Glen, I'm a 71 year old lifetime conservative, neocon foreign policy guy, of Northern European ancestry. I do sympathies with your dilemma. Perhaps s a thought I picked up from Mortimer Adler and a corollary of my own will be of some comfort.
Adler: We are all equal in our humanity (a better phase than saying we are all of the same species but the key takeaway should be there are no lesser human beings, no sub humans, and this is a critical argument against the ideas of genocide).
Me: We citizens are all equal in our Americaness. It doesn't matter when we or our ancestors arrived we all are equally full blooded Americans.
There are, of course skeptics, those who will deny this, so to a some degree these "truths" are aspirational but for those of us who really understand their import these are actual truths we should take to heart and share.
Were I in the same room as you right now I'd take your hand, look you in the eye, and tell you not to despair. We will get there
"And I felt that conservatives were quite happy to write off my people."
This is interesting to me, especially in the context of a Q&A item I submitted and to which you and John responded, wherein I observed that white Americans are more inclined to "write off" their underclass cohort as "trash," etc., whereas black Americans seem more burdened by a responsibility to help theirs. It only makes sense that conservatives, who value personal responsibility (whether they practice it or not), would be even more inclined to write off the underclasses, both white and black, for failures they can and choose to believe are self-inflicted. This is one reason for the lack of solutions coming from the right; another reason is what would be the point? Even if their solutions were workable, they would get nowhere: the left would have none of it, and they would be ruthlessly dragged by the media and called racist. This happens from time to time.
Which is where I see the real problem: I believe the right is generally correct about what ails the underclasses, but the left owns all the mechanisms for implementing solutions. And their "solutions" tend to emphasize what will be politically and institutionally beneficial to the left rather than what will help anyone for whom they are white-knighting.
Isn't it true that white Americans who grow up with one parent fare no better than one-parented black Americans? And isn't it true that in both cases the outcomes are markedly worse than for children who grow up with both parents? And if these things true, doesn't that answer the question of what the problem really is -- or at least provide a REALLY STRONG hint -- whether we want to hear that answer or not?
Unfortunately there is no audience for this line of belief among the policy set, in part because the problem we have just described is especially hard to solve with policy. and in part because the closer policy gets to politicians, the less it's about policy and the more it's about politics.
I am compelled to tell you that Richard John Neuhaus, in my view, can't begin to hold you accountable for your admitted sins. His assistant, John Heinemeyer, did all the heavy lifting in both his parish and in the local chapter of the economic program of SCLC. The man with three names was intent on being conspicuously important, showing up at Breadbasket meetings only to stump for a congressional run. The other John, of only two names, may yet be a Harvard chaplain, per our former paid director, Rev. John Scott, now of St. John Baptist up on 152nd in west Harlem.
Richard John's sin, at least as great as yours, was that of being puffed up with self-regard---as was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who also suffered from that same sin of pride, splitting off from SCLC in disputes with King's successor, Ralph Abernathy, and screwing the entire national movement to do his own thing in Chicago, where I have lived most of my life. Your sinful admissions remind me of Jimmy Breslin, who, while running for office, told a crowd, "I'm as bad as any of you and I can prove it!' I saw Breslin under the tracks one night in East New York helping quell a riot. He was a sinner and a good man at one and the same time. Same goes for you.
Thus, as a former Lutheran pastor, I'm hereby absolving your ass; you've gone on in true humility and rigorous honesty to do sound work, prophetic in many respects. Hold your head high, it's not nearly as big as theirs. We're all sinners and we don't need to justify ourselves to others. Keep on. We all have critics, even enemies; take what you can from them and blow the rest off the table.
"But just as important was my view that too many conservatives had given up on struggling black communities. They were happy to criticize the latest failed liberal racial equity initiative, but they had no solutions of their own, and they seemed less and less interested in finding any."
That sentiment is getting a little worn. Real equality isn't just what's written on some sheets of paper. Real equality is dynamic, and it's a two-way street. Glenn bemoans that 'conservatives' don't t have a plan for 'struggling black communities'. Yes, they have a plan. The plan is for struggling black communities to develop their own resolve, strength and plans. Until they do that, they will continue to be the poor stepchild of our culture.
I wish I knew what it means to be "happy to write these people off" versus not writing them off. Did the Thernstroms suggest it wasn't worth looking for helpful social policy because the problem wasn't going to be helped by social policy? Apart from ending welfare, perhaps? And does or did Lowry have helpful policy suggestions? Military style charter schools for black boys? Religious conversion? Shotgun weddings? What?
Russ Roberts often has very good shows. Besides Glenn, Russ's shows with Vinay Prasad, Roland Fryer, John Ioannidis, Emily Oster, and Jay Bhattacharya have all been good.
The humility and vulnerability with which you speak is, frankly, awe-inspiring. One of the dangers that many of us, me included, have had to become aware of is that of epistemic arrogance. "It's just not enough to be right about liberals being wrong" is a wonderful way to encapsulate it.
Have you ever dealt with Loury directly? And if so, did you challenge him on something practically woven into his DNA? Since I have and you likely haven't -- I probably have some insight into him that you don't. And isn't the very basis of your comment rooted in the willingness to consider that information and weigh what it means? Since Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up: I suggest you refrain from making assumptions. And if you were abiding by the principles they preach, should I really have to remind you of that?
Thank you? My comment is about what I see in his comments in the video and what I gathered, thus far, from reading his book. That said, no, I have not had the direct interactions of which you speak. If I am making assumptions about him, I look forward to correction. All that said, I will also take a look at your writing, despite any assumptions about you that your post might elicit.
I appreciate that! First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about (take a wild guess), he said: "He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement." A lot of that goin’ around (Left & Right). And the likes of Loury & McWhorter are feeding that frenzy: Producing a toxicity of venom I hope they’d find sickening if they realized what they were doing.
That behavior's everywhere, but Thomas Sowell's crowd takes the cake. His disciples defend him before they even know what the subject matter is. I'm practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't. And while Loury didn't behave like a child when I took his hero to task -- his behavior was prejudice by definition. As I told Loury -- if you're unwilling to consider evidence that flies in the face of your calcified convictions, you have no business asking anyone else to.
And we ain't talkin' run-of-the-mill politics here: Sowell flagrantly ignored irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty (the manipulation of which started a war that shaped everything you today). Sowell’s hailed as a folk hero for calling out problems he helped create (and takes no responsibility for any of it). He peddled partisan hackery that poisons political discourse to this day (and not just on Iraq WMD). And yet he's seen as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes.
And that -- is an opportunity!
In this culture, I can understand the assumption that I'm out to bring down Sowell -- but what I'm up to is quite the contrary. Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right: A.K.A. The bigger picture. But in a world where people argue in echo chambers -- they make it impossible to explain one dimension of the story (let alone the multiple layers of it).
It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it. The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t cut it. You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board.
As stated on my site about all these echo chambers:
**********************
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
What’s more, you’re making matters worse and being rewarded for it. My idea takes this problem and turns it into a solution. If you’ve got a better idea on how to turn the tide: I’m all ears — you’re not!
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
Had Loury listened to me 3 years ago (he'd have a book for the ages by changing the dynamic of debate across America). And whatever he's making now would be pennies on the dollar compared to what he could have done. And he pissed it away over pride. The only reason I'm here is that I hang onto the slightest of hope that someday I could have a real conversation with someone on here (and that hopefully Loury would see it and recognize the wrong he did and how he could easily right that wrong and so much more).
This following is the larger story I'm out to tell:
And Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell that story. When you look at this title -- ask yourself, do you think I just came up with this title out of thin air? Thank you for your time.
What Happened to All This Jazz? Sowell’s Army of Mindless Slogan Slingers:
Having now finished reading the book, I can now unequivocally say that "The Enemy Within" would have been a much better title. I understand why it wasn't used (too common a phrase), but still...
Glen, I'm a 71 year old lifetime conservative, neocon foreign policy guy, of Northern European ancestry. I do sympathies with your dilemma. Perhaps s a thought I picked up from Mortimer Adler and a corollary of my own will be of some comfort.
Adler: We are all equal in our humanity (a better phase than saying we are all of the same species but the key takeaway should be there are no lesser human beings, no sub humans, and this is a critical argument against the ideas of genocide).
Me: We citizens are all equal in our Americaness. It doesn't matter when we or our ancestors arrived we all are equally full blooded Americans.
There are, of course skeptics, those who will deny this, so to a some degree these "truths" are aspirational but for those of us who really understand their import these are actual truths we should take to heart and share.
Were I in the same room as you right now I'd take your hand, look you in the eye, and tell you not to despair. We will get there
"And I felt that conservatives were quite happy to write off my people."
This is interesting to me, especially in the context of a Q&A item I submitted and to which you and John responded, wherein I observed that white Americans are more inclined to "write off" their underclass cohort as "trash," etc., whereas black Americans seem more burdened by a responsibility to help theirs. It only makes sense that conservatives, who value personal responsibility (whether they practice it or not), would be even more inclined to write off the underclasses, both white and black, for failures they can and choose to believe are self-inflicted. This is one reason for the lack of solutions coming from the right; another reason is what would be the point? Even if their solutions were workable, they would get nowhere: the left would have none of it, and they would be ruthlessly dragged by the media and called racist. This happens from time to time.
Which is where I see the real problem: I believe the right is generally correct about what ails the underclasses, but the left owns all the mechanisms for implementing solutions. And their "solutions" tend to emphasize what will be politically and institutionally beneficial to the left rather than what will help anyone for whom they are white-knighting.
Isn't it true that white Americans who grow up with one parent fare no better than one-parented black Americans? And isn't it true that in both cases the outcomes are markedly worse than for children who grow up with both parents? And if these things true, doesn't that answer the question of what the problem really is -- or at least provide a REALLY STRONG hint -- whether we want to hear that answer or not?
Unfortunately there is no audience for this line of belief among the policy set, in part because the problem we have just described is especially hard to solve with policy. and in part because the closer policy gets to politicians, the less it's about policy and the more it's about politics.
I am compelled to tell you that Richard John Neuhaus, in my view, can't begin to hold you accountable for your admitted sins. His assistant, John Heinemeyer, did all the heavy lifting in both his parish and in the local chapter of the economic program of SCLC. The man with three names was intent on being conspicuously important, showing up at Breadbasket meetings only to stump for a congressional run. The other John, of only two names, may yet be a Harvard chaplain, per our former paid director, Rev. John Scott, now of St. John Baptist up on 152nd in west Harlem.
Richard John's sin, at least as great as yours, was that of being puffed up with self-regard---as was the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who also suffered from that same sin of pride, splitting off from SCLC in disputes with King's successor, Ralph Abernathy, and screwing the entire national movement to do his own thing in Chicago, where I have lived most of my life. Your sinful admissions remind me of Jimmy Breslin, who, while running for office, told a crowd, "I'm as bad as any of you and I can prove it!' I saw Breslin under the tracks one night in East New York helping quell a riot. He was a sinner and a good man at one and the same time. Same goes for you.
Thus, as a former Lutheran pastor, I'm hereby absolving your ass; you've gone on in true humility and rigorous honesty to do sound work, prophetic in many respects. Hold your head high, it's not nearly as big as theirs. We're all sinners and we don't need to justify ourselves to others. Keep on. We all have critics, even enemies; take what you can from them and blow the rest off the table.
"But just as important was my view that too many conservatives had given up on struggling black communities. They were happy to criticize the latest failed liberal racial equity initiative, but they had no solutions of their own, and they seemed less and less interested in finding any."
That sentiment is getting a little worn. Real equality isn't just what's written on some sheets of paper. Real equality is dynamic, and it's a two-way street. Glenn bemoans that 'conservatives' don't t have a plan for 'struggling black communities'. Yes, they have a plan. The plan is for struggling black communities to develop their own resolve, strength and plans. Until they do that, they will continue to be the poor stepchild of our culture.
I wish I knew what it means to be "happy to write these people off" versus not writing them off. Did the Thernstroms suggest it wasn't worth looking for helpful social policy because the problem wasn't going to be helped by social policy? Apart from ending welfare, perhaps? And does or did Lowry have helpful policy suggestions? Military style charter schools for black boys? Religious conversion? Shotgun weddings? What?
Russ Roberts often has very good shows. Besides Glenn, Russ's shows with Vinay Prasad, Roland Fryer, John Ioannidis, Emily Oster, and Jay Bhattacharya have all been good.
Good to know!
The humility and vulnerability with which you speak is, frankly, awe-inspiring. One of the dangers that many of us, me included, have had to become aware of is that of epistemic arrogance. "It's just not enough to be right about liberals being wrong" is a wonderful way to encapsulate it.
Have you ever dealt with Loury directly? And if so, did you challenge him on something practically woven into his DNA? Since I have and you likely haven't -- I probably have some insight into him that you don't. And isn't the very basis of your comment rooted in the willingness to consider that information and weigh what it means? Since Loury once called my writing "brilliant," was "honored by it," and "blown away" by my site and signed up: I suggest you refrain from making assumptions. And if you were abiding by the principles they preach, should I really have to remind you of that?
Thank you? My comment is about what I see in his comments in the video and what I gathered, thus far, from reading his book. That said, no, I have not had the direct interactions of which you speak. If I am making assumptions about him, I look forward to correction. All that said, I will also take a look at your writing, despite any assumptions about you that your post might elicit.
I appreciate that! First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about (take a wild guess), he said: "He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement." A lot of that goin’ around (Left & Right). And the likes of Loury & McWhorter are feeding that frenzy: Producing a toxicity of venom I hope they’d find sickening if they realized what they were doing.
That behavior's everywhere, but Thomas Sowell's crowd takes the cake. His disciples defend him before they even know what the subject matter is. I'm practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find Sowell didn't. And while Loury didn't behave like a child when I took his hero to task -- his behavior was prejudice by definition. As I told Loury -- if you're unwilling to consider evidence that flies in the face of your calcified convictions, you have no business asking anyone else to.
And we ain't talkin' run-of-the-mill politics here: Sowell flagrantly ignored irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty (the manipulation of which started a war that shaped everything you today). Sowell’s hailed as a folk hero for calling out problems he helped create (and takes no responsibility for any of it). He peddled partisan hackery that poisons political discourse to this day (and not just on Iraq WMD). And yet he's seen as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes.
And that -- is an opportunity!
In this culture, I can understand the assumption that I'm out to bring down Sowell -- but what I'm up to is quite the contrary. Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right: A.K.A. The bigger picture. But in a world where people argue in echo chambers -- they make it impossible to explain one dimension of the story (let alone the multiple layers of it).
It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it. The problems that plague America are interrelated, and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them. Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t cut it. You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board.
As stated on my site about all these echo chambers:
**********************
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
What’s more, you’re making matters worse and being rewarded for it. My idea takes this problem and turns it into a solution. If you’ve got a better idea on how to turn the tide: I’m all ears — you’re not!
What’s Wrong With This Picture? The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/03/17/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-the-religion-of-ripping-on-race-woke-religions/
**********************
Had Loury listened to me 3 years ago (he'd have a book for the ages by changing the dynamic of debate across America). And whatever he's making now would be pennies on the dollar compared to what he could have done. And he pissed it away over pride. The only reason I'm here is that I hang onto the slightest of hope that someday I could have a real conversation with someone on here (and that hopefully Loury would see it and recognize the wrong he did and how he could easily right that wrong and so much more).
This following is the larger story I'm out to tell:
From the Earth to the Moon to “WUT”: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/04/24/from-the-earth-to-the-moon-to-wut/
And Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell that story. When you look at this title -- ask yourself, do you think I just came up with this title out of thin air? Thank you for your time.
What Happened to All This Jazz? Sowell’s Army of Mindless Slogan Slingers:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2024/05/21/what-happened-to-all-this-jazz-sowells-army-of-mindless-slogan-slingers/
Having now finished reading the book, I can now unequivocally say that "The Enemy Within" would have been a much better title. I understand why it wasn't used (too common a phrase), but still...