Liberty & Power: Group Blog
Entries by Jonathan J. Bean
Friday, August 13, 2010
“Born in the U.S.A.”: Damon Root’s Reminder of our Proud Exceptionalism
From Damon Root’s “Hit and Run” blog over at Reason, a splendid reminder of how open-minded (and open border) the United States was in the 19th century. Imagine Republicans standing up and arguing that the Chinese and all other immigrants have a “natural right” to migrate wherever they choose. And the Republicans preserved the right of their children to be here as full-fledged citizens born on U.S. soil. (They lost the 1882 debate over Chinese entry into the USA but correctly predicted that the Exclusion Act would be remembered as a “blot” on our civilization).
From the Fourteenth Amendment (1870):
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Profile in Cowardice: Allah is Great! Die South Park Die!
Crosspost from my Beacon blog:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=5924
Excerpt:
"In a profile of cowardice, Comedy Central responded to a recent death threat by censoring the image of Mohammad on South Park
You can “piss Christ,” bash Buddha, mock the Pope, but humor is apparently not in the hadith. . . .
Academics, of course, led the way by rotting out the foundations of any reasoned defense of a free and civil society. . . ."
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Freedom from Bad Academic Writing
The following column on George Orwell’s advice to free students from bad academic writing is worth reading.
In two decades of teaching, I have worked with exceptionally bright undergraduates. Once they enter graduate school, however, they conform to the smelly little orthodoxies” of theory and the jargon-ridden writing of their discipline. I’ve always despised jargon that deadens prose and will be passé by the time these young conformists hit old age. Future generations will have to decipher why words and phrases such as “subaltern,” “post-structuralist,” “late capitalism” meant to the scribbling class of early 21st century academics.
The advice Orwell gives is similar to advice Winston Churchill gave on good writing. This passage says it best (from Orwell, “Politics and the English Language”)
“Orwell leaves us with a list of simple rules:
* Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
* Never use a long word where a short one will do.
* If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
* Never use the passive where you can use the active.
* Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
* Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
I am posting this advice for my own students and as a reminder to myself (fallen creature that I am).
Friday, April 2, 2010
Tax Police and the Health Mandate: We Will, We Won’t, We Are Not Saying
William McGurn’s recent column in the Wall Street Journal raises a question the Obama administration does not want to answer:
Who will police the new health care mandate?
If left to the “honor system,” what becomes of the vaunted (and entirely mythical) “cost savings” to be earned by overcharging young, health people and then subsidizing those who are neither young nor healthy?
Poor workers, the young, small businesses: get ready for the tax police with the new “mandate” to slush your money into IRS coffers if you fail to buy the “right” insurance (or any insurance at all).
Then again, the IRS hasn’t said whether it will enforce the mandate: we will, we won’t, we haven’t said . . .
The “historic” law doesn’t clear matters up either. Implementation and enforcement is vital to the success of any policy endeavor. There is a huge literature on that subject alone but in the rush to Make History, our Congress and president didn’t say (or wish to say) how it would be implemented.
So much for deliberative democracy, already in tatters.
Perhaps the reference to the legislation as the ugly slaughter of sausage is inapt: clear as pea soup is a better analogy. Bon appetit!
For an excellent guide to implementation, read the splendid classic by Aaron Wildavsky and Jeffrey Pressman, Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It’s Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All (1984).
If you trust the IRS to “do the right thing,” read the account of the agency’s first (and last) historian: Shelley Davis, Unbridled Power: Inside the Secret Culture of the IRS (1998).
Friday, March 26, 2010
The Tunnel of Oppression: Communist Theme Park
Over at my academic freedom blog, I posted news of a Communist Theme Park in Lithuania. On college campuses, there is a “tunnel of oppression” movement to teach young people how awful this country has been to just about everyone.
Here is a link to my blog:
Monday, January 4, 2010
Entitlement U.S.A.: Colleges as Attendance Centers
Several years ago, I chuckled when I dropped my young daughter off at a friend’s elementary school. In fact, the school was named an “Attendance Center.” I never learned why “school” was suddenly out of fashion.
“Attendance Center.” How apt a phrase for what is happening in higher education, as every politician and president (Bush and Obama included) promise “more, more, more!”
A new book is getting acclaim for documenting how simply funding more college “attendees” is a waste of money: The Lowering of Higher Education in America: Why Financial Aid Should be Based on Student Performance. Toby hammers home the message that always shocks people when I tell them that most of those who go to college will never graduate with a degree. Moreover, mere “attendance” at a college does little to improve earnings and leaves many in debt. The situation is even worse at community colleges, where politicians at the state and national levels are heavily subsidizing two-year college education. By accepting all, the old whip of “working hard in high school” to “get into college” is gone—every K-12 student knows they can go to college whether they prepare themselves or not.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Is Scandal Inevitable when Scientists Become Activists?
Crosspost from a new blog on science policy, http://blindsciencepolicy.blogspot.com/
Was ClimateGate inevitable? Moreover, with all the negative attention given to corporate-funded research (supposed conflict of interest), what about government-funded research? If you research global warming and conclude there is no (or little) problem, how much will the government throw at a problem that doesn’t exist? On the other hand, if your research scares the bejesus out of government officials (and the public), how much will various government spend?
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, “billions and billions . . . “
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
“Not-So-Silent”: Coolidge and Civil Rights
After writing Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader (2009), I’ve bumped into a few articles that come to the same unorthodox conclusions about individuals I profile in my “race reader.” One such “unorthodox” column appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 25 November 2009. In "Not-So-Silent Cal Wrote with Eloquence,” Ryan Cole lauds Coolidge’s Autobiography as an example of his eloquence. Cole concludes that “Barack Obama isn’t the first man of letters in the White House.”
I have been told–but not verified–that Coolidge was the last president to write his own speeches. After reading Coolidge’s writings, published while he was president, I am not surprised in the least. “Silent Cal” could be a man of few words but when he had something to say, he did it like a master; and when delivering speeches, he knew that the audience was as important as the speaker. After all, the Ku Klux Klan was at high tide and he refused their offer to speak and chose instead group forums that represented the very minorities attacked by the Klan!
Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader includes two documents by Coolidge. I note that his record was mixed on race (and other issues) from a classical liberal perspective. Most significantly, he signed the immigration restriction act of 1924 which slammed the door shut on virtually all immigration from outside the Western hemisphere.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Climate Conspiracy: U.K., U.S. “ClimateGates”
My friends at NAS.org have posted on the “Climate Conspiracy” that broke when hackers revealed global warming scientists had apparently manipulated data, organized attacks on skeptics, and much more. Surprise, surprise.
The timing couldn’t be worse for those who would cripple economies with the plaintive cry: “Do as we say or we all die!” Worldwide there is growing skepticism about the benefits of micromanaging every aspect of daily life while measuring “carbon footprints.” The Wall Street Journal even contributed to this Nanny Project with a long piece measuring the carbon footprint of various common products. I was relieved to see that beer had the lowest carbon footprint.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Classical Liberalism Is All in Our Heads? Responding to Paul Harvey on Race
In the current issue of Books & Culture, Professor Paul Harvey (not to be confused with the late radio icon) takes aim at my “imagined” (read: invented) tradition of classical liberalism on race. You can read his full review here.
Harvey concedes that Race and Liberty in America rediscovers “understudied authors.” Then he quickly moves on to the usual academic dismissal of any classical liberal “tradition” on race (academics love scare quotes to let the reader know that there really is no such thing).
Since the 1950s, if not earlier, left-liberal academics have argued that classical liberalism ended in the early 20th century. Left-liberals used to argue that there was no conservatism in U.S. history but they have rediscovered a tradition that they find useful to dredge up in contemporary debates. In short, all good things come from the Left.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sisyphus and Higher Education
Those of us laboring for academic reform often feel like Sisyphus, rolling a rock up the hill only to have it come crashing down again. The gods of academe seem to have condemned higher education to inevitable decay.
That thought came to me as I read about the demise of an institute (at Hamilton College) that did everything right, yet the overlords of Political Correctness purged themselves of enemies and “deviationists.” I use these terms because the notion that all-is-political, enemies-must-be-destroyed is linked so strongly to communism and its close cousin national socialism.
In the above unhappy story, Mark Bauerlein tries to see a silver lining by noting that the Institute survives outside the college. Students can go there and read books for which they receive no academic credit, of course. If ever there was a case study in how much the Left prizes control of higher education, this is it.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Rush Limbaugh and the Race Hustle
In a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh defends his record (“I am not a racist”) and further points out the double standard allowing left-liberals off the hook for statements that are clearly racist.
Limbaugh’s defense highlights several problems for libertarians and conservatives:
First, playing defense 24/7 is no way to move forward. It places libertarians and conservatives in the untenable position of answering “when did you stop being a racist?” Repeated denials inspire the race hustlers to keep asking the same question. To Rush Limbaugh: You wanted to purchase a football team that played both offense and defense. There is a lesson here.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Will Layoffs be based on Diversity?
In recent weeks, the USA Today and National Public Radio have crowed that this recession is different: most of those losing jobs were men (and predominantly white). This is “encouraging” according to these news outlets.
Why is it good? Because a majority of the workforce is now made up of women; and blacks have not been hurt as much as whites (the media seem to have forgotten about Asians and Hispanics but what else is new?). This is an advance in gender, if not racial, diversity. Whooo. One wonders how those women married to unemployed men think about their gender’s “advance.”
Friday, September 18, 2009
Military Blogs: The First Pages of History
As an instructor of online history courses, I have many students overseas (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Saudi Arabia). The Internet connects them to me (and to the rest of us). The stories I could relate are fascinating and make teaching online courses all the more rewarding. Moreover, as an instructor I know that I’m helping those who are “American, Interrupted”
Even more important, soldiers of all ranks have blogged their way into history, thus writing what we used to say of newspapers: “the first pages” of history.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Democracy is Dead, Douglass is Alive, and Classical Liberalism is ?
Dear HNNers:
With my book launch complete ("Race and Liberty in America: The Essential Reader"), I have time to revive my several blogs. I have been most active over at "Beacon" so I will crosspost several recent links before plugging away here at HNN, there at Beacon, and at my Digital History web site ("eHistory"). No rest for weary bloggers, eh?
FYI: My new book on the classical liberal tradition of race and immigration is aimed at the classroom market and general reader, and priced accordingly.
(**End of shameless self-promotion***).
"Democracy is Dead":
http://tinyurl.com/mdee99
"Classical Liberalism and the Fight for Civil Rights":
http://tinyurl.com/krwknn
and my July 4th celebration of Frederick Douglass, the pivotal figure in my book:
"Why Frederick Douglass Still Matters":
http://tinyurl.com/lygqvz
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Great Depression and College Life
With all the world abuzz with talk of the dreaded "D" word, this post discusses sources for the study of college during hard times. Nearly every college or university has an archive with records dating back to the 1930s. With modern scanning technology, it becomes easy to upload to your own online storage site and then share the 1930s college experience with the world.
(this blog entry continued over at my FreeU site: http://freesiu.blogspot.com/2009/03/great-depression-and-college-life.html
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Big Brother and U: Is Your University Reading Your Email?
In a previous post, I discussed recent high-profile cases involving college surveillance and the use of email or Internet postings against students, faculty or staff. (Update: The Electronic Frontier Foundation effectively won its case defending the student leader who emailed her criticisms of Michigan State's calendar policy to faculty on campus. The university accused her of "spamming." FIRE referred the litigation to EFF, a civil liberties group specializing in electronic law).
In Part II, I offer the following information to shock you into how little privacy you have via e-mail or the Internet. In short, if you use a university email account--even off campus--the university owns that electronic "property" and may archive it for years....
For more, read
http://freesiu.blogspot.com/2009/01/big-brother-and-u-part-i-is-your.html
and
http://freesiu.blogspot.com/2009/01/big-brother-and-u-part-ii-is-your.html
Saturday, January 10, 2009
FDR and Dirty Dancing: The Porn-to-School Act (or, What I Learned While Studying the New Deal)
With bailouts for banks and Big Business, the media is snickering at the porn industry's plea for a federal bailout. Sales of pornographic DVDs have plummeted as Americans zipped up their wallets and spent money on other necessities. But the media refuses to feel the pain of porn workers. Apparently, "too big too fail" governs the thinking of pundits but there are industries "too small to matter."
This is wrong. We can fashion a model for economic recovery from the porn plan. Moreover, we can do so in a way that draws upon the New Deal's efforts in two areas:
Click here to read more.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
"The New Deal Worked": Why Do So Many People Accept that as "Fact?"
Most people, journalists included, accept the notion that the New Deal “worked” to shorten the Depression. Many economists, and to a lesser extent, historians, disagree. Why, then, do criticisms of the New Deal get met with a blank stare akin to stating that the world is flat? Recently, one Salon.com pundit declared the New Deal success a fact; nay, an incontrovertible fact. To argue otherwise is “abject insanity.” Only dim-witted conservatives would believe such nonsense.
At the risk of being labeled “insane,” here goes. . .
In 1995, economic historian Robert Whaples published a survey in the Journal of Economic History asking “Where Is There Consensus Among American Economic Historians?” (Vol. 55, March 1995). Half of the economists and a third of historians agreed, in whole or in part, that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.
For the rest, see here.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Green Tree has Red Roots: The Sustainability Scam on Campus
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=539
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Cloture Rules: How Obama May Bring One-Party Rule to America
As discussed here:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=457
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Riots after the Election?
This blog entry prompted by a reader of an article I wrote on urban riots in the 1960s. See here:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=424
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Long live the RFC!
Crossposted from my Beacon blog:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=210
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
"Diversity" versus Freedom: The Tragic Case of Southern Illinois University
This is a cross post to blogs discussing how liberty loses to power on one college campus--my Midwestern university. But liberty doesn't always lose -- FIRE and others have won important legal victories for religious and racial freedom on my campus. All it takes is a few concerned citizens, and the backing of groups like FIRE and NAS.(Disclosure: I am an officer of NAS).
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=202
http://freesiu.blogspot.com/
As Frederick Douglass put it,
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Academic Gulag: Are You Politically Correct, Comrade Professor?
Crosspost from my Beacon blog:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=190
Friday, August 22, 2008
School Choice: Really Free, Semi-Free, or Flee as Fast as You Can?
Crosspost from my Beacon blog:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=169
Monday, September 10, 2007
Economists versus Smoot Hawley
A remarkable post at econjournalwatch.org discussing, then posting the petition of the 1,028 economists opposing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
Main site: www.econjournalwatch.org
Document:
http://tinyurl.com/3yku2m
Saturday, August 11, 2007
The Scary Origins of the Dissent in the School Race Decision
There is a tustle over at another HNN site concerning the alleged racist, conservative, knuckle dragging origins of Chief Justice John Roberts and those who supported his decision to rule school race quotas as unconstitutional:
http://hnn.us/articles/41501.html
I have a "dog in this fight" because I include the opinions of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Thomas in a work sponsored by the Independent Institute, _Race and Liberty: The Classical Liberal Tradition of Civil Rights_ (forthcoming). Scholars such as Angela Dillard and Nancy Maclean lump 1950s racists, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians and segregationists all together. David Beito, Robert Collins and I have responded to the idiocy of Nancy MacLean's approach: Roberts is a "conservative," William F. Buckley was a conservative, Buckley opposed civil rights laws and was thus a racist, ergo Roberts and his ilk are also racist. Never mind Roberts' birth date of 1955!
Justice Thomas does address the "scary origins" of that recent decision as existing in the dissent: Justice Breyer culls up some of the same arguments of those who opposed Brown v. Board in '54. I'm appending an excerpt from Thomas's opinion. In my view, the Roberts and Thomas opinions are squarely in the mainstream of a longstanding classical liberal civil rights tradition. No decision is perfect, and it is sad that classical liberals--not "scary" conservatives--must resort to the courts to strike down government sponsored discrimination. But that's the world we live in.
For the full decision, see
http://tinyurl.com/33hdt5
Here is the excerpt from Thomas's opinion. Paralleling Maclean's piece, it might be titled "The Scary Origins of the Dissent in the School Race Decision":
*****
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, et al. 551 U.S. _____ (2007).
Thomas (concurring):
Most of the dissent's criticisms of today's result can be traced to its rejection of the color-blind Constitution. The dissent attempts to marginalize the notion of a color-blind Constitution by consigning it to me and Members of today's plurality. But I am quite comfortable in the company I keep. My view of the Constitution is Justice Harlan's view in Plessy: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." And my view was the rallying cry for the lawyers who litigated Brown. ("That the Constitution is color blind is our dedicated belief"); ("The Fourteenth Amendment precludes a state from imposing distinctions or classifications based upon race and color alone"); see also In Memoriam: Honorable Thurgood Marshall, Proceedings of the Bar and Officers of the Supreme Court of the United States, X (1993) (remarks of Judge Motley) ("Marshall had a 'Bible' to which he turned during his most depressed moments. The 'Bible' would be known in the legal community as the first Mr. Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. I do not know of any opinion which buoyed Marshall more in his pre-Brown days"). . . .
The segregationists in Brown embraced the arguments the Court endorsed in Plessy. Though Brown decisively rejected those arguments, today's dissent replicates them to a distressing extent. Thus, the dissent argues that "[e]ach plan embodies the results of local experience and community consultation." Similarly, the segregationists made repeated appeals to societal practice and expectation. The dissent argues that "weight [must be given] to a local school board's knowledge, expertise, and concerns," and with equal vigor, the segregationists argued for deference to local authorities. The dissent argues that today's decision "threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation," and claims that today's decision "risks serious harm to the law and for the Nation." The segregationists also relied upon the likely practical consequences of ending the state-imposed system of racial separation. And foreshadowing today's dissent, the segregationists most heavily relied upon judicial precedent.
The similarities between the dissent's arguments and the segregationists' arguments do not stop there. Like the dissent, the segregationists repeatedly cautioned the Court to consider practicalities and not to embrace too theoretical a view of the Fourteenth Amendment. And just as the dissent argues that the need for these programs will lessen over time, the segregationists claimed that reliance on segregation was lessening and might eventually end.
What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today. Whatever else the Court's rejection of the segregationists' arguments in Brown might have established, it certainly made clear that state and local governments cannot take from the Constitution a right to make decisions on the basis of race by adverse possession. The fact that state and local governments had been discriminating on the basis of race for a long time was irrelevant to the Brown Court. The fact that racial discrimination was preferable to the relevant communities was irrelevant to the Brown Court. And the fact that the state and local governments had relied on statements in this Court's opinions was irrelevant to the Brown Court. The same principles guide today's decision. . . .
In place of the color-blind Constitution, the dissent would permit measures to keep the races together and proscribe measures to keep the races apart. Although no such distinction is apparent in the Fourteenth Amendment, the dissent would constitutionalize today's faddish social theories that embrace that distinction. The Constitution is not that malleable. Even if current social theories favor classroom racial engineering as necessary to "solve the problems at hand," the Constitution enshrines principles independent of social theories. Indeed, if our history has taught us anything, it has taught us to beware of elites bearing racial theories. See, e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ("[T]hey [members of the "negro African race"] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"). Can we really be sure that the racial theories that motivated Dred Scott and Plessy are a relic of the past or that future theories will be nothing but beneficent and progressive? That is a gamble I am unwilling to take, and it is one the Constitution does not allow.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Abuse of Power: Civil Rights Initiative in Missouri
http://www.missouricri.org/pr_072607.html
This is the worst abuse of public office when it comes to approving a constitutional ballot initiative. Unbelievable. Regardless of a person's stance on race preferences, the "rewrite" is a combative response to the original ballot language. Voting for such language is to vote AGAINST what the civil rights initiative is all about. When people cannot petition their government for reform without having the government rewrite their petition to mean the opposite, then we live in an Orwellian world.
Note the original language of the ballot:
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:
• The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting?"
Pretty simple and easy to understand.
Now, see if the following "redraft" by the State official conveys the meaning of the above and is "impartial":
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
1. ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and
2. allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Branch Rickey and the Voluntary Integration of Baseball
For all you baseball fans out there, a piece by Independent Institute Research Fellow (and Judge) George Nicholson:
http://tinyurl.com/2ow6lf
OR
http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1949
It has run in NY Sun, SF Chronicle, Human Events and elsewhere.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Banned Books: What Castro Won't Let His People Read
From Nat Hentoff:
http://tinyurl.com/26ql7a
Friday, February 23, 2007
Christianity and Freedom
As part of my ongoing research into the roots of classical liberal thought on race, I came across William Wilberforce. Correction: David Theroux, the well-read head of the Independent Institute, taught me about Wilberforce and I've since learned more on my own. If you aren't awake, the media is writing quite a bit about Wilbeforce and the film "Amazing Grace."
Here is an op-ed that I wrote on the topic:
http://tinyurl.com/2ql8lq
On the more general issue of classical liberalism and Christianity, see Leonard Liggio's piece, "Christianity, Classical Liberalism are Liberty's Foundations." Liggio states: "I would not be a classical liberal if I had not been a very active Christian."
Available at http://tinyurl.com/37c5b2
Saturday, February 3, 2007
WG Sumner and Minority College Admissions
In Muccigrosso, _A Basic History of Conservatism_, the author claimed that WG Sumner favored admitting women and minorities to Yale University, where he taught sociology and other subjects.
I am trying to track down primary sources to that effect. Most secondary literature attributes the racism of the era to Sumner because of his philosophy that stateways cannot easily change "folkways." This is a caricature of the man's views, of course, so all the more important to explore his views on race.
In "Conquest of the United States by Spain," he makes several references to the barbaric treatment of blacks, Indians, Chinese and what could the Filipinos expect, he asked, based on our record at home?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Kate Winslet's Breasts
I teach a course on conservative and libertarian intellectuals in U.S. history (yes, the students learn the differences from day one).
Here is a group email I sent to my students, who invariably are a very bright bunch, regardless of politics (probably due to self-selection after the others see the heavy reading list):
Subject: HIST 455: Kate Winslet's Breasts: Libertarian and Conservative Guides to Movies, Etc.
I hope the subject line passed your spam filter. :-)
Several of you discussed pop culture and conservatism/libertarianism with me out of class.
For those interested in libertarian film reviews and libertarian themes in TV/movies, check out:
http://www.missliberty.com/
As for the conservatives, they had cleanflicks online until a Supreme Court case ruled that such companies could not take Hollywood movies and cover breasts, etc. (the Supreme Court actually discussed Kate Winslet's breasts before ruling that such bowdlerizing violated intellectual property rights!). If you don't know bowdlerize, it is your word for the day. LOL CleanFlicks et al. v. Kate Winslet's Titanic Breasts. [They aren't so titanic; this is a reference to the movie]
BTW, in case you think I make this stuff up, go to
http://www.reason.com
(Reason is the most popular glossy libertarian magazine).
As for other conservative guides, National Review (the glossy conservative magazine) has periodically come up with NR's Guide to Rock Music, Top 100 Conservative Films, TV Shows, etc.
see, e.g., http://www.nationalreview.com
or http://tinyurl.com
(Tinyurl is a great firefox extension that takes long web site addresses and makes them "tiny" and permanent).
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Libertarian syllabi?
Dear L&P folks,
I'm interested in developing a course, "The Libertarian View in U.S. History," as a counterpart to our department's "Radical View" and "Conservative View" courses. Are there syllabi online? Anyone willing to share? The focus will be on intellectual history, although that could be broadened.
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bean
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Black, White, and _Brown_ II: "With No Deliberate Speed"
I did some fact checking on Hunter College's graduation rates overall and by race and gender. The problem of low graduation rates is across the board at Hunter, at my institution (Southern Illinois) and nationwide. Women, who now make up a majority of college students, also have higher graduation rates. Hunter seems to be much more female-dominated than most schools, however, with 70 percent of students women.
Here are the numbers for Hunter College (available from www.collegeresults.org and based on government's IPEDs six-year graduation rates; every school in the country is required to report this data -- look up your own school to see for yourself). Graduation rates are over six-years:
Overall: 39%
White Female: 48%
White Male: 27%
Black Female: 37%
Black Male: 28% (actually higher than the white male figure).
Women have much higher graduation rates across other ethnicities as well. These numbers are very close to my institution's (SIU).
Clearly, there is a "male" crisis that is not limited by race. What is at the bottom of this? Christina Hoff Sommers has a book on the topic but it's on my "to read when I finally get time" list.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bean
Black, White and _Brown_
In a post below ("Hunter is Hunting Black Males"), Ralph Luker takes me to task for seeming to be indifferent to the plight of black males in higher education. My response below is to correct any misconception and raise the issue of "where do we go from here?" with the stunning educational gap between black males (in particular) and other groups? In my view, the constant obsession with "diversity" has blinded us to the problem of black male underachievement which Ralph raises. My short response follows. I'd be interested in what others have to say about solutions to this gap?
Jonathan Bean
Professor of History, Southern Illinois University
*****
Dear Ralph,
Your comment was apt and I did not mean to write off black males -- indeed, there IS a crisis and I empathize. The National Urban League has listed the black male shortage among college graduates (2:1 gap between women and men) as one of black America's top problems.
I am not one of those who thinks we can gloss over this terrible educational gap between young black students and others. I have long criticized racial preferences, for example, not simply because of moral or constitutional reasons, but because they take our focus off the K-12 disaster. (I know because many of my former History-Ed students have gone off to teach in the "war zones" of Chicago school district. Moreover, I have witnessed it in my own community). With reservations, I'm an advocate of school choice and radical educational reform.
I also see a place for HBCs--note that I termed them a success. On this point, I think Clarence Thomas may be right: You can get a good education in an all-black HBC. That is partly why Thomas criticized the Brown decision -- because of this condescending attitude that black success in education _necessarily_ requires interaction with whites in all cases. Thomas believed the Court should have struck down the principle underlying segregation, declare our constitution color blind, and leave neighborhood schools alone. If they are mixed, fine. If they are predominantly black, that's OK too. Zora Neale Hurston had the same reaction to Brown when it was announced, and she was no apologist for Jim Crow.
My point, which was a bit flippant because of the nature of the story, is that here we have Afrocentric professors teaching diversity theory when we ought to be doing the basics. God knows our Colleges of Education need a major overhaul in this and other respects (I spent two solid years on a task force to "reinvent" teacher education at SIU. The problems are so insoluble they require cutting some Gordian knots).
On HBCs (Ralph taught at one, Morehouse)*:
I had a student, and now good friend, who came from an HBC in North Carolina, and he said that there was more openness, and less nonsense (e.g., "diversity theory") at his HBC than at SIU and UNC (where his wife attended). Ralph, did you find that there were advantages to HBCs? Are they less prone to some of the fads that afflict the rest of higher education?
So, if I came off flip, it's because of the silliness that attracts attention, while a Bill Cosby, the Thernstroms (_No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning_), and others are demonized by the academic "deep thinkers" for trying to address the problem you and I care about.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bean
Visiting Scholar (Summer 2006)
Social Philosophy and Policy Center
Bowling Green, OH
419-372-8673
jbean@bgnet.bgsu.edu
*Morehead was a slip -- my sister-in-law went there in Kentucky. Of course, I meant Morehouse.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Hunter is Hunting Black Males
From NY Amsterdam News (on declining graduation rate of black males, rising rate of black females).
"One professor from CUNY’s Hunter College tells AmNews that he can attest to the diminishing Black male presence, specifically in his school, and begs to have at least one Black male in his classes each semester.
“In my classes alone, if I have a Black male - one a whole year, I’m happy - I am serious,” declares Henry L. Evans, who teaches Diversity Theory and Philosophy of Education at Hunter College.
BEGS?
One black male a year and "I'm happy." Whoo. Throw a party. I suppose teaching "diversity theory" is not possible if the human objects in the room don't match the rainbow plot in the professor's mind?
Ironically, the article goes on to praise all-black schools for benefiting black males. But, wouldn't the racial homogeneity hurt "diversity?" Are they happy if they get one white male each year in a "Diversity Theory" class at Morehead? Do they even have such ridiculous courses at HBCs? Perhaps that is the key to their success.
Multiculturally yours,
Jonathan Bean
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Labor Exchanges
I read a review of Karen Olson's _Wives of Steel_ in _Enterprise & Society_ (June 2006 issue). The book's theme is also captured in this publisher's blurb:
http://tinyurl.com/nxghu
The review inspired the following imaginary exchanges on a college campus in the middle of Utopia (nowhere), Illinois:
Feminist: "Deindustrialization was great for women."
Jane Doe: Why?
Feminist: Because all the patriarchical working-class men lost their high paying jobs and couldn't support their families.
Jane Doe: That's good?
Feminist: Yes, and even better, their "unliberated" marriages broke up and the women went to work, thus destroying the "feminine mystique."
Jane Doe: Really? (Puzzled look)
Feminist: These liberated young women found "meaning" in their lives and no longer needed men. Long live forced labor, it will free you!
Then there is the opposite "spin" of the leftist labor scholar who constantly bemoans "deindustrialization":
Labor leftist: Where have all the jobs gone in my father's home town?
Economist: This isn't your father's economy. The expanding service sector has meant that Marx's prediction of mass unemployment never came true. Incomes are higher and working conditions far better.
Labor leftist: Yes, but what about "deindustrialization; it is the greatest tragedy of the past half-century!"
Economist: Deindustrialization has been going on for one hundred years as workers became better educated and provided new services to others. This is a reskilling of the labor force. Three cheers for deindustrialization.
Labor leftist: Yes, but what of the uneducated; they are left behind.
Economist: So?
Labor leftist: Deindustrialization creates good jobs for those who graduate from high school and college, but what of the high school dropout? If this trend continues, there will be no work at all for those with an 8th grade education! This is the fault of globalizing capitalism and "neo-liberal" policies in the advanced corporatist states. (Veins starting to pop). "Remember Seattle! You have nothing to lose but your hot coffee!"
Economist: What of the high school drop-out? There aren't that many and, well, they should have stayed in school.
Labor leftist: You are a blood-sucking, greedy, uncompassionate servant of the right-wing conspiratorial corporate elite. Probably a "neo-con" to boot.
Economist: My paycheck at Podunk U. doesn't reflect it, but I'll be sure to tell the wife.
Labor leftist: Some day the workers WILL unite and throw you out of the ivory tower.
Economist: But you live in an ivory tower too...
Labor leftist: Yes, but these uneducated hoo-has with their 8th grade educations will follow ME because I will grant them GEDs and admit them to No Standards U. I am the vanguard. I am the future. I am TENURED!! First, Podunk University, then Mega-University, then the world!! (Raving body language, eyes bulging, arms flailing)
Economist: Remind me to park on the other side of campus. . . and wear Kevlar.
Sunday, March 5, 2006
Republicans Were on the Right Side of Civil Rights History Long Before Democrats
The following speech, “The Ship and the Sea: ‘The Party of Lincoln’ and Civil Rights,” was presented to the Jackson County Republicans
Lincoln Day Dinner (keynote address) (March 4, 2006). Professor Bean teaches History at Southern Illinois University; his web page is here
A member of that other political party, Harry S Truman, once said that "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.”
My book-in-progress, Right on Race: Conservative Voices for Racial Freedom offers the “history we don’t know” about conservatives, the Republican Party, and race. My goal is simple and radical: To turn our concept of the civil rights movement upside down, and place the Republican Party and conservatives at the center of a 150 year movement for racial freedom.
We need this book more than ever. Since the 1960s, young Americans have been taught to equate the Democratic Party with civil rights, while being taught that the Republican Party was on the “wrong side” of history. The media and our schools have drummed this myth into our heads so that Republican politicians fear to even deal with civil rights because, as they say, “you can’t fight the race card.” This is bad history, betrays our proud party tradition, and offers no vision for the future. By looking backward at the Republican Party record on race, my book offers ammunition for those willing to “fight the race card” and promote colorblind justice.
For 150 years, the Republican Party held high the banner of civil rights. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party defended slavery, segregation and allied itself with the Ku Klux Klan to take the vote away from black and white Republicans and terrorize them into submission. Little wonder the Democratic Party was known as the “party of the Klan” well into the 20th century. When Democrats finally embraced the cause of racial freedom in the 1960s, they were the “Johnny come latelys” of the civil rights movement, simply undoing the damage their Party had inflicted on racial minorities during the prior 100 years. We, the Party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass and Ward Connerly, have a far better claim to civil rights but we have forgotten our own history.
Here are a few of the forgotten voices I reclaim in my book:
Lewis Tappan took the lead in defending the slaves who mutinied on the Amistad – a court case made famous by Steven Spielberg’s film. Tappan was an evangelical Christian and conservative businessman. He used his network of antislavery men, including Abraham Lincoln, to create a credit reporting system–Dun & Bradstreet--that covered North America.
Another early Republican leader, Salmon P. Chase, earned the nickname “Attorney General of Fugitive Slaves” for defending runaway slaves.
The most famous runaway, Frederick Douglass, was the Martin Luther King, Jr. of the 19th century. Douglass said "The Republican Party is the ship and all else is the sea."
Then there was Abraham Lincoln, who gave his name to “the Party of Lincoln.” He not only emancipated slaves, but spent his late political career calling slavery “a relic of barbarism” and advocating its “ultimate extinction.”
After the Civil War, a Republican Congress advanced a “Second American Revolution” by passing Civil Rights Acts and three constitutional amendments: abolishing slavery, guaranteeing equal protection of the law and securing voting rights. This Congress also asserted the individual right to bear arms as needed for blacks (and others) to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.
Republicans were equally concerned with the rights of other racial minorities. For example, a conservative Republican Senator, Joseph Hawley, was the chief opponent of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which barred any Chinese from entering this country.
Republican civil rights advocates also used the courts to advance a colorblind vision of America. Thus, it was Republican Justice Harlan who dissented from the “separate but equal” ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), declaring that “our Constitution is colorblind.” This became the rallying cry of the NAACP in its later battles to undo the segregation imposed on the South by the Democratic Party.
In fact, Republicans were also influential in the NAACP. The group’s first president, Moorefield Storey, denounced Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s segregation of the federal government and also won the first Supreme Court case ruling residential segregation unconstitutional – in 1917 (37 years before Brown v. Board).
During this same period, Republican businessmen used their philanthropy to improve the lives of African Americans in the South. Julius Rosenwald, the head of Sears & Roebuck, was a staunch advocate of laissez-faire and a great philanthropist. One of the notable expressions of his “give while you live” charity was the creation of 5,000 “Rosenwald Schools” in the South for poor black youth.
During the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan arose again as a national force. Republican presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge denounced KKK violence and supported a federal anti-lynch law, which passed the Republican House before repeatedly dying in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Continuing through the 1930s and 1940s, when Franklin Roosevelt refused to have pictures taken with blacks, the Republican Party called for desegregation of the military, antilynching laws, and the right to vote. Furthermore, while FDR sent Japanese Americans to internment camps, a conservative newspaper chain denounced this violation of civil rights, as did the influential black conservative George Schuyler.
In 1964, Lyndon Johnson passed the landmark Civil Rights Act only after Republicans introduced their own bill and overcame a Democratic filibuster. 89% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act–a far greater percentage than the Democrats, who mustered a bare majority.
Almost immediately, however, the Democratic Party returned to its tradition of racial discrimination by instituting racial preferences that judged people by the color of their skin. In this era, I include excerpts from George Schuyler, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Linda Chavez, Ward Connerly, and Jorge Mas Conosa.
To return to Truman: His supporters said “Give ‘em hell, Harry.” For all the Harrys of the Republican Party who are afraid to speak their mind on civil rights, afraid to fight the “race card” and the race hustlers of the Democratic Party, I say: Read my book and “Give ‘em hell.”
Saturday, November 26, 2005
What Color Are You? Count the Drops
Presently I am working with a brilliant young graduate of Harvard University who is writing a dissertation on the history of interracial dating and marriage, from 1833 to the present. She focuses on the politics, internal and external, of groups such as the AME Church, the Anti-Slavery Society, NAACP, National Negro Business League, and organizations representing "multiracial" individuals.
Meanwhile, I am compiling a reader _Right on Race: Conservative Voices for Racial Equality and Freedom_ that includes classical liberals (F. Douglass, Mencken, Moorfield Storey, Milton Friedman) and conservatives (Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, George Schuyler, Linda Chavez, Ronald Reagan). Suggestions are welcome!
In both our projects, the "mulatto" (or miscgenation) issue is one that shows up constantly in the late 19th and 20th centuries. Conflict between lighter and darker-skinned "blacks" was sometimes open, more often a subtext. Plessy was chosen because he was very light-skinned and one of the rights he sought was to self-describe himself as "white" if he so desired. The grand irony of the civil rights movement is the tension between this right of self-description (embedded in law) and efforts to offer affirmative action to "visible minorities" (to use the Canadian term). Thus, affirmative action, as presently practiced, has not only retained the "one drop" rule but extended it to other groups--most ludicrously, Hispanics. Indeed, one can "pass" as Hispanic by marriage and not have a single "drop" of "Hispanic blood" (whatever that is). Yet your married name is Rodriguez and, per the self-description rule, who is to argue? Actually, given all the fraud associated with some minority contracting programs, the Bush administration has implemented a regulation that would require one to prove, by paper trail, one's racial or ethnic character (see Roger Clegg link below). I find this as appalling as the "degree of Indian blood" cards now used by "progressive" Indians to limit benefits to "real" Indians (a cynic might argue that this is a typical side effect of any rent-seeking).
These are the complexities of race today, with present-day practices opportunistically drawing upon past racist practices. Curiouser and curiouser.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
"The Conservative Sixties"
Below is a review of yet another work on conservatism since World War II. Ever since Alan Brinkley kicked off an American Historical Review on the need to study conservatism (and classical liberalism), there has been a steady stream of works. My post includes a list of suggested readings and a call for readers' suggestions.
David Farber and Jeff Roche, eds. The Conservative Sixties. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. vi + 211 pp. ISBN 0-8204-5548-2. Notes, list of contributors, index. $29.95 (paper)
Reviewed by Jason M. Stahl, Department of History, University of Minnesota.
http://tinyurl.com/77e5w
My response:
I agree with the reviewer that intellectual and social histories of conservatism ignore the business stream of conservatism. I confronted this first hand in my research on small business lobbying, which joined hands with corporate elites from the 1970s onward, because they were "mad as hell" about government regulation and taxes. Although a bit
dated, Vogel's assessment that business has remained economically conserative for 125 years remains true (Vogel, "Why Businessmen Distrust Their State: The Political Consciousness of American Corporate
Executives." _British Journal of Political Science_ (January 1978): 45-78) and backed up by more recent polls (Kirkland, "Today's GOP: The Party's Over for Big Business." _Fortune_, 6 February 1995, 50-62.
Kirkland found that 69% of CEOs were Republicans and 98% favored reductions in government spending, 82% for deregulation).
Of course, liberal human resources professionals continue to promote "social responsibility" and racial preferences (see Lynch, _The Diversity Machine: The Drive to Change the White Male Workplace_), yet we cannot ignore this core identity among businesspeople, large and small. Some of these entrepreneurs and cashed-out CEOs funded think
tanks, which are also treated separately from "studies of conservatism." This is odd, because think tanks were necessary "idea brokers" given the near total exclusion of conservatives from campus
faculty (amply documented by David Horowitz, NAS, and others).
Lastly, I agree with David Horowitz that this is the first social movement that does NOT include movement activists as a wave of scholars poring over its past. Movement conservatives may be biased, but they
are well-versed in what movement cons were actually reading and doing -- and not given over to the presumed triumphalism of liberal historians who see Republican victories as the Rise of the Right, while
movement activists saw defeat in the Reagan Revolution and the "Republican Revolution" of 1994. Read Frum, Niskanen, Stockman, Rector.
Brinkley, Ribuffo, Thomas Frank are certainly not conservatives. I don't believe Andrews was a conservative. Flamm begins his dissertation by describing how he is (or was?) a liberal. I don't know McGirr, Roche or the others but can only identify two historians of conservatism who
are actually conservative. This situation leads to a lot of nonsense about "backlash" and "triumph," ignoring the fatalistic streak in the conservative movement. These themes are the ones trumpeted in college history textbooks, where most "educated" Americans get their recent history. As a movement con myself (yes, I'm outed), I joke that the best I can hope for in my lifetime is repeal of the low flush, low-flow water law. Give me pounding showers, or give me death! That's the level of success libertarian-conservatives have achieved, rendering us "dead"
and the Beltway in the hands of "Big Government conservatives" (Fred Barnes' apt term).
SUGGESTED READINGS (for more see my syllabus of recommended readings at http://tinyurl.com/3xp72). NOTE: Focus on the 1960s and early 1970s.
Anderson, Martin. The Federal Bulldozer (1964)
Cornuelle, Reclaiming the American Dream: The Role of Private Individuals and Voluntary Associations (1965)
Banfield, The Unheavenly City Revisited (1974)
Bean, "'Burn, Baby, Burn': Small Business in the Urban Riots of the 1960s," The Independent Review (Fall 2000)
Critchlow, Phyllis Schlafly and the Rise of Grassroots Conservatism (2005)
Decter, Midge. Liberal Parents, Radical Children (1975)
Edwards, Goldwater: The Man Who Made A Revolution (1995)
Edwards. The Conservative Revolution (1999)
Evans, M. Stanton. Revolt on the Campus (1961)
Farber and Roche, ed. The Conservative Sixties (2003)
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom (1962)
Gerson, Mark. The Neoconservative Vision: From the
Cold War to the Culture Wars (1996)
Glazer, “The Campus Crucible: Students Politics and the University,” Essential Neoconservative Reader, 41-63.
Goldwater, Barry M. The Conscience of a Conservative (1960)
Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (1960)
Horowitz, David. Radical Son (1998)
Judis, John. William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives (1988)
Kelley, Bringing the Market Back In (1990?)
Nash, The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945 rev. ed. (1996)
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)
O’Rourke, “Second Thoughts about the Sixties,” Give War a Chance (1992), 90-97
Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1967)
Rothbard, Murray. Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays (1974)
Rothbard. For a New Liberty: A Libertarian Manifesto (1973)
Schneider, Gregory. Conservatism in America since 1930 : A Reader
Friday, May 13, 2005
Update on SIU
Michael Davidson has written at HNN and elsewhere about my case. Curious, since we are yards apart yet he never has contacted me. Here is my response, keeping in mind that I cannot provide you "with all the facts" at this time:
*******************
At InsideHigherEducation.com Davidson writes "this article gives a badly slanted version of less than half of the story. I find it disturbing that many comments are being made here based on a poor secondary source -including some from professional historians who should know better. I would love to be able to add some substantive detail, but legal restrictions prevent me.
The impulse here is to sound off, but given the poor state of public knowledge on this matter, it is ill-advised.
Dr. Michael R. Davidson
Lecturer in HistorySIU Carbondale"
My response:
For someone who does not want to "sound off," Davidson has done an extraordinary amount of it--without saying anything but "you don't have all the facts." The facts which I can state here would include the clear grievance procedures which the TA (who was the unknown accuser at the beginning), the chair, the dean, and the letter signers ALL violated. The dean drew up bogus "hostile environment" charges in dismissing my TAs -- a legal term that means nothing outside of civil rights law and there are procedures to follow there, too. (In her rush to judgment, she was apparently not receiving legal counsel). There is much that I cannot reveal but it would only make the "story" starker than even that which has appeared in the press.
Curious that Davidson has invested so much on the blogosphere concerning my case. We share the same corridor, he and I, along with a number of the letter signers. Since he has never contacted me, I must ask whether his considerable web activity is an expression of his support for the other side's version of events? Why has he not contacted me? How can he criticize journalists for "not getting the facts," when he (so interested in my case) has not done so either?
Elsewhere, he has corrected Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young: My Lord, he is a Republican (or was in Maine), although only a non-tenure track lecturer at SIUC. So, in a half century there has been one "conservative" Republican or Libertarian in a rather large department! Whoa. Be still, my evenhanded heart. Conservatism run amuck at SIU! A true Millian "marketplace of ideas." I rest easy now with a comrade at arms just 30 feet from my door. (I will correct myself if it appears that we are 42 feet apart).
Jonathan Bean
Friday, August 27, 2004
Same Sex Benefits Retort
There is a short and long-term POLITICAL problem here that libertarians, comfortable with theory, are wont to tackle.
In the long-term, we (even Horowitz intimates this), may want the State out of the "marriage business," but in the short-term we live in the real, nitty-gritty world of state-governed rules that tightly bind state institutions in particular (note to Horowitz: your point concerning the latitude of private firms is well-taken but I, and most professors and students, teach or attend State universities or colleges. Perhaps I should have made that clear).
I don't see how we achieve, or advance our libertarian state-less marriage goals by simply extending current state rules to gays (because they have a lobby), but not to polygamists or others. What is the point? Sounds like mundane interest-group politics to me. More of the same. Libertarians aren't particularly good at this type of game.
As for this being a "small number of people," it is difficult to tell, as the "movement" has only just begun. Once attached to State rules or court decisions defining "equal rights" to mean gay marriage or same-sex benefits (but not polygamy), the door will be open to affirmative action of all sorts. As a long student of that area of civil rights, I know that activists take a victory in one area and use our judicial oligarchs, or friendly bureaucrats, to extend it in another.
Finally, Horowitz repeatedly states that marriage is a "desirable social institution." Perhaps this is so, though serial monogamy now seems to be the norm, and that institution has been under attack, or not as solid and "desirable" to those people who leave it (divorce) choose something else (cohabitate, remain single) or live "make-do" marriages. And, you skirt the issue of monogamy entirely: The classic argument is that monogamy makes for social stability (no unhappy mate-less males or females, as in polygamous societies). Another argument is that it is better to have two parents raise children; this is supported by social science research.
Interesting how everyone dodged the polygamy question. I searched a database of polls and found that polygamy is even less popular than same sex marriage (92% think it is morally wrong) even though major world religions (e.g., Islam) sanction it. A strong majority actually think a husband with more than one wife ought to be arrested but no one wants to enforce the sodomy statutes ("consenting adults" and all that). Love to see the gender breakdown of that poll!
Here is a strong argument for polygamy: It would help break down the temptation to "stray" into adultery (thus breaking the bonds of contractual marriage), protect the rights of religious groups to practice their "victimless" tenets, and halt the current discrimination against them too.
But there is that political reality again: The gay lobby overcame 92% opposition to gay marriage by working through friendly courts (damn the public!) but libertarians have yet to find a way to win victories of any sort. Whither the movement, should we deserve such a label. This whole debate shows how irrelevant we have become.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
A Libertarian Interpretation of Same Sex Benefits
NOTE: My campus is currently roiled by our Chancellor's refusal to extend various benefits to "domestic partners" (a euphemism for homosexual partners). By state law, he or the college board CANNOT extend the same benefits to homosexual couples as to married ones. Some libertarians defend this as an expansion of "liberty," but leaving aside the question as to whether the State should be involved in the first place (moot: it is), libertarian supporters of same-sex benefits are "useful idiots" to a crowd that does not normally respect libertarian contractual thinking. Here, in an open letter to the Chancellor and the campus newspaper, I defend his position on non-religious grounds. (He did get into deep doo-doo by answering a reporter's question that--yes, as a Christian, not as Chancellor, he believed homosexual activity--not 'orientation'-was 'sinful behavior,' noting that we are all sinners. That sent the emotional Gay Lesbian Transgender and Simply Confused crowd into a foam).
Any thoughts on this issue?
J.B.
***************************************
Dear Chancellor Wendler:
You are undoubtedly under a lot of "heat" right now for failing to do the politically correct thing and fall into line with other college presidents who are afraid of being called "homophobic." The legal status of "partner" is dubious at best. The entire same-sex argument (for marriage or benefits) falls apart because it is based on a libertarian contractual model (disclosure: I AM a libertarian conservative). This model is appropriate in many circumstances but not in this one.
First, the people proposing the same-sex model as an analogue to heterosexual marriage don't normally respect the model (if they did, our welfare state would be much smaller!).
Moreover, the contractual model need not limit itself to two people; polygamy certainly has a stronger historical, contemporary, and legal grounding than same-sex anything. It is practiced worldwide. This is not a hypothetical: Congress, drawing upon its constitutional powers to admit States into the Union, denied Utah entry until it repealed its polygamy laws. The people screaming loudly today might call this a violation of church/state separation, except they don't give a hoot for Mormons. In short, their beliefs are based on prejudice, not rational thought. Or, take a contemporary case: Muslims in Africa (and elsewhere) often are prevented from coming to the USA unless they divorce one of their 'excess' wives because that religion allows polygamy. (I've spoken with African Muslims who had to choose what to do because they wanted to come to the USA so badly). So, our immigration laws have a disparate impact ("discriminate") against people based on their religion.
SIUC's recent move to "add in" homosexual benefits by making them sign an affidavit testifying to their (monogamous?) relationship is well-intentioned. Yet, it occurred to me that this "progressive" policy leaves out heterosexual 'domestic partners' (cohabitators). Why can't they sign an affidavit, too? If we juxtaposed the last census figures of long-term heterosexual domestic partners and same-sex partners, the number of the former would be much larger than the latter (the most reliable statistics for sexual orientation were gathered by U. of Chicago researchers in the early 1990s). I know the counterargument: Cohabitators have the option of getting married but obviously this entails much more commitment, legal risk and responsibility, etc. than signing an affidavit. Moreover, there is an end-to-marriage document called a divorce decree that again involves much pain and cost. When does an affidavit end? If the couple splits, why give up benefits? There is an obvious incentive for underreporting. As I always say, don't tell me your good intentions, tell me the incentives you are creating....
The bottom line is this: The State (government) defines what type of people (man and woman, man and man, etc.) and how many people may be married. The State of Illinois has spoken. Illinois has defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This institution and others have given benefits to married people, as currently defined by the State. If those who object to your policy have a problem, they ought to take it up with their state legislators.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bean
Professor of History
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Bill Cosby and the Problem of Black Dissent
As many blog subscribers may have read, Bill Cosby addressed a NAACP dinner and took the African American community and its so-called leaders to task for failing to speak out against the ghettoization of language, schooling, and the general deterioration of bourgeois values once considered valuable in the "uplift" of black individuals. The response to his comments--clearly within the mainstream of African American opinion judging by polls--was fierce. How DARE he say such things in a public forum? Well, Mr. Cosby did not back down and reiterated his points at Stanford University commencement speech this past week. See the editorial page of the _Wall Street Journal_ for his main points, 25 May 2004: http://tinyurl.com/27hqf
For an excellent discussion of the problem of the black dissenter in this post-Civil Rights era, I highly recommend Stephen Carter's Part II, "On Being a Black Dissenter," in _Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby_. Written by a Yale Law professors who is NOT a conservative or libertarian, Carter finds it distressing that intellectual discussion is so circumscribed by the "party line." This is NOT what the original civil rights movement was all about, needless to say.
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste," indeed...
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Seabiscuit and the Great Depression: It's Not About FDR, Stupid!
As an instructor of a course entitled, "The Great Depression," I have the liberty to explore this fascinating decade in depth and detail (www.siu.edu/~histsiu/faculty/bean/DepressionSyllabus1.pdf ). I find distressful, however, the bastardized pro-New Deal version of history that is handed down by popular writers and Hollywood screenwriters since--well, since the New Deal propaganda machine revved up! On the latter, see Gary Dean Best, _The Critical Press and the New Deal: The Press Versus Presidential Power, 1933-1938_ (Praeger, 1993).
Part of this received wisdom--Big Business baaad, New Deal gooood--is handed down through the oft-required text _Grapes of Wrath_, written by John Steinbeck. For a libertarian critique of this socialistic novel (i.e., why it is good entertainment, but bad economic history), see Nicholas Varriano, "The Trouble with Steinbeck," _Liberty_, March 2004, 41-44.
Another irritating example of the New Deal gospel can be found in the entertaining, yet historically jarring movie _Seabiscuit_ (2003). The movie is about a private entrepreneur--a highly successful Ford dealer--who has lost his son through a tragic car accident and his wife through a resulting divorce. In his search to find a new life, he takes risks on men (a jockey and horse trainer) who are "down and out" but who have the untapped potential to turn the horse "Seabiscuit" into a legend. In short, the movie is all about risk-taking, individualism, taking chances, and the rough trade of horse-racing. Instead, the creators of this otherwise endearing, if sappy, movie periodically insert monologues from David McCullough ("The American Experience" voice) about how the New Deal saved poor figures like those in the New Deal. Thus, when the jockey (played by Tobey Maguire) dips into a bowl of tomato soup at his mentor's house, the film cuts to New Deal soup lines "giving hope to the masses." It is this kind of political drum-beating that gives Hollywood, and academia, their well-deserved reputations for statist liberalism, because the New Deal had nothing to do with the characters in _Seabiscuit_.
A more proper context would be the manic pop culture of the era, documented so well in Gary Dean Best's short survey _The Nickel and Dime Decade: American Pop Culture During the 1930s_. People paid to watch horse-racing, just as they did for roller derby, six-day bicycle races, dance marathons, flag-pole sitting, and so on. But doing right by history would not allow Hollywood producers to grind their political axes against the past and present.
Fortunately, I have the time (fifteen weeks) to inform students of the broader aspects of American culture during the 1930s. Many people experienced "hard times," during the Great Depression, but many did not (real wages actually _increased_ fifty percent, though this caused higher unemployment, one of the unintended consequences of New Deal labor policies). Moreover, there was so much more going on than the New Deal, including horse races won by individuals who were not turning each corner for the ol' WPA or CCC, Hollywood notwithstanding.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Calvin Coolidge: Civil Rights Defender
In honor of Black History Month, it is important to remember the forgotten legacy of the Republican Party and its contribution to African American civil rights. Most Americans today, including GOP politicians who should know better, assume that Republicans of the past "were on the wrong side of history," yet the black vote did not disappear until 1964, and only then because presidential candidate Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. Significantly, however, MORE Republican members of Congress supported the act than did Democratic members.
In short, this is an historical topic that deserve much greater consideration from U.S. political historians. How did Republican politicians approach the black votes from 1865 to the present? Why have Republican presidents, from Nixon onward been such strong supporters of affirmative action once in office? (See Clint Bolick's critique of GOP hypocrisy on racial preferences: "The Republican Abdication," chap. 8 in __The Affirmative Action Fraud_ (Cato, 1996).
At a recent Liberty Fund conference--put on by an organization that does much to stimulate discussion of diverse topics related to "Liberty and Power" (www.libertyfund.org)--we read essays by Calvin Coolidge defending the civil rights of African Americans and Catholics. Coolidge wrote and published these letters or addresses at the height of the Ku Klux Klan's popularity. Readers may be interested in the excerpts from his letter "Equality of Rights," dated 9 August 1924, and published in Coolidge, _Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses (1926):
"My dear Sir: Your letter is received, accompanied by a newspaper clipping which discusses the possibility that a colored man may be the Republican nominee for Congress from one of the New York districts...you say:
'It is of some concern whether a Negro is allowed to run for Congress anywhere, at any time, in any party, in this, a white man's country.'
"....I was amazed to receive such a letter. During the war 500,000 colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it." [As president, I am] "one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution...."
Yours very truly, etc.
Calvin Coolidge
*********************
I'd be interested in more citations to the Republican party and race. There is, of course, Nancy Weiss's _Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR_ (1983) and Robert Burk, _The Eisenhower Administration and Black Civil Rights_ (1984). There is also a fast-growing literature on Nixon and civil rights; see, e.g., Kotlowski, _Nixon's Civil Rights_ (2001) and my own book, which devotes several chapters to his pioneering efforts at affirmative action: _Big Government and Affirmative Action: The Scandalous History of the Small Business Administration_ (2001). On Reagan, the best-researched work I have come across is Nicholas Laham's The Reagan Presidency and The Politics of Race: In Pursuit of Colorblind Justice and Limited Government (Praeger, 1998).
Recent Entries
- What More Is There to Say?
- The Guardian and Russ Roberts
- Mo' Money, Mo' Problems
- This One's A Toughie...
- Playing the Genocide Card
- Montgomery (AL) Blacks Protest "Eminent Domain Through the Back Door" (Saturday)
- New Yorker Article on the Koch Brothers
- Regime Uncertainty: Are Interest-Rate Movements Consistent with the Hypothesis?
- The Weird Fashion for Bashing Faith Schools
- Ron Paul on the Mosque Fiasco
News
Roundup
HNN Blogs
- Cliopatria
- Liberty & Power
- Judith Apter Klinghoffer
- How Stupid?
- Mark A. LeVine
- Allan Lichtman
- Tim Furnish
- Gil Troy
Wikipedia
Contributing Editors
- Common Sense
- Stephen Cox
- Stephen Davies
- Grinder and Hagel
- Gus DiZerega
- Gene Healy
- Karen U. Kwiatkowski
- William Marina
- James Otteson
- Jim Powell
In Memoriam
Freedom and Standards on Campus
- Grade Inflation
- Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
- National Association of Scholars
- Acton Institute
- Atlas Economic Research Foundation
- Cato Institute
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Independent Institute
- Institute for Humane Studies
- International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
- Liberty Fund
- OnPower.org
- Pope Center
- Trebach Institute
Blogs & Columns
- The Adam Smith Institute
- Agoraphilia
- Alan Bock
- Alina Stefanescu
- A Tiny Revolution
- Antiwar.com Blog
- Austrian Economists
- Beacon
- Booker Rising
- Cafe Hayek
- Chris Sciabarra
- Colby Cosh
- Cold Spring Shops
- Colossus of Rhodey
- Crooked Timber
- David N. Mayer
- Diana Mertz Hsieh
- Discriminations
- Distributed Republic
- Division of Labor
- Econlog
- Education Wonks
- Gene Healy
- Gus diZerega
- Hit and Run
- James Bovard
- Jacob Levy
- Jesse Walker
- Jim Henley
- John Cole
- Journal of Ayn Rand Studies
- Juan Cole
- JustinLogan.com
- Karen De Coster
- Kevin Carson
- Knowledge Problem
- Lester Hunt
- LRC Blog
- Liberty and Culture
- Liberty Guys
- Liberty Magazine
- Liberty Papers
- Margaret Soltan
- Mises Economics Blog
- Peter Gordon
- Positive Liberty
- Progressive Historians
- Radley Balko
- Robert A. George
- Roderick Long
- SCSUScholars
- Sheldon Richman
- Stress
- Third Party Watch
- Tom G. Palmer
- Torch
- United Liberty
- Volokh Conspiracy
- War Historian
- Wendy McElroy
- Will Wilkinson
Old Archives
Recent Comments
- Marc Mayerson on The Trillion Dollar Question: Should the National Debt be Repudiated?
- David T. Beito on More on Demolition of Black-Owned Homes In Montgomery, Alabama (Short But Powerful)
- Gus diZerega on More on Demolition of Black-Owned Homes In Montgomery, Alabama (Short But Powerful)
- David T. Beito on More on Demolition of Black-Owned Homes In Montgomery, Alabama (Short But Powerful)
- Jeffrey Rogers Hummel on More on Demolition of Black-Owned Homes In Montgomery, Alabama (Short But Powerful)
- Allan Walstad on The Trillion Dollar Question: Should the National Debt be Repudiated?
- Mark Brady on “Born in the U.S.A.”: Damon Root’s Reminder of our Proud Exceptionalism
- C.J. Maloney on Great Zora Neale Hurston Footage
- Santese Lamar Smith on Cost of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan
- Michael Green on The "New Bellesiles"
Archives
September 2010August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
