Supreme Court Helps The Democrats
In a split decision, the Supreme Court made it tougher to require voting districts to have large amounts (under 50%) of officially recognized minorities. This has a good chance of handing Democrats a few more seats, as Democrat-voters won't be so concentrated in districts, but spread out.
Of course, it's also possible the decision will be in effect overturned by the Dem-run Congress revising, yet again, the Voting Rights Act to ensure that race remains a central factor in how government views the public.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:18 AM
12 Comments:
Isn't this a case of you saying: "I know what's good for you better than you do?" (to the Democrats).
No. It's a case of showing how screwed up our idea of "civil rights" is. (By the way, many Democrats have admitted that majority-minority districts are bad for their party, but it's too late to go back now.)
All right -- well here's a challenge for you LAGuy. I find it hard to understand how someone who is so opposed to recognizing "tribal" ties in the United States -- race, ethnicity, etc. -- can be so firmly in favor of Israel's interests. I am pro-Israel, but I see it as a pragmatic, not a principled, stand. I have a strong concern for the Jewish people and how oppressed they have been over time. The creation of the Jewish State seems like a pragmatic, but seriously imperfect, effort to address that oppression. On principle, however, it seems virtually impossible to justify a "democracy" that is so thoroughly tribal in nature. (To keep its essential nature, it was and is necessary to force and keep other ethnic and religious groups out -- especially since they seem to reproduce at a much higher rate.
I have the same concerns about blacks in the U.S. -- their oppression has been extremely longstanding and systematic. Allowing some tribal unity -- such as in voting districts -- seems like a pragmatic and well-intentioned effort to counterbalance the same instincts in the majority.
Have at it.
Your argument is so apples and oranges (and a misrepresentation of both the apples and the oranges at that) that I don't even understand how I could start to respond.
It would be better to try than simply to ridicule.
I don't really have the time right now, perhaps later. But comparing one group that's not like another group, in one situation that's not like another situation, strongly suggests any analogy you're trying to make isn't going to work. At the very least look at your opposition to "tribal" countries, which would effectively make almost all countries in the world illegitimate. And compare the difference between protecting your own country and trying to integrate and become as successful as others in your own country.
Perhaps "tribal" is not the right word. My point is that in both cases political lines have been drawn, and people have been included in or excluded from within those lines, based on ethnic identity. If this is a wrong endeavor on principle (as you seem to suggest in certain circumstances), how do you distinguish them?
Once again, the comparison isn't apt, for any number of reasons. African-American isn't the same as Jew or Israeli or Palestinian. The situation in the Middle East, where one side is waging war on the other, openly trying to wipe it out, in the middle of many other countries that support the destruction (while they themselves are ethnically and religiously "pure" but not free), is not the same as figuring the best way to more fully integrate (if that's what people actually want) a race of people inside a free country. Furthermore, no matter what you think about discrimination, and even if you favor fairly open borders (as I do), you can't have, say, 30 million people from some country picking up and moving to another smaller but richer country, immediately become the largest voting bloc, and take over all the land and wealth without firing a shot (and I'm willing to assume they'll keep the country democratic), and defend it on the basis of basic human rights.
Very pragmatic.
I've been consistently "pragmatic" on this general issue. I've posted more than once that what applies in America to African-Americans doesn't necessarily apply to Latinos or women or homosexuals or religious minorities or any other group that has grievances, and that the constant analogizing we see is often used to cover up a weak argument.
I've also argued that there's a difference in something as basic as, say, due process, when it comes to treating criminals versus POW's versus enemy combatants who don't follow the rules of war.
I'm consistent in my support for humane treatment of people and basic rights for all. Nothing I've said here goes against that, and it'll take more than casuistry to show otherwise.
When I look at blacks in America, I see several hundred years of slavery, followed by a bloody war during which they were fairly reluctantly freed, followed by a hundred years of brutal discrimination. Since then, we've had 40 years of gradually decreasing discrimination, helped substantially by anti-discrimination laws that have been decried by conservatives at every step. We certainly have made a lot of progress, but it has been extremely hard-fought. Furthermore, history around the world points to a strong human tendency for people to band together based on likeness -- and the more obvious external likeness is, (e.g. black v. white, as opposed to Italian v. Jewish, say), the stronger the tendency. It just doesn't seem like an outlandish "pragmatic" approoach for blacks to counter the anti-black feelings in the world by banding together to create some political heft.
There may be good arguments that another, more integrating approach will ultimately work better, but those require evidence, not simply disdain of the other viewpoints.
Everyone agrees with the background to the problem. The question is how do we go forward. For years, the explicit goal of the civil rights movement was color-blindness and integration. It has since moved away from the former and sometimes from the latter. They now say this is a natural progression, but it's a major change--even an about-face--not merely a continuation, which many think they should question (instead of their present strategy, which is to call people who disagree with them names).
Even if you believe a racial spoils system is morally acceptable, and politically wise, you should still ask if it's the best path. What I'm arguing about here is why the civil rights establishment now represents a stumbling block, even a dead end (and a highly self-satisfied one at that) when it comes to dealing with the biggest problems facing African-Americans today.
Post a Comment
<< Home