Tag: racism

Categories
ideological culture links

Townhall: Racist Anti-Racism

This weekend’s Townhall column is about race. It is long, in part because talking about race is still so tricky that brief discussions can be easily taken out of context.

And there’s so much to say.

I expand on some comments I made on Friday. But I try to spell out the logic at greater length. So it doesn’t get missed. Racism is an affront to justice. Justice tries to mete out what people deserve, individually. It is especially concerned about establishing basic rules of how to behave. It doesn’t answer every problem of society. It answers crime with punishment and restitution, answers torts with redress. But it does so based on individual responsibility.

Racism is wrong because it judges individuals not on their merits, but by their race. It’s stupid as well as ugly and unjust.

Progressives, however, have been trying to overthrow the old idea of justice as personal freedom and individual responsibility since Progressivism first became an Era.

So it’s no wonder they spread a response to racism that is itself racist. They don’t understand what justice is. So they make an unjust response to an injustice.

Anyway, go over to the column and give it a read. Come back here and tell me what you think.

You will probably be brimming with ideas, complaints, responses. Fine. Me too. One idea I couldn’t include in the column was the sources for some of today’s inner-city African-American problems. It sure seems like they’ve been selected, by racists, for some horrible burdens. But I wouldn’t be hasty on this.

It’s certainly true that official policy has played a huge role in destroying a lot of lives in the inner cities (especially but not limited to African-Americans) — the progressive trifecta of minimum wage raises, welfare aid to families without in-home fathers, and the war on drugs, has devastated the culture of many inner city blacks. Some folks call one of more of these policies “racist,” but the intent, usually, has seemed to be color-blind. That these policies have hit African-American communities especially hard may be more of an accident of history than a policy of repression. But I could be wrong.

Writers from my perspective were once called liberal. Self-defined “Progressives” took over that word in the FDR era. But that hasn’t stopped us from continuing to uphold a commonsense view of justice. Important contributions to the study and advocacy of this concept of justice as they relate to racial issues include

  • The Economics of the Colour Bar, by W.H. Hutt
  • The Other Side of Racism, by Anne Wortham
  • Race and Culture, by Thomas Sowell
  • Black Rednecks and White Liberals, by Thomas Sowell
  • The State Against Blacks, by Walter Williams

These are all books worth looking up. For further reading about the links between laissez-faire individualism and true anti-racism, you couldn’t do better than start your reading here:

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies political challengers

The A-Word

The n-word got dropped on MSNBC’s The Cycle this week. The show’s co-host [No First Name] Touré called Mitt Romney’s use of the word “angry” to describe some of the rhetoric coming out of the White House as “the ‘niggerization’ of Obama”:

“You are not one of us, you are like the scary black man who we’ve been trained to fear.”

Naturally this led to a battle between Touré and conservative co-host S.E. Cupp. She took particular issue with the fact that Touré admitted that VP Joe Biden‘s “chains” comments were divisive, but is now calling Romney a “racist” for saying the Obama campaign is “angry.”

“Do you see how dishonest that is?” she asked.

Good question. But here’s a better one: Doesn’t talk of race and code-words obscure the real issue here, anger?

Romney shouldn’t be calling for the Obama administration to be less angry. He should be angry himself, and castigating the president and his crew for being angry at the wrong things.

We should be angry at the continuation of wars, foreign (the Middle East) and domestic (on psychoactive drug use), to the detriment of fiscal stability as well as our civil liberties.

We should be angry that the nation’s pension system has been systematically stripped of its surpluses for 77 years — by politicians in Washington.

We should be angry that federal (along with state) policy has interfered with medicine to such an extent that the most idiotic ideas around — nationalization/socialization — almost seemed plausible to a sizable minority of Americans.

We should be angry that the Democrats pushed through yet another expensive entitlement, “Obamacare,” while the rest of the federal government sunk further into insolvency.

And yes, we should be angry that our leaders can’t stick to decent issues.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Taste Racism

Bigotry and intolerance come in many forms. And they come around again and again. A bizarre New York Times “news story” demonstrates this:

Baghdad has weathered invasion, occupation, sectarian warfare and suicide bombers. But now it faces a new scourge: tastelessness.

Ah, the last twist of the knife! After all the bloodshed and tyranny, Iraqis celebrate newness with color:

In downtown Baghdad, a police headquarters has been painted two shades of purple: lilac and grape. The central bank, a staid building in many countries, is coated in bright red candy cane stripes.

The reporters list many examples.

Matt Welch, at Reason magazine’s Hit & Run, has choice words for this particular article: “obnoxious” and “contemptible” and “latent ‘taste racism.’”

Put me in Matt’s camp. Aesthetic intolerance like this is ugly.

Contrary to the New York Times, the so-called color-crazed Iraqi people have latched onto a good thing: Property rights. You see, says a quoted expert, their mentality is “that you have to be the owner of your building, and you do what you want with it. But there are no government regulations like in Paris or Rome. It’s anarchy of taste.”

Oh, how shocking.

But is our tyranny of taste in towns and cities in the western world better? We have busybody City Councils and nasty neighbors telling you that you’ve painted your house the wrong shade of brown.

Freedom should be celebrated in many colors, including colors that annoy writers for the New York Times.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary

I Don’t Rule the World

Last week I had some fun with Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s comment to the effect that she was able to make better judicial decisions than a white male because of her experiences as a Latina.

I don’t take offense “as a white male.” I object as a rational human being.

But while Judge Sotomayor continues to catch flak, I must say, bashing white males has become rather commonplace.

Being rational, not so much.

For instance, Kathleen Parker, a usually reasonable columnist, had this to say in defending Sotomayor’s statement:

“Could a white man get away with saying something comparable about a Latina? Of course not. After Latinas have run the world for 2,000 years, they won’t be able to say it ever again.”

So the reason it is open season on white males is because we run the world?

You see, I’m a white male and I’ve never ruled the world. Not even for one minute.

I don’t even want to rule the world. I don’t even want to dictatorially rule my own house — that’s done by a a nice oligarchy of my wife and me, with a barking veto from the dog.

I’d like my freedom, though, and to have a democratic say in my government.

Oh, and to be judged on my demonstrated character . . . not blamed for what some other guy with similar skin hues did two thousand years ago.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies

Must It Be Racism?

One of the two major-party candidates for president is black, the other white.

Obviously, there is much more to say about them. We can talk about their ideas, character, experience, communication skills. Presumably, conscientious voters will choose the person they think can best do the job — regardless of race.

Not so, says Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com. According to Weisberg, given the collapse of the Republicans and the weak economy, everything is stacked in favor of Barack Obama. Therefore, if Obama loses the election, only racism could explain it.

Weisberg offers no coherent argument. He simply asserts that Obama has vastly more advantages than liabilities, while with McCain it’s vice versa. So the right choice is transparently obvious.

And hey, even if you disagree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, at least they’re “serious attempts” to deal with big problems. It doesn’t seem to occur to Weisberg that the “seriousness” of a proposed policy is not what makes it right or wrong. Or that a voter might reasonably consider the actual content of a proposal.

Of course, some voters might reject Obama out of racism. But it’s not self-evident that “racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”

And would it not be racist, condescending, unjust, and downright stupid for us voters to treat a black man’s qualifications for the job of president as irrelevant, just to prove we’re not racist?

To his credit, Mr. Obama would expect more of us than that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

An Affirmative End to Preferences

Do you support negative action programs?

I didn’t think so. But you might be more inclined to support such programs if they’re labeled “affirmative action.”

Around the country citizens have been fighting to stop government programs that grant preferences to some citizens over others on the basis of their race or sex. To me, and apparently to most voters, such preferences are simply racist and sexist. Voters in California, Washington State, and Michigan have passed constitutional amendments to prevent such unfair practices in government programs.

Others protest that ending racial preferences will end all so-called “affirmative action.” Well, that’s only true if such programs do indeed set up racial and gender preferences.

These protesters go on to demand that those campaigning to end these preferences must use their phraseology of opposing affirmative action. That is that these civil rights campaigns should say they are anti-good, anti-positive, anti-affirmative action.

But ask yourself: affirmative for whom? A general hiring policy should never favor some people over others on grounds irrelevant to job performance.

Voters in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska will have a chance to decide this issue through citizen initiatives placed on their states’ ballots this November.

I trust they’ll vote affirmatively.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.