Listen now (81 min) | My guest this week is my friend Rajiv Sethi. Rajiv is Professor of Economics at Barnard College, Columbia University and External Professor at the Santa Fe Institute, and he writes an occasional newsletter at Imperfect Information. He’s published widely on problems of crime and segregation, among many other topics, and as you’ll hear in this conversation, he’s done some deep thinking about an area that is sadly pertinent to our society today: gun violence.
Regardless of what opinions you have on these issues, hearing these two intellectuals engage in critical discussion was like watching fireworks against a night sky. Just amazing to hear careful reasoning and dialogue from two people who genuinely want to understand how the world works and discover the best ways of improving it
First, thanks for the deeper discussion on topics that need it. How about a dose of common sense? Despite the risk of sounding trite, we run our legal system like a lottery and lots of criminality that could and should be stopped, is dealt a slap on the wrist. Aren't we glossing over some relevant history? Take for example the man who crushed an innocent man's skull with a cinder block.
This is from Wikipedia:
What happened to the men who attacked Reginald Denny?
Williams' lawyers successfully argued that he had not intended to kill Denny; he was found not guilty of attempted murder, assault, and aggravated mayhem, and convicted of four misdemeanors and simple mayhem, while Watson was convicted of a single misdemeanor assault charge.
Instead being caught on video, and then serving every day of what he deserved, 25 to life, Williams was paroled in four years, only to then commit murder.
How about, to set an example for criminals about how society deals with gun violence, enforcing the laws we already have on the books, rather than passing more laws that only the law abiding will ever be affected by? How about, to put a dent in the carnage of drug dealing thugs, and their territorial mayhem, we punish the guilty with the same zeal as we seek workarounds to the legal rights of responsible owners and users of guns? Would Mr. Denny's attackers have avoided him if he had been able to wave them off with a firearm? In California, the only carry permits issued go to celebrities and the politically connected. Regretfully, Mr. Denny was neither.
This was an interesting conversation, but there were a number of inaccuracies related to firearms.
A minor technical point is that the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were not committed with “automatic heavy weapons”; the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing what is considered to be an intermediate caliber. The manufacture of new fully-automatic firearms for civilians was outlawed in 1986.
The core problem with “red flag laws” has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; rather, they probably violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Given the very low base rate of mass shootings, Bayes’ theorem with a highly sensitive and specific test suggests a virtually nonexistent evidentiary standard would be needed to reliably stop mass shooters. A similar argument would also work for suicide prevention.
Mandatory reporting laws, and Rajiv’s gun insurance idea, are only enforceable with a registration system, which will be opposed by gun rights supporters. You need only look to the other Anglosphere countries with firearms registration to see that promises to not confiscate firearms are never binding. Furthermore, registration does not seem to ever independently solve crimes and controlling SCOTUS precedent is that prohibited possessors do not have to register firearms – this would lead to self-incrimination. Many guns couldn’t be traced anyways since criminals will often scratch off the serial number, regardless of how they acquired the gun; there is nothing magical about tracing serial numbers on a firearm.
While it is true that smart guns exist, they are such a minuscule part of the firearms market that about the only people who care about them are gun control advocates. There are already a number of failure modes in a mechanical device, such as a firearm; so why would anyone interested in self-defense carry a gun that adds an extra layer of failure when they need to guarantee operation immediately after choosing to deploy the firearm? I don’t know where Rajiv is getting this idea that smart guns can’t be used by non-owners – it has been known for some time that current technology can be defeated by the use of a simple magnets.
Most studies on gun control measures, in the case they find a positive impact, suggest very small effect sizes – if we assume that there is enough statistical power to even detect an effect. That is if the effective measures are even enforced. For example, prosecutions for straw purchasing and lying on a 4473 (the federal background check form) are severely lacking, despite both offenses carrying substantial prison time. From a simple Law of Demand analysis, if the cost of some action is low the prevalence will be greater than if a higher cost is imposed.
It is true that the U.S. is an outlier compared to many European countries on the homicide rate, but as Glenn mentions there are significant differences in homicide by racial and ethnic groups – no matter the ultimate causes of the disparities. For example, among non-Hispanic whites the homicide rate has been hovering around 2 per 100k in recent years – this is the same homicide rate as Canada, with 4-5 times as many firearms per capita. And while this homicide rate is almost double that of the UK, it’s with 30 times as many firearms per capita. There’s certainly reason to think that higher rates of gun ownership could increase the baseline homicide rate, but the magnitude of the effect size is probably much lower than is conventionally believed.
Kyle, thank you for your comment and especially the constructive tone. We already have a federal reporting requirement for licensed gun dealers as well as a tracing system so it doesn't seem like a stretch to extend coverage more broadly. Many states have reporting requirements and NJ has civil liability for some owners and weapon types if an unreported stolen gun is used for a crime. And such liability (for original owners) doesn't increase incentives to scratch off serial numbers for those in possession of the stolen guns. Smart guns are rare in part because there is no incentive to pay the extra cost, but they would be cheaper to insure, and perhaps easier to access quickly than a gun in a safe. I don't know about the magnets but it doesn't seem like making the guns secure would be technologically insurmountable.
My goal has been to offer policy solutions that don't try to target ownership, given both 2A constraints and the low correlation between ownership and homicide at the state level. Discussed this issue at length with Bari Weiss and David French on her podcast recently. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks again for the comment, much nicer that some I'm getting on YouTube (telling me to go back to selling slurpees at a 7-11 or learning how to speak English).
What To Do About Guns - Realistic policies to ameliorate America's epidemic of gun violence
Lots of What-Ifs.
BW: Whether it's handguns that are killing tens of thousands of people in cities like Chicago or Philadelphia or it's these high-capacity weapons that are being used in school shootings, innocent people are dying. It seems that far too often this issue is being used as a political football and that as a result, real, meaningful reforms are not being put forward. What do you think should and can be done to stop this crisis?
Just when I thought - now at last we're getting somewhere ...
Without rhyme or reason - RS answers: My focus is on the lost or stolen guns - the handguns that are used for most homicides in the United States. If we can do something about this, we will make a dent in the problem.
What?
Then RS relates his Second Amendment for cars analogy - licensing and insurance for guns.
Later RS reveals his true belief: "I wouldn't shed any tears if we got rid of the Second Amendment."
I think it does make sense to pay more attention to lost and stolen handguns because those categories are used in homicides many times more often than any type of rifle. I don't know what kind of policy would be most effective, but better enforcement of existing laws seems like a good start.
RS's Second Amendment for Cars analogy is foolish. Do you really think that mandating licenses and insurance for guns in cities like Chicago and Philadelphia will work? Will the Black-on-Black murder rate change significantly? I do not think it will. It's just more cash for the politicians.
We do not need Bari Weiss, Rajiv Sethi and David French discussing guns.
Here's where I paraphrase Prof. Loury from Turning Pain Into Purpose:
The work of Sylvia Bennett-Stone and Robert Woodson serves as an example to those of us who believe that, if black lives really do matter, we’ll need to work with, not against, law enforcement in order to save them.
We need more folks like them. God bless. Thanks for your time.
I agree that comparing deaths resulting from use of firearms to motor vehicle deaths makes little sense. The biggest problem with this idea is that most motor vehicles are accidental while most firearm deaths are intentional. Gun safety is very important, both in how they are designed and used, but gun control advocacy is almost never motivated by accidental deaths.
I am disappointed that you seem dismissive of good faith discussion such as that on Weiss' podcast. BTW, I was inspired to support Voices of Black Mothers United by Sylvia Bennett-Stone's appearance on The Glenn Show.
Are you objecting to the phrase "common sense" or the discussion? I agree that it's not a particularly good name for a web site. I hope that name doesn't prevent you from listening to the discussion, which was excellent. I agreed with French more than the other two participants, but they all made some good points. BTW, the Podcast is called "Honestly." That's probably not a much better name than "Common Sense," and it's not why I listen to it.
"With respect to Ferguson, it was very clear, wasn't it, that that second justice department report was a bone thrown to the progressive activists given that the first report could not confirm the popular narrative that Michael Brown had been murdered by Darren Wilson."
Dr. Loury matter-of-factly tells it like it is.
For seven months all the public heard was "Hands up, don't shoot." The rhetoric came hot and heavy: execution, using our children for target practice, murderous cops, The Talk. St. Louis Rams players taking the field with their hands up in a nationally-televised football game. The University of Missouri president forced out for not strongly enough condemning Darren Wilson (who acted appropriately, a fact the DOJ would later cement). And let's not forget the riots all across the nation.
So then the report comes out exonerating Wilson and the media reacts with breathless headline coverage of... Black people in Ferguson seemed to get, statistically speaking, slightly more speeding and parking tickets. (And, as Dr. Loury pointed out, the location of a Sam's store is very likely the entire explanation for that.)
From "hands up, don't shoot" to parking tickets -- and neither the media nor the Democrats have ever apologized for the angst and violence they caused. And, despairingly, it is a media/political formula that has been repeated over and over again since Ferguson.
Again, sorry for my apology. I could not endure Rajiv's replies and comments to the end of the session. I become too incensed with this use of the slag, "you know." My reply is, "No I do not know. I can't think along wid ya. I do not share your values or your assumptions."
Rajiv, you correctly identify that one's base culture affects cognition, but you don't realize your use of slang and imprecise language muddles your reply and your comments. I appreciate that for you, as a foreign-speaking person, English is difficult and that dat "crutches" like "you know" are helpful. However, in a critical reply, such transgressions are too great a burden. In most cases, to me, your case and your claims are NOT clear to me.
The 1619 Project is an exercise in propaganda. No need to validate it yet againl here.
Are you really so confident in thinking that Sethi hasn't been speaking English most if not all of his life? Plenty of native speakers use crutches like "you know".
I have no explicit knowledge about his background or language. However, the constant reference to "you know" as a crutch--- yeah, that reflects his inarticulate functionality. I deeply resent the "hood-speak" of "you know." It is like speakers who constantly resort to "um." If you are a 3rd-rate intellect, then you'll likely have a vocal crutch. If you know your shit and really are a professional, you won't have recourse to slang like 'you know.'
I always told da brothers --da hipsters -- > "NO, I do not know. I have no idea what you are thinking ." Dis ain't an exercise in "tink along wid me." If you have a case, present it ---as clearly as you can. That much is owed to the listeners. I hold myself to the same standard!
"However, the constant reference to "you know" as a crutch--- yeah, that reflects his inarticulate functionality. I deeply resent the "hood-speak" of "you know." It is like speakers who constantly resort to "um." If you are a 3rd-rate intellect, then you'll likely have a vocal crutch. If you know your shit and really are a professional, you won't have recourse to slang like 'you know.' "
The internet is a wonderful place. A place where people with zero bona fides can sidestep good arguments and call good economists "3rd-rate intellects" based on common verbal tics. I've come across a lot of brilliant people who aren't as articulate as Glenn. It's a skill that comes with a lot of practice and if you've actually read Rajiv's work, you'll realize that he's very adept at communicating complex ideas effectively on paper.
I did not, as you claim, "sidestep good arguments." Nor do I share your experience that "a lot of brilliant people" are not articulate. However, I am not a Ivy Graduate, so my proletarian experience is probably different than yours. Finally, I have not read Rajiv's work. I did not know that was a prerequisite for a comment. I have no view on his written contributions, great though they might be.
Hucksters and con men can be very articulate too. Sometimes people who are too quick on their feet and easy with words should rouse suspicion. Glenn and Rajiv were having a conversation about complex topics, and conversations like that rarely happen in a nice and clean manner. Have you listened to the series Glenn did with Daniel Bessner, or Nikita? There were times when Glenn too had to pause for long periods of time and use verbal tics like "you know" and "etc,etc". If he had canned answers to difficult questions, the answers wouldn't be enlightening. I'm sure that didn't lower Glenn in your estimation. Perhaps there are other biases regarding Rajiv you're not confronting here.
Your discussion on the degree to which culture is shaped by the incentives and pressures of the community at large was powerful and really helped me identify a discomfort I have with conservative ideas on subjects like black on black crime. It was always easy for me to identify what was wrong with the left’s response to the problem. They seemed to want the credit for saying the right things and showing sympathy, without having to do any of the hard work necessary to help solve the problem. And often times their sympathetic words were hard to distinguish from bigotry. Treating young black men like helpless pawns, who should not be subject to expectations or responsible for their actions doesn’t feel right. On the flip side, conservatives will often go for the best of both worlds also. They will wash their hands of the problem entirely and then claim moral superiority because, unlike the left, they are “respecting the agency” of these young black men. That always felt like a copout to me. Recognizing that someone was born behind the 8 ball is not akin to stealing their agency. What this discussion helped me realize is that identifying culture as a driver of disfunction doesn’t make you racist, but it also doesn’t relieve you of all responsibility just because you weren’t born into that particular culture. If you can admit that historical oppression has largely created the conditions for generational poverty, hopelessness and violence, even if you believe culture is the most significant current driver, then it is your duty as a citizen to be a part of the solution.
Let us assume it is a “duty” as a citizen to be part of the solution to the injustices in the past that dominant societal factions created in the US and are now contributing to problems in the present. A Vietnamese immigrant comes to the US. He becomes a citizen. He lives in Irvine California. What “duty” do you expect him to have to the gang occupied territories of Chicago? What concrete actions do you feel he ought to do to meet this duty?
How do you feel that you are part of the solution? What are you doing?
Why would Vietnamese ancestry matter? Is the idea that he has no duty because he isn’t white, so not tied to the sins of the racist past, and also not black so not part of the dysfunctional culture that perpetuates poverty and violence? Should someone’s race, and the race of the people experiencing the problems factor into how much they care?
This Vietnamese immigrant is an American citizen. Black poverty and violence are American problems. So he has the same duties every American has in regards to American problems. Try to be part of the solution and make the country a better place.
I don’t think anyone should wash their hands of an American problem and feel justified because its not their culture.
“Part of the solution” is pretty vague and covers a lot of territory. That was intentional. In a practical sense there are many problems in this world and for some people its all they can do to just get by. I wouldn’t pretend to be in a position to lay out what concrete actions every individual should take. My post wasn’t an attempt to call out people who aren’t doing enough. It was to establish that blaming black culture does not mean American culture in general, and non-black Americans are off the hook.
Do you think “conservatives” who claim that some American problems stem from culture do not want to make the country a better place?
There is significant difference between believing that every citizen has a duty to make this country a better place and the duty for some Americans to redeem the sins of some Americans past. I think the former most “conservatives” actually would agree with. Remember those “freedom is free” bumper stickers?
As for the Vietnamese immigrant, it could just as well be a Russian immigrant, or a Swedish immigrant. And the latter two are “white.” Their race isn’t essential to my question, it is rather their proximity from the historical oppression that may have contributed to the problem.
I agree with you that if culture is a primary factor in dysfunction(rather than, say, racism) it doesn’t necessarily absolve Americans of any moral responsibility for the problems culture is contributing to -- but it certainly changes what sort of responsibility they actually have.
And getting back to the Vietnamese immigrant -- their proximity to the historical oppression and the actual dysfunction may put them in a place where focusing on *that* problem in America might not be particularly valuable. There are lots of problems in America, and we can’t all focus on all of them.
It would be perfectly right for many people not to concern themselves with the cultural dysfunction of some black people. Some people can wash their hands of that American problem -- not particularly because it’s not their culture, but because everyone can’t be a significant part of the solution to every American problem. Sometimes, people clamoring to be part of a solution when they haven’t researched it much can actually make the problem worse -- BLM being a great example.
—“Do you think “conservatives” who claim that some American problems stem from culture do not want to make the country a better place?”
No. Thats far too broad of a statement. I tried to be specific in my original comment. I was directing it at conservatives who follow this line of thinking - “Culture is causing the problem. It’’s not my culture. Therefor, it’s not my problem.” This same line of thinking is also sometimes used in an attempt to eliminate racism and discrimination as drivers. I don’t think it does that. I am not against an analysis of culture to identify what is driving the dysfunction and using that information to shape solutions. I just don’t like when people analyze culture like they are an insurance adjuster, looking for a reason to deny a claim.
I actually tend to agree with conservative solutions and think most left wing solutions don’t account for human nature and will backfire. I know plenty of conservatives who point to culture, but also want to be part of the solution.
—“As for the Vietnamese immigrant, it could just as well be a Russian immigrant, or a Swedish immigrant. And the latter two are “white.” Their race isn’t essential to my question, it is rather their proximity from the historical oppression that may have contributed to the problem.”
I figured thats why you used a recent Vietnamese immigrant as an example. To separate the person from white and black Americans with deep roots stretching back to Jim Crow or slavery. Proximity is an interesting question once a generation has passed and its tough to draw a straight line. It might be a far fetched utopian vision, but I would love to eventually be n a country where that doesn’t matter. Americans all work to solve American problems regardless of race/ethnicity/recency of citizenship. Where that Vietnamese immigrant would care as much about Chicago as he would if the people suffering were Vietnamese-Americans. Thats a lofty goal because all people, myself included, have tribal tendencies.
The last 2 paragraphs of your response I tried to cover with - “In a practical sense there are many problems in this world and for some people its all they can do to just get by.”
Certainly it’s just logistically impossible to work on all problems. You have to have a priority list based on your personal situation, which is why I declined to lay out concrete actions the Vietnamese immigrant should take. By duty I meant it in a more general sense, like a civic duty. Not as in, you must submit a timecard and be judged on how much time you’ve spent trying to eliminate black poverty.
I looked up the reference to Cecilia Lewis who was pressured to leave her positions at two districts because of the first district hiring for an explicit DEI position. From the article, the people upset at her hiring come across as bigots. Whether they are or not will not be discovered because Cecilia Lewis does not seem to have actually made any public statements about what her intended plan for DEI was. Or at least I cannot find any. While I find the behavior of some of those parents to be repulsive due to the aggression they expressed based solely on the fact she was hired for DEI without actually learning the details of what it entailed, I find Lewis’ response to be disappointing.
If “CRT” had nothing to do with what she intended to implement, she could have adamantly expressed that and even condemned those ideas that people are rightfully upset with in relationship to CRT. She could have actually been a leader in the path toward an ideology superior to that of DEI. But that isn’t what she did. She seemingly wrote it off as too scary or too bigoted for her to confront.
While communicating with angry parents doesn’t sound particularly appealing, and I can sympathize with a person not wanting to do it, I feel like the *right* person for such a position as fraught with political controversy as one related to DEI would need to have the courage to both confront the parents who are clearly bigots and comfort the parents who are just afraid of the legitimate garbage that “CRT” is trying to promote. Someone who is going to be the “diversity” czar at a school cannot just write off a school as racist and leave before even making an honest attempt at breaching the prejudices they are confronted with.
My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. A simple Google search would have informed her of the minefield she was entering. Someone that disconnected from the politics of DEI has no business having the position anyway. Without her adamant rejection of the reasonable association of DEI and Kendian philosophy and clearly rejecting those tenants of Kendian philosophy people are afraid of being taught or applied in the school, the coverage of her situation is missing crucial information to make a better and more accurate judgement.
Personally if I was hired for that position I’d not left like she did. I’d have stood my ground and attempted to persuade the parents the merits of my philosophy.
But what’s the chance of *me* being hired for such a position without the bullshit credentials that “DEI” positions demand? If *I* was hired and the parents didn’t let off and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t shut up -- even after I YouTubed my philosophical perspective on “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion” and clearly laid out my goals and plans, okay they are probably bigots.
"My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. "
Have you read the pro-publica piece? There's a lot of conjecture in your comment, and a quick scan of the article will convince you that Cecilia was wronged. I trust Pro-Publica because their journalism is solid (actual journalism and not the kind you see on Substack or some blog).
Yes. I have read the pro public. The “article” I was referring to was the pro-publica piece. Given they failed to report a detailed expression of her own views on the claims of Kendian pseudo anti-racists when that was what the parents were angry about, I’d say their journalism was actually garbage. Arguably propaganda.
And are you saying Glenn Greenwald’s journalism isn’t solid?
If you read my correction to myself... you will also discover a quote from an interview she has where she denies CRT is being taught in classrooms.
Given that the teachers union that is the largest union in the country encourages teaching “crt” in k-12, her statement is either egregious ignorance or deception. Either way, her unwillingness to confront angry “diverse” parents and inform them of her views on “diversity” is enough evidence for me that she didn’t deserve the job. Maybe she will mature.
And we are now in a situation where it is reasonable to infer that anyone who accepts a DEI position is a Kendian until proven otherwise. Can you show me any DEI program using the words “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” that explicitly rejects the Kendian view of “equity” or his degenerate definition of racism? That would be very refreshing.
Actually I must correct my self. I went ahead and googled Diversity Equity and Inclusion and culturally responsive teaching. The latter is an established thing that appears significantly distinct from critical race theory and searching for DEI didn’t present any results that discussed the current political controversy over it.
So, therefore, she could very well have known nothing about CRT or that DEI was controversial if she had not followed politics. On the other hand... I came across an interview of her discussing CRT and saying:
“I don’t know why we continue to give life to it; cuz it’s not a part of k-12 education; it’s not”
Which is peculiar given the fact that last year the largest labor union in the US, the national education association, promoted a resolution that
“The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.”
And
“Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.”
Or maybe it isn’t peculiar because shortly after that showed up it got scrubbed. Now you can still find references to the 1619 project and Black Lives Matter, but not critical race theory. Instead they have pivoted to the route it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, the web saves everything. Even stuff rich labor unions try to gaslight the
country about.
So it’s quite possibly she is just ignorant and confused. And who knows what she actually thinks about the topics the term “CRT” refers to by the people upset at the position she was hired for. Either way, given her unwillingness to actually face the political controversy that does indeed exist, I don’t think the school lost anyone valuable when she left.
It’s extraordinarily disheartening that the biggest labor union in the United States is gaslighting the country about the racial ideology it supports public schools teaching. And so many supposed education experts are either complicit or oblivious.
"Rajiv is critical of many of these policies, not because he doesn’t want to reduce gun violence but because he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough. Much gun violence takes place amongst African Americans, but Rajiv wants to separate, to de-essentialize, race and violence. He draws on some of my own work on these issues to ask how we can look at the conditions that render acts of violence in high-crime areas, in some sense, rational. Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem. Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
After reading the above from the synopsis given by Glenn (above), I went to the Youtube to watch and listen. I did want to hear what Rajiv had to say about a couple of issues stated above. And now I must confess that I cannot understand much of what was said because of his accent. I did slow down the playback speed and that helped but not enough to get a grasp of his thinking. I wish CC was available.
On to a couple of questions: What was meant by "he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough". What does he think would be acceptable "consequences".
I am not an "intellectual" coming from our university system so what does "to de-essentialize, race and violence." mean? Does it mean to separate race and violence?
"Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem." When people cannot accept their own responsibility for their own life, I guess this is what happens. The only scenario that would apply to the above is when one is defending one-self or a loved one from a perpetrator. There is NO justification to instigate violence.
"Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
If Rajiv actually said that, I disagree. I, as a private citizen, have only one way to try to right wrongs - and that is at the ballot box. And what does that get us. What I say is that the problems of high-crime black communities are the problems created over the past 60 years by those in Washington DC. All of the vast amount of policy passed through the years have absolutely nothing to do with those in Washington, they are unaffected by those policies. They do not care to actually look at the devastating results caused by the hundreds/thousands of policies passed to "help" the intended recipients. The percentage of incredibly high single mother households is the results of just one policy.
I listened to the Comedy Cellar podcast. Summary - Glenn or John ask a question and of the comedians responds with “what about white people?”. What aboutism is common but man...
Along the same lines, I was hoping to hear some real feedback for the person who asked if blacks joining the police force in large enough numbers could be a tangible strategy to effect a ground up cultural shift in policing similar to what Irish and/or Catholics did in an earlier era, but the question was immediately deflected with a lazy joke.
Yes, they made the point about the Irish taking over the police department. There is already lots of black police officers today. Black police chiefs are common in American city’s. The mayor of NYC is an ex-cop (and he’s black).
I do think cops have connection to the communities they police makes sense.
Great conversation as always. I have to respectfully disagree with Rajiv regarding the 1619 project. It seems to me that with India, there was an established culture that was Indian. There was an Indian people. The British came along and controlled that culture for some time, and maybe influenced it, but after India became independent, it was still India and the Indian people.
What happened, I believe, with America was the British and Dutch creating colonies in the so called new world. They disrupted and displaced Native American people, although they certainly lived alongside them for some time before that.
The war for independence was that of British people living on land as British people, but who no longer wanted to be British people and instead created America people. That point in time happened in 1776 not 1619. In 1619 it was still British and Dutch colonists living in new land but as British and Dutch people.
America was born because they no longer wanted to be part of the British rule. American people aren’t a people like Japanese etc, it’s not a homogeneous society. To paraphrase the great Victor Davis Hason: you can move to Japan but you’ll never be Japanese. You can move to France but you’ll never be French. But you can move to America and become American, because to be American is to subscribe to a set of ideas and principals that unite us. The more tribal we become, the less like citizens of a nation we become, and more like different people that just happen to share a land.
Completely different situation than that of India or many other nations, in my opinion
You realize though, that at the time it was not a consensus view to want to leave British rule. Some people did, some didn’t, some didn’t have an opinion. Wealthy land owners, with the most to gain or lose, as I understand it made the choice. I think a problem in your thinking is to say anything about “America” or “Americans” as though there was ever a time where everyone agreed. Some people learn that our country was founded on a search for religious liberty, when that is clearly and probably not the case. Jamestown was the first permanent English settlement, settled in 1607, and was a for profit venture. That doesn’t negate that many people did come to America in the 1600s for religious freedom, or more specifically to try to set up religious utopias. They are both our origin story. Mass immigration for free land or for work opportunities that happened later are also part of our origin story. I don’t see any reason why *one* origin story of the country can’t be told through the lens of slavery, it was certainly an important element of our story.
I think the saying about moving to America and becoming American is also a mixed bag. Some people for sure think that. Others do not. I can recall an uncle being upset at me being friends with someone with an Italian last name, because Italians are not white (and thus not *really* American). You can say that is not a common belief, and you may be right, but I do think saying “Americans believe” is pretty fraught.
The 1600s to 1776 is quite a long time to pass without a new and separate culture developing. Maybe not the thousands for years that India had… but it is something.
Great reply! I agree with almost everything you said. Where I differ slightly, and this may be a simple matter of definition more than anything else, is that I don’t believe we have to teach about the birth of America through a lens of slavery. I do however believe it’s important to teach about slave, warts and all.
What I mean by this is that to teach it through that lens, which is why I dislike the 1619 project, is to be much more narrowly focused and therefore skew the context. I’m from the Thomas Sowell school of thought on this, and I believe it’s important to maintain a greater context when discussing slavery, and indeed the birth of America.
If you look at it the 1619 project way, you say that slavery was how America was founded, and that we stole the land from the indigenous people. Therefore Americans, and in particular white Americans, are bad people.
If you look it from a broader perspective you say slavery is a blight upon the human race, but you acknowledge that every race on earth has enslaved every race on earth. It was so commonplace that it wasn’t even a moral question at the time. In fact, as people like Sowell, and Shelby Steele point out, what made America so unique wasn’t that it had slaves, it’s that it was one of the first countries to abolish it. We fought a huge war over it after all.
If what you mean is to teach slavery as being one aspect of many that make up the whole picture of Americas birth and growth then I am 100% on board with that. If you mean like some seem to, that we should make slavery the most important focal point and ignore historical context, then that’s what I have issue with
I don’t actually think we’re in disagreement at all. I think that as long as proper world context is given then teach all aspects. My only issue with that 1619 is that most people are ignorant of history and when things begin at that year, they assume that slavery was a uniquely American problem, when we all know it wasn’t.
I think that matters because there are a lot of people on that side of the discussion who hate America. Perhaps with some expanded historical knowledge (and knowing that slavery still happens in the world today) would let them understand that nowhere is perfect.
I think the problem is that a lot of school systems don’t teach about slavery. And others over do it. Students from both think they learned the “real” history. I went to high school in Virginia, and college in Indiana. When we talked about the founding (they never learned about Jamestown) or the Civil war (they had some caricatures of the south) it was clear that we learned very different things. They learned very simple, what I would call white washed, versions of history. I took advanced classes, if I hadn’t who knows what I would have learned? I read an article ( I think in the Atlantic) by a history professor at UT Austin that a fair chunk of his (or her?) students didn’t know anything about slavery. I think a lot of these debates are based on people not really talking about the same thing!
As for hating America, I have been accused of that, personally. I don’t think that’s a fair way to characterize anyone (at least that I have ever met). If you agree that our history is one of perpetual conflict between forces, then everyone “hates” about half of our history. For example, I was against the Iraq war in 2003 and was perpetually called AntiAmerican. With perspective, that wasn’t in fact anti anything, except wasting money and lives on a mission that probably wasn’t winnable. I am distressed at the way my kids starting in middle school have become cynical about the US, with the oppressor language… however, they are young and have little perspective. In elementary school, the education is pretty whitewashed and gung ho American, I see it as a backlash to that. It is another example of battling narratives. I think we’d be better served with more neutral facts and context, and less opinion/judgement/narrative.
I’m talking specifically about the people who are burning American flags, chanting “death to America” and claiming American is systematically racist and irreparably broken
Well, fair enough. I’ve never met any of flag burning, death to America types. (Although flag code says to burn, or bury, a flag if it is destroyed and that is supposedly the origin of burning the flag as a protest). But claiming America is systemically racist and irreparably broken is pretty common in liberal circles. It doesn’t mean they hate America, it means they are disappointed in the difference between their idealistic view of America and their observed reality of it. They just want America to do better… I have heard the same (obviously not about systemic racism, instead systemic fraud, deep state, administrative state, etc) from right-wingers when they perceived that they were out of power or that the system was acting against their perceived interests.
I (potentially) agree that a lot of the rhetoric is kind of disconnected from reality…
Okay. I think you are coming from a completely defensible position. Personally, I wish we taught history with less “narrative” because I think that is really the issue. Let’s acknowledge though that now everything has to follow a narrative. To me, the 1619 project is just a narrative from the perspective of the enslaved. From the enslaved, and their descendants, America may well look to be built by slavery. My ancestors moved west with each generation, taking advantage of “new” lands (the taken from Indians). I even have an ancestor who apparently illegally squatted on Indian lands in anticipation of them becoming available to homestead a year or two later! We don’t like to think of that, but it’s true. It’s also true that so goes the story of humans, not just Europeans…
As for white people = bad. I have some experience with that. In elementary school we watched Roots and a lot of the black girls would be mean to me after. I didn’t understand why… it wasn’t me, and it wasn’t them… but they felt different. Now it’s popular amongst my liberal circles to wallow in white guilt. I find it pointless. I have no control over what my parents do/did anymore than my 10th great grandfather! I think the solution to that needs to be context. Many people don’t know that there was slavery other places and that Africans were also profiting from the slave trade and initially slaves were treated the same as white indentured servants, until it became clear that there was more profit in exploitation.
To me, the history of America is a constant struggle between opposing forces, we just always look back and call the loser “bad”. I like what my youngest’s first grade teacher said during virtual school, “America is like us, still growing and getting better. Sometimes we make mistakes — that’s okay. We try to be better in the future.” I think a little more of that narrative, or rather perspective, would help a lot.
He was trying to sidestep the core of the 1619 project by picking out one essay and elevating it. It a rhetorical technique. Acknowledge the other sides points quickly. Then move on to your views/arguments and drill down and linger there as long as possible. Ezra Klein does this a lot. He says things like “I agree there is reason to be concerned with X (your stuff) but what I really want to focus on is Y (my stuff). Rajiv did the same thing with CRT. Basically he said sure there are reasons to be concerned but let’s talk a lot about the backlash. Those people are the real problem.
Regardless of what opinions you have on these issues, hearing these two intellectuals engage in critical discussion was like watching fireworks against a night sky. Just amazing to hear careful reasoning and dialogue from two people who genuinely want to understand how the world works and discover the best ways of improving it
First, thanks for the deeper discussion on topics that need it. How about a dose of common sense? Despite the risk of sounding trite, we run our legal system like a lottery and lots of criminality that could and should be stopped, is dealt a slap on the wrist. Aren't we glossing over some relevant history? Take for example the man who crushed an innocent man's skull with a cinder block.
This is from Wikipedia:
What happened to the men who attacked Reginald Denny?
Williams' lawyers successfully argued that he had not intended to kill Denny; he was found not guilty of attempted murder, assault, and aggravated mayhem, and convicted of four misdemeanors and simple mayhem, while Watson was convicted of a single misdemeanor assault charge.
Instead being caught on video, and then serving every day of what he deserved, 25 to life, Williams was paroled in four years, only to then commit murder.
How about, to set an example for criminals about how society deals with gun violence, enforcing the laws we already have on the books, rather than passing more laws that only the law abiding will ever be affected by? How about, to put a dent in the carnage of drug dealing thugs, and their territorial mayhem, we punish the guilty with the same zeal as we seek workarounds to the legal rights of responsible owners and users of guns? Would Mr. Denny's attackers have avoided him if he had been able to wave them off with a firearm? In California, the only carry permits issued go to celebrities and the politically connected. Regretfully, Mr. Denny was neither.
This was an interesting conversation, but there were a number of inaccuracies related to firearms.
A minor technical point is that the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were not committed with “automatic heavy weapons”; the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing what is considered to be an intermediate caliber. The manufacture of new fully-automatic firearms for civilians was outlawed in 1986.
The core problem with “red flag laws” has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; rather, they probably violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Given the very low base rate of mass shootings, Bayes’ theorem with a highly sensitive and specific test suggests a virtually nonexistent evidentiary standard would be needed to reliably stop mass shooters. A similar argument would also work for suicide prevention.
Mandatory reporting laws, and Rajiv’s gun insurance idea, are only enforceable with a registration system, which will be opposed by gun rights supporters. You need only look to the other Anglosphere countries with firearms registration to see that promises to not confiscate firearms are never binding. Furthermore, registration does not seem to ever independently solve crimes and controlling SCOTUS precedent is that prohibited possessors do not have to register firearms – this would lead to self-incrimination. Many guns couldn’t be traced anyways since criminals will often scratch off the serial number, regardless of how they acquired the gun; there is nothing magical about tracing serial numbers on a firearm.
While it is true that smart guns exist, they are such a minuscule part of the firearms market that about the only people who care about them are gun control advocates. There are already a number of failure modes in a mechanical device, such as a firearm; so why would anyone interested in self-defense carry a gun that adds an extra layer of failure when they need to guarantee operation immediately after choosing to deploy the firearm? I don’t know where Rajiv is getting this idea that smart guns can’t be used by non-owners – it has been known for some time that current technology can be defeated by the use of a simple magnets.
Most studies on gun control measures, in the case they find a positive impact, suggest very small effect sizes – if we assume that there is enough statistical power to even detect an effect. That is if the effective measures are even enforced. For example, prosecutions for straw purchasing and lying on a 4473 (the federal background check form) are severely lacking, despite both offenses carrying substantial prison time. From a simple Law of Demand analysis, if the cost of some action is low the prevalence will be greater than if a higher cost is imposed.
It is true that the U.S. is an outlier compared to many European countries on the homicide rate, but as Glenn mentions there are significant differences in homicide by racial and ethnic groups – no matter the ultimate causes of the disparities. For example, among non-Hispanic whites the homicide rate has been hovering around 2 per 100k in recent years – this is the same homicide rate as Canada, with 4-5 times as many firearms per capita. And while this homicide rate is almost double that of the UK, it’s with 30 times as many firearms per capita. There’s certainly reason to think that higher rates of gun ownership could increase the baseline homicide rate, but the magnitude of the effect size is probably much lower than is conventionally believed.
Kyle, thank you for your comment and especially the constructive tone. We already have a federal reporting requirement for licensed gun dealers as well as a tracing system so it doesn't seem like a stretch to extend coverage more broadly. Many states have reporting requirements and NJ has civil liability for some owners and weapon types if an unreported stolen gun is used for a crime. And such liability (for original owners) doesn't increase incentives to scratch off serial numbers for those in possession of the stolen guns. Smart guns are rare in part because there is no incentive to pay the extra cost, but they would be cheaper to insure, and perhaps easier to access quickly than a gun in a safe. I don't know about the magnets but it doesn't seem like making the guns secure would be technologically insurmountable.
My goal has been to offer policy solutions that don't try to target ownership, given both 2A constraints and the low correlation between ownership and homicide at the state level. Discussed this issue at length with Bari Weiss and David French on her podcast recently. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks again for the comment, much nicer that some I'm getting on YouTube (telling me to go back to selling slurpees at a 7-11 or learning how to speak English).
A good discussion, the segment on gun control was too short!
I'm looking forward to the discussion on Bari Weiss's podcast. It doesn't seem to have been released yet.
What To Do About Guns - Realistic policies to ameliorate America's epidemic of gun violence
Lots of What-Ifs.
BW: Whether it's handguns that are killing tens of thousands of people in cities like Chicago or Philadelphia or it's these high-capacity weapons that are being used in school shootings, innocent people are dying. It seems that far too often this issue is being used as a political football and that as a result, real, meaningful reforms are not being put forward. What do you think should and can be done to stop this crisis?
Just when I thought - now at last we're getting somewhere ...
Without rhyme or reason - RS answers: My focus is on the lost or stolen guns - the handguns that are used for most homicides in the United States. If we can do something about this, we will make a dent in the problem.
What?
Then RS relates his Second Amendment for cars analogy - licensing and insurance for guns.
Later RS reveals his true belief: "I wouldn't shed any tears if we got rid of the Second Amendment."
I think it does make sense to pay more attention to lost and stolen handguns because those categories are used in homicides many times more often than any type of rifle. I don't know what kind of policy would be most effective, but better enforcement of existing laws seems like a good start.
Please let me add this ...
RS's Second Amendment for Cars analogy is foolish. Do you really think that mandating licenses and insurance for guns in cities like Chicago and Philadelphia will work? Will the Black-on-Black murder rate change significantly? I do not think it will. It's just more cash for the politicians.
We do not need Bari Weiss, Rajiv Sethi and David French discussing guns.
Here's where I paraphrase Prof. Loury from Turning Pain Into Purpose:
The work of Sylvia Bennett-Stone and Robert Woodson serves as an example to those of us who believe that, if black lives really do matter, we’ll need to work with, not against, law enforcement in order to save them.
We need more folks like them. God bless. Thanks for your time.
I agree that comparing deaths resulting from use of firearms to motor vehicle deaths makes little sense. The biggest problem with this idea is that most motor vehicles are accidental while most firearm deaths are intentional. Gun safety is very important, both in how they are designed and used, but gun control advocacy is almost never motivated by accidental deaths.
I am disappointed that you seem dismissive of good faith discussion such as that on Weiss' podcast. BTW, I was inspired to support Voices of Black Mothers United by Sylvia Bennett-Stone's appearance on The Glenn Show.
Thank you for responding. To each his own. In my opinion, many times 'Common Sense' makes no sense.
Are you objecting to the phrase "common sense" or the discussion? I agree that it's not a particularly good name for a web site. I hope that name doesn't prevent you from listening to the discussion, which was excellent. I agreed with French more than the other two participants, but they all made some good points. BTW, the Podcast is called "Honestly." That's probably not a much better name than "Common Sense," and it's not why I listen to it.
It's here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/58Lkwt29Qv2pD3mdkCa6Ar
I guess I didn't look far enough back in time. I'm not sure how much delay the Glenn Show has.
Just wanted to say this was an excellent conversation, very stimulating.
"With respect to Ferguson, it was very clear, wasn't it, that that second justice department report was a bone thrown to the progressive activists given that the first report could not confirm the popular narrative that Michael Brown had been murdered by Darren Wilson."
Dr. Loury matter-of-factly tells it like it is.
For seven months all the public heard was "Hands up, don't shoot." The rhetoric came hot and heavy: execution, using our children for target practice, murderous cops, The Talk. St. Louis Rams players taking the field with their hands up in a nationally-televised football game. The University of Missouri president forced out for not strongly enough condemning Darren Wilson (who acted appropriately, a fact the DOJ would later cement). And let's not forget the riots all across the nation.
So then the report comes out exonerating Wilson and the media reacts with breathless headline coverage of... Black people in Ferguson seemed to get, statistically speaking, slightly more speeding and parking tickets. (And, as Dr. Loury pointed out, the location of a Sam's store is very likely the entire explanation for that.)
From "hands up, don't shoot" to parking tickets -- and neither the media nor the Democrats have ever apologized for the angst and violence they caused. And, despairingly, it is a media/political formula that has been repeated over and over again since Ferguson.
Again, sorry for my apology. I could not endure Rajiv's replies and comments to the end of the session. I become too incensed with this use of the slag, "you know." My reply is, "No I do not know. I can't think along wid ya. I do not share your values or your assumptions."
Rajiv, you correctly identify that one's base culture affects cognition, but you don't realize your use of slang and imprecise language muddles your reply and your comments. I appreciate that for you, as a foreign-speaking person, English is difficult and that dat "crutches" like "you know" are helpful. However, in a critical reply, such transgressions are too great a burden. In most cases, to me, your case and your claims are NOT clear to me.
The 1619 Project is an exercise in propaganda. No need to validate it yet againl here.
Are you really so confident in thinking that Sethi hasn't been speaking English most if not all of his life? Plenty of native speakers use crutches like "you know".
I have no explicit knowledge about his background or language. However, the constant reference to "you know" as a crutch--- yeah, that reflects his inarticulate functionality. I deeply resent the "hood-speak" of "you know." It is like speakers who constantly resort to "um." If you are a 3rd-rate intellect, then you'll likely have a vocal crutch. If you know your shit and really are a professional, you won't have recourse to slang like 'you know.'
I always told da brothers --da hipsters -- > "NO, I do not know. I have no idea what you are thinking ." Dis ain't an exercise in "tink along wid me." If you have a case, present it ---as clearly as you can. That much is owed to the listeners. I hold myself to the same standard!
"However, the constant reference to "you know" as a crutch--- yeah, that reflects his inarticulate functionality. I deeply resent the "hood-speak" of "you know." It is like speakers who constantly resort to "um." If you are a 3rd-rate intellect, then you'll likely have a vocal crutch. If you know your shit and really are a professional, you won't have recourse to slang like 'you know.' "
The internet is a wonderful place. A place where people with zero bona fides can sidestep good arguments and call good economists "3rd-rate intellects" based on common verbal tics. I've come across a lot of brilliant people who aren't as articulate as Glenn. It's a skill that comes with a lot of practice and if you've actually read Rajiv's work, you'll realize that he's very adept at communicating complex ideas effectively on paper.
I did not, as you claim, "sidestep good arguments." Nor do I share your experience that "a lot of brilliant people" are not articulate. However, I am not a Ivy Graduate, so my proletarian experience is probably different than yours. Finally, I have not read Rajiv's work. I did not know that was a prerequisite for a comment. I have no view on his written contributions, great though they might be.
Hucksters and con men can be very articulate too. Sometimes people who are too quick on their feet and easy with words should rouse suspicion. Glenn and Rajiv were having a conversation about complex topics, and conversations like that rarely happen in a nice and clean manner. Have you listened to the series Glenn did with Daniel Bessner, or Nikita? There were times when Glenn too had to pause for long periods of time and use verbal tics like "you know" and "etc,etc". If he had canned answers to difficult questions, the answers wouldn't be enlightening. I'm sure that didn't lower Glenn in your estimation. Perhaps there are other biases regarding Rajiv you're not confronting here.
"you know" as "hood-speak". Interesting...
Your discussion on the degree to which culture is shaped by the incentives and pressures of the community at large was powerful and really helped me identify a discomfort I have with conservative ideas on subjects like black on black crime. It was always easy for me to identify what was wrong with the left’s response to the problem. They seemed to want the credit for saying the right things and showing sympathy, without having to do any of the hard work necessary to help solve the problem. And often times their sympathetic words were hard to distinguish from bigotry. Treating young black men like helpless pawns, who should not be subject to expectations or responsible for their actions doesn’t feel right. On the flip side, conservatives will often go for the best of both worlds also. They will wash their hands of the problem entirely and then claim moral superiority because, unlike the left, they are “respecting the agency” of these young black men. That always felt like a copout to me. Recognizing that someone was born behind the 8 ball is not akin to stealing their agency. What this discussion helped me realize is that identifying culture as a driver of disfunction doesn’t make you racist, but it also doesn’t relieve you of all responsibility just because you weren’t born into that particular culture. If you can admit that historical oppression has largely created the conditions for generational poverty, hopelessness and violence, even if you believe culture is the most significant current driver, then it is your duty as a citizen to be a part of the solution.
Let us assume it is a “duty” as a citizen to be part of the solution to the injustices in the past that dominant societal factions created in the US and are now contributing to problems in the present. A Vietnamese immigrant comes to the US. He becomes a citizen. He lives in Irvine California. What “duty” do you expect him to have to the gang occupied territories of Chicago? What concrete actions do you feel he ought to do to meet this duty?
How do you feel that you are part of the solution? What are you doing?
Why would Vietnamese ancestry matter? Is the idea that he has no duty because he isn’t white, so not tied to the sins of the racist past, and also not black so not part of the dysfunctional culture that perpetuates poverty and violence? Should someone’s race, and the race of the people experiencing the problems factor into how much they care?
This Vietnamese immigrant is an American citizen. Black poverty and violence are American problems. So he has the same duties every American has in regards to American problems. Try to be part of the solution and make the country a better place.
I don’t think anyone should wash their hands of an American problem and feel justified because its not their culture.
“Part of the solution” is pretty vague and covers a lot of territory. That was intentional. In a practical sense there are many problems in this world and for some people its all they can do to just get by. I wouldn’t pretend to be in a position to lay out what concrete actions every individual should take. My post wasn’t an attempt to call out people who aren’t doing enough. It was to establish that blaming black culture does not mean American culture in general, and non-black Americans are off the hook.
Do you think “conservatives” who claim that some American problems stem from culture do not want to make the country a better place?
There is significant difference between believing that every citizen has a duty to make this country a better place and the duty for some Americans to redeem the sins of some Americans past. I think the former most “conservatives” actually would agree with. Remember those “freedom is free” bumper stickers?
As for the Vietnamese immigrant, it could just as well be a Russian immigrant, or a Swedish immigrant. And the latter two are “white.” Their race isn’t essential to my question, it is rather their proximity from the historical oppression that may have contributed to the problem.
I agree with you that if culture is a primary factor in dysfunction(rather than, say, racism) it doesn’t necessarily absolve Americans of any moral responsibility for the problems culture is contributing to -- but it certainly changes what sort of responsibility they actually have.
And getting back to the Vietnamese immigrant -- their proximity to the historical oppression and the actual dysfunction may put them in a place where focusing on *that* problem in America might not be particularly valuable. There are lots of problems in America, and we can’t all focus on all of them.
It would be perfectly right for many people not to concern themselves with the cultural dysfunction of some black people. Some people can wash their hands of that American problem -- not particularly because it’s not their culture, but because everyone can’t be a significant part of the solution to every American problem. Sometimes, people clamoring to be part of a solution when they haven’t researched it much can actually make the problem worse -- BLM being a great example.
—“Do you think “conservatives” who claim that some American problems stem from culture do not want to make the country a better place?”
No. Thats far too broad of a statement. I tried to be specific in my original comment. I was directing it at conservatives who follow this line of thinking - “Culture is causing the problem. It’’s not my culture. Therefor, it’s not my problem.” This same line of thinking is also sometimes used in an attempt to eliminate racism and discrimination as drivers. I don’t think it does that. I am not against an analysis of culture to identify what is driving the dysfunction and using that information to shape solutions. I just don’t like when people analyze culture like they are an insurance adjuster, looking for a reason to deny a claim.
I actually tend to agree with conservative solutions and think most left wing solutions don’t account for human nature and will backfire. I know plenty of conservatives who point to culture, but also want to be part of the solution.
—“As for the Vietnamese immigrant, it could just as well be a Russian immigrant, or a Swedish immigrant. And the latter two are “white.” Their race isn’t essential to my question, it is rather their proximity from the historical oppression that may have contributed to the problem.”
I figured thats why you used a recent Vietnamese immigrant as an example. To separate the person from white and black Americans with deep roots stretching back to Jim Crow or slavery. Proximity is an interesting question once a generation has passed and its tough to draw a straight line. It might be a far fetched utopian vision, but I would love to eventually be n a country where that doesn’t matter. Americans all work to solve American problems regardless of race/ethnicity/recency of citizenship. Where that Vietnamese immigrant would care as much about Chicago as he would if the people suffering were Vietnamese-Americans. Thats a lofty goal because all people, myself included, have tribal tendencies.
The last 2 paragraphs of your response I tried to cover with - “In a practical sense there are many problems in this world and for some people its all they can do to just get by.”
Certainly it’s just logistically impossible to work on all problems. You have to have a priority list based on your personal situation, which is why I declined to lay out concrete actions the Vietnamese immigrant should take. By duty I meant it in a more general sense, like a civic duty. Not as in, you must submit a timecard and be judged on how much time you’ve spent trying to eliminate black poverty.
I looked up the reference to Cecilia Lewis who was pressured to leave her positions at two districts because of the first district hiring for an explicit DEI position. From the article, the people upset at her hiring come across as bigots. Whether they are or not will not be discovered because Cecilia Lewis does not seem to have actually made any public statements about what her intended plan for DEI was. Or at least I cannot find any. While I find the behavior of some of those parents to be repulsive due to the aggression they expressed based solely on the fact she was hired for DEI without actually learning the details of what it entailed, I find Lewis’ response to be disappointing.
If “CRT” had nothing to do with what she intended to implement, she could have adamantly expressed that and even condemned those ideas that people are rightfully upset with in relationship to CRT. She could have actually been a leader in the path toward an ideology superior to that of DEI. But that isn’t what she did. She seemingly wrote it off as too scary or too bigoted for her to confront.
While communicating with angry parents doesn’t sound particularly appealing, and I can sympathize with a person not wanting to do it, I feel like the *right* person for such a position as fraught with political controversy as one related to DEI would need to have the courage to both confront the parents who are clearly bigots and comfort the parents who are just afraid of the legitimate garbage that “CRT” is trying to promote. Someone who is going to be the “diversity” czar at a school cannot just write off a school as racist and leave before even making an honest attempt at breaching the prejudices they are confronted with.
My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. A simple Google search would have informed her of the minefield she was entering. Someone that disconnected from the politics of DEI has no business having the position anyway. Without her adamant rejection of the reasonable association of DEI and Kendian philosophy and clearly rejecting those tenants of Kendian philosophy people are afraid of being taught or applied in the school, the coverage of her situation is missing crucial information to make a better and more accurate judgement.
Personally if I was hired for that position I’d not left like she did. I’d have stood my ground and attempted to persuade the parents the merits of my philosophy.
But what’s the chance of *me* being hired for such a position without the bullshit credentials that “DEI” positions demand? If *I* was hired and the parents didn’t let off and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t shut up -- even after I YouTubed my philosophical perspective on “diversity”, “equity”, and “inclusion” and clearly laid out my goals and plans, okay they are probably bigots.
"My suspicion unfortunately is that she probably does or would sympathize with the Kendians and like our new recent Supreme Court justice, has no qualms about lying about it. I mean it’s theoretically possible for her to have no knowledge of CRT or DEI before being offered the position, but why the hell would she take a position for DEI without educating *herself* about it. "
Have you read the pro-publica piece? There's a lot of conjecture in your comment, and a quick scan of the article will convince you that Cecilia was wronged. I trust Pro-Publica because their journalism is solid (actual journalism and not the kind you see on Substack or some blog).
Yes. I have read the pro public. The “article” I was referring to was the pro-publica piece. Given they failed to report a detailed expression of her own views on the claims of Kendian pseudo anti-racists when that was what the parents were angry about, I’d say their journalism was actually garbage. Arguably propaganda.
And are you saying Glenn Greenwald’s journalism isn’t solid?
If you read my correction to myself... you will also discover a quote from an interview she has where she denies CRT is being taught in classrooms.
https://www.thirteen.org/programs/frontline/cecelia-lewis-critical-race-theory-doesnt-exist-in-k-12-kib7/
Given that the teachers union that is the largest union in the country encourages teaching “crt” in k-12, her statement is either egregious ignorance or deception. Either way, her unwillingness to confront angry “diverse” parents and inform them of her views on “diversity” is enough evidence for me that she didn’t deserve the job. Maybe she will mature.
And we are now in a situation where it is reasonable to infer that anyone who accepts a DEI position is a Kendian until proven otherwise. Can you show me any DEI program using the words “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” that explicitly rejects the Kendian view of “equity” or his degenerate definition of racism? That would be very refreshing.
Actually I must correct my self. I went ahead and googled Diversity Equity and Inclusion and culturally responsive teaching. The latter is an established thing that appears significantly distinct from critical race theory and searching for DEI didn’t present any results that discussed the current political controversy over it.
So, therefore, she could very well have known nothing about CRT or that DEI was controversial if she had not followed politics. On the other hand... I came across an interview of her discussing CRT and saying:
“I don’t know why we continue to give life to it; cuz it’s not a part of k-12 education; it’s not”
Which is peculiar given the fact that last year the largest labor union in the US, the national education association, promoted a resolution that
“The Association will further convey that in teaching these topics, it is reasonable and appropriate for curriculum to be informed by academic frameworks for understanding and interpreting the impact of the past on current society, including critical race theory.”
And
“Provide an already-created, in-depth, study that critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society, and that we oppose attempts to ban critical race theory and/or The 1619 Project.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20210705090534/https://ra.nea.org/business-item/2021-nbi-039/
Or maybe it isn’t peculiar because shortly after that showed up it got scrubbed. Now you can still find references to the 1619 project and Black Lives Matter, but not critical race theory. Instead they have pivoted to the route it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, the web saves everything. Even stuff rich labor unions try to gaslight the
country about.
So it’s quite possibly she is just ignorant and confused. And who knows what she actually thinks about the topics the term “CRT” refers to by the people upset at the position she was hired for. Either way, given her unwillingness to actually face the political controversy that does indeed exist, I don’t think the school lost anyone valuable when she left.
It’s extraordinarily disheartening that the biggest labor union in the United States is gaslighting the country about the racial ideology it supports public schools teaching. And so many supposed education experts are either complicit or oblivious.
"Rajiv is critical of many of these policies, not because he doesn’t want to reduce gun violence but because he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough. Much gun violence takes place amongst African Americans, but Rajiv wants to separate, to de-essentialize, race and violence. He draws on some of my own work on these issues to ask how we can look at the conditions that render acts of violence in high-crime areas, in some sense, rational. Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem. Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
After reading the above from the synopsis given by Glenn (above), I went to the Youtube to watch and listen. I did want to hear what Rajiv had to say about a couple of issues stated above. And now I must confess that I cannot understand much of what was said because of his accent. I did slow down the playback speed and that helped but not enough to get a grasp of his thinking. I wish CC was available.
On to a couple of questions: What was meant by "he thinks the policies won’t be consequential enough". What does he think would be acceptable "consequences".
I am not an "intellectual" coming from our university system so what does "to de-essentialize, race and violence." mean? Does it mean to separate race and violence?
"Certain conditions must make violence seem like the right solution to a given problem." When people cannot accept their own responsibility for their own life, I guess this is what happens. The only scenario that would apply to the above is when one is defending one-self or a loved one from a perpetrator. There is NO justification to instigate violence.
"Rajiv argues that we’re all—all Americans—involved in creating those conditions, and so we cannot simply say that the problems of high-crime black communities are their problems and not ours."
If Rajiv actually said that, I disagree. I, as a private citizen, have only one way to try to right wrongs - and that is at the ballot box. And what does that get us. What I say is that the problems of high-crime black communities are the problems created over the past 60 years by those in Washington DC. All of the vast amount of policy passed through the years have absolutely nothing to do with those in Washington, they are unaffected by those policies. They do not care to actually look at the devastating results caused by the hundreds/thousands of policies passed to "help" the intended recipients. The percentage of incredibly high single mother households is the results of just one policy.
I listened to the Comedy Cellar podcast. Summary - Glenn or John ask a question and of the comedians responds with “what about white people?”. What aboutism is common but man...
Along the same lines, I was hoping to hear some real feedback for the person who asked if blacks joining the police force in large enough numbers could be a tangible strategy to effect a ground up cultural shift in policing similar to what Irish and/or Catholics did in an earlier era, but the question was immediately deflected with a lazy joke.
Yes, they made the point about the Irish taking over the police department. There is already lots of black police officers today. Black police chiefs are common in American city’s. The mayor of NYC is an ex-cop (and he’s black).
I do think cops have connection to the communities they police makes sense.
A person who hears "Atlanta police officer" and immediately pictures a white guy is hopelessly out of touch.
Great conversation as always. I have to respectfully disagree with Rajiv regarding the 1619 project. It seems to me that with India, there was an established culture that was Indian. There was an Indian people. The British came along and controlled that culture for some time, and maybe influenced it, but after India became independent, it was still India and the Indian people.
What happened, I believe, with America was the British and Dutch creating colonies in the so called new world. They disrupted and displaced Native American people, although they certainly lived alongside them for some time before that.
The war for independence was that of British people living on land as British people, but who no longer wanted to be British people and instead created America people. That point in time happened in 1776 not 1619. In 1619 it was still British and Dutch colonists living in new land but as British and Dutch people.
America was born because they no longer wanted to be part of the British rule. American people aren’t a people like Japanese etc, it’s not a homogeneous society. To paraphrase the great Victor Davis Hason: you can move to Japan but you’ll never be Japanese. You can move to France but you’ll never be French. But you can move to America and become American, because to be American is to subscribe to a set of ideas and principals that unite us. The more tribal we become, the less like citizens of a nation we become, and more like different people that just happen to share a land.
Completely different situation than that of India or many other nations, in my opinion
You realize though, that at the time it was not a consensus view to want to leave British rule. Some people did, some didn’t, some didn’t have an opinion. Wealthy land owners, with the most to gain or lose, as I understand it made the choice. I think a problem in your thinking is to say anything about “America” or “Americans” as though there was ever a time where everyone agreed. Some people learn that our country was founded on a search for religious liberty, when that is clearly and probably not the case. Jamestown was the first permanent English settlement, settled in 1607, and was a for profit venture. That doesn’t negate that many people did come to America in the 1600s for religious freedom, or more specifically to try to set up religious utopias. They are both our origin story. Mass immigration for free land or for work opportunities that happened later are also part of our origin story. I don’t see any reason why *one* origin story of the country can’t be told through the lens of slavery, it was certainly an important element of our story.
I think the saying about moving to America and becoming American is also a mixed bag. Some people for sure think that. Others do not. I can recall an uncle being upset at me being friends with someone with an Italian last name, because Italians are not white (and thus not *really* American). You can say that is not a common belief, and you may be right, but I do think saying “Americans believe” is pretty fraught.
The 1600s to 1776 is quite a long time to pass without a new and separate culture developing. Maybe not the thousands for years that India had… but it is something.
Great reply! I agree with almost everything you said. Where I differ slightly, and this may be a simple matter of definition more than anything else, is that I don’t believe we have to teach about the birth of America through a lens of slavery. I do however believe it’s important to teach about slave, warts and all.
What I mean by this is that to teach it through that lens, which is why I dislike the 1619 project, is to be much more narrowly focused and therefore skew the context. I’m from the Thomas Sowell school of thought on this, and I believe it’s important to maintain a greater context when discussing slavery, and indeed the birth of America.
If you look at it the 1619 project way, you say that slavery was how America was founded, and that we stole the land from the indigenous people. Therefore Americans, and in particular white Americans, are bad people.
If you look it from a broader perspective you say slavery is a blight upon the human race, but you acknowledge that every race on earth has enslaved every race on earth. It was so commonplace that it wasn’t even a moral question at the time. In fact, as people like Sowell, and Shelby Steele point out, what made America so unique wasn’t that it had slaves, it’s that it was one of the first countries to abolish it. We fought a huge war over it after all.
If what you mean is to teach slavery as being one aspect of many that make up the whole picture of Americas birth and growth then I am 100% on board with that. If you mean like some seem to, that we should make slavery the most important focal point and ignore historical context, then that’s what I have issue with
I don’t actually think we’re in disagreement at all. I think that as long as proper world context is given then teach all aspects. My only issue with that 1619 is that most people are ignorant of history and when things begin at that year, they assume that slavery was a uniquely American problem, when we all know it wasn’t.
I think that matters because there are a lot of people on that side of the discussion who hate America. Perhaps with some expanded historical knowledge (and knowing that slavery still happens in the world today) would let them understand that nowhere is perfect.
I think the problem is that a lot of school systems don’t teach about slavery. And others over do it. Students from both think they learned the “real” history. I went to high school in Virginia, and college in Indiana. When we talked about the founding (they never learned about Jamestown) or the Civil war (they had some caricatures of the south) it was clear that we learned very different things. They learned very simple, what I would call white washed, versions of history. I took advanced classes, if I hadn’t who knows what I would have learned? I read an article ( I think in the Atlantic) by a history professor at UT Austin that a fair chunk of his (or her?) students didn’t know anything about slavery. I think a lot of these debates are based on people not really talking about the same thing!
As for hating America, I have been accused of that, personally. I don’t think that’s a fair way to characterize anyone (at least that I have ever met). If you agree that our history is one of perpetual conflict between forces, then everyone “hates” about half of our history. For example, I was against the Iraq war in 2003 and was perpetually called AntiAmerican. With perspective, that wasn’t in fact anti anything, except wasting money and lives on a mission that probably wasn’t winnable. I am distressed at the way my kids starting in middle school have become cynical about the US, with the oppressor language… however, they are young and have little perspective. In elementary school, the education is pretty whitewashed and gung ho American, I see it as a backlash to that. It is another example of battling narratives. I think we’d be better served with more neutral facts and context, and less opinion/judgement/narrative.
I’m talking specifically about the people who are burning American flags, chanting “death to America” and claiming American is systematically racist and irreparably broken
Well, fair enough. I’ve never met any of flag burning, death to America types. (Although flag code says to burn, or bury, a flag if it is destroyed and that is supposedly the origin of burning the flag as a protest). But claiming America is systemically racist and irreparably broken is pretty common in liberal circles. It doesn’t mean they hate America, it means they are disappointed in the difference between their idealistic view of America and their observed reality of it. They just want America to do better… I have heard the same (obviously not about systemic racism, instead systemic fraud, deep state, administrative state, etc) from right-wingers when they perceived that they were out of power or that the system was acting against their perceived interests.
I (potentially) agree that a lot of the rhetoric is kind of disconnected from reality…
Okay. I think you are coming from a completely defensible position. Personally, I wish we taught history with less “narrative” because I think that is really the issue. Let’s acknowledge though that now everything has to follow a narrative. To me, the 1619 project is just a narrative from the perspective of the enslaved. From the enslaved, and their descendants, America may well look to be built by slavery. My ancestors moved west with each generation, taking advantage of “new” lands (the taken from Indians). I even have an ancestor who apparently illegally squatted on Indian lands in anticipation of them becoming available to homestead a year or two later! We don’t like to think of that, but it’s true. It’s also true that so goes the story of humans, not just Europeans…
As for white people = bad. I have some experience with that. In elementary school we watched Roots and a lot of the black girls would be mean to me after. I didn’t understand why… it wasn’t me, and it wasn’t them… but they felt different. Now it’s popular amongst my liberal circles to wallow in white guilt. I find it pointless. I have no control over what my parents do/did anymore than my 10th great grandfather! I think the solution to that needs to be context. Many people don’t know that there was slavery other places and that Africans were also profiting from the slave trade and initially slaves were treated the same as white indentured servants, until it became clear that there was more profit in exploitation.
To me, the history of America is a constant struggle between opposing forces, we just always look back and call the loser “bad”. I like what my youngest’s first grade teacher said during virtual school, “America is like us, still growing and getting better. Sometimes we make mistakes — that’s okay. We try to be better in the future.” I think a little more of that narrative, or rather perspective, would help a lot.
He was trying to sidestep the core of the 1619 project by picking out one essay and elevating it. It a rhetorical technique. Acknowledge the other sides points quickly. Then move on to your views/arguments and drill down and linger there as long as possible. Ezra Klein does this a lot. He says things like “I agree there is reason to be concerned with X (your stuff) but what I really want to focus on is Y (my stuff). Rajiv did the same thing with CRT. Basically he said sure there are reasons to be concerned but let’s talk a lot about the backlash. Those people are the real problem.