I'd also add to avoid going down ideological Manichean rabbit holes where you can only be "for X or against X". Kendi in his definition of racism and anti-racism defines racism as ANYTHING that produces a disparate impact between racial groups and if you're not fighting for policies (that Kendi fails to highlight himself) that shrink the gap between outcomes, than you're racist, even if you don't have a racist thought in your head.
It's a tidy formulation, but hobbled by its reductionism, and doesn't leave you with answers to basic questions like "Is funding NASA in Kendi's worldview racist or not?". (From my reading, going to Mars is racist - by his standard - given that it's not reducing impacts back on Earth.) To what extent conservatives can actually lead on this topic is highlighting and endorsing measurable aspects of our society that that highlight disparities (the part that Kendi got right) and propose policies and solutions that shrink those gaps. I think that there's a lot that free market entrepreneurship can do for disadvantaged groups, and instead of allowing progressive Postmodernists to monopolize the debate, conservatives can propose new institutions and fixes that actually address the problem in ways that simple redistributionism is doomed to fail. (The Achilles heel of the critical theory folks is that they spend so much time tearing things down, their ability to *build* viable replacements is pretty stunted.)
One example of this is in the area of education, as this morning's Dispatch discusses:
Rather than retreat to the hills in a Dreheresque fashion, conservatives need to advance alternative educational programs to compete with stuff like the 1619 curriculum. We need to be brave and open-eyed enough to recognize that it's precisely the deficiencies in our educational approach that has opened the door for the Critical Race Theory folks, and advance conservative content that both acknowledges the failures of the United States in achieving its stated ideals through the present, while also highlighting the great things that this country does, so that we can tip the next generation toward a "can-do, we can make this better" mindset, instead of the tribalist victim mindset being advanced from the other side.
Thank you for having the open eyes that we'll need to get through all of this.
Interesting thoughts. My problem with Kendis process is that I perceive racism as a moral condition/mentality, and so he assigns a moral value to the lack of something, or even its prominence in your mind. He’s essentially assigning an obligation to certain activity and conscious endorsement of certain activities, regardless of other considerations. I reject that kind of strange absolutism.
For instance, I’ve been called racist because I won’t endorse the traditional welfare state or affirmative action. Yet I’m called a liberal for supporting local housing and food programs for some. I’m called a racist for believing in borders and a proper immigration system, but I’m called a liberal for supporting the Dreamers, and open (and safe) immigration.
It’s the same “you’re either this or that” idea, and both sides are wrong about it, IMO.
I think we consider these things on a higher level than most, so it’s easier for folks to just make a simplistic conclusion about what they see. But I don’t want to be that way. I want to be truthful, and consistent.
In my own reading on the topic - and I've been going through the big CRT thinkers just so I know what they're actually trying to say - I can say that the most productive book I've read on US racism and what to do about it wasn't Kendi or any of the self-identified CRT thinkers, but Carol Anderson's "White Rage":
It's an outright history, not a book trying to explicitly build up ideological constructs like "systemic racism" as Kendi and Co. are doing. Instead, Anderson takes use through the actual historical hammers that were brought down against the Black community, and makes a better argument for the "systemic racism" thesis than any of the Critical Studies folks. If you want to get someone to understand the structural issues today, that's a much better reading recommendation than anything else that I've read. Anyone with half of a conscience will read that and agree that the status quo isn't acceptable and we need to do better as a society. She's a voice that clear-eyed conservatives seeking solutions should be ready to listen to.
Can you explain how any part of the most common voting laws serve only to stifle voting? You are dead wrong. If everyone except those with a good excuse were required to show up at the polls in a time frame reasonably close to election day, you might have an argument. Convicted felons knowingly give up the right. Others simply choose not to.
I didn’t say “any part of the most common voting laws stifle voting.”
In fact, I’ve never said that, or even come close to saying it anytime in my entire life. Anywhere.
So I can’t answer a question about something I didn’t say, and I can’t possibly be “dead” wrong, or alive for that matter.
And no, felons don’t “knowingly give up that right.” I doubt a single criminal is figuring whether it’s a felony or misdemeanor before the commit a crime or “knowingly” consider it. Also, after they’ve served their time, holding back a constitutional right is obnoxious. Regardless, this isn’t at all related to what this piece is about. I’d prefer to discuss what’s said. Not what you think was said.
I suggest staying on topic in general, and am open to discussing what I actually did say here. Fire away.
I'll just refer you to the second bullet point in the paragraph about *criminal justice*. You clearly stated your view that beyond basic ID, voting laws are intended to depress turnout - not ensure vote integrity.
Since we’re having a hard time actually quoting what I say, and since that’s led to a very clear misunderstanding of what I said, I’ll just quote it here and provide you more context so you can’t claim I’m irrational:
“ Next there are *voting laws* beyond basic free photo ID and transparency that are a form of over-regulation designed to lower participation. I wrote about it at length. I can’t accept this “oh shucks, it’s about integrity” line. It’s about lowering participation. And those affected are overWHELMINGLY minority classes.”
The “most common” laws are fine. On the other hand your opening comment claimed I said the opposite. Weird. It’s there in black and white. I even used the same term.
It’s all the extra laws that amount to over-regulation.
I wrote about this topic ad nauseam last month on a post you didn’t comment on. Perhaps you missed it. I go much further than a mere bullet point.
I read the link and saw your opinion that voting should be one of the easiest things we do. It is already very easy but that should not be the focus of regulation. Regulation should be sufficient to ensure that only valid votes are counted. My opinion is that, in a close election, fraud does not have to be widespread to skew the results. You mentioned that a missing zip code or ballots coming in after the deadline is not fraud. That may be true but it may be enough to invalidate a vote. Voters should know where they live and when election day ends. You only pointed out two examples of what isn't fraud but you did not say what regulations were intended to depress turnout.
I’m sorry, but I reject your premise - voting fraud is statistically insignificant, almost non-existent in most places, and the harm done by over-regulating it is not worth the unproven protection of a few isolated votes. We have recount rules in place for close elections. Like any sport, if the election is that close, the last thing you should do is blame a ref. I think who we elect, and the process of voting for them is even more important.
There’s a difference between holding something sacred and holding it in value.
I point out firearm rights as an example, because those have almost no tangible productive value, but we know their importance to a free society. And yet we have tens of thousands of violations through death every year, and hundreds of thousands of other “errors,” yet when it comes to voting you wait that sacred vote thrown out. I do not.
Ballot curing, registration promotion, common sense access rules, bringing food and water to people in LONG lines... why are these on our radar?
Because they lower participation among the urban masses. I’ve heard it said with my own ears as a long time member of my local political community and GOP member.
As to your last comment, I think MOST regulations beyond ID, transparency, and basic registration rules depress turnout. But I’m not going to blindly judge intention on everything else unless it’s obvious. (Like banning Sunday voter drives)
I'd also add to avoid going down ideological Manichean rabbit holes where you can only be "for X or against X". Kendi in his definition of racism and anti-racism defines racism as ANYTHING that produces a disparate impact between racial groups and if you're not fighting for policies (that Kendi fails to highlight himself) that shrink the gap between outcomes, than you're racist, even if you don't have a racist thought in your head.
It's a tidy formulation, but hobbled by its reductionism, and doesn't leave you with answers to basic questions like "Is funding NASA in Kendi's worldview racist or not?". (From my reading, going to Mars is racist - by his standard - given that it's not reducing impacts back on Earth.) To what extent conservatives can actually lead on this topic is highlighting and endorsing measurable aspects of our society that that highlight disparities (the part that Kendi got right) and propose policies and solutions that shrink those gaps. I think that there's a lot that free market entrepreneurship can do for disadvantaged groups, and instead of allowing progressive Postmodernists to monopolize the debate, conservatives can propose new institutions and fixes that actually address the problem in ways that simple redistributionism is doomed to fail. (The Achilles heel of the critical theory folks is that they spend so much time tearing things down, their ability to *build* viable replacements is pretty stunted.)
One example of this is in the area of education, as this morning's Dispatch discusses:
https://thedispatch.substack.com/p/white-house-tiptoes-into-anti-racism
Rather than retreat to the hills in a Dreheresque fashion, conservatives need to advance alternative educational programs to compete with stuff like the 1619 curriculum. We need to be brave and open-eyed enough to recognize that it's precisely the deficiencies in our educational approach that has opened the door for the Critical Race Theory folks, and advance conservative content that both acknowledges the failures of the United States in achieving its stated ideals through the present, while also highlighting the great things that this country does, so that we can tip the next generation toward a "can-do, we can make this better" mindset, instead of the tribalist victim mindset being advanced from the other side.
Thank you for having the open eyes that we'll need to get through all of this.
Interesting thoughts. My problem with Kendis process is that I perceive racism as a moral condition/mentality, and so he assigns a moral value to the lack of something, or even its prominence in your mind. He’s essentially assigning an obligation to certain activity and conscious endorsement of certain activities, regardless of other considerations. I reject that kind of strange absolutism.
For instance, I’ve been called racist because I won’t endorse the traditional welfare state or affirmative action. Yet I’m called a liberal for supporting local housing and food programs for some. I’m called a racist for believing in borders and a proper immigration system, but I’m called a liberal for supporting the Dreamers, and open (and safe) immigration.
It’s the same “you’re either this or that” idea, and both sides are wrong about it, IMO.
I think we consider these things on a higher level than most, so it’s easier for folks to just make a simplistic conclusion about what they see. But I don’t want to be that way. I want to be truthful, and consistent.
In my own reading on the topic - and I've been going through the big CRT thinkers just so I know what they're actually trying to say - I can say that the most productive book I've read on US racism and what to do about it wasn't Kendi or any of the self-identified CRT thinkers, but Carol Anderson's "White Rage":
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/white-rage-9781632864123/
It's an outright history, not a book trying to explicitly build up ideological constructs like "systemic racism" as Kendi and Co. are doing. Instead, Anderson takes use through the actual historical hammers that were brought down against the Black community, and makes a better argument for the "systemic racism" thesis than any of the Critical Studies folks. If you want to get someone to understand the structural issues today, that's a much better reading recommendation than anything else that I've read. Anyone with half of a conscience will read that and agree that the status quo isn't acceptable and we need to do better as a society. She's a voice that clear-eyed conservatives seeking solutions should be ready to listen to.
Ordered on Amazon. I’ll check it out. ;)
Can you explain how any part of the most common voting laws serve only to stifle voting? You are dead wrong. If everyone except those with a good excuse were required to show up at the polls in a time frame reasonably close to election day, you might have an argument. Convicted felons knowingly give up the right. Others simply choose not to.
I didn’t say “any part of the most common voting laws stifle voting.”
In fact, I’ve never said that, or even come close to saying it anytime in my entire life. Anywhere.
So I can’t answer a question about something I didn’t say, and I can’t possibly be “dead” wrong, or alive for that matter.
And no, felons don’t “knowingly give up that right.” I doubt a single criminal is figuring whether it’s a felony or misdemeanor before the commit a crime or “knowingly” consider it. Also, after they’ve served their time, holding back a constitutional right is obnoxious. Regardless, this isn’t at all related to what this piece is about. I’d prefer to discuss what’s said. Not what you think was said.
I suggest staying on topic in general, and am open to discussing what I actually did say here. Fire away.
I'll just refer you to the second bullet point in the paragraph about *criminal justice*. You clearly stated your view that beyond basic ID, voting laws are intended to depress turnout - not ensure vote integrity.
Since we’re having a hard time actually quoting what I say, and since that’s led to a very clear misunderstanding of what I said, I’ll just quote it here and provide you more context so you can’t claim I’m irrational:
“ Next there are *voting laws* beyond basic free photo ID and transparency that are a form of over-regulation designed to lower participation. I wrote about it at length. I can’t accept this “oh shucks, it’s about integrity” line. It’s about lowering participation. And those affected are overWHELMINGLY minority classes.”
The “most common” laws are fine. On the other hand your opening comment claimed I said the opposite. Weird. It’s there in black and white. I even used the same term.
It’s all the extra laws that amount to over-regulation.
I wrote about this topic ad nauseam last month on a post you didn’t comment on. Perhaps you missed it. I go much further than a mere bullet point.
https://www.theracketnews.com/p/over-regulating-elections-is-bad
I read the link and saw your opinion that voting should be one of the easiest things we do. It is already very easy but that should not be the focus of regulation. Regulation should be sufficient to ensure that only valid votes are counted. My opinion is that, in a close election, fraud does not have to be widespread to skew the results. You mentioned that a missing zip code or ballots coming in after the deadline is not fraud. That may be true but it may be enough to invalidate a vote. Voters should know where they live and when election day ends. You only pointed out two examples of what isn't fraud but you did not say what regulations were intended to depress turnout.
I’m sorry, but I reject your premise - voting fraud is statistically insignificant, almost non-existent in most places, and the harm done by over-regulating it is not worth the unproven protection of a few isolated votes. We have recount rules in place for close elections. Like any sport, if the election is that close, the last thing you should do is blame a ref. I think who we elect, and the process of voting for them is even more important.
There’s a difference between holding something sacred and holding it in value.
I point out firearm rights as an example, because those have almost no tangible productive value, but we know their importance to a free society. And yet we have tens of thousands of violations through death every year, and hundreds of thousands of other “errors,” yet when it comes to voting you wait that sacred vote thrown out. I do not.
Ballot curing, registration promotion, common sense access rules, bringing food and water to people in LONG lines... why are these on our radar?
Because they lower participation among the urban masses. I’ve heard it said with my own ears as a long time member of my local political community and GOP member.
As to your last comment, I think MOST regulations beyond ID, transparency, and basic registration rules depress turnout. But I’m not going to blindly judge intention on everything else unless it’s obvious. (Like banning Sunday voter drives)