Out of curiosity, what do readers think about Richard Posner’s Is the Conservative Movement Losing Steam? I am personally sympathetic to Posner-style technocrats, but lack a “long view” that older individuals might have in regards to the evolution of American conservatism’s style over the past two generations.
-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
JohnC
I’m amused that you don’t show any concern for the open ethnic nationalism evinced by the black and Hispanic communities. 90 percent of blacks and 70 percent of hispanics vote based on one theme: gimme, gimme, gimme. Personally, I’m not a fan of white ethnic nationalism, mainly because it simply won’t work, however, that doesn’t mean that the existence of black and hispanic distinct interests won’t create a commensurate white interest. No, the very fact of at least one objective ethnic interest grouping in any body-politic necessarily means that equal and opposite objective ethnic interest are created among all other ethnic groups.
What you are doing is bypassing the question of ethnic interest groups, which is a tacit acknowledgment on your part. However, what you are saying is that, while white ethnic nationalism is morally illegitimate, black and hispanic ethnic nationalism is morally legitimate, or even noble. Silence on the issue of the very real phenomena of black and hispanic ethnic nationalism is tacit endorsement.
Hypocrite.
The biggest challenge for a post-ethnic body-politic in America is how to smash black and hispanic ethnic nationalism, of which you are an enabler.
Hypocrite.
No one’s a genetic determinist, that’s a complete red herring. It’s bizarre, and unlikely, that someone who, at least claims to be into philosophy could knowingly engage in the egregiously logically fallacious argumentation in which you do. Asserting a genetic component to outcomes is not genetic determinism.
Deceitful little hack.
And no one’s claiming that everything that can be known about human outcomes has been definitively established. Good science is not about establishing absolute definitive knowledge but about developing theories that best fit the facts. Currently, theories that completely reject genetic factors in explaining differential human outcomes do a very poor job of explaining observed facts. What you are doing is quibbling at the margins and engaging in epistemological hand-waving over the reality that we don’t definitively know everything. No one disagrees that we still have a lot to discover in these areas, but your arguments imply that, since we haven’t established 100 percent definitive knowledge, we don’t have a right to say that we know anything.
But this is all hand-waving. Your sub-text is that it is immoral to assert best-fit theories that include genetic factors, because of what you fear where it might lead. That is disingenuous and makes you a deceiver.
Deceiver.
The real problem hinted at by Big Al, and that I stated explicitly, is the real existence of real black and hispanic ethnic nationalism in majorities of both those populations. Smash those movements, and white ethnic nationalism goes away. Otherwise, the rise of white nationalism is inevitable.
But, as I pointed out in my last comment, you think that white nationalism is morally illegitimate but that black and hispanic nationalism are morally noble.
Hypocrite.
Which is why Palinism is going to kill the GOP.
The idea that all men are created equal, without reguard for either genetic or memetic inheritance.
Like Posner says, the substitution of will for intellect.
It must be said again, it’s only PROPAGANDA, no amount of evidence will stop the bullshitter!
I have to admit to being a little taken aback at the increasingly visceral reaction against views that are in most respects thoroughly mainstream. I’m not sure what the threat of the “rise of white nationalism” exactly means, but to most people of my acquaintance it conjures up images of men running around in white bed sheets, or worse.
In any case, it does seem the possibility of meaningful diaglogue has all but vaporised, absent other voices in this thread.
Well, that’s your problem, right there. It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion, when one side (you) has nothing but a garish cartoon-ish extreme caricature of the other side’s views. If the best you can do to process the phrase “white nationalism” is to immediatley jump to “images of men running around in white bed sheets”, then how is any dialog with you even remotely possible?
More charitably and fairly, “white nationalism” ( though that would not be my phrase), in this context , seems meant to show that when one group creates their own “ethnic nationalism” culture, it is not surprising to get a counter-reaction from all the others, including, eventually and powerfully, the majority.
Best that there were just an “American nationalism”. In a melting pot, the individual ingredients do not fight to maintain their original disposition. They assimilate, perhaps and hopefully adding positively to the new slightly altered whole.
I don’t think it is really white nationalism so much as…..leftside of the bellcurve populism.
Most of those people would be horrified to be percieved as overt racists.
Call it low-IQism, anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism.
More charitably and fairly, “white nationalism” ( though that would not be my phrase), in this context , seems meant to show that when one group creates their own “ethnic nationalism” culture, it is not surprising to get a counter-reaction from all the others, including, eventually and powerfully, the majority.
But as JohnC’s invocation of history points out, you and Asher are studiously ignoring the fact that the majority was there first and started the phenomenon of racial polarization. NAACP, the Black Panthers and La Raza were created in reaction to the Klan, not vice versa. White nationalism, in the most ugly and violent forms, preceded even the mildest of ethnic advocacy groups among minorities (and, indeed, violently suppressed them for quite some time). When you try to create the image of whites being reluctantly dragged into defending themselves from the aggression of the dusky hordes, you make yourself look stupid, if not dishonest.
90 percent of blacks and 70 percent of hispanics vote based on one theme: gimme, gimme, gimme.
Since that’s approximately the *total* percentage of each respective group that votes Democratic, are you seriously arguing that the *only* reason any minority votes Democratic is racial giveaways? That there are no other issues the parties differ on that a particular member of a minority might favor the Democratic position? (And if so, how would you explain the existence of *any* white Democrats?)
Democrats and Republicans differ on a wide range of issues – global warming, torture, abortion, what rights gays should or should not have, the proper relationship between religion and government in a society with one large religion and many small ones and also a nonreligious minority, whether or not evolution should be taught as a well-established theory in public schools, whether public schools should exist at all, what qualifies as a public good that should be funded and provided collectively by government, the distribution of the tax burden, government regulation of banks and other corporations, state vs. federal power, to name just a few that are not obviously related to race. (Some, of course, may be non-obviously related to race, particularly through its link to class.) Clearly, there are whites who vote Democratic because they agree with the Democratic Party’s position on any or all of those issues; it would be an absurd caricature of minority voting behavior to suggest that minorities don’t do likewise.
In particular, it seems to reveal an underlying theory that whites have a variety of interests, but minorities are defined by their minority status and don’t think about anything else. It’s not hard to see why this interpretation would lead to accusations of racism, so if it’s not accurate, perhaps you would care to clarify your statement?
“But as JohnC’s invocation of history points out, you and Asher are studiously ignoring the fact that the majority was there first and started the phenomenon of racial polarization. NAACP, the Black Panthers and La Raza were created in reaction to the Klan, not vice versa.” (Chris)
I’m pretty sure that the groups you mentioned did not spring up due specifically to the Klan? The NAACP may have, but La Raza and the BP sprang up in places not much known for Klan activity.
Regardless of why they sprang up, its obvious by wathcing their actions that “equality” is no longer their purpose. Blacks and Hispanics are legally privileged in America. Because equality under the law has been reached (and then some) these groups now take part in activities that can only be described as power identity politics.
When La Raza lobbies for more illegal immigration, this tells me that they want more Hispanics in the country. This has nothing to do with “equality.” This is power politics. This is about getting more scores for your group and increasing power as a block. When the NAACP supports blacks who act violently against whites, I don’t perceive this as so called “civil rights.”
While this activity could be annoying in the past, it really hadn’t mattered as long as whites were 90% of the population. But what happens when whites become 50% of the population? That’s when this activity can really start potentially affecting the lives of middle and working class whites. As NAM (non-Asian minority) power grows, how long before we start hearing about “land reform,” or reparations?
Eventually whites will start to organize becuase it will be their resources that get “taxed” to repay “past injustices.” And when I say “whites,” I’m not talking about the elite whites who see it in their interests to flood the Western World with immigrants (for many reasons).
I believe we can oviod the future ethnic conflict in this nation by re-implementing freedom of association. Because African Americans lack capital, I believe they should receive a one time reparations payment ($500,000??) to start them off before FOA is reimplemented.
FOA will give local people more control over their lives and will result in the formation of real communities. If Evangelicals want Nativity scenes in their town, they can have them anywhere they want. If African Americans want schools that teach that the Ancient Egyptians were Sub Saharan Blacks, they can have that too. The federal government will handle defense, and social security, everything else will be handled at lowest level possible.
But as JohnC’s invocation of history points out, you and Asher are studiously ignoring the fact that the majority was there first and started the phenomenon of racial polarization. NAACP, the Black Panthers and La Raza were created in reaction to the Klan, not vice versa.
Black nationalism is not a reaction to the Klan, which was local and regional, but to the obvious failure of the welfare state to close the achievement gap between blacks and whites. And the Klan existed for only one reason: to keep black men from having sex with white women. In fact, it looks to me that the vast majority of the far-flung phenomena people call “racism”, I use scare quotes because there actually is not such unified phenomena, is due to male sexual competition. Big Al already dealt with the hispanic nationalists.
But, hey, thanks for conceding the double standard regarding white nationalism versus black and hispanic nationalisms, the first is morally illegitimate but the second morally noble.
When you try to create the image of whites being reluctantly dragged into defending themselves from the aggression of the dusky hordes, you make yourself look stupid, if not dishonest.
“White flight” is not confined to Klan members. Maybe about 15 to 20 percent of blacks are able to assimilate into white culture, another 30 to 40 are able to live in black neighborhoods and abide to at least some minimal standards of civilization. The remaining, somewhere between 25 and 40 percent, are pretty much incapable of living and contributing to an advanced civilization in any form. Heather MacDonald has written in City Journal that about 25 to 30 percent of black males in America appear to by unemployable by any standards that any of us here would accept. Whites, of any political ideology, clearly have shown a desire to live only around that first category.
Since that’s approximately the *total* percentage of each respective group that votes Democratic, are you seriously arguing that the *only* reason any minority votes Democratic is racial giveaways?
That’s correct, blacks and hispanics who vote Democrat do so for one reason: more free s**t. I say that as someone who voted for Obama. Blacks overwhelmingly oppose government endorsement of same-sex couples, I’m one who simply doesn’t much care about that bauble, but they overwhelmingly vote for a party whose elites are pushing for such recognition.
it would be an absurd caricature of minority voting behavior to suggest that minorities don’t do likewise…In particular, it seems to reveal an underlying theory that whites have a variety of interests, but minorities are defined by their minority status and don’t think about anything else. It’s not hard to see why this interpretation would lead to accusations of racism, so if it’s not accurate, perhaps you would care to clarify your statement?
It’s not absurd at all, because it is economically rational to vote this way. If there were some ethnic group that whites could bloc together to transfer free stuff I’m quite certain they’d be doing it. Blacks sell their votes to the highest bidder that promises them the maximum resource transfer from whites, and this is perfectly rational behavior. Blacks and hispanics entire political definition revolves around their ethnic identity precisely because by doing so it brings them more free stuff. Sure, whites could define themselves around an ethnic identity, but why? How are they going to leverage that political bloc voting to get more free stuff? There’s no group in American society from whom whites could transfer free stuff. This is why blacks and hispanics are mainly defined by their minority status and by nothing else.
I am not morally condemning this strategy, it is entirely rational, but it is a huge problem for our body politic.
Sure, whites could define themselves around an ethnic identity,
But they are. That what Posner’s comment about the substitution of will for intellect refers to. The identity is yeoman conservative, anti-intellectual, anti-elite, anti-academic.
Joe the Plumber goes to congress.
That is what Palinism is all about.
Asher is right though….the reason liberal elites can lead their party is because their base just expects bribes.
The conservative base expects…no…demands that their leaders are actually one of them, or at least can successfully pretend to be.
A big part of the conservative movement’s problem is the rabid rhetoric, on full display here, that issues from its fringes but then percolates through into the populism of figures such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh. This effect is being amplified by last year’s defeat and the corresponding electoral realignment. As Posner says:
So we have: ultra-libertarian fantasies where the federal government is reduced to defence (and bizarrely social security) while civil society is reduced to a pathchwork of gated communities and ghettoes (both presumably bristling with guns to repel intruders); preposterous simplifications that reduce the historic understanding of the KKK to an attempt to prevent sexual competition; and repugnant assertions that more than a third of African Americans are incapable of living in “advanced civilization”.
This kind of intellectually bankrupt fringe-speak is crippling the conservative movement and blocking its constructive engagement with real politics of today. According to Gallup, leaned Republican affiliation among 18-29 years-olds is down to 32 per cent, a nine point drop in eight years. I wonder why?
“According to Gallup, leaned Republican affiliation among 18-29 years-olds is down to 32 per cent, a nine point drop in eight years. I wonder why?”
Two words: Iraq War. At least that is what my college students tell me.
@meanmathteacher “Two words: Iraq War. At least that is what my college students tell me.”
Perhaps you’re correct (and you could throw Katrina and financial meltdown into the mix). But my reading of the wealth of poll data (there are interesting new Gallup and Pew polls out today) says there is something bigger going on here: populist base appeals by the GOP appear to be not only turning off the usual suspects but also playing poorly with those of a moderate and conservative disposition.
And Obama’s refusal to pander to his own base seems to paying dividends. The new Gallup asks about approval for handling of the interrogation technique issue. The results are: Obama 59%, CIA 52%, Democrats 44%, Republicans 40%, Pelosi 31% (no surprise on the last figure!). Pew shows that the hugely expanding group of Independents are closer to Democrats on “social issues”.
Intellect in policy formulation seems to be coming back into fashion.
2 blog entries in the last 2 weeks. You guys ought to be more active, or else just pull the plug on this experiment. A functional blog ought to maintain daily interest.
“So we have: ultra-libertarian fantasies where the federal government is reduced to defence (and bizarrely social security) while civil society is reduced to a pathchwork of gated communities and ghettoes (both presumably bristling with guns to repel intruders)” (JohnC)
I was referring to what he federal government would spend money on. I would also include Medicare and the understanding that the federal government would still regulate industry as it does today. As far as gated communities are concerned I suspect we would see less of this in a FOA America? Guns would be an option for those wish to have them. So no, you’re wrong, this is far from an “Ultra-Libertarian fantasy.”
What I don’t quite understand is why this doesn’t appeal to a person like you? Wouldn’t it be your dream to take some geographic area of the United States and transform it into a “progressive” egalitarian Holy-land? It could be very “vibrant” and you could be a hero of sorts among NAMs for your displays of extreme tolerance. Just picture yourself playing the guitar and singing “Freedom Songs of the oppressed” in front of a large group of NAM children. Isn’t this like like a dream come from true for you?
@Big “AL” McCormick I don’t play guitar 🙂
But seriously, apart from the fact your political program is both impractical and has only minuscule political support, it is in-principle wrong IMHO. How people draw group boundaries is a complex business but one thing is for certain: the more segregated peoples are in their daily lives, the less tolerant they are of each other — in fact, the more other others become.
This is a luxury America can ill afford in the shrinking world of the 21st century, where economic integration is creating ever-greater interdependence. This is also the reason central governments in all Western democracies have assumed a larger roles of time (rather than some conspiracy by elites).
A program of “voluntary” balkanization defies the trends of history and is a recipe for social disintegration of that great melting pot which is America.
E pluribus unum
A program of “voluntary” balkanization defies the trends of history and is a recipe for social disintegration of that great melting pot which is America.
Peeing in the melting pot is an ever more effective recipe for social disintegration, be it in America or elsewhere.
Compassion doesn’t mean inviting bums in your dining room.
P.S. “trends of history…”, where did we hear something like that already?