I don't have much to say aside from my endorsement of this post on Clarence Thomas and the myth of the "one most qualified" candidate. Was Clarence Thomas the single "most qualified" person who could have been nominated for a SCOTUS seat? To the extent that question makes sense, the answer is clearly "no", but the better moral is that the question really doesn't make sense.
"Despite" the fact that he was clearly an "affirmative action" pick by President Bush, who recognized that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court couldn't stand for it being lily-white anymore, Justice Thomas has proven himself to be an innovative thinker and an all-around excellent jurist (albeit one with whom I disagree with on nearly every issue). Which goes for the proposition that there are a great many (or at least more than one) candidates qualified for most government positions, and once you get beyond certain basic thresholds, what we're looking for isn't the "most qualified" person but rather between the different contributions different candidates are likely to bring to the job. And Justice Thomas, whatever his other failings, has brought an important perspective to the Supreme Court that almost certainly would not have been replicated by any other potential George H.W. Bush nominee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
'"Despite" the fact that he was clearly an "affirmative action" pick by President Bush, who recognized that the legitimacy of the Supreme Court couldn't stand for it being lily-white anymore...'
Except, of course, that it was not "lily-white" prior to Thomas being on the Court.
But it would have been had President Bush not selected a person of color for Justice Thomas' slot -- he replaced the retiring Justice Marshall, who was the only non-White justice serving on the high court.
That's fair, David.
I am, to note, troubled by race conscious politics, even in the selection of judges. I think that selecting judges based on their race is, in fact, a form of racism. Whether it is justified racism - and it may well be - is a point of contention but that it is racism is, in my mind, beyond question.
Of course, Justice Thomas is proof that one's race and one's legal theory and politics cannot be predicted simply from the majority view among members of his race. So, Bush gets credit, from his point of view anyway, for both using race to advance his candidate (thus making it difficult for Democrats to challenge him, although they did, of course, find a way to anyway, using the typical canard about Blacks that Thomas, a Black, has difficulties with sexual advances, a charge which may or may not have been true) while obtaining a judge who stands with his side of the political aisle.
I am not really sure how to think about race. I have read, I think it is PG's comment, that racism is something that involves majorities vs. minorities, wherein minorities do not, on his view, commit racist acts. To me, both majorities and minorities can be racist. So, I find his point of view ill-considered. I digress no further.
Her view.
I don't think racism is only something majorities can do to minorities (though I'm familiar with the academic argument for why this definition makes sense), but I do think "racism" only applies to acts which entrench some sort of racial hierarchy or superordinating/subordinating status, not the use of race per se.
Leaving us with the simple business of defining entrenchment, race, heirarchy, and superordinating/subordinating status. (j/k)
Thank you for the correction. I did not know that PG is female.
For what it is worth, I think your definition of racism is too narrow. At the same time, given that you have made a lot of assertions about racism over the time I have read your blog, I would note that charges of racism should be made rarely and only on very strong evidence, not on some statement that a person made. Which is to say, I am only concerned with racism that is truly material.
I don't recall ever having said that only people in the majority race can be racist. For example, I think it's racist when Asians in the U.S. refuse to hire black people due to their being black people, even though African Americans are a larger population than Asian-Americans are.
To the extent I've ever said anything that could even be wildly stretched and misinterpreted to be what N. Friedman claims I said, it's that racism by the majority is more problematic than racism by minorities, in part because the majority has more power. If all the Asian-Americans refuse to hire black people, that's shutting African Americans out of a small subset of jobs; if all the whites refuse to hire black people, that's shutting African Americans out of most of the jobs available.
If what we're discussing is the individual heart and mind of someone doing something racist (which seems to be what N. Friedman cares about -- generally in the vein of declaring that we mustn't judge that heart and mind), then it's irrelevant whether the person in question is of the majority or minority. We're discussing a character flaw, and every race is capable of character flaws, and a character flaw in a white person is no more "flaw-ful" than the same flaw in a brown person.
However, if we're discussing anything else about racism (effect on person discriminated against; historic/systemic problems of racism; list-all-the-aspects-of-racism-N.Friedman-doesn't-care-to-discuss), then majority/minority statuses are relevant.
PG writes: "However, if we're discussing anything else about racism (effect on person discriminated against; historic/systemic problems of racism; list-all-the-aspects-of-racism-N.Friedman-doesn't-care-to-discuss), then majority/minority statuses are relevant."
How do you know what I care to discuss? In this case, you are mistaken.
What I have said is that I oppose throwing terms like "racism," "bigotry," "Antisemitism," etc., etc., around without strong evidence. That has been the thrust of my argument, on this page and elsewhere.
I say the above in view of the use, mostly by people who claim to be liberals, of such terms at the drop of a hat - against, for example, Marty Peretz for making the point - one made by repeatedly by Arabs - that Arab life is cheap (i.e. because Arabs are the persons most often killed by Islamist lunatics) -, by Beck - for, e.g., including mostly Jews in his list of people he thinks disreputable -, by Palin - for using the common term, sometimes but not always used in connection with allegations against Jews, "blood libel" -, etc., etc.
Now, Beck and Palin are persons I have no brief for. Peretz, by contrast, does on occasion have something intelligent to say - although not always. But, it matters not whether I think them brilliant or moronic. Calling people racist, etc., on account of an occasional "off-color" comment is a form of character assassination and is something that liberals use to oppose, most especially when it was the tactic of choice of Conservative, who use to use the epitaph "communist" to tar enemies. It was not good then and it is not any better when "liberals" - really, illiberal fakers - play that game. It is shameful.
N. Friedman,
Please point to instances of your commenting on this blog in which you discuss racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!"
Incidentally, you might try to take on board the multiple posts David has written and that commenters like I have endorsed that say one can call a statement or an action racist without making an all-encompassing claim about the person responsible for the statement or action. That is, you're constantly equating the actual claim of the type "Beck said/did something racist" with your strawman type "Beck IS a racist."
PG,
You write: 'Please point to instances of your commenting on this blog in which you discuss racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!"'
I have no cataloged my responses. However, you might note this comment of mine: "However, calling him a racist - as opposed to saying that he spoke insensitively, which is clearly the case - and, at the same time, failing to address his actual points amounts to ceding his points and, at the same time, convincing his audience that the left is a bunch of political correct loons." That was written in response to David's blog post of November 11, 2010, which is titled "Anti-Soros Anti-Semitism."
Addressing the rest of your comment, the distinction you draw, between saying a person spoke in a racist manner and saying a person is a racist, has far less to it than meets the eye. If you read how such comments have resulted in more severe allegations, you would realize just how slippery a slope you are on. You may want to read, with some care, this comment by Professor Radosh, found here.
My point in citing to Radosh is not regarding agreement with him or not, or with Peretz or not. It is about what happens when assertions about supposed racist comments are made. Often, it is pretty disgusting.
Now, my view remains that a wild berth needs to be given for people to express themselves. The alternative is not only censorship but a means of preventing discussion of the issues of the day. In our time, one such issue is Islamism, where charges of "Islamophobia" are loosely made in order to prevent people from addressing what is, by any real reckoning, the most poisonous ideology in today's world. And, that is harming real people.
Moreover, it is a repeat of what occurred previously, where the right sought to stifle discussion of the issues of the day by branding any opponents by the words "socialist" and "communist." And, that was plenty destructive, notwithstanding that there was much to complain about regarding at least communism, discussions which did not occur, either on the right or left because of the branding phenomena. It is a terribly wrong thing and, on top of every thing else, undermines real efforts to deal with racism.
This is from NF -- DS:
PG,
You write: 'Please point to instances of your commenting on this blog in which you discuss racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!"'
I have no cataloged my responses. However, you might note this comment of mine: "However, calling him a racist - as opposed to saying that he spoke insensitively, which is clearly the case - and, at the same time, failing to address his actual points amounts to ceding his points and, at the same time, convincing his audience that the left is a bunch of political correct loons." That was written in response to David's blog post of November 11, 2010, which is titled "Anti-Soros Anti-Semitism."
Addressing the rest of your comment, the distinction you draw, between saying a person spoke in a racist manner and saying a person is a racist, has far less to it than meets the eye. If you read how such comments have resulted in more severe allegations, you would realize just how slippery a slope you are on. You may want to read, with some care, this comment by Professor Radosh, found here.
My point in citing to Radosh is not regarding agreement with him or not, or with Peretz or not. It is about what happens when assertions about supposed racist comments are made. Often, it is pretty disgusting.
Now, my view remains that a wild berth needs to be given for people to express themselves. The alternative is not only censorship but a means of preventing discussion of the issues of the day. In our time, one such issue is Islamism, where charges of "Islamophobia" are loosely made in order to prevent people from addressing what is, by any real reckoning, the most poisonous ideology in today's world. And, that is harming real people.
Moreover, it is a repeat of what occurred previously, where the right sought to stifle discussion of the issues of the day by branding any opponents by the words "socialist" and "communist." And, that was plenty destructive, notwithstanding that there was much to complain about regarding at least communism, discussions which did not occur, either on the right or left because of the branding phenomena. It is a terribly wrong thing and, on top of every thing else, undermines real efforts to deal with racism.
I am going to try to repost my comment, to the extent I can, from memory.
PG,
You write: 'Please point to instances of your commenting on this blog in which you discuss racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!"'
I have not cataloged my posts. However, I wrote, in response to David's Nov. 11, 2010 blog post titled " : "However, calling him a racist - as opposed to saying that he spoke insensitively, which is clearly the case - and, at the same time, failing to address his actual points amounts to ceding his points and, at the same time, convincing his audience that the left is a bunch of political correct loons." I assume that qualifies although I cannot imagine what difference it makes.
As for the rest of your comment, the distinction between saying a comment is "racist" or the like and calling a person a "racist" or the like is a slippery slope, one that does not stand up to scrutiny. As a good example, I note what has been said about Marty Peretz, where alleged "racist" comments were turned into his being a "racist" and a "racist rat" by picketers at Harvard. You should carefully read a Jan. 9, 2011 article by Professor Radosh, called "In Defense of Marty Peretz." Peretz may make enemies but he is no racist, by any stretch of the imagination.
I am not asking that you accept Radosh's thesis. I am merely noting his presentation of what people say now about Peretz and how it has been used by his enemies. On that, Radosh has presented facts rather well.
Allegations of "racist" (and the like) speech are used to undermine discussion of the issues of the day. As a result, important issues of the day, such as discussions about the Islamist movement, are undermined so that what is, by any real telling, among, if not the, most dangerous racist, Antisemitic movement in the world is protected. It is rather similar to what occurred in the 1950's and, to some extent, thereafter, where the far right used the words "communist" and "socialist" to brand political enemies and, at the same time, to keep important political issues from being discussed.
It was wrong then. It is wrong now. My view: charges of racism and making "racist" comments should be few and far between, reserved for real racists, not for insensitive speech by even insensitive (but otherwise normal) people. Speech should be given a wide berth. It is in everyone's interest.
Thanks, David. As you can see, I reposted to the best of my ability. I think I reached more or less the same place.
The below was also lost, although it is an effort at reposting. My reason for doing so again is that it points to the date of Radosh's article.
I am going to try to repost my comment, to the extent I can, from memory.
PG,
You write: 'Please point to instances of your commenting on this blog in which you discuss racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!"'
I have not cataloged my posts. However, I wrote, in response to David's Nov. 11, 2010 blog post titled " : "However, calling him a racist - as opposed to saying that he spoke insensitively, which is clearly the case - and, at the same time, failing to address his actual points amounts to ceding his points and, at the same time, convincing his audience that the left is a bunch of political correct loons." I assume that qualifies although I cannot imagine what difference it makes.
As for the rest of your comment, the distinction between saying a comment is "racist" or the like and calling a person a "racist" or the like is a slippery slope, one that does not stand up to scrutiny. As a good example, I note what has been said about Marty Peretz, where alleged "racist" comments were turned into his being a "racist" and a "racist rat" by picketers at Harvard. You should carefully read a Jan. 9, 2011 article by Professor Radosh, called "In Defense of Marty Peretz." Peretz may make enemies but he is no racist, by any stretch of the imagination.
I am not asking that you accept Radosh's thesis. I am merely noting his presentation of what people say now about Peretz and how it has been used by his enemies. On that, Radosh has presented facts rather well.
Allegations of "racist" (and the like) speech are used to undermine discussion of the issues of the day. As a result, important issues of the day, such as discussions about the Islamist movement, are undermined so that what is, by any real telling, among, if not the, most dangerous racist, Antisemitic movement in the world is protected. It is rather similar to what occurred in the 1950's and, to some extent, thereafter, where the far right used the words "communist" and "socialist" to brand political enemies and, at the same time, to keep important political issues from being discussed.
It was wrong then. It is wrong now. My view: charges of racism and making "racist" comments should be few and far between, reserved for real racists, not for insensitive speech by even insensitive (but otherwise normal) people. Speech should be given a wide berth. It is in everyone's interest.
CORRECTED
PG,
You write: 'Please point to instances of your commenting on this blog in which you discuss racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!"'
I have not cataloged my posts. However, I wrote, in response to David's Nov. 11, 2010 blog post titled " : "However, calling him a racist - as opposed to saying that he spoke insensitively, which is clearly the case - and, at the same time, failing to address his actual points amounts to ceding his points and, at the same time, convincing his audience that the left is a bunch of political correct loons." I assume that qualifies although I cannot imagine what difference it makes.
As for the rest of your comment, the distinction between saying a comment is "racist" or the like and calling a person a "racist" or the like is a slippery slope, one that does not stand up to scrutiny. As a good example, I note what has been said about Marty Peretz, where alleged "racist" comments were turned into his being a "racist" and a "racist rat" by picketers at Harvard. You should carefully read a Jan. 9, 2011 article by Professor Radosh, called "In Defense of Marty Peretz." Peretz may make enemies but he is no racist, by any stretch of the imagination.
I am not asking that you accept Radosh's thesis. I am merely noting his presentation of what people say now about Peretz and how it has been used by his enemies. On that, Radosh has presented facts rather well.
Allegations of "racist" (and the like) speech are used to undermine discussion of the issues of the day. As a result, important issues of the day, such as discussions about the Islamist movement, are undermined so that what is, by any real telling, among, if not the, most dangerous racist, Antisemitic movement in the world is protected. It is rather similar to what occurred in the 1950's and, to some extent, thereafter, where the far right used the words "communist" and "socialist" to brand political enemies and, at the same time, to keep important political issues from being discussed.
It was wrong then. It is wrong now. My view: charges of racism and making "racist" comments should be few and far between, reserved for real racists, not for insensitive speech by even insensitive (but otherwise normal) people. Speech should be given a wide berth. It is in everyone's interest.
PG,
You write: 'Please point to instances of your commenting on this blog in which you discuss racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!"'
I have not cataloged my posts. However, I wrote, in response to David's Nov. 11, 2010 blog post titled " : "However, calling him a racist - as opposed to saying that he spoke insensitively, which is clearly the case - and, at the same time, failing to address his actual points amounts to ceding his points and, at the same time, convincing his audience that the left is a bunch of political correct loons." I assume that qualifies although I cannot imagine what difference it makes.
As for the rest of your comment, the distinction between saying a comment is "racist" or the like and calling a person a "racist" or the like is a slippery slope, one that does not stand up to scrutiny. As a good example, I note what has been said about Marty Peretz, where alleged "racist" comments were turned into his being a "racist" and a "racist rat" by picketers at Harvard. You should carefully read a Jan. 9, 2011 article by Professor Radosh, called "In Defense of Marty Peretz." Peretz may make enemies but he is no racist, by any stretch of the imagination.
I am not asking that you accept Radosh's thesis. I am merely noting his presentation of what people say now about Peretz and how it has been used by his enemies. On that, Radosh has presented facts rather well.
Allegations of "racist" (and the like) speech are used to undermine discussion of the issues of the day. As a result, important issues of the day, such as discussions about the Islamist movement, are undermined so that what is, by any real telling, among, if not the, most dangerous racist, Antisemitic movement in the world is protected. It is rather similar to what occurred in the 1950's and, to some extent, thereafter, where the far right used the words "communist" and "socialist" to brand political enemies and, at the same time, to keep important political issues from being discussed.
It was wrong then. It is wrong now. My view: charges of racism and making "racist" comments should be few and far between, reserved for real racists, not for insensitive speech by even insensitive (but otherwise normal) people. Speech should be given a wide berth. It is in everyone's interest.
The Radosh article referred to above was posted by him on January 9, 2011 and is called "In Defense of Marty Peretz."
David, your posting system is not working very well.
David,
You did not need to re-post my re-post of my re-posts. Thank you anyway.
N. Friedman,
The example you provide of your discussing racism in any vein other than "You're calling So-and-So a racist!" is a comment that begins, "However, calling him a racist..."
I think this is another instance of my apparently being unable to communicate in a way that you can comprehend.
PG,
I misread your comment. My apology. Here is an example of what you appear to want, posted in connection with David's blog article "You May Not Be a Racist, But Your Logic Needs Work," January 12, 2010:
David,
I was with you until you reached this line: "I'd say a concept or argument or behavior is racist if it causes or reinforces unequal distribution of benefits and burdens on racial lines." I think this this definition is not only racially conscious but often racist in practice. Perhaps, I am not correctly interpreting what you write or perhaps you have not written clearly. I am only going on the words I read.
What is behavior or concepts that cause the "unequal distribution of benefits"? My best guess is that it is a definition which would, in practice, often cause racism by creating race based determinations on the distribution of benefits by means of determinations that use race to discriminate while seeming to be neutral. Which is to say, it is not only race conscious but, inevitably, racist in practice. The best explanation I can give comes from my family's experience in the USSR.
There, Jews, a defined nationality under Soviet law - a race, as understood by people on the street - , were officially entitled to their share of spots in higher education (i.e. at universities). Jews were, let's say, 1% of the Soviet population. As a result, Jews were entitled to 1% of the spots at universities. In that upwards of 95% of the Jewish population was qualified, by merit based determinations (i.e. the entrance exams to university), to go to universities, Jews, as a defined nationality - i.e. a race - were denied an education. Yet, by your definition, this is not racist. The distribution is, after all, equal by race. It is the same outcome for each race: true equality.
Now, the real reason that Jews were kept to 1% quotas included the perceived opportunity to extract payoffs from Jews, who were thought to be secretly wealthy. And, on top of that, there was great resentment of Jews - who were hated for being Jews -, which the Soviets gave up fighting and, by creating the quota system, allegedly to enshrine equality, instead enshrined a system that greatly discriminated against Jews, both by adding a cost paid by Jews to go to university and by keeping out qualified Jews because of their "race."
So, right from the beginning, I cannot agree with your view that one avoids being racist by race based concepts and behaviors that prevent differences in outcome, something that your definition requires.
Racism, in the form we understand it, has its origins in Spain, being a useful vehicle for what is known as the "Old Christians" to discriminate against - ultimately to visit unspeakable horrors upon - the "New Christians" (i.e. in Spanish, "conversos"). The ordinary hatreds that people have against each other are not subject to elimination and making race part of society system to determine outcomes is a disaster.
Now, this is not to suggest that race used for the limited and short term purpose to undermine specific past discrimination ought not be government policy. That is different from a permanent policy that turns race into government policy - racist by the dictionary definition -, whether in order to enshrine "equality" or not.
Extending racism to include any minor difference in outcome is, in my view, racist. Such a view says that an ideology that believes that merit should determine who gets jobs is racist if one race ends up with proportionately more jobs than the other. That definition, of course, fails to consider other possibilities, such as the possibility such as class, such as culture, such as accidental differences.
Actually the post NF alludes to is quite good, and represents the best part of this blog:
It is absolutely true that skin color and morphology are not determinate of behavior or ideology. But it is absolutely false to say that one must hold a belief in such determinism in order to be racist.
...
Except not, or at least not necessarily. Now the problem comes in the restrictive definition Dafydd gives to "race" (biological determinants of behavior). I'd argue that most scholars wouldn't define "race" this way, at least not anymore. The general view on race nowadays is that it is a socially constructed form of categorization that has no biological basis, but which has historically and contemporaneously been used as a method for distributing socio-political benefits and burdens (by "socio-political" I mean to encompass both legal rights, like voting, and also social treatment, like stereotyping -- such as Justice Thomas being accused of "acting White" -- or suburban "White flight". I also include economic discrimination, like redlining and employment discrimination.). This definition is perfectly consistent with Dafydd's rejection of proposition X.
I only wish he did not embrace this view so selectively. But that's a double standard that has tended to be in quick supply where the Debate Link is concerned... suddenly when we're talking Israel he wants us to use every which word but racist. (Any time David throws the "trolling" or "spam" accusation at me, I just remind myself that, in addition to promulgating these various double standards -- in addition to treating people in disagreement with him on this one issue like shit while expecting a free pass on stuff like the Great Tom Friedman Suckfest -- he made the patented regressive move of literally accusing a marginalized group of playing the race card, writing "I'm not convinced that it [the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] is viewed through a racial prism, at least independent of the utility that frame has in terms of international coalition building.")
joe,
While I am not perfectly consistent, I think my views about racism have been expressed with essentially the same emphasis, whether referring to Israel or to the likes of Palin and Beck and with the likes Peretz. In nearly all instances and without regard to topic, I have expressed the view that one should not willy, nilly - as the habit of many on the Left - throw around terms such as "racist," "Antisemite," etc. I have gone out of my way to indicate that I think that such accusations are, for the most part, repugnant.
Hence, I think you are commenting without examining carefully what I have written.
NF, while I disagree with your restrictive view of what constitutes racism, I'm not arguing the point. Really I was pointing to a gaping inconsistency in David's blogging history here. Which I know he hates, but the truth has a habit of finding its level, and honestly if he's going to insist on being as insulting as he has over the past few months, I can't say I feel very bad about it.
joe,
I do not have a restrictive view of what constitutes racism. I have a broader view than I think David and you have. On the other hand, I have a very restrictive view regarding what constitutes evidence of racism and, in particular, of drawing conclusions based on a person who says or writes something that is merely insensitive. I find it repugnant that the Left has adopted the approach which has historically been the custom of the Right - namely, branding opponents with a word that places such opponents beyond the pale of decency, all based, as has recently been done to Marty Peretz, on this or that statement made. It is despicable.
It's not a broader or a narrower view, it's just different. If your view of racism is just "use of race", that's broader than mine insofar as it includes things like affirmative action or "we want to hire a Black actor to play Nelson Mandela". But it's also narrower than mine in that it doesn't include, for example, perpetuating racially segregated schools via race-neutral means.
David,
You write: "But it's also narrower than mine in that it doesn't include, for example, perpetuating racially segregated schools via race-neutral means."
Kevin Kruse's White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism makes clear and, in any event, it is pretty obvious, that there are limits to society's ability to integrate. One could, I suppose, force people of different races to live together or, in any event, hope that allowing people of different races to live together will not cause mass flight of one of the races, as it did in Atlanta. One could, I suppose, ignore town and city lines when it comes to schooling but, of course, that would not force people to place their kids in schools they prefer their kids not to attend.
In any event, I do not think you have accurately presented my view on the matter at all. My view on these things is that racism may well be involved and, if there is a practical way to remedy such situations in a way which, among other things, does not impact harshly on those who are entirely innocent (e.g. children) by, for example, ruining their schools in the name of bettering those schools, I favor remedying the situation. Which is to say, while I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I do believe in integration and acting to advance that cause, while recognizing the limits (as shown by past history) of what is feasible.
And, I note that, while there is still race hatred, segregation and a push, by so too many, against integration, there are also changes for the better to the extent that the society I grew up in and today are recognizably different. Which is to say, we have moved a very long way towards the society that I marched for when I was a kid but, that said, I do not think it possible to stamp out entirely views that people harbor deep inside.
Post a Comment