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
Highly relevant to Mr Hume’s original point is the unseemly spat at the Corner after Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor had the temerity to criticize Limbaugh and Hannity. There are many posts, but Jerry’s last reply has most of the links:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgzYWZiZWJmYjI2YTUyOTI4NmM4Y2Y0NGY3M2U4ODU=
Now here we have a perfect example IMHO of how populism has corrupted intellect (and the supposed intellectuals) within the conservative movement. If conservatism is to generate some serious policy relevant to 2009 it won’t be by kowtowing to bombast of Limbaugh and company.
Soul Searcher,
You’re right that there are definable genetic groups traceable to continents, but you take a step too far when you assert that continental origin is concordant with race. In fact, the African gene pool is the most genetically diverse. Of the 5 or 6 major sub groups of genetic origin (depending on who’s counting), the African gene pool most closely resembles the European gene pool. Someone with Ethiopian ancestry living in the US, who we would call “black” or “African-American”, could very well be less similar genetically to someone with Ghanian ancestry, who we’d also call “black”, than someone whose ancestors are from Hungary, who we’d call “white”. It’s a difference between genotypes and phenotypes. And neither accounts for epigenetic phenomena that influence both the way people look and their behavioral characteristics. There are probably genetically separable groups of people (though many scientists strongly argue against even this), they just don’t correspond to the groups we commonly divide people into when we say things like “Asian”, “Hispanic”, “Caucasian”, etc.
@Ivan Karamazov
“Everyone is created equal” has always been understood, at least by the intelligent and rational reader, to refer to equality under the law. No one, least of all the Founding Fathers, thought that all people were equal.
It might be necessary to rewrite our country’s mission statement to make that clear, though, since there are so many stupid and inferior people demanding to be considered the same as the intelligent and superior.
Duh. I KNOW what the FF’s meant. That barely matters anymore, as the masses and policymakers think it means something else entirely different, which was my point.
ever
here’s a good rule of thumb for you. If you find yourself thinking “Oh. Ha. Ha. Ivan is so dumb he doesn’t even know that . . . ‘x'”, stop and think again. And then gain. Save you from having to be publicly corrected. Come to think of it, haven’t I had to do that before with you?
@Caledonian
An interesting note. When John Adams was drafting the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which was after the Declaration of Independence but before the U.S. Constitution, he stated in the preamble “All men are created equally free …”. This was apparently against the mood of the times because the other drafters changed this to “All men are created free and equal …”
Obviously this is not a new disagreement!
When Posner includes “as in the denial of global warming” in his catalog of conservative errors, I assume that he does not mean that conservatives deny that the globe has been warming up and cooling down for millennia, but really means “denial that humans are causing warming and that we can and should stop it”.
Since I and most of the people in the US don’t think that Al Gore type “global warming” is an important issue, and since experts like Bjorn Lomborg convincingly make the case that it is not a serious threat that we should spend money on, and since the current politics ensures that “global warming” initiatives are state-control-of-the-economy initiatives, I tuned-out from Mr Posner’s article at that point.
@Robert Ayers ” … since experts like Bjorn Lomborg convincingly make the case that it is not a serious threat…”
Hmmm. Dr Lomborg is a political scientist. Meanwhile, there is an overwhelming consensus among real scientists about anthropogenic global warming, including the national academies of science of every major industrialized country.
As for “most people in the US”, I take that as being on the par with the disturbing statistics about belief among the American public to some version of the Adam and Eve story and the age of the Earth being around 10,000 years.
It’s precisely the pandering to this kind of knuckle-dragging stupidity that explains why the conservative movement is in so much trouble.
“The reason Dems are picking up more Hispanic votes is precisely because of the unpleasant rhetoric coming from Republicans.”
You mean the unpleasent amnesty rhetoric of Bush, McCain and many others?
Hispanics are not going to vote GOP. It makes perfect sense for them to vote Democrate as they get more welfare, affirmative action, bilingual education and immigration. Nationalized health care would help Hispanics, not hurt them.
The GOP tries to play “me too” on these issues (which is why I long ago left them) but they never get anywhere.
Demography is destiny so the conservative movement has been left in the shade. The GOP might as well swing to the left as there is no longer a future in Reagan-Buckley style conservatism.
I predict the right will turn to the “white suburbanite” type of conservatism advocated by David Frum. I doubt it will be a success but we’ll see.
@JPL A perfect example of the problem. Republicans picked up racists and xenophobes post-LBJ courtesy of Nixon’s “southern strategy”. They are now stuck on an electoral road to nowhere, without a fundamental rethink (they were once the party of Lincoln, as unbelievable as this seems today).
Hispanics aren’t going to go away, and Hispanics who vote are actually Ämericans! A party that fails to take their concerns into account will have immense difficulty in any general election.
@JohnC
We hear this a lot how the GOP has to become more “open” to Hispanics, or as you say more willing to take their “concerns” into account. But what if their “concerns” directly conflicts with the “concerns” of GOP voters (who happen to be mostly white)? You see, this is the problem. When people say the GOP needs to be more “open” to “people of color,” what they’re saying is that the GOP needs to stop opposing the anti-white policies of affirmative action. Or, they want the GOP to “welcome” more Mexican immigrants who even after 4 or 5 generations aren’t proving to be very loyal to the GOP (even after Bush/Rove’s attempt to extend easy credit to Hispanics for mortgages).
So can you explain what exactly you mean by “taking their concerns into account?”
I’m in favor of toning down the religiosity of the GOP and attempting to attract the Asian vote, Jewish vote, and 5% more of the white vote. Basically the goal should be to attract more educated professionals. With 5% of the white vote the GOP could win the Presidential election for at least the next 50 years.
@Big “AL” McCormick So can you explain what exactly you mean by “taking their concerns into account?”
Broadly, that the GOP is not formulating policy through the prism of white nativism, that it is not pandering to the racists and white supremacists that are rife in its base and that it is not simply making cynical demographic calculations about its electoral fortunes.
Currently, Hispanics have very good reasons to believe that all of the above are in fact operative inside the GOP, and therefore it is no surprise two-thirds voted for Obama. A start could be made by making a genuine good faith attempt to craft a policy that will regularise the position of current illegal immigrants and reconfigure the clearly unworkable border control mechanisms.
The alternative is allowing the administration to take the running on this and make the GOP again look like a bunch of backward nay-sayers in an unpleasant debate that is sure to be spiked with plenty of racist rhetoric from the talk radio crowd.
“Broadly, that the GOP is not formulating policy through the prism of white nativism, that it is not pandering to the racists and white supremacists that are rife in its base and that it is not simply making cynical demographic calculations about its electoral fortunes.”
But the GOP already supports affirmative action, open immigration and bilingual education. It never says a word about anti-white hate crimes or the double standard in hate crimes. It goes along with all the “diversity” and “multiculturalism” and “St. Martin Luther King” nonsense.
In other words, the GOP is alrady anti-white and has driven this white man out of the party.
JohnC – please do give me ONE example of how the Republicans are “formulating policy through the prism of white nativism” or “pandering to the racists and white supremacists.”
“Hispanics aren’t going to go away, and Hispanics who vote are actually Ämericans! A party that fails to take their concerns into account will have immense difficulty in any general election.”
But whites aren’t going away and whites who vote are actually Americans.
Why is it racist to take white interests into account but not racist to pander to Hispanics?
“A perfect example of the problem. Republicans picked up racists and xenophobes post-LBJ courtesy of Nixon’s “southern strategy”.
But why are they racist for not wanting to lose jobs because of their skin color, have their taxes raised to pay for other people’s programs, become victims of crime and have their culture destroyed?
Aren’t white people Americans? Shouldn’t they have the same racial interests as blacks or Hispanics?
“They are now stuck on an electoral road to nowhere, without a fundamental rethink.”
Agreed, but it is demographics and racial politics that put them on the road to nowhere. By refusing to stop (or at least control) immigration and stand up for whites (like Dems stand up for blacks) they sunk their own ship.
Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose Hispanics only gave a third of their vote to McCain even though he had a strong record of support for amnesty,affirmative racism and bilingual education?
@Caledonian
At the expense of the intelligent and the superior I might add.
“JohnC – please do give me ONE example of how the Republicans are “formulating policy through the prism of white nativism” or “pandering to the racists and white supremacists.”(JPL)
JPL, JohnC is either engaging in hyperbolic propaganda, or just repeating what his sociology professor told him. Because anyone who truly has the ability to think, reason, and use logic, surly wouldn’t look at the GOP’s support for Israel and confuse its base with “white supremacists.” And if the GOP is “formulating policy through the prism of white nativism” they sure have a funny way of showing it seeing that more illegal immigrants entered the US under Bush than Clinton. The GOP voter is more concerned with gay marriage then affirmative actions, and abortion than black on white crime.
JohnC writes about “white supremacists” becuase calling people “racist” or “nativists” is an effective way of demonizing people in this country he disagrees with. Its also a strategy for status seeking as upper middle class whites (who live in mostly white neighborhoods) prove how cosmopolitan they are by showing off their “tolerance.” Instead of showing off a sports car or boat they show off their “tolerance.”
At the same time, the idea of whites having interests is a fairly new concept in the US. As the US becomes more “diverse,” it is inevitable that people of European descent will start pursuing their own political and social interests. Without a doubt this will cause the JohnCs of the world to become confused and act out by calling people names. This confusion is due to the powerful forces of socialization that we’re exposed to as we grow up in the West that equates white political organizing with “hate,” Nazis, and genocide. All of us have been programed to think this way and JohnC is an example of this (which is no fault of his own).
We’re actually entering a period in this country when whites will start pursuing their political interests in an explicit manner. At first, there will panic and calls for bans on free speech and McCarthy type witch hunts for “extremists.” But, after some time what’s going to happen is going to happen and the establishment will be forced to deal with the fact that not everyones on board with the whole “diversity is strength” program.
How things turn out I’m not yet sure of, but I’m confident that we can work this out if people can keep calm and not give in to the name callers (like JohnC). The key I believe will be freedom of association and more local control of funds (taxes). However it does work out, it will be necessary to have the “conversation about race” that some have been calling for.
@Big “AL” McCormick I am probably not the right person to continue this theme, since it actually makes me feel somewhat queasy when I read statements such as:
It all sounds so hauntingly and unpleasantly familiar.
“Summers also questioned how much of a role discrimination plays in the dearth of female professors in science and engineering at elite universities.
Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, walked out on Summers’ talk, saying later that if she hadn’t left, ‘I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.'”
Oh, goody, we can also observe another example of delicate and effete sensibilities being amenable to frank discussion….
@Soul Searcher It’s actually the lack of “frank discussion” that’s the problem here — speaking in a racist code that seems something of a fashion on this site. What does it mean for instance to say:
This is surely a call for the doctrine of “separate but equal”, ie the reintroduction of racial segregation, if it means anything at all. Try clicking on Big Al’s handle and you will find yourself at a Google video by William Lind, who wrote in 1999: “The real damage to race relations in the South came not from slavery, but from Reconstruction, which would not have occurred if the South had won.”
Not to mention the preponderance of bell-curvers, who are clutching at highly disputed conclusions propounded by persons with views very similar to that quoted above AND, to add insult to injury, cloaking themselves in the garb of “science”.
How the party of Lincoln transformed into a haven for racists is clearly a complicated story but I believe neither major party should grant indulgence to this kind of offensive rubbish. Those who view issues such as immigration through a racial prism should start their own party and argue openly for their distasteful perspective rather than corrupting the mainstream political process.
How the party of Lincoln transformed into a haven for racists is clearly a complicated story…
You’re a concern troll, and nothing more. You’re unable to answer the substantive points, so you come back to the hand-wringing act, worrying feverishly about “wacism”, where there is none.
Al’s words are worth repeating:
JohnC writes about “white supremacists” becuase calling people “racist” or “nativists” is an effective way of demonizing people in this country he disagrees with. Its also a strategy for status seeking as upper middle class whites (who live in mostly white neighborhoods) prove how cosmopolitan they are by showing off their “tolerance.” Instead of showing off a sports car or boat they show off their “tolerance.
This is surely a call for the doctrine of “separate but equal”, ie the reintroduction of racial segregation, if it means anything at all.
No, it does not. The separate but equal doctrine behind the Jim Crow laws was a violation of freedom of association. People were forbidden BY LAW to associate with other races. That you are unable or unwilling to grasp this basic points means you don’t know what you’re talking about. Freedom of association means that private actors can work with whomever they wish without the government monitoring those decisions or enforcing some set quota to please whatever group happens have the whip hand in Washington.
@Polichinello “Freedom of association means that private actors can work with whomever they wish without the government monitoring those decisions …”
So presumably under this definition of “freedom of association” a restaurant owner can put a sign saying Whites Only, or a golf club can bar Jews, or landlord can refuse to let to Hispanic tenants, etc. Is that what you mean, or have I gotten it wrong again?
Well, you can pretty much count on THAT being true, frequently.
Here’s something new for you to consider. Look around you, at the world. What you will see, nearly everywhere, is some serious self-segregation. We all do it. All races. Why do you suppose that is?
@Ivan Karamazov Still interest in what “freedom of association” means, but meanwhile your question deserves a serious answer. What I see around the world is a great deal of cultural/religious segregation, but outside of the US and South Africa, very little based on “race”. Serious conflicts such as in Ireland, Bosnia, Sudan, Kosova, Rwanda, India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc, have all been between peoples who are genetically indistinguishable. Even the current tensions in Europe over Muslims are not in any sense racial, but all about culture and religion.
The US is a peculiar contradiction in that it is both a hugely successful melting pot but is still riven by real racial fears grown from a history that is all too recent. Populist appeals to these fears, however coded, are something that all political parties should eschew.
So presumably under this definition of “freedom of association” a restaurant owner can put a sign saying Whites Only, or a golf club can bar Jews, or landlord can refuse to let to Hispanic tenants, etc. Is that what you mean, or have I gotten it wrong again?
That would be correct, but that is not an endorsement of such behavior. So spare us the lazy accusations of wacism. It no more endorses the sort of odious discrimination you’re discussing than dropping Prohibition was meant as an endorsement of alcoholism. It merely acknowledges that the government has no place in telling people whom they may or may not do business with, provided those people are doing business on their own dime.
Precisely, just as businesses are allowed to set dress codes and refuse admission and service to people who don’t meet the standards.
Businesses that set poor standards won’t be patronized.
So what are you saying? That Blacks in America self-segregate due to fear of Whites?
@Ivan Karamazov The persistence of the racial divide in the US surely rests in large measure on the many steps taken to maintain de facto segregation (based on white fears) as de jure segregation was being dismantled. Undoing the cultural, social and economic deformations this has produced is clearly going to take many generations, even with the best will in the world.
Denying that the state has a compelling interest in preventing race discrimination in areas such as employment and the provision of goods and services (@Polichinello) is to my mind incomprehensible. And basing such a position on some form or other of “scientific racism” (for want of a better term) I find morally and intellectually repellent.
@Caledonian
Caledonian is 100% right. Those businesses that refuse to serve a group of people(based on anything) will be hurting themselves, as would a firm that refused to hire people based on color or other characteristics. And while the JohnC does bring up some potential negative aspects (becuase that’s all his highly programmed mind can allow for), this is merely a necessary trade-off for this country to function.
I see no reason why America can’t be a nation which has room for gays who wish to marry, parents who want their kids to learn “Creationism” in school, blacks who want statues of MLK on their streets, and whites who want schools to teach a positive representation of Western Civilization? The homosexual would stand up for the Fundamentalist Christian as this in turn strengthens his own lifestyle choices, beleifs, and morals.
The biggest obstacle in this more “localized” America are elites who wish to consolidate central power (which is the exact opposite of decentralized power). People like JohnC aren’t so much the problem as they’re just the result of a system of socialization. Its obvious from what he’s written that he can’t get by the tired old “whites oppressing non-whites” narrative that has been a regular feature of the media, educational,and popular entertainment systems for the last 40 years.
Unforchently the current elite will act like all elite through history and over react when they see their privileges in doubt. Like I mentioned above, free speech will most likely go the way of Europe or Canada and programs of indoctrination will intensify in the educational, media, and entertainment systems.
The GOP has a great opportunity to support a REAL ideology of freedom by championing (FOA) freedom of association and States Rights. I find this very doubtful however, as the GOP is just as much a part of the Establishment as the left. The FOA ideology has more promise as an actual “movement” that could potentially attract people from the Left and Right. Picture a movement where Utah Mormons support Vermont eco-socialists?
However it happens, history has showed us that if people don’t want to live near another group of people that they will take steps to change the situation. The goal should be to find a demographic equilibrium. When people are forced to “tolerate” other people through forced diversity, equilibrium becomes out of whack and energy builds up like a geological fault-line. Eventually the fault WILL slip, and the result of this is what we saw the former USSR and Yugoslavia after the fall of Communism. All of this is very avoidable, but it will require adults to have a discussion which is very difficult to have in America (or the West) today.
I’m starting to wonder if your posts are a joke? “Scientific racism”?? lol. “for want of a better term”, indeed! Science is finding real differences between the male and female of our species. Is that “scientific sexism”, then. You should really get a grip. I do feel a bit sorry for you, though. It must be tough when the facts of life just refuse to conform to how you wish they were.
I don’t think raging at those facts, and at the people who point them out, is working too well for you. You seem angry and unhappy.
Here, by the way, is a very good article that, among other things, suggests, to me, a possible cause of self-segregation:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjEzOTM1YmM4ZmYxOTExMTg1MTZmODlhZGM0N2RkY2I=&w=MA==
@Ivan Karamazov I used the term “scientific racism” because of its broad currency and long pedigree. See Wikipedia for a handy summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
I am not entirely comfortable with it because I believe it concedes to much sematically: namely, that these theories are in some sense scientific rather than (as I would contend) merely claiming the prestige of science, just as Marx did with “scientific socialism”.
My own academic background is in anthropology and philosophy, so this is something of an interest of mine. Oh, and thank you for your concern, but I’m perfectly happy, probably helped by the fact that I am not burdened by unfounded prejudice and fear.
Denying that the state has a compelling interest in preventing race discrimination in areas such as employment and the provision of goods and services (@Polichinello) is to my mind incomprehensible.
The state can be said to have “compelling interest” in seeing to it that we never drink, smoke or eat red meat. The state can also be said to have a “compelling interest” in seeing to it that we never say bad things about it. You want to hand them those powers, too?
At any rate, the state isn’t needed to “prevent” discrimination at the private level. The market will see to that. An employer who discriminates irrationally will pay for it at the till.
Oh, and thank you for your concern, but I’m perfectly happy, probably helped by the fact that I am not burdened by unfounded prejudice and fear.
There it is. The self-satisfied croon of the SWPL.
@Polichinello What the state regulates is determined by the democratic process, which however imperfectly represents the social consensus of its citizens. Clearly, that consensus is today sufficiently skeptical of the market’s ability to deal with race discrimination for there to be very broad support for legal intervention.
The current consensus about what needs to happen is radically different from what it used to be even a generation or two ago.
In rather the same way that the usefulness of market forces in regulating the economy is viewed, actually. Too many people have accepted the idea that ‘regulation’ means failure is prevented outright rather than feedback systems of success and failure ensuring that bad ideas and dumb people never gain prominence.
JohnC
Denying that the state has a compelling interest in preventing race discrimination in areas such as employment and the provision of goods and services
Sure, affirmative action must be scraped!
LOL
I am only commenting for the fun of it because I am an European and have no dog in this specific fight and you are obviously a propagandist, may be even a paid one.
Polichinello:
Isn’t that ‘irrational’ doing a lot of work, though? If the majority is sufficiently prejudiced that they actively value majority-only establishments, then discrimination isn’t necessarily irrational. And societies can go a very long time before prejudices erode, so there’s at least a case to be made for outlawing certain sorts of discrimination while the related prejudice is still widespread.
As well, so what if people who discriminate are worse off economically? Even if the vast majority of other people disagree with the business owner, that doesn’t prevent discrimination as comprehensively as a legal ban does. Economic incentives have an effect on behavior, but they aren’t determinative, and the main issue here isn’t that we want people who discriminate to be punished but that we don’t want people to be discriminated against.
I think it’s hard to argue that the law can’t provide for more comprehensive protections from discrimination than can the market alone. The only issue here is whether or to what extent the benefits of anti-discrimination laws outweigh the benefits of certain aspects of the freedoms of association and contracts. I’m not sold on the free association attack on anti-discrimination laws, either. For private clubs, sure, be as racist as you like, but the government already dictates a whole bunch of terms to people who incorporate – we don’t have an unlimited right to form corporations, and I think it can be argued that the state has an interest in only providing those benefits to people who don’t discriminate.
@Caledonian One line of argument on the relationship between state policy and the free market is that left completely unfettered markets inherently distort pricing because they will never factor in the costs of what might be called social collateral. The simplest examples are cases such as fishing quotas or irrigation drawing rights. But the same thinking can be applied to many other areas of social policy. This is why, like Razib, I am sympathetic to a more technocratic pragmatism that attempts to analyze these issues without the burden of ideology, whether it be liberal social engineering or the libertarian certainties that seem to have a high profile on this site.
The naïve notion expressed above that the market principles will eliminate racial discrimination (which has a huge social cost) is to my mind an example of ideology trumping pragmatism.
One might add that illegal immigration is another area where unfettered markets are a problem rather than a solution. Businesses that benefit from employing illegals are actually one of the major obstacles to the crafting of a more rational policy on illegal immigration.
Clearly, that consensus is today sufficiently skeptical of the market’s ability to deal with race discrimination for there to be very broad support for legal intervention.
I don’t disagree with that, but that’s just a “Shut up, he explained” sort of argument.
One might add that illegal immigration is another area where unfettered markets are a problem rather than a solution.
Not really. Don’t forget the amount of subsidy that goes into illegal immigration in the form of welfare, health care and education, all provided by the taxpayer. Too, you have loads of onerous regulation and taxation that goes along with hiring an American.
If the majority is sufficiently prejudiced that they actively value majority-only establishments, then discrimination isn’t necessarily irrational.
But the minority is still going to have needs and skills. Those needs and skills will be met. Someone will see that and make money off of it.
As well, so what if people who discriminate are worse off economically?
Yes, so what? It’s not your problem.
Economic incentives have an effect on behavior, but they aren’t determinative, and the main issue here isn’t that we want people who discriminate to be punished but that we don’t want people to be discriminated against.
Well, there it is. You have a greater value preference for non-discrimination. I have a greater value preference for freedom. As John points out, you guys have the democratic advantage, for now. But if whites do continue losing their dominance of the population, you’re going to have to face up to the eventual rise of whites openly campaigning for their ethnic interests so they can restrain the demands being put upon them by other groups. It’s much easier to subsidize 10% of the population, as happened in the 60s and 70s when affirmative action and other anti-discrimination rules went into effect, than it is subsidize 40-50% of the population.
For private clubs, sure, be as racist as you like, but the government already dictates a whole bunch of terms to people who incorporate – we don’t have an unlimited right to form corporations, and I think it can be argued that the state has an interest in only providing those benefits to people who don’t discriminate.
Actually, I think you have a good case with publicly traded companies (though not for affirmative action, which I don’t know if you advocate). My non-enforcement policy would be limited to privately owned businesses. As far as publicly traded companies, I would reverse the burden proof back onto the plaintiff, but the laws could still stand.
This is where your willful ignorance of the revelations of science, cloud your thinking and lead you to false conclusions.
I’m betting it wouldn’t surprise you if someone said “I bet if we measure, we will find a disproportionate number of ‘less clever’ people, in prison”. Stands to reason that the less clever a criminal you are, the more likely you are to get caught and convicted. Makes sense, even before looking at the data, that confirms it.
Or I bet it wouldn’t surprise you to learn that there are a disproportionate number of less clever people in the lower economic rolls. Makes sense. Jobs that pay more, usually requite greater skills, often mental.
Then, along comes a growing body of evidence from science, reporting that mean IQ is disproportionately distributed among the Races of Man.
Now we look at prison population and economic class, by Race, and we see a disproportionate distribution. You, in denying the IQ science, are left shouting that it must be “Racism!”, and go about demonizing the innocent. But those who follow science, whatever unpleasant thing it uncovers say, “Humm, it makes sense. And perhaps institutional racism is greatly overstated.”
And now we see WHY you have to deny the science. Takes away one of your cudgels.
The moron tosses aside entire branches of science via his introspective education out of really and truly weighing epistomological concerns, and yet has the chutzpah to accuse others of being “ignorant” on the far more tenuous science of anthropogenic climate change.
@Ivan Karamazov Everyone agrees there are group variations in mean IQ (eg between blacks and whites in the US), and there is very substantial agreement that the distribution of within-group standardised IQ test results are a relatively stable predictor of a number of social outcomes.
However, there is no consensus at all about the cause(s) of these correlations, and the hypothesis that between-group genetic variation plays a substantial role is a minority position that has come under significant challenge on many different fronts from many different researchers. To take just one example, Turkheimer et at found:
This is in addition to the understood limitations of twin studies that greatly limit their usefulness in measuring heritability where shared environments differ substantially (this being inherent to the methodology), which is of course precisely the case with race in the US.
The overall problem is that models generated by existing datasets are insufficiently powerful to permit confident choices to be made from among competing hypothesis. And of course the strong politicisation of this issue has not helped.
My own view is that the first step in cutting through this impasse will be found in the discovery of the genetic QTLs (quantitative trait loci) responsible for cognitive ability. There has been no success to date. My guess is that once found they will show some between-group variation but that this variation will have little functional significance in the additive genetic contribution to IQ.
The bottom line is that without genetic evidence that would lead to agreement on an explanatory hypothesis, it is premature to talk about “IQ science”, and it would particularly unsafe to base social policy on the conjectures of one or other faction in this often acrimonious debate.
JohnC: “…were analyzed in a sample of 7-year-old twins…”
That paper is titled “Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children,” and there’s nuttin’ new there since it’s well known that young children have malleable IQs, but adults don’t: adult IQ and differences in adult IQ are almost entirely determined by genetics.
More info: http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/
@Mr. F. Le Mur I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the meaning and significance of the Turkheimer paper, which goes to question of twin studies as they apply to the heritability of IQ.
On the issue of the increasing test score gap between whites and blacks from kindergarten on (about 0.1 of a standard deviation per year) you wish to read this paper:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/journals/pdf/rest_86_2_447_0.pdf
The fact that the gap in test scores emerges during the first school years and grows through to adulthood is actually used as evidence by those opposed to a genetic-based explanation to argue that the causes are primarily environmental, which seems rather more plausible than the opposite contention. But you do not have to agree with my view to see clearly that there is no consensus among researchers, which was the point of my earlier post.
You can dig and dig and cling to all the outlier and misinterpreted studies you want, they all go up against overwhelming counter-evidence.
Heck, just use your common sense. What would be extraordinary would be if intelligence WEREN’T highly heritable, as nearly everything else that makes us up, is.
Where’s the new content? This shrill and off-topic thread is the only activity left on the site 🙁
@Ivan Karamazov It would seem you do not understand the meaning of heritable or outlier, and that you are not familiar with the peer-reviewed literature on this topic.
Mr F. Le Mur kindly linked to the collected works of Linda Gottfredson, a prolific academic who is seen by the genetic-determinist crowd as one of their leading champions. What is her most recent statement on the issue:
“Average racial-ethnic differences are the rule worldwide, typically reflect typically reflect differences in phenotypic intelligence, predict average differences in life outcome, and are perhaps both genetic and non-genetic in origin.” (emphasis added)
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009fallacies.pdf
This would seem to be a thoroughly agnostic statement about an issue on which you are loudly claiming absolute certainty.