The Only Republican in San Francisco

A multiplying effect: making the personal political

Glenn has a fun set of links today on feminism and whether it still exists in a form that most of us would recognize. (The kerfuffle started here on Ann Althouse's blog).

I recall talking to a girlfriend about this some time back, and she told me that part of her beliefs were based on the rallying cry of "making the personal political". The problems with this were immediately evident to me, even if I didn't have the cojones to say so at the time.

"The personal" is about the choices one makes, of course, and "the political" is about dictating the choices of others. When we make the personal political, therefore, we take a problem for one and turn it into a problem for many.

Of course, each of those "many" has their own problems, and if they follow our catch phrase above, they spread their problems around as well. Pretty quickly, everyone's personal grievances are assigned to every other person, and we have a exponential increase in the number of problems -- none of which brings any individual closer to solutions.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons that modern feminism struggles: it creates more problems than it solves. I'm reminded of the instructions on the plane about putting our own oxygen masks on before helping others...

San Francisco demonstrates tolerance, 3

I came across this Craigslist ad:

h/t emailer John

------

Welcome Dr. Helen readers! Previous examples of San Francisco's special brand of tolerance here and here. Plus a few words on identity politics.

Liberals more racist, natch

Richard Morin of the Washington Post revisits a study (scroll past the Jon Stewart stuff) about Republican and Democratic attitudes on race and welfare in the light of Katrina.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

The fundamental issue, as I mentioned many times, is that the essence of liberal dogma is to identify people into groups (gender, race), and to build social policy based on these identifications. I believe I am accurate in calling this a broader dogma, as opposed to the personal predisposition of certain liberals.

Concepts like affirmative action, “gay rights” (which, for the life of me I can’t distinguish from human rights) and even “the poor” fundamentally downplay the plight of the individual and his/her choices. It is an ideological train wreck, and is the heart of traditional Democratic politics.

We can argue the merits of the above — and I don’t dispute that there are beneficiaries of such policies — but downsides are greater than the very limited upsides. Too easily, such ideas cross the line into bigotry.

------

Update: James Taranto warns us not to read too much into it, but asks:

Also, we take issue with the characterization of Democrats as "generous" because they are willing to "give" more money to the hypothetical victims. Participants were not asked how much of their own money they were willing to contribute, but rather how much "government aid" they thought the victims should receive.

If Democrats are more eager to spend "government" money than Republicans are--and, with the possible exception of members of Congress, it is a commonplace that they are--does this mean that Democrats are more "generous"? Or does it mean that Republicans are more apt to think of government as spending their money, while Democrats think of it as other people's?

Identity politics on both sides of the aisle

Relating to Michael Steele’s candidacy in Maryland (previous coverage here), the WashPo quotes an upcoming study:

[...] white Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black

If the trend applies in Maryland, it presents an interesting bit of calculus. The economist behind the study says that this nets out as follows:

GOP "white flight" in the Maryland Senate race could mean at least an additional 1 or 2 percent of the vote goes to the Democrat, and perhaps more -- but only if the candidate is white.

Get that last part. Counterintuitively, the Democrats benefit from a black Republican candidate, so long as they field a white candidate.

Lest you think race is a Republican problem, the article continues:

Democrats also desert their party when its candidate is black, Washington found. In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black.

Ouch. 25% for Republicans but 38% for Democrats? This flies in the face of liberal orthodoxy, but I think it is entirely fitting.

I’ve tried to explain to my liberal friends that conservatives, more than anyone, are not about race. We fundamentally think of the world as consenting adults making their own decisions. We certainly judge people, but on the choices they make as individuals.

Liberals, and Democrats by extension, are fundamentally about groups. Race is method of grouping, also class, also gender. This is identity politics, and it is the basis of liberal policy: affirmative action, welfare, sexual harassment lawsuits. All of these require us to evaluate a person based on their group identification first, and their individuality second.

It is deeply dehumanizing, but when wrapped in very soothing rhetoric of identity politics, it actually sounds just. When followed to its natural conclusion, such thinking requires different laws for different races/genders/incomes and a hundred other protected classes. It is hardly a liberal outcome.

Jeff Goldstein likes to use the term “racialist” to describe policies which are based on race, but due to their good intentions, are not “racist”. He is too generous.

It is my contention that, while we can certainly find bigots on the right, they are generally shunned as extremists; we’ve been embarassed by such people too much. On the traditional left, this group-based thinking is both essential and mainstream. If we remove it, it is hard to define a liberal point of view at all.

The Tourettic bigotry of Matt Stoller

I don’t know Matt Stoller personally, I’ve read a few of his posts and have found him to be insightful. I am at a loss on a truly strange tirade against “right-wingers” this morning:

I find this discussion irritating, because it cuts to a basic problem with the nonpartisan new media blog pontificators who don't want to deal with the fact that the right-wing movement is populated by creepy racists. [...]

Right-wingers tend to hate a free media. Right-wingers tend to say creepy and racist things. Right-wingers tend to hate reporters who say that all isn't apple pie in Iraq.

Note that he doesn’t identify who these “creepy racists” are. Note also that the essence of bigotry is to identify people into a group and then to attribute characteristics to them based on that identification. Or, to do the converse, and to assume that because one person acts a certain way, s/he represents the group.

Seems Mr. Stoller is happy to indulge in such when imagining the “right-wing movement”. I don’t know what the right-wing movement is. Mr. Stoller does not address those individuals he finds offensive; rather, he invents a group and calls it a movement. Sensing a tendency here?

Mr. Stoller’s post is one of raging bigotry against a right-wing straw man. I am sure he needed to get this off his chest, and many of us do about those with whom we disagree. Stoller’s post, unfortunately, follows the sort of acid logic that tells us that African-Americans like watermelon and Jews are cheap. I’m of Arab descent — have anything to tell me, Matt?

Every stereotype is true if that’s what you are looking for. I am sure that you can find racists who are right-wing, right-wingers who are racist, and folks that fit the examples I name above.

I am sincerely trying to find out what racism he is talking about, as I take such criticism to heart. Let’s try this:

This has to do with a flat-out racist and warmongering right-wing movement that doesn't like a woman [Jill Carroll] whose survival cuts against their narrative.

I really don’t follow. Is he talking about Ms. Carroll’s race? I’m not sure that’s even been reported. I think he is trying to imply that certain bloggers unfairly criticized the pro-terrorist statements she was forced to make before her release. That may be a reasonable complaint, but what it is the racism angle?

If I may continue with Mr. Stoller’s tone, let us remind ourselves that the identity politics of the “the left” has brought us things like housing projects and a push toward the welfare state, which have done more to damage race relations than any troll in some comment area.

“The left”, should we indulge that it exists, is the last redoubt of the angry bigot. On the right, in my humble observation, such bigotry represents an extreme element that is shunned when it is found. On the left, wrapped in the soothing language of identity politics, bigotry is mainstream.

NY Times on Michael Steele

The busy week for articles on black conservatives continues. The New York Times magazine adds a long profile on Michael Steele, the Republican candidate for Senate in Maryland, and an African-American.

The article sets the tone with a typical bit of NYT agenda-journalism, implying that Mr. Steele is a novelty and/or a token. Once you get past that, though, it is reasonably flattering:

His bearing is both regal and warm. He seemed to already know many of the women in the room. With them, he bent his big frame at the waist and expertly planted a kiss on the cheek. He seemed less like a powerful politician than like a young man raised in the local church, back in town and wearing a fine suit, who had made a success of himself and was now returning to tell everyone about it.

Of course, in addition to Mr. Steele’s personal story, the article takes some time to do the political calculus.

Joe Trippi [...] paints a sort of developing nightmare for his party. "The Republicans are like the Chinese — they think in terms of like a 50-year plan. [...] Their goal is permanent realignment. What we have in Maryland is a national strategy against a party that is not strategizing at all."

More tellingly:

If the Republicans can win in a state like Maryland because they pried away some of the black vote from the Democrats, Trippi said, "It will be over." Over for whom? I asked. "The Democrats," he responded. He didn't mean just in Maryland — he meant in the whole country, because the electoral math for Democrats begins with an assumption of capturing something like 90 percent of the African-American vote.

I am certainly not the only one to notice these things, it’s clearly been part of Republicans’ plans for a while. The ‘Pubs are fielding a number of African-Americans in prominent races, especially for governor, and the candidates are saying the right things for the political base: pro-business, pro-life, religious, preaching self-reliance. Mr. Steele’s conservative bona fides seem to be in place, including an autographed picture from Reagan. ;)

(I like Joe Trippi a lot, btw, he’s a straight shooter and a good read, even if he works for the other side.)

To be clear, Steele is still a politician first, and as such everything should be taken with a grain of salt. The Republicans would be making a huge mistake if they let him off the hook on policy simply because he is an attractive candidate. He needs to walk the talk if charges of tokenism are to be avoided. So far, though, he seems substantial, polished and ballsy. Read the whole article.

------

More: Betsy’s Page goes a bit further on Steele and the Dems’ dilemma. Hat tip Ed Driscoll for leading me to it.

Dems can play that, too

My previous post on opportunities for Republicans (I recently saw the abbreviation ‘Pubs, not bad) to take away a traditional Democratic demographic (that would be a Dem demo) can work the other way, too. I suspect we will begin to see more pro-life Dems this year.

This George Will article mentions that Bob Casey, the current Democratic front-runner for the Senate seat in PA is pro-life. Did you know that liberal Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is pro-life (and Mormon) as well? And the ever-triangulating Hillary is trying to have it both ways.

Evangelicals (and security moms) are the main reason that Republicans keep winning. By targeting these folks with pro-life candidates, Dems tempt a voter that ‘Pubs take for granted. The goal has less to do with actually winning these folks over — at the end of the day, most simply won’t buy that Dems are tolerant of religion — and more to do with forcing the ‘Pubs to expend resources defending their turf.

Ain’t politics fun?

Black conservatives and Republican opportunities

This has been a busy week for articles on black voters and conservatism.

What started it for me was this article by George Will on the constitutional defeat of school vouchers in Florida. The essence is that the Florida state constitution holds that “uniform” is more important than “high quality” when it comes to state provision of education.

What is interesting is that school choice represents a strategic wedge for the Republicans, for two reasons.

The more obvious is that vouchers diminish the power of the teachers’ unions, by allowing kids to opt out of their monopoly. Teachers’ unions are a pillar of the Democratic party.

The more subtle point is that vouchers are very popular among poorer voters, who are often saddled with the worst schools and fewest choices. That poor voters should see Republican policies improving their prospects is anathema to the Dems. If school vouchers are popular, Dems fear that they will never get those voters back.

------

Then today I read an interesting overview in The Economist about black conservatives in America. The gist of the article is that they do exist, but that many black folks are uneasy about identifying themselves as Republicans. In other words, they are double minorities.

While the Economist notes that majority-black Congressional districts will stay Democrat for the foreseeable future — largely due to gerrymandering — there are substantial gains to be had by Republicans.

How? Well, perhaps the greatest point of opportunity is that black voters, and black congressmen that claim to represent them, are ideologically different:

[B]lack Americans tend to be quite socially conservative, but their representatives are anything but. Only four black congressmen voted to ban partial-birth abortion in 2003, though most blacks abhor the procedure. [...]

Most African-Americans favour school choice, yet not one black member of Congress voted to support a voucher programme to rescue mostly black pupils from failing schools in Washington, DC. [...]

Blacks are stiffed by the current [...] Social Security system, because they die younger than whites and so collect fewer benefits. Yet blacks in Congress were united in their opposition to Mr Bush's tentative reform plan last year

Democrats take the black vote for granted, that’s not news. What is news is that Republicans have an opportunity to blunt the power of identity politics if they can convincingly demonstrate that their policies align with the interests of black voters.

George Will has noted in the past, and the Economist article similarly notes, that if Republicans can gain even 25% of the black vote over time, Democrats may never win another election. That has not gone unnoticed.

------

P.S. Check out this article in the WSJ on Thomas Sowell on the intersection of race and economics, and I meant to link earlier to this very inspiring evisceration of identity politics by Shelby Steele.

Ken Blackwell, slayer of identity politics?

Kathryn Lopez and Larry Kudlow have picked up on a trend that I mentioned earlier this year, that Ken Blackwell could be a very interesting new vector in conservative politics. Should he succeed in his run as governor, he would represent a “post-racial, post-civil rights” candidate — one that breaks through to say that voters should vote on the person, not the group.

I’ve been beating this drum for a while, that the only way for Democrats (or liberals) to hold power is to identify people into groups. Without a cry of defending “the poor” or “blacks” or “women”, there is literally nothing for them to say.

While each of these groups can be objectively identified, it is the Dems’ assumption that one can govern based on these identities. Implicit in such an approach is that all women are the same, all poor people have the same needs, etc. It is the essence of bigotry, coming from a party that ostensibly rails against it.

Did you know that a majority of women support limits on abortion? That African-Americans value religion more deeply than conservative Republicans? You would not know this from the usual political pandering.

Identity politics, besides its deep moral failings, also presents a minefield for identity politicians like Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson. Karl Rove understands this and has used it to discredit Democrats, painting them as group-thinkers while improving Republicans’ standing with women and African-Americans, among others.

The profoundest challenge, the true test of tolerance, is for one to imagine a world of individuals, instead of racial/gender/class identities. This is a disaster for pundits and politicians, but a breakthrough for the soul. Can we do it?

---

Update: Your humble host here at OR in SF calls 'em first, does he not? George Will has chimed in, of course with more insight than I.

Blackwell’s candidacy is important for two reasons. The first is that it may change traditional assumptions about race identification and voting, which motivated this post in the first place. Says Will:

In Blackwell's three statewide races, he has received between 30 and 40 percent of the black vote. If in November he duplicates that, he will win, and Democrats in many blue states will blanch because if their share of the black vote falls to 75 percent, their states could turn red.

As important, in my mind, is that Blackwell is running as a real conservative against a history of “un-Republican” Republicans:

Unfortunately for Ohio Republicans, they also control both elected branches of the state government, and their record of scandals and un-Republican governance -- substantial tax and spending increases -- have Blackwell ... running against his party's record.

Blackwell blames taxes, lawsuit abuse and regulatory confusion for Ohio's ranking 47th in job creation, with a rate last year less than one-seventh of the national rate.

In other words, people like Ken Blackwell are testing whether Republicans can return to first principles, and whether this is a winning proposition.

It is obvious to me that without these first principles (i.e., that which motivates the base), Republicans cannot win. The base will stay home.

However, in the age of Bush, there is a lot of justified skepticism among the broader public about conservative goals and integrity. It’s a personnel problem which can be overcome, made easier because Democrats are even worse off. Serious conservatives like Mitt Romney and Ken Blackwell will be the measure of the Republicans’ future.

The new racism

My friend Mat S. (also Drudge and Memeorandum) pointed me to new Washington Post article on a correlation between measured biases and geographical voting patterns.

Although they are coy at first, the organizers of the study pretty quickly make clear that they believe their findings support the idea that conservatives are racist. They don’t say how racist, or how much more racist than liberals.

I will grant the correlation and go one step further. I feel that calling a group of people racist is the new racism. Many people like the stereotype that conservatives are racist, and so are willing to believe it, for the same reasons we like our other stereotypes. Is that “meta” enough for you?

(Note also that the study is based on geography, not party identification. So if I participated in the study, and was not racist, I would count as a liberal due to my zip code.)

The more obvious point is, if we are willing to characterize a group based on a statistical correlation, does that affect how we judge individuals? Imagine a self-identified group (gay, black, Jewish) and imagine the stats you might discover. Would you then apply them to the whole group? A right-thinking person would know better.

I propose a study to correlate party affiliation with a predisposition toward accusing others of racism. What do you think we would find?

Update: thanks to Michelle Malkin and Ed Driscoll. Welcome readers!