warm Springs. He could see out the window what life was like in Jim Crow America. And he did nothing. As Vernon Jordan has said, "Roosevelt never made a speech attacking lynchings…never made any kind of pro-black speech…"

By contrast, the Republican Party was founded to fight slavery, and sacrificed the lives of 350,000 white Union soldiers to do it. The Republican Party tried to improve the lives of Blacks in the south after the Civil War. In the Republican 1920's, black business thrived, and Harlem became a boom town. A decade later blacks couldn't get jobs from Roosevelt's segregated WPA.

In the Civil Rights Era, Republican leadership was behind most of the major gains in race relations. The Earl Warren Supreme Court decided Brown v Board of Education. Eisenhower enforced integration. Everett Dirksen saved the 1964 Civil Rights bill, by getting the votes on cloture to end a filibuster by Robert Byrd and Albert Gore, Sr.

Tim may be interested in renaming his post from Republican Racism to 'Why are they acting like Democrats?'

Posted by John Stevenson at 12:53 PM |

 
Against Rightist and Leftist Dogmatism

The Nation chimes in on D'Souza. I haven't read the book so I ask ChienWen is the characterization fair?

"A serious book by a conservative today would face the dilemma I mentioned above--that freedom and authority are profoundly at odds. Any true conservative (as opposed to a mere libertarian) has to be disturbed, if not disgusted, by the spectacle of contemporary America. If belief in a traditional and externally existing system of moral values by which human beings must organize the good society is the philosophical touchstone of conservatism, then America today represents the closest thing on earth to its actual repudiation. In this sense the Islamists are right to hate us, and the initial reaction to September 11 from the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson was philosophically correct. It wasn't long ago that a slew of books with titles like Slouching Towards Gomorrah and The Death of Outrage and The De-Moralizing of America were pouring from conservative writers and publishers like the curses of Jeremiah. September 11 prompted an about-face: Suddenly the instant books, in some cases from the same authors, were resolutely proclaiming Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism and What's So Great About America (D'Souza's contribution to the genre)."

This is a false statement. A rightist writes books such as the one's listed and opines with moral clarity. Rightists suffer from the same problem as the Leftists that I decry. They have tapped into the fiber of the universe and know what the Truth is. (The Usual Suspects for truth on the right are some combination of patriotism and relgious fervor.) Just like the Leftists, whose commiments to 'equality' and in some cases 'relativism' take on a crusading mentality, the ideas of the Right are just as dangerous. A true conservative merely seeks to create a society and poltical order where everyone can persue his conception of the good life. Conservatives are devoted to pessimism about human nature, skepticism towards simplistic solutions and revisable traditions as a framework for living. Where does the Nation find their boogeymen?

Posted by John Stevenson at 12:32 PM |

 
Tax Myths from the Bushies

And in other bad news, Bush looses his mind when it comes to taxes.

At the beginning, Bush seemed to be interested in reducing everyone's tax burden. And this he did, like Reagan, reducing the percentage that everyone pays. (When Regan came into office, the top bracket paid 70percent of their income in taxes. After two tax reform bills, the share had dropped to about 35 percent with the rest of the tax brackets following suit. (Taken from 'American's Right Turn (from Nixon to Clinton)). Now Bush is talking about raising taxes on the middle-class and the poor? The logic of taxes should be we all go down or up together. Not some down; some up. But even worse, social scientists have been recurited to cook the facts.

"Economists at the Treasury Department are drafting new ways to calculate the distribution of tax burdens among different income classes, which are expected to highlight what administration officials see as a rising tax burden on the rich and a declining burden on the poor. The White House Council of Economic Advisers is also preparing a report detailing the concentration of the tax burden on the affluent and highlighting problems with the way tax burdens are calculated for the poor.Answering critics who say the working poor do face high taxes because they pay high Social Security payroll taxes, outgoing White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey told the AEI tax forum that the 12.4 percent Social Security levy should not be considered when tax burdens are calculated. The tenor of the administration's policy discussions marks a dramatic shift from early in 2001, when Bush sold his 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut as a tool to "take down the tollgate on the road to the middle class," emphasizing its beneficial impact on workers "on the outskirts of poverty." At that time, the administration fretted over the tax burden on the working poor, which the White House calculated to include federal income taxes, state taxes and the Social Security tax. [F]or the purposes of a tax reform debate, removing Social Security taxes from consideration could have a sizable impact. The top 5 percent of the nation's taxpayers paid 41 percent of all federal taxes, a hefty share, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But that same group paid from 56 to 59 percent of all income taxes, an even more impressive burden. 'The president is making the case that people who earn between $50 [thousand] and $75,000 a year should be paying a third more taxes,' Matsui said. 'I'd love to debate him on that.'"

Me, too! Bush was elected to accomplish objectives: rebuild the military, liberalize American trade (by dropping all trade barriers and cutting farm subsidies), cut taxes, reduce government spending, and appoint strict constructionists at the Supreme Court land Federal evel, moderate Conservatives at the District level. If we can't count on him to reduce taxes, he has failed and should be replace. (Good on the miltary; increased the size of the government with the new Cabinet position, trade is at a 'B/B-' level because of the no barriers on manufactured goods, need to cut the farm subsidies, taxes were going well until the latest fiasco, and the new justice were held up by Leahy et al. Hello, Mr. Hatch. Welcome back, sir.)

Posted by John Stevenson at 10:43 AM |

 
Lott wasn't a racist until he started acting like a Democrat

Choicy quotes:

"Senior White House officials said Bush would not defend Lott from a challenge. And in a clear sign of Lott's weak support in the White House, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, both African Americans, have rebuffed Lott's request for statements defending him. Lott also is scheduled to appear at 8 tonight on BET, which has a largely African American audience, and roll out new initiatives intended to benefit African Americans."

Thanks a Lott. The last thing we need is another faction of Congress try to 'help' African-Americans. There is a reason the country keeps the Congressional Black Caucus out of power. The bad part about politicians 'helping' Af-Ams is that 'help' is usually a euphemism for Great Society style programs, which have failed in the past and failed in the future. "Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!" (Frederick Douglass)

And even worse, the godless seem to have no respect: "Lott brushed past reporters yesterday morning as they sought to question him on his way into church services. Asked about Nickles's call for a new election, Lott said, "You let him explain that," and quickly turned to enter the church." When a person is going to Church, he should be allowed to enter the house of God without being hounded by the media from hell.

Despite the Democrat's horrible record on race in time immemorial and in times present, for instance the anti-Semitism of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the anti-white racism of many of the House Congressional Black Caucus members displayed when running against white Democrats in primaries (source David T. Canon), the racist innuendo against Republicans during campaigns, and the bigotry of lower standards expressed in Democrat paternalism toward minorities in general, we cannot expect leaders of the party of Lincoln to condescend toward minorities for political gain. Lott, leave that to the other side of the aile please.

Posted by John Stevenson at 10:36 AM |

 
Brooks on Students

David Brooks, who was at Dartmouth a few months ago, offers yet another incisive and funny piece on the lives and minds of America's elite college students.

Some choice quotes:

The Hang Out begins with the two students ensconced in a dorm room, engaged in stilted conversation about some pseudo-intellectual topic. It then proceeds through a series of ever less cerebral conversational stages, which may last over a few Hang Out sessions, until the two are in bed.

Indeed, I was out drinking late one night with a group of students, and a woman to my left mentioned that she would never have a serious relationship with someone she wouldn't consider marrying. "That sounds traditional," I said to her. She responded, "I didn't say I wouldn't f--- anyone I wouldn't consider marrying."

Students are rewarded for having a lukewarm enthusiasm for all fields in general and none in particular. They are rewarded for mastering the method of being a good student, not for their passion for the content of any particular area of learning. They are rewarded for their ability to mindlessly defer to their professors' wishes, and never strike out on their own or follow a contradictory path.

One young woman came up to me at Dartmouth and called me a coward because I had been insufficiently scathing about her generation of college students in a piece I did for the Atlantic Monthly a couple of years ago. I practically wanted to hug her for being so refreshingly, and unusually, confrontational. That same evening I met a young man who told me he wanted to become president of the United States someday. Then he handed me his business card, which had his photo on it.

Left-wing radicalism, the students tend to perceive, is something that can only survive in the protected world of academia. It is seen by many as a sign of infantile withdrawal from reality.

I did run across many conservative students, who don't seem to feel fundamentally alienated from their peers. I'm happy to report that many of the smarter students one meets have some conservative opinions, especially about the venality of the United Nations and such things. You would not call them movement conservatives, however, and many said they are privately embarrassed by confrontational conservatives such as David Horowitz and publications like the Dartmouth Review.

You can read Brooks's earlier but equally seminal piece here.

Posted by Chien Wen Kung at 8:23 PM |

 
Some Details

A particularly good and thoughtful piece by Mr. Chapman. As for "Well, I guess John Stevenson is not going to take back his parroting of the lie that the right has taken the lead on the Lott issue (maybe one time he'll think about where he gets all his misinformation from)," indifference to all things unimportant, like the details of who condemned first, is a wonderful thing. I am more happy that condemnation flows than whether neolibs were the first to condemn. If it was the case that the neolibs and leftists beat moderate conservatives to the kill then I apologize.

As for Scalia and Thomas, they actaully agree. (And we find that Tim is a closest Jonah Goldberg fan) Thomas suggests that public cross-burning can be unconstituional because of the nature of the act; Scalia merely repeats that in private everyone has a right to the speech that may be offensive. I respect Scalia and Thomas because whatever their personal inclinations maybe on a particular issue, they always stick to what the constituion has to say rather than create laws to justify their position. I cannot extend the same praise to the moderates on the court --O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Stevens--who have less hesistation against judicial legistation or the radicals--Souter and Ginsburg and recent others like Blackmun and Marshall--whose entire careers seems to suggest that the country had two Congresses acting for a while, one elected and other appointed. In the privacy of one's on home or organization, burning inanimate objects in a form of speech and is guareenteed by the constitution; in public, not all speech is allowed (for instance yeling Fire in a theater). If people on campus during the ghetto party had been committed to the rule of law rather than the facism of special interest (in so far as Chi Gam is a private institution), we would not have an issue of people legislating their morality and requiring that others abide by it. What is often passed off as good intentions or anti-'hate' is really moral fundamentalism in stealth mode. The constituion disapproves of the latter in the public sphere.

Posted by John Stevenson at 7:23 AM |

 
Gore out of '04

When I saw Al Gore impersonating Trent Lott last night on Saturday Night Live, I thought: this is not a man who wants to win the South in the next election. Yep. (via drudge)

Posted by Timothy at 3:37 PM |

 
Lies from the Right

Well, I guess John Stevenson is not going to take back his parroting of the lie that the right has taken the lead on the Lott issue (maybe one time he'll think about where he gets all his misinformation from). But it occurred to me that my experience with the Lott issue began Tuesday morning, as I had been working nonstop trhough the weekend on a final paper (I chain-smoked two packs of cigarettes and drank 2 liters of mountain dew in the last 24 hour period). Blogger Roger Ailes would seem to say I was too generous in praising conservative bloggers:

The chronology goes like this: Lott made the speech on Thursday, December 5, which was aired by C-SPAN. ABC (via The Note) published it on Friday, and Tim Noah in Slate linked to The Note the same day. The Washington Post provided extensive coverage on Saturday. (The Moonie Times, meanwhile, covered the story on Friday whitewashing the event, omitting any mention of Lott's racist remarks. As did NPR, on Weekend Edition.)
Among weblogs, Joshua Marshall had the first mention of the story I could find, on December 6. Atrios also had the story then. "Instapundit" then came along and simply agreed with what Marshall and Atrios said. The usual wingnut circle jerk then began, with Instapundit's toadys linking to him, and adding nothing of substance. Sully didn't get around to the story until early Monday morning, long after practically everyone else with a blog, left and right, had said something about it.
So righty bloggers did not break the story. They jumped on a moving train, driven by the major media and liberal bloggers.
But have righty bloggers lead the charge since then? As Al Gore, Sr. said to Strom Thurmond, "Hell No!"
Marshall broke Lott's amicus brief on behalf of Bob Jones. Atrios provided more than a half-dozen links to the Dixiecrat platform and Lott's history and ties to the CCC. Real reporting. Sully's first comment was about how moral he is because he beat the New York Times and Bush in condemning Lott. Instapundit did his usual half-assed job of linking to other bloggers who were merely re-posting the story. The wingnut blogs have since moved on to their true concerns, damage control for the Republican Party and ensuring that the Pubes don't lose their slim Senate majority.



Posted by Timothy at 9:30 PM |

 
What Feminism Made Possible?

Welcome to Capitalist Chicks.Com, where capitalism gets a face lift! We'd like to change the view that all capitalists are grizzled old men reminiscent of Ebenezer Scrooge. We're here to show people that there is a different face behind today's capitalists.
We are Intelligent...
We are Proud...
We are Chicks!!!
As our site grows we hope to show people that there are a growing number of independent, strong willed, capitalist women in our world today and throughout history.


I got this link via Vodkapundit. Capitalist Chicks.Com also has a spiffy T-shirt, a section called Women on Top, and a fondness for Ayn Rand (they quote her saying "wealth is the product of man's capacity to think").

Posted by Timothy at 12:08 AM |

 
Judge Thomas and Cross Burning

I think Thomas' comments were really suprising not just in terms of his own judicial philosophy, but because of the general line taken by Supreme Court cases on the First Amendment. (eg. RAV in 1992) Thomas' comment indicates the Court won't overturn cross burning laws, because this symbol has a history. He says it is unlike any other symbol in our society. But what about swatiskas and the Nazis marching through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors in Skoke? Should we change that decision? I wonder what free speech specialist Emmett Hogan thinks about Thomas' consistency? (Though Mr. Hogan has hardly been the most wise person on matters of race.) Oh, and here's Justice Scalia's standout question on this case: "Surely one can burn a cross in the sanctity of one's bedroom?"


Posted by Timothy at 8:47 PM |

 
Republican Racism

John Stevenson says: "I agree completely. I was overjoyed to read the condemnations of Lott proceed first from the Right and center-right long before the Left bandwagoned." I have given credit to conservatives pundits like Charles Krauthammer and especially the National Review for really piling it onto Lott. They were paying attention before the supposedly liberal New York Times did. The bloggers have been right on this topic (and a large percentage of them lean right), but Josh Marshall, the liberal journalist/blogger at talkingpointsmemo.com, is the one who first banged away on the Lott story. Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, and Paul Krugman all acknowledge this and give the credit to him. And Marshall kept providing more grist for the mill, coming up with more damning past things about Lott. So I want John to admit that it is not the case that "the Right [did] condemn first." What was John talking about? Al Gore and the Black Congressional Caucus spoke out before George Bush (or any other Republican leader did). And Lott is still lying and pathetic in his 'apologies'. Keep in mind that Bush originally said through his spokesman that he stands by Lott "unquestionably." Bush and Republicans need to get rid of Lott, not just say what he said was a mistake.

What is true is that this is not a story driven by the liberal media. It really was propelled by the blogosphere, and it wouldn't have reached the heights it did had not the conservative pundits really railed on Lott, early and often. But it's not like the Nation, New Republic, and The American Prospect did not harp on this. What I think this shows is really the power of the internet, the clubbiness of the so-called liberal media who were content not to pay the story too much attention, and the insiderness of cowards like Tom Daschle, inexcusably excusing Lott early in the week. Again, I want to be clear: I think most conservative pundits are on the right side, and were on this side even before more damning things came out about Lott and that is to their credit. But this just shows how powerful conservative columnists are when they finally realize something is wrong and move to change it.

Don't get too self-congratulatory. The Washington Times has columns running against Lott, but its own assistant national editor is a racist whose internet posts show he thinks interracial marriage is revolting:"[T]he media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sister-in-law, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us."

Let's not forget that shortly before this uproar, the National Review online ran a story about Strom Thurmond's hundredth birthday that was, well, Lott-like. The story didn't mention Thurmond's ugly racial history, characterizing his 1948 segregationalists campaign like this: "He had run for president in 1948 as a States Rights Democrat, carrying four states." No mention of Thurmond's views and the article did not highlight that Strom is famous for having the longest filibuster in the Senate OPPOSING a civil rights bill. Here's what the article says:"And Strom Thurmond has done more for blacks in South Carolina than he has received credit for. He opposed the liberal civil-rights movement because it sought to force radical change. He opposed not its goals, but its tactics." It's tactics!?! What whitewash! (and National Review has not noted this earlier article as they have condemned of Lott) But the article was right in saying: "Sen. Thurmond began the southern swing to the Republican party. The senator switched parties in 1964 and became the first person whom South Carolina elected to the Senate as a Republican in 1966."

The Republican party owes a lot to Strom Thurmond, and owe their takeover of the South (and hence their majority in both houses) to the strategy that Thurmond began and Nixon perfected. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Republicans control the government because they appeal best to racists. Of course, not all Republicans are racists. (National Review's David Frum has some interesting claims and commentary about contemporary conservatives). But from Nixon advocating 'law and order' to Reagan beginning his presidential campaign in a town where civil rights workers were killed, to George Bush using Willie Horton in knowingly racist ways, to George W. Bush visiting Bob Jones to show he was a good ol' boy, to Lott's long connections to racist groups, Republicans have been winking and nodding by sending these racial messages. They can have different appeals in the future, but the Republican needs to purge itself of these elements. The Republicans need to face up to the fact that it has relied on racial appeals. And the Democratic Party needs to stand up for justice, which Daschle and his clubby Senators did not do early in the game as many conservative columnists did. Lyndon Johnson knew that by signing the Civil Rights bill in 1964 he might be losing the South for the Democrats for a generation. He was right. Republican gains don't have to come at this cost and is not the entire reason for their success, but let's not pretend that hasn't been part of their appeal and the reason they have won. But let's remember that a liberal blogger jumpstarted this Lott affair, liberal politicians were the first to condemn Lott, the liberal print media ain't as liberal as they 'should' be, and so-called moderates in the Senate backed up Lott too. And there are two larger problems: the Washington media had only given brief attention to Lott's known ties with racist groups before this affair, and the clubbiness of the Senate has prevented outright condemnation. So this is larger problem with bringing racism to the fore and calling it like it is in our politics today. Let's give credit to most conservative pundits (but not to Bob Novak) for having that basic sense of justice now, but let's not be too self-congratulatory or pretend this problem is solved.


Posted by Timothy at 8:11 PM |

 
Is Justice Thomas "singing a slightly different tune on the Supreme Court"? Well, let me go back to my archives and pull up the research that I did on Thomas's judicial philosophy. We may find that it is consistent with his 'first principles' approach to constituitonal interpetation, which is revialed in its accuracy only by Scalia's version of deducing from the original. I encourage any and all to read their opinions (they usually either concur or dissent but usually always have something to say). The best is when they rightly-so call something of their colleagues facists, judical legislators, and racial paternalists. (usually targeted at Breyer and Ginsburg)

What do I intially suspect that Thomas hasn't "changed his mind'? "[Thomas] then referred to a 1995 court opinion in which he called a burning cross a ''symbol of white supremacy and a tool for the intimidation and harassment of racial minorities, Catholics, Jews, Communists, and any other groups hated by the Klan.''

Along side my Condi for VP in 2004 and for Pres in 2008, I have started my California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown for supreme Court justice after Rehnquist (and maybe Sandra Day) resign. When her fellow justices have gone the judicial activism route, her scathing and brilliant dissents have punctured their pretenses without mercy. Moreover, she has shown herself to be as knowledgeable as she is tough-minded.

Note even if Condi doesn't get to be VP unitl 2008, she should be promoted to SecState since she is the smartest NSA since Kissinger and would be the perfect person to overshadow foreign policy the way Kissinger did.

Posted by John Stevenson at 5:47 PM |

 
A Lott may be too much OR A Lott less Republicans

Tim said, "The more obvious way to condemn Lott is that he has repeatedly said the world would be better if we had elected Strom Thurmond in 1948 and this represents a pattern throughout Lott's career (in the interview mentioned above, Lott says he still doesn't know whether Harry Truman was a better President than Strom would have been!). The Dixiecrats had an outright segregrationalist platform, which included support for laws banning intermarriage and opposition to anti-lynching laws! Lott is either racist, stupid, or 'merely' works to appeal to racists. I would have hoped that Emmett would have taken a line similar to Charles Krauthammer. If Emmett Hogan thinks that Cornell today is worse than the terror and systematic discrimination of Jim Crow, then he completely lacks a moral compass on race. Emmett Hogan asks: "Which way to the colored water fountains?" Follow his direction if you want to know."

I agree completely. I was overjoyed to read the condemnations of Lott proceed first from the Right and center-right long before the Left bandwagoned. However, what has been negeleted to be mentioned is that not only did the Right condemn first but that if Lott remains as the visible head of the party in the Senate, none of the Republican's agenda, which include but are not limited to strict constructionist judicial appointees, will be implemented. Any cut in social spending, any conservative nominee, any non-NAACP, non-NOW endorsed legislation can be called 'racist' even more than it is. As the GOP seeks to expand its base to minorities, homosexuals, and unions, old-time Republicans like Thurmond, Lott, and Phil Gramm need to step down from party leadership. Two of them already have. However, because Mississippi has a Democrat governor, Lott cannot afford to step down from the Senate. Either we going to have a Lott less Repubilcans in Leadership if Lott doesnt resign or the party may figure that a Lott may be too much. Beside Newt Gingrinch, another failed party leader, needs someone to keep him company in his retirement.

Posted by John Stevenson at 5:40 PM |

 
Color Blind Hypocrisy

Emmett Hogan on dartlog.net says "racial McCarthyism" might run Trent Lott out of office, but the "real segregationists" are at Cornell, where the liberal administration supports racial separtism. So presumably Mr. Hogan does not like Historically Black Colleges, right? Then he should condemn Trent Lott for supporting them in his interview earlier this week with Sean Hannity:


And by the way, Strom [Thurmond] also, over the years, has repudiated some of the positions and has become very progressive in the things he's advocated. In fact, he was one of the leaders in promoting additional funding for historical black colleges and universities, which I've also done and will continue to do.


Now I don't think supporting historically black colleges is akin to supporting Jim Crow, but doesn't Mr. Hogan think that it's odd for one-time outright segregationalists to prove they are now in favor of integration by citing their support for separate black institutions? If Mr. Hogan really believes that the Left is as bad or worse than Republicans on race for promoting racial separtism, by his own twisted logic he should condemn Trent Lott and call for Lott's resignation (Don't hold your breath).


The more obvious way to condemn Lott is that he has repeatedly said the world would be better if we had elected Strom Thurmond in 1948 and this represents a pattern throughout Lott's career (in the interview mentioned above, Lott says he still doesn't know whether Harry Truman was a better President than Strom would have been!). The Dixiecrats had an outright segregrationalist platform, which included support for laws banning intermarriage and opposition to anti-lynching laws! Lott is either racist, stupid, or 'merely' works to appeal to racists. I would have hoped that Emmett would have taken a line similar to Charles Krauthammer. If Emmett Hogan thinks that Cornell today is worse than the terror and systematic discrimination of Jim Crow, then he completely lacks a moral compass on race. Emmett Hogan asks: "Which way to the colored water fountains?" Follow his direction if you want to know.

Posted by Timothy at 4:54 PM |

 
Now, some conservatives are just utterly morally obtuse on this Lott issue (see Emmett Hogan on The Dartmouth Review's weblog) . But most conservative pundits have been calling for Lott's head. Here's what Andrew Sullivan has to say:

MORE ON LOTT: Let's recap a tiny bit. He fought integration of his college fraternity; he has hobnobbed with white supremacists; he submitted an amicus brief defending Bob Jones University's right to prohibit inter-racial dating; he has twice regretted the fact that Strom Thurmond didn't win the 1948 presidential election on an explicitly segregationist platform; he voted against the Voting Rights Act extension in 1982; in 1983 he voted against the Martin Luther King Jr holiday; last year, he cast the only vote against the confirmation of Judge Roger Gregory, the first black judge ever seated on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In these last three instances, even Strom Thurmond voted the other way. I don't know. What do you think? Again, much of this was already well known about him. (I've omitted his equation of homosexuality with a compulsion to steal things. It's still legit to demonize gay people and get away with it.) And if the white voters of Mississippi want to keep electing him, that's their business. (He got a paltry 5 percent of the black vote last time around). But being a leader of the Republican Party is not a right; it's a privilege. Surely, Lott has now shown himself to be unworthy of that privilege. So far, no other Republican Senator has dared to express his or her dismay at the prospect of being led by such a political albatross. It's time they did. Where are you, John McCain?

Posted by Timothy at 10:43 PM |

 
Who Woulda Guessed It?

It looks like John Stevenson's hero is singing a slightly different tune on the Supreme Court....This is from the New York Times:

An Intense Attack by Justice Thomas on Cross-Burning
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 — The question for the Supreme Court in an argument today was whether a state may make it a crime to burn a cross without at the same time trampling on the protection that the First Amendment gives to symbolic expression. The case, concerning a 50-year-old Virginia law, raised tricky questions of First Amendment doctrine, and it was not clear how the court was inclined to decide it — until Justice Clarence Thomas spoke.

A burning cross is indeed highly symbolic, Justice Thomas said, but only of something that deserves no constitutional protection: the "reign of terror" visited on black communities by the Ku Klux Klan for nearly 100 years before Virginia passed the law, which the Virginia Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a year ago.

A burning cross is "unlike any symbol in our society," Justice Thomas said.

"There's no other purpose to the cross, no communication, no particular message," he continued. "It was intended to cause fear and to terrorize a population."

Wow.


Posted by Laura at 10:49 PM |

 
Lotts of Tax Cuts

Items like this remind me why I loved The New Republic:

SOME OF HIS BEST FRIENDS ARE SUPPLY-SIDERS: Trent Lott's second attempt at apologizing for the praise he heaped on Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign will probably save his job--since the Republican heavies who didn't call for him to resign beforehand are probably even less inclined to do so now. Which begs the question: What does it say about a party when, as the nomination limbo of Stephen Friedman--once a lock to be the next chairman of the National Economic Council--suggests, questioning the wisdom of deficit-spending is a bigger disqualifier than questioning the wisdom of racial integration?

Posted by Timothy at 8:31 PM |

 
Today seems like a good day to burn a bridge or two... - 311

What a statesman.

Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond
GOP Senate Leader Hails Colleague's Run As Segregationist

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 7, 2002; Page A06

Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.

Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

On July 17, 1948, delegates from 13 southern states gathered in Birmingham to nominate Thurmond and adopt a platform that said in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, said yesterday he was stunned by Lott's comments, which were broadcast live by C-SPAN. "I could not believe he was saying what he said," Lewis said. In 1948, he said, Thurmond "was one of the best-known segregationists. Is Lott saying the country should have voted to continue segregation, for segregated schools, 'white' and 'colored' restrooms? . . . That is what Strom Thurmond stood for in 1948."

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said "Oh, God," when he learned of Lott's comments. "It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln," referring to Lott's role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.

Lott's office played down the significance of the senator's remarks. Spokesman Ron Bonjean issued a two-sentence statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong."

Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country would not have had "all these problems" if the rest of the nation had followed Mississippi's lead and elected Thurmond in 1948.

Lott's comments came in the middle of Thursday's celebration for Thurmond, Congress's oldest and longest-serving member. Lott followed at the lectern former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan). Initially Lott made jokes about Dole and then became serious when discussing how Mississippi voted in 1948.

The gathering, which included many Thurmond family members and past and present staffers, applauded Lott when he said "we're proud" of the 1948 vote. But when he said "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if Thurmond had won, there was an audible gasp and general silence.

In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."

Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said "God bless Trent Lott."


© 2002 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Jonathan at 9:26 AM |

 
In Today's New York Times

A letter from one of our own (me).

Posted by Jonathan at 7:38 AM |

 
Who cares about the swim team anyway?

Someone's blitzmail auto-reply:

==

Dartmouth students, where do your priorities lie?

Why is swimming more important to you than fighting the racism, sexism, classim, abled-bodyism, and homophobia that you feed, and corrupts our community? How about cutting that from your mental budget.

http://www.thedartmouth.com/article.php?aid=200211060103

Stop the hate. I'd rather not be included in your ignorance.

==

I like that word, "able-bodyism."

Posted by Chien Wen Kung at 10:58 AM |

 
The Supreme Court indeed will have an exciting term. (It also maybe Rehnquist's last term in a long and distinguished career. It is also nice that he and Justice John Paul Stevens will get another shot to clarify the Bakke legacy on the legitmacy of race in higher education.) And since we all the know that tremendous effect that law within democracies can have on the culture of democracies, we are even more excited about this term.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will take a large step toward legalizing gay marriages by overturning the Texas sodomy law. Marriage law in the United States needs to take into account the needs of the citizens and not disallow any citizen from persuing his conception of the good life. Hopefully, a broad statement of the rights of citizens will issue forth from this Supreme Court decision and the strict constructionists who are my favorite justices on the court (Thomas, Scalia), their squeamish allies (Kennedy, Stevens, O'Connor, Rehnquist), along with their misgudied colleagues (Ginsburg and the other two whose names I am unable to recall) will restore these rights to citizens whose conception of marriage (whether it be polygamy or homosexual marriages) does not correlate to the current state-backed definition.

After restoring tremendous freedoms to parents by upholding their right to persue their conception of the good life by supporting vouchers, the Court foiled the designs of elitists and micromanagers who would deny these freedoms to control the system and enforce their schemes upon the population; the same should be done with those who would prefer to maintain monopoly over the public instituion of marriage.

Posted by John Stevenson at 11:33 AM |

 
GOOD NEWS

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the two affirmative action cases coming from the University of Michigan system. Hopefully they will rule that race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional.

We live in interesting times. Since sept. 11, idiotic pet issues and ideologies of the far-left university have been coming under fire. Hopefully this will be one more nail in the coffin of excessive academic political correctness.

Of course, this may all be a pipe dream of mine. Consider that Lee Bollinger, the President of the University of Michigan at the time these suits were brought against Michigan (and therefore a party to the cases) has since received a promotion and is now the President of Columbia University.

Posted by Vijay at 7:37 PM |

 
Something amusing for all of us. Also, does anyone know where I can find some decent streaming audio for PCs? It is nice to listen to the radio every now and then. Moreover, as the term draws to a close and freinds leave the campus, I will need hours of music to listen to (I only have about 36 hours of music on my computer; I have to last for four weeks.)

Posted by John Stevenson at 3:04 PM |

 
An Answer (I hope)

Tim: "Would he apply this to Bosnia and say we should have a unitary government and not take into account the differing cultures there, because after all they don't matter? Can individuals in those cultures 'transcend' cultures merely because they are 'social constructions'?...The father of deconstruction wouldn't agree with you John, so show why we should take Derridian (or postmodern or whatever) ideas and end up with relatively conservative (or difference-blind liberal) ideas."

I would. My thoughts are similar to Freud’s here: "culture" differences are highlighted by what he calls the 'narcissism of minor difference.' I wager that if every human being on this planet bought into the system of though advocated by Christian theology: "there is no male or female, Jew or Greek, but Christ is all and in all.", then the only problem we would have left is turning pre-Christians into Christians. Lucky for me, I am a Christian (Reformation) theologian and not a 'postmodern conservative.' (In so far as I am neither postmodern or conservative.) The political order should be constructed in the manner that allows every person to persue his conception of the good life without regards to any particular comprehensive doctrine or conception of the good (life). My philosophy is this: race (and racism of both the left- and the right-wings) is a comprehensive doctrine about life (similar in psychology to religion) and cannot be a part of the calculation of the government. I condemn racists for the same reason that I damn the religious left and right: their comprehensive doctrines should not be a part of the government.

I hope that all had a happy Thanksgiving.


Posted by John Stevenson at 2:15 PM |

 
19!

Posted by John Stevenson at 2:00 PM |