So What About?

I was reading a comments section on an article from way back in the day - the Bush Administration, to be sure, and one of the commenters quoted a comedian: "Be careful if you have brown people in your country, because we're going to bomb you!" The response to this was trotting out the names of two Black Republicans of the time; names that often came up when Republicans felt that "the race card" was being played on them: Julius Caesar (J. C.) Watts, and Condoleezza Rice. And it reminded me of something that I hadn't had much call to think about recently; the fact that the relatively small bench of prominent Black conservatives leads to the ineffective and unnecessary tactic of naming the same people as defenses; as if their names are shields against charges of racism.

The larger Black community tends to have little use for most outspoken Black conservatives. Rice and Watts, like their contemporaries Ward Connerly and Alan Keyes, and present-day conservatives like Ben Carson, Kanye West, Juan Williams and even Bill Cosby are, to varying degrees, widely considered to be "Uncle Toms" within the Black community; people who have sold out to the White power structure for either their own betterment or, in the eyes of many Blacks, out of racial self-loathing. (Note that Connerly rejected the "Black" label as he is only 1/4 Black, which leads to the somewhat ironic situation of Black activists criticizing him for not accepting his "Black identity" - almost as if they were seeking to have the "one drop" principle applied. And Keyes couldn't seem to shake the "Uncle Tom" label no matter how often or loudly he accused the GOP of covert or overt racism. His moving to Illinois, apparently solely to mount a doomed Senate campaign against Barack Obama back in the day, didn't help matters any.) Colin Powell, another name that was commonly used to deflect charges of racism, by contrast, was widely considered an ineffectual dupe, whose appointment was mostly political cover for the administration, rather than a mark of any real respect. The fact that the Bush administration placed Blacks in three Cabinet positions (Powell, Alphonso Jackson [HUD] and Roderick Paige [Education]) and as National Security Advisor arguably did much less for them in the Black community than administration's seemingly overt religiosity and "activist conservatism." In fact, many Americans are/were completely unaware of Jackson and Paige period, let alone the fact that both were Black.

In any event, using the Rice, Keys or West et al to deflect charges of racism is undermined by the generally negative perceptions of this group within the Black community. The only way that this sort of name dropping would work is if the name were that of a prominent critic, who somehow managed to work well with (and within) the administration, an almost paradoxical situation mode more unlikely by the Bush, and now the Trump, administration's famous allergy to anything that smacks of disloyalty or criticism. But only by managing to find someone not considered to be either co-opted or shut out by the administration will Republican name-dropping meet with any success in the near term.

What tends to keep Blacks in the Democratic column is not an overall liberalism in the community (Blacks are very social conservative as a group), but the idea that Democrats will do more to advance and protect them. Blacks tend to see themselves as victims, and as George Will once put it, the Democrats have never met a victim they didn't like. Many Blacks don't distinguish between policies that hurt them because they are, for the most part, working-class or poor, and intentionally racist policies that are aimed at maintaining the American Apartheid that many Blacks are convinced exists (and are in some ways, emotionally invested in). If you ever hear some of the wilder conspiracy theories that circulate within the Black community, some of them are pretty incredible. (Interestingly, many of these theories have the overall effect of painting White America as being implacably malicious and supremely devious, but amazingly inept, in much the same fashion as hapless movie villains.) Alan Keyes was perhaps unique in managing to be both a staunch Republican, AND tightly wrapped up in the culture of Black victimhood.

If the Republicans could find a way to use shared values to break the (counter-)culture of victimization that many Blacks subscribe to, they could scoop up the vast majority of the socially-conservative community in one fell swoop. And in doing so, go a long way towards crippling the current incarnation of the Democratic party, which relies heavily on the fact that Blacks tend to feel marginalized and put upon by society at large. Many Black commentators feel that breaking the Democratic stranglehold on the Black vote would increase the community's political clout. With their votes perceived as being in play, the community could wrangle concessions out of both parties much more easily than they can now, when they are apparently taken for granted by Democrats, and written off by Republicans. I'm a bit dubious about this line of reasoning, however, if for no other reason than the loss of the Black vote would likely damage the Democratic Party to the point that the Republicans wouldn't feel the need to court new voters.

This effort may be hampered, however, by the fact that many Republicans may see their fellows as being at least somewhat racist, and willing to withdraw their support of the party if too many overt overtures are made. As a candidate Donald Trump famously asked the Black community what they had to lose, but it's telling that he didn't explicitly offer anything. He simply painted a caricature of wretchedness and implied has as President, he'd do something about it. Instead, he's become widely seen among non-Republicans as attracting, and surrounding himself with, would-be Confederates, neo-Nazis and other flavors of White Supremacists. The caricature of the GOP as political arm of the Ku Klux Klan was dying on with great difficulty; now it's come roaring back to life, or undeath, as the case may be.

In any event, holding up a succession of token Black names is unlikely to reduce the friction between Republicans and Black community. It is only through a values-based bridging of the perceived gap between themselves and the Black community (regardless of who does it, or how it happens) and a purging of openly racist elements that will lay to rest the idea (on both sides) that the GOP and Blacks are natural enemies. Jesse Jackson's intervention in the Terry Schiavo case showed where the Bush administration and the interests of the Black community intersected, and this is really the place the Republicans should focus on. We'll see if anyone ever has the desire, drive and vision to make it happen. In the meantime, conspicuously focusing on strategies and actions that create the rising tide to lift all boats may be the best path. But that would mean letting go of a culture of White grievance that sees wiley Blacks as cheating their way into undeserved non-poverty. And that's a much heavier lift than name-dropping.

The Risk Economy

Inequality has a number of side effects. One of them is that risk becomes a form of currency, in that people who have little in the way of other assets (be that material wealth or in-demand skills) start to find themselves in a position where what they have to offer is their ability (note that I'm not including willingness or readiness in this) to take on risks so that other people don't have to.

The transference of risk is a common project-management practice, and so it shouldn't be surprising to find that it's common in the realm of economics. What makes it difficult is the fact that it's possible to take on risks without having access to any of the means of mitigating against it, and in return for something that isn't valuable enough to mitigate the effects of risk, should a triggering event occur and the risk becomes reality.

But the other factor that should be taken into account is that pushing risk onto other people isn't confined to wealthy people. It's a common practice up and down the economic spectrum, and it may even become more common as people have less material wealth or other assets to work with, as they seek to guard themselves against risking those assets by lowering their own exposure to potential risks. But risks seldom go away completely; rather they are simply moved from one party to another. And as risk that comes to pass and depletes a person's other assets simply places them into a position where they may have to take even further risk if they want to return to the point where they started.

Perhaps the best way to manage long-term risk is with short-term risk. The willingness of a greater number of people to take risks today may mean that there will be less risk in the system in the future, although this too, is a balancing act. It's also, and this is the difficult part, a Public Goods problem, where a person can derive the greatest benefit by taking on less risk than other players, as they can often share in the benefits of the risk that others take, while sheltering themselves from the consequences of it actually coming to pass.

And the problem with a Public Goods Game is that it's hard to change the rules, as they aren't really subject to the desires of the players. This is because it's difficult to change the self-interest calculus of a large number of people all at once. The idea that it takes money to make money is a cliché at this point, but it's no less accurate for that. If we view wealth as a hedge against risk, it becomes clear that asking people who understand themselves to have little in the way of wealth to take risks now, on the chance that there will be less risk (greater wealth) later could be a very hard sell.

We have an unequal society, one that is pushing people to use their ability to take risks as an economic asset out of necessity, rather than choice. And we have this because it's side effect of large-scale societies, and the fact that human beings are more evolutionarily suited to small ones. Changing all of humanity is hard, perhaps to the point of being a fools errand. And while I'm not suggesting that we simply sit back ans watch how this all plays out, I'm not sure we can do anything else.

Arc

Just a bit of rainbow... Maybe the rest of it was waiting for rain.

For Love of Country

If "patriotism" can be described as the feeling of: "My country, right or wrong," then I'm not a patriot. My own philosophy is best summed up with a saying that I found online to the effect of: "If my country is wrong, then I will do my best to make it right." But even that sometimes feels more jingoistic than I expect I genuinely am.

I was having a conversation with an acquaintance about whether it makes sense, if one finds another nation that may be a better fit to one's temperament and/or ideology, to leave and take up residence there; or should one stay in one's home country and work to make it a better personal fit. We went back and forth for a while, until I finally asked: "Say that you and I are complete ideological opposites, to the point where you would find my perfect society an absolute nightmare. Would you prefer that I fought to implement that society here, and won, or would you rather than I moved elsewhere and allowed this place to function in a way more to your liking?" He thought about it for a moment, and then said: "I'd prefer that you stayed and came around to my way of thinking."

Of course, the way international borders are set up, simply packing up and moving to another country simply for ideological reasons is more or less a non-starter, and so many people are left to hope (or demand) that they other side gives up on their ideals and comes over to their side. But this idea that leaving one's home nation for greener pastures is a mark of disloyalty is interesting in a nation that was founded on just that very idea. While Britons may enjoy snarking at us about "Treason Day," it's not expected that anyone takes it seriously. But for many Americans, especially those who view themselves as Conservatives, the idea that someone who finds, say, Europe to to be more appealing might actually decide to move there triggers "outrage."

Unconditional love for a nation is like the unconditional love for a person; it only works when it's reciprocated. But I think that one of the issues that pops up when people speak of love of country is that many people also view it an analogous to a love for themselves. Which can make a certain amount of sense; after all, what is a nation other than its people? While a group of people can effectively be stateless, a state can not be peopleless and still exist as a state. And so it may be this instinct to take the opposition of others to certain aspects of the nation personally, and to respond as such, that drives the rancorous political debate we have today.

If so, it will be a difficult thing to solve, because it can be a difficult thing to understand. If someone mentions what they understand to be a modern problem, and I point out that the situation has, in fact, been steadily improving over the tenure of the nation, it can be difficult for me to understand why they would see that as an attack against them. While there are any number of potential reasons, none of them tend to be particularly evident in the midst of a conversation. And that inability to understand people in the moment may be one of the biggest issues that we face right now. Second only, perhaps, to the lack of urgency around finding a solution.

Ingredients