An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Government or Society?
If we have a color-blind government, we’re effectively conceding that there will continue to be a color-conscious society. If we seek a color-blind society, we’ll need to allow for certain color-conscious governmental policies (for the foreseeable future). So, if it’s an either/or choice which is the one which should be color-blind?
53 Responses to “Government or Society?”
C St: I’m actually really annoyed that you keep saying I didn’t provide warrants for my “either/or” position, when I gave at least three in-post, at least one of which you admit you have no response to whatsoever, the other two which you haven’t to my knowledge addressed at all.
1) Justice Thomas (and Harlan) admitting that color-blind government means permitting certain racialized disparities in society (admission against interest warrant).
2) French example: the best empirical case we have of a truly color-blind government is wildly color-conscious in social practice and has worse race relations than we do. (empirical evidence which is still standing pretty tall at the end of this thread)
3) Klarman’s argument that even at the height of Jim Crow, social color-consciousness was the driving force behind governmental policy, not the other way around (bad causality–societal color-consciousness doesn’t need governmental color-blindness to survive).
You might have objections to any or all of these, but its unfair to say I didn’t provide them and asserted a “dogma”.
Similarly, I think you’re making far more presuppositions and false inferences about the positions being taken here than I am. I’ve at no point said a word about your motives. Nor have I said anything about the “guilt” or “innocence” of anybody, a framework which I don’t think is applicable (this isn’t a criminal hearing) and which has been consistently rejected by nearly every AA advocate. And believe me–living in America, I’ve come across more than a few people who oppose AA but don’t claim a racist motivation (indeed, I used to be one of them). You assume without warrant that AA represents an unfairness, which I also don’t accept and certainly can’t just be asserted on face. I’d argue AA is fair because it’s intrinsically meritorious (diversity is a component of merit), fair on distributional justice grounds (equalizing the position of illegitimately stratified groups is a legitimate social goal), and fair on remedial grounds (reparations for past and ongoing mistreatment is a fair ground for action). I’ve made all those arguments before–you can’t just elide them all then assume what’s yet to be proven.
At best, your call to enforce anti-discrimination laws more strictly provides an alternative mechanism for achieving 2 and 3, which a) it probably can’t achieve completely (recall my recent post on why discrimination complaints won’t necessarily even be filed, and beyond that significant unaddressed problems dealing with “mixed motive” discrimination, subconscious biases, and structural impediments) and b) doesn’t show why the existence of an alternative renders the original stance unjust. And even beyond that, I still have my ace card, which is that diversity is a component of merit, which provides an intrinsic connection. These arguments have to be addressed–you can’t just wish them away and then lecture me about dogma.
Thank You, C. Stanley! Post 50 expressed what I’ve been trying to say for years much more succinctly and cleanly than I have done.
The thing is, if we want to have discussions that lead to solutions to these problems, we have to be willing to entertain different ideas. I don’t agree with everything my liberal friends say, any more than I agree with everything my conservative friends say. But, even though I’m a conservative, I don’t write off liberals as dangerous nuts just because I don’t agree with their suggested solutions for problems. When we define the terms of discussion so that the only people who share ideas are the ones who agree with us, we have an echo chamber, and it is harder to get any change to occur. I susp[ect this is much of what is wrong in our politicized country (and world) – as C. Stanley notes, I would guess that staunch liberals like David, Gray, Cosmo and other liberals probably don’t spend much time talking to people who don’t share their views, and don’t socialize much with people who don’t share their views. This same charge can be leveled with accuracy at many on the other side of the aisle. But, as C. Stanley notes, the simple two-sided division is probably a mistake, because there are a lot of gradations on political spectrum. Some conservatives support affirmative action, many do not; some liberals oppose affirmative action, many do not – but there is no universal duality.
For anyoen interested in taking my comments re: Cosby’s view vs. Jackson and Sharpton’s try looking at this article by Myron magnet in the Spetember, 2007 issue of City Journal, called “In the Heart of Freedom, in Chains.” The e-address is:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_black_america.html
I think it is vitally important to understand C. Stanley’s point that getting people to change their culture is a long, slow process, and it is resistant to attempts to force sudden change.
Interesting comments all. Thank you.
CS:
First off, I did not state nor imply that you did not care about discrimination, racial nor otherwise. I stated that I cannot see how any reasonable person can a) not see that blatant racism still exists, b) that it is a force that needs to be addressed, and c) that only a government hammer can do so.
I worked as a civil servant, in the MN court system, and I can tell you tales of waste that you wd not believe. BUT, civic groups, church groups, rights groups, etc. can only do so much. They are a fraction of the power that Corporate America is.
I argue similarly w morons who have a pathological hatred for unions. Even in the 60s the unions had a fraction of the power corporations did, and now that’s a fraction of a fraction.
Only the Federal gov’t, w the hammer of the Constitutuion, can do certain things, lie making sure talented non-white non-males get equity- or close to it, in job pursuits. Only gov’t can hammer away toxic polluters, Only gov’yt can provide infrastructure. It may do it weakly, or poorly, but that’s better than the NADA that wd exist sans gov;t intervention.
Again, David is absolutely right when he points to France as an example where backsliding has occurred in terms of racial relations.
In short, in the real world, bigots in white hoods are mocked by most, but the majority of white Americans are still worried about property values if a black family moves into a lily nabe, the majority of white parents get a chill in their spine if daughter brings home Jamal, and the majority of white Americans still feel a sense of entitlement- in terms of jobs, vis-a-vis minorities. You can hear it muttered under their breaths. You can see it in the glowers they shoot at blacks or Latinos. You can see it in many blog posts (non-TMV) on subjects similar to this, if you are capable of reading between the lines.
The thing I find the most amazing about many commenters at this and other blogs is how often they seem to carry their own fishbowl worlds with them, and how they sustain their POVs.
On another thread I’m arguing with someone re: a military rape case that was scotched, and the guy is actually claiming things about immunity in legal cases, when he has likely never even known someone granted immunity!
Or, I argue with people who are against abortion, who’ve never even seen nor held a fetus.
It’s damned amazing. Now, I am not trying to marginalize you, CS, but I have to say, some of your ideas, and solutions, as outlined above, make me think you are still in a Beaver Cleaver world which never really existed.
C’mon. Black people get- and I’ll be PC- screwed up the ass every day in ways you cannot imagine. No rights march will change that. Only legal sanctions that hold doors open until the racist dinosaurs die off, and people actually relate to one another on a basis of personalities and ideas.
To deny that seems to be a willful act of stolidity, or wishful thinking. Furthermore, it only slows down the process of real change by braking the processes that could bring about the changes that you seem to want. And that you don’t get that I find amazing.
And, as said, I’ve been screwed over jobs and other things because of affirmative action. BUT, I realize there is a greater good to be had than just my immediate fiscal or personal satisfaction.
I claim no sainthood, but more people have to stop being so selfish (be it based on racism or plain old self-centeredness) or else it’ll only slow things down more.
But, what is certain is that by backsliding, as the French have done, only more problems will erupt.