There's a lot of talk now about a liberal moment and conservatives being on the run. The gay marriage ruling, health care, and the taking down of (some) Confederate flags are cited as evidence. One was has written of "peak leftism" as a cultural phenomenon.
I'm less convinced. Consider a few facts:
1. Most of these "liberal" decisions are in fact being made by conservatives. The swing votes on the Supreme Court are Roberts and Kennedy--hardly liberals by any definition. The Confederate flag thing was started by two Republican governors. If it's such a liberal moment, why are conservatives making the decisions?
2. You have to distinguish conservative from populist causes. There's nothing inherently conservative, certainly not Republican, about the Confederate flag. Gay marriage is a hybrid cause: the gay part progressive, the marriage part traditional. Even Obamacare was orginally a Republican proposal. To a large extent, these issues releate to generational changes and/or changed situations rather than underlying philosophical issues.
3. To the extent that these issues affect national politics, they probably help Republicans. Instead of people screaming that they lost their insurance or can't get married, there will now be people screaming that their premiums are going up or their church is being picked on. People in 1964-65 thought there would be a permanent Democratic majority. It didn't turn out that way.
What I do think is happening is that a certain historical phase--what we might call the southernization or the wallaceization of the national Republican Party--has more or less run it course. This phase was characterized by the GOP becoming, rather than a genuinely conservative party, something more akin to right-wing populists. At a recent Republican event, I was depressed to hear speakers rattling off a list of issues--taxes, ISIS, cultural changes--as if they were running against Jimmy Carter, or at very best Al Gore.
The flip side is that a Republican who can distance themselves from the tone of cultural resentment, focusing on economic growth and exhibiting a mixture of personal conservatism but tolerance for cultural diversity, has a good chance of breaking this mold. This is particularly true if they are running against someone, like Hillary Clinton, whose enthusiasm for recent changes is pretty clearly of the convenient variety. President Rubio, anyone?
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Friday, June 19, 2015
. . . and a word on reparations
I've gotten interested in the issue of reparations to African-Americans and other minority groups. No, not just because I like quixotic causes, but because of the parallel to Holocaust Reparations on which I've previously written. My recent trip to Russia, which talked briefly about reparations to victims of the purges, famines, etc. but then retreated, also plays a role.
The logic of reparations is more convincing than one might think. It's pretty clear that black people had their labor and sometimes their lives taken without compensation under slavery and, to a degree, the later Jim Crow laws. Some have suggested that today's "mass incarceration" is a continuation of this process, although I don't know if anyone's suggested reparations for that. There are a host of technical questions (who gets paid, how much, etc.) but that's always the case.
The bigger problem is the perverse nature of reparations. Reparations tend to get paid when either i. the country making the payments was defeated in war (Germany) or ii. circumstances have changed so dramatically than no one seriously defends the original outrage (Japanese-American internment). It also helps if iii. the offense complained of has been over for a long time and has little chance of being renewed. When these circumstances don't apply, reparations are much less likely. To put it more cynically, a large-scale, continuing abuse is often a weaker candidate for reparations than one in the past, because the payments would be larger and the logic reparations would require deeper, ongoing changes in the society in question.
Given this difficulty, the model of transitional or "restorative" justice has considerable appeal. Instead of punishing transgressors and paying monetary compensation, this model emphasizes the gathering of historical facts and the institution of steps that prevent a recurrence of the original abuse in the future. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is an example of this process. The Memorial organization in Russia, now under severe pressure from the Government, has sought a similar approach. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive--South Africa is paying a symbolic amount to some victims of apartheid--but the emphasis is different.
In any event, it's an interesting and provocative issue, and one that makes you rethink the common assumption that America is "better" or "more moral" than other countries. (Russia used to have more people in prison than we do, but we're way ahead now.) I'll be thinking and writing more about it in the coming months.
The logic of reparations is more convincing than one might think. It's pretty clear that black people had their labor and sometimes their lives taken without compensation under slavery and, to a degree, the later Jim Crow laws. Some have suggested that today's "mass incarceration" is a continuation of this process, although I don't know if anyone's suggested reparations for that. There are a host of technical questions (who gets paid, how much, etc.) but that's always the case.
The bigger problem is the perverse nature of reparations. Reparations tend to get paid when either i. the country making the payments was defeated in war (Germany) or ii. circumstances have changed so dramatically than no one seriously defends the original outrage (Japanese-American internment). It also helps if iii. the offense complained of has been over for a long time and has little chance of being renewed. When these circumstances don't apply, reparations are much less likely. To put it more cynically, a large-scale, continuing abuse is often a weaker candidate for reparations than one in the past, because the payments would be larger and the logic reparations would require deeper, ongoing changes in the society in question.
Given this difficulty, the model of transitional or "restorative" justice has considerable appeal. Instead of punishing transgressors and paying monetary compensation, this model emphasizes the gathering of historical facts and the institution of steps that prevent a recurrence of the original abuse in the future. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission is an example of this process. The Memorial organization in Russia, now under severe pressure from the Government, has sought a similar approach. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive--South Africa is paying a symbolic amount to some victims of apartheid--but the emphasis is different.
In any event, it's an interesting and provocative issue, and one that makes you rethink the common assumption that America is "better" or "more moral" than other countries. (Russia used to have more people in prison than we do, but we're way ahead now.) I'll be thinking and writing more about it in the coming months.
republican candidates forum . . .
The Northeast Republican Leadership Forum is in town, so I stopped in for a few hours yesterday, thereby spending 50-plus dollars and missing all the major candidates. (We're going to New York later this afternoon, and I'm not spending $35 on Rick Santorum.) It was an interesting experience but also a little bit frustrating.
The interesting part is that Republicans are, well, very polite and generally full of sunshine as we reach the twilight of the Obama years. Everything was in place and they even had a fee structure ($50 for Scott Walker or Chris Christie, $35 for Santorum, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham free) that pretty well reflects the market. Pataki gave a better speech than I expected, talking about things like religion, military service, and other forms of sacrifice, although why that would make him a good President I have no idea.
The down side is that it's basically the same crowd that's attended these events for the last 20 years. Almost everybody is white and there aren't many young people except the staff. It looks like the same people who go to hockey games, which I suppose it more or less is.
The arguments are a little stale too. Basically a lot of people are still running against Jimmy Carter. We'll cut your taxes, we'll beat up on (ISIS/Saddam Hussein/The Soviet Union), we'll uphold traditional values. It was a great message in 1978, but a lot of voters weren't born then.
In fairness, this is a summer gathering of people with nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon. This morning I watched videos of Marco Rubio and Scott Walker and they're rather more in touch with the times, or at least a slice of them. Rubio in particular as a compelling life story if he can resist the tendency to be a bit goofy. I suspect that either he or Walker would have more appeal to young voters than many people imagine.
But I think the party as a whole needs to get a little more culturally in touch if it is to win on more than a cyclical, reactive basis. Small towns, churches, and the military are all important but most people live in cities and haven't served in the army. It's less a question of the message than getting people to listen to you in the first place. A Republican espresso bar, anyone?
The interesting part is that Republicans are, well, very polite and generally full of sunshine as we reach the twilight of the Obama years. Everything was in place and they even had a fee structure ($50 for Scott Walker or Chris Christie, $35 for Santorum, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham free) that pretty well reflects the market. Pataki gave a better speech than I expected, talking about things like religion, military service, and other forms of sacrifice, although why that would make him a good President I have no idea.
The down side is that it's basically the same crowd that's attended these events for the last 20 years. Almost everybody is white and there aren't many young people except the staff. It looks like the same people who go to hockey games, which I suppose it more or less is.
The arguments are a little stale too. Basically a lot of people are still running against Jimmy Carter. We'll cut your taxes, we'll beat up on (ISIS/Saddam Hussein/The Soviet Union), we'll uphold traditional values. It was a great message in 1978, but a lot of voters weren't born then.
In fairness, this is a summer gathering of people with nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon. This morning I watched videos of Marco Rubio and Scott Walker and they're rather more in touch with the times, or at least a slice of them. Rubio in particular as a compelling life story if he can resist the tendency to be a bit goofy. I suspect that either he or Walker would have more appeal to young voters than many people imagine.
But I think the party as a whole needs to get a little more culturally in touch if it is to win on more than a cyclical, reactive basis. Small towns, churches, and the military are all important but most people live in cities and haven't served in the army. It's less a question of the message than getting people to listen to you in the first place. A Republican espresso bar, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)