poli-sci (06/21/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Mon Jun 21 08:37:16 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Mon 21 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 146
Contents: Voting Rights (3 msgs)
States' Rights (3 msgs)
Civil Rights (2 msgs)
Part of the Problem (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 19 June 1982 03:00 edt
From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS
Subject: Voting rights act
Re Steve Bellovin's message
Truly an excellent piece. I lived in Virginia and traveled through
the South at the time. The abuses he describes are, if anything,
understated. It was indeed necessary for the Federal government to
step in. Left to themselves, it would have taken generations for
those states to clean up their act.
Nevertheless, I can't manage to support the Voting Rights Act. I
think it is the wrong solution. I would much rather have seen either
a reduction in those states representation to match the
registered voters or a mandate of properly administered literacy test.
Setting the states representation according to the number of voters
actually registered rather than population strikes me as a very good
idea. This would produce some power shifts, I am sure, but it might
also motivate state politicians, who would stand to lose power in
Washington, to solve some of the registration hassles. It seems to me
that the framers of the Constitution intended that the states set
their own requirements for voting, with their representation
determined by the resulting vote.
What do y'all think of having the states representation in Congress
determined every ten years by the average actual vote in the
Presidential election during the previous decade.
Literacy tests I feel are a good idea. I do NOT think that sufferage
should universal. I think it should be limited to those people who
have demonstrated that they can run their own lives in a reasonable
fashion. Again, this seems to be what the framers had in mind.
Recall that most of the states limited voting both in state and
federal elections to landowners and that this was a long standing
British tradition. Such a requirement does not fit our currently
mobile society, but I feel that requiring voters to be
- able to read a newspaper
- self supporting, and
- (perhaps) high school grad or equivalent
would be to the benefit of all.
This assumes that these requirements could be properly and fairly
administered. The experience with the old-style literacy tests shows
that this is very hard. But I think it no harder than administering
the present voting rights act.
Paul
------------------------------
Date: 19 June 1982 13:12-EDT
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: Poll tax
What is so horrible about poll taxes? One man, one vote, one dollar;
it sounds like a fine way to finance the electoral process. I wish the
rest of our taxes were so neatly compartmentalized, and that we could
choose to accept or decline individual government services.
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jun 1982 1431-EDT
From: Seshashayee Murthy <MURTHY at CMU-20C>
The topic of literacy tests for voters is a very interesting one. Consider the
condition of a democracy like India. The government in India is not really
bothered about how the educated middle class perceives it. The present
government, and I think most politicians in India have started to ignore the
middle class. You might criticize and expose the government all that you want
in the papers but the government is not bothered because the people who read
the papers control only about 20% of the votes. A significant percentage of
the people don't know what the government is up to at all. These people can
easily be swayed by last minute bribes in the form of money. Also the
government forces traders to lower prices during the month before the election.
The net result is that democracy is not functioning as it should.
It seems to me that in this context literacy tests do seem to make some sort of
sense. Of course literacy tests would not be an unqualified boon. Undoubtedly
the interests of the educated minority do not coincide with the interests of
the majority of the people. Also the best way out is to raise the awareness of
the masses through media like the movies that the government does not control
and that are accessible to everybody. I wonder whether the people who wrote
India's constitution realized that such problems would occur.
I wonder what other readers of this digest think about such a real world
problem. Of course it must be realized that it is almost impossible to
introduce literacy tests in India; no matter what happens the government will
not let the strength it derives from the uneducated masses be diluted.
Sesh
------------------------------
Date: 19 June 1982 04:21-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: States Rights
(Response to INNERS at CMU-20C)
Local governments are less likely to infringe upon the freedom of
individuals than the federal government is for several reasons.
First, the people governed by a local government are much more
homogenous than those governed by the federal government, and thus
more people are likely to agree with more of the laws. Also, local
governments have authority over fewer people, thus each person has
proportionally greater influence to wield in defense of his rights.
Third, local governments are less powerful financially than the
federal government, and thus have less attractiveness to special
interests seeking government aid. Forth, and most important, the
jurisdiction of local governments is quite limited, and it is
generally easy to move from a locality in which the laws are
distasteful (e.g. Santa Monica, CA) to one in which they are more
reasonable. (The above applies, with less force, to state
governments.)
You may be correct that in the past, local governments have interfered
more with individual rights than the federal government has. But in
recent years (i.e. since the end of World War II), the federal
government has increased vastly in size and authority. Local
governments would have to violate a lot of my rights to equal just one
thing the federal government did last year: it took away several
thousand dollars of my income through taxes.
------------------------------
Date: 19 June 1982 12:49-EDT
From: Gene Salamin <ES at MIT-MC>
Subject: States' rights
Of course, it would be best to have minimal government. However, for
any given abuse, it is preferable that the abuse be confined to the most
local level of government. It is much less inconvenient to kiss off a city
or state and move out than to do the same with the entire country. This
way, we have free competition among local governments, and unpopular systems
go bankrupt, as would NYC if the federal government didn't keep bailing them
out. Let this be a warning to those who are tempted by the suductive lure of
world government.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jun 1982 0022-EDT
From: INNERS at CMU-20C
I am going to try to respond to James Cox point-by-point, so let us dig
right in:
[James Cox]
First, the people governed by a local government are much more
homogeneous than those governed by the federal government, and thus
more people are likely to agree with more of the laws.
This is probably the best argument in favor of limiting the powers of
local governments. The parts of the population that are not homogeneous
are quite likely to have their rights trampled upon by the majority.
The history of Southern (and Northern) racist policies clearly indicate
what can happen to a minority when the rest of the population has
homogeneous views on a subject, in this case the inferiority of Blacks.
Religious intolerance has an even more unsavory history, in all parts of
the world. Modern day examples would be No. Ireland, Iran, and the
minds of Falwellites right here at home. I am sure there are many towns
in the U.S. that are homogeneous enough that 90% of the population would
support making XYZ Church the official Town Religion. Such a consensus
would be impossible at the federal level.
The diversity of the federal government's constituency is one of the
strongest forces preventing repressive measures from being passed, or
accepted.
Also, local governments have authority over fewer people, thus
each person has proportionally greater influence to wield in
defense of his rights.
See above as to why this won't do much good. If I am in the losing 49%
my only hope is outside intervention or departure (if permitted by the
51%). It is small consolation that I has a full 1% of the influence,
instead of the 2x10^-6% influence I have nationally. Unfortunately,
Democracy undiluted by a set of limitations is a winner-take all
proposition.
Third, local governments are less powerful financially than the
federal government, and thus have less attractiveness to special
interests seeking government aid.
This is true. It also implies great limitations on the ability of the
local government to perform important functions. It implies no limit on
the ability of the government to oppress. Executions can be had for
$2.50 of rope, $10.00 in torches, $50.00 in white sheets, and 1/2 hour
of time on a tree (free). Total budget:$62.50, but worth it to get rid
of a Black...(I hope not to be quoted out of context on that one!).
Forth, and most important, the jurisdiction of local governments
is quite limited, and it is generally easy to move from a
locality in which the laws are distasteful ... to one in which
they are more reasonable. (The above applies, with less force,
to state governments.)
Indeed. The Mean Nasty Federal Government is the ONLY reason that local
governments are restrained, especially at the state level. No action
has brought more fire from Conservatives than Federal laws that prevent
state and local governments from imposing the local brand of
homogeneity, be it racial, religious, or 'life-style' (used here in the
broad sense) upon their jurisdictions.
Local governments would have to violate a lot of my rights to
equal just one thing the federal government did last year: it
took away several thousand dollars of my income through taxes.
The last time I checked, my state government, city government, school
district, and county government were all taxing me also. Only the
magnitude differs, and if you subtract out the Federal aid to smaller
entities, the magnitude differs by only a factor of 2 or so.
I do not believe that a State or Local government has any more right to
reduce my individual freedom than the Federal government. Accordingly,
I will support most laws or judicial decisions that deny a subunit the
right to restrict anything, especially if it does not also give the
Federal government the right. I also hold that it often requires
positive measures to correct abuses, which come not only from official
governmental entities but also from many non-governmental associations,
such as unions, corporations, underground groups (e.g. KKK), Chambers of
Commerce, or informal agreements. Much of the racist society in the
South was maintained through these means, as well as government.
The Federal Government is rife with abuses, and also needs to be
restrained. However, I find most Conservatives in the vanguard of
those pushing for abuses. As pointed out by many others, the silence of
Conservatives when asked for their own ideas betrays the hollowness of
their arguments against civil rights measures. They should not be
surprised to be labeled racist when their only response to civil rights
legislation is grumbling about Federal interference in local matters!
-- Mike Inners
------------------------------
Date: 19 June 1982 05:53-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Civil rights
You make an cogent point, which deserves to be answered. I apologize
for misinterpreting your earlier message. However, I think you could
have made you meaning a bit clearer.
First, I will address some of the particular comments you made about
the quotations from \National Review/.
"I take no position one way or another on the merits of a
poll tax." (JJK)
What does this tell you? It tells me that Kilpatrick either
doesn't know, doesn't believe, or doesn't care that poll taxes
were being used to prevent blacks (and other poor people) from
voting. Even worse, it suggests that charging people for the
right to vote is something less than the assault on democracy
that it is.
I think you give an importance to this statement of Kilpatrick's far
beyond what it merits. Kilpatrick simply did not wish to discuss the
merits of the poll tax at that point in his article. After all, he is
objecting to the mention of the poll tax in the civil rights bill on
the grounds that there was a Constitutional amendment pending before
the states at that very time, not because of any affection he had for
the poll tax. The merits of the poll tax were beyond the scope of
Kilpatrick's article, and he wisely avoided taking a position on it
which he did not have time or space to justify. That's not
insensitivity or shoulder-shrugging; it's just good expository writing
in the best tradition of Strunk and White.
I agree with you that Kilpatrick was wrong about whether the "equal
protection" clause and \Brown v. Board of Education/ were sufficient
to prohibit segregation, whether de jure or de facto. Unlike you, I
do not think that this means that he lacked any sensitivity to black
problems. As for his failure to endorse another method for reaching
the goal of desegregation, I must again plead the scope of the
article. Kilpatrick is arguing against the bill, not for another
remedy. I'm sure that at the time, he felt that the danger of this
bill was great enough to require him to commit himself to an entire
article opposing it, and to reserve any positive appeals for later.
As for the editorial about Mississippi blacks, I disagree that a
person must have suffered at the hands of the oppressors himself in
order to understand, at least to a degree, the sufferings of others.
If that were true, I doubt you yourself could claim any authority in
the matter. Also, unlike you, I felt the article did contain a
sincere comdemnation of the racist goings-on in Mississippi. You seem
so caught-up in disbelief that you are unwilling to accept what is
stated explicitly.
As for the lack of conservative support for liberal civil-rights
groups, is there any wonder considering the sorts of solutions for the
problems that liberals proposed? True to form, liberal members of
Congress passed bills, some only loosely based on the Constitution,
increasing the power of the federal government; liberal members of the
Judiciary both ratified those new laws and extended the meaning of old
laws wildly beyond any reasonable interpretation; and liberal members
of the executive branch aided and abetted both of the other branches
in their crimes. Perhaps conservatives found themselves so engrossed
in fighting the immediate dangers of the civil-rights movement that
they had no opportunity to propose solutions of their own.
Yes, discrimination is a bad thing. But there are a lot of other bad
things in the world, and it is not the government's job to get rid of
all of them, or even any of them. It is the government's job to
enforce laws against racial discrimination in the public sphere. It
is not the government's job to make or enforce such laws in the
private sphere. As Kilpatrick said,
In this emotional hour, one is tempted to leap from a sincere
conviction that discrimination is wrong, to a false conclusion
that a federal law is the proper way to prevent it. I do not
believe that intensely presonal pro-racial feeling can be
solved by any federal law; the roots go deeper than Congress
can reach.
------------------------------
Date: 19 June 1982 1058-EDT (Saturday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: foreign nuclear protesters, etc.
The right of the government to keep out undesirables (in its eyes, and
specified beforehand) was recently upheld in a New York court. You will
recall that this controversy stems from the US keeping out certain people
who wanted to attend the NY anti-nuclear rally.
Just as the left isn't a united front, neither is the right. The only part
of the civil rights movement that I object to, and perhaps it isn't part of
the movement per se, is affirmative action, or whatever you want to call it.
That is, people getting hired, fired, promoted, etc other than on the basis
of merit, or ability, or likelihood that they will succeed. Now there is
nothing wrong with taking the fact that someone had to work 40 hours per
week to help support their family in high school. This shows that such a
person is likely to succeed in college through hard work. But racial origin
shouldn't have anything to do with it. Ditto for sex.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jun 82 0:53:22-EDT (Sun)
From: J C Pistritto <jcp@BRL>
Re: Gary Feldman's comments on conservatives & racism
Being a conservative, and as little of a racist as possible, I find it
annoying when someone says that 'on this issue, if you aren't part of the
solution, you're part of the problem'. In a representative democracy, this
point of view is totally out of alignment with reality. On EVERY issue,
even important ones, there are going to be a large number, possibly even a
majority of people who are basically neutral. This is particularly true if
the issue is a distant one for the people involved. Since, in my experience,
most conservatives I have met or know of, are not members of minority groups,
I am not surprised that they are not out in the forefront of the civil rights
push. Similarly, I do not expect poor people to be active in the rewriting
of the corporate tax codes, or Alaskans to be greatly involved solving the
problem of illegal immigration from Mexico.
Activism is much more in the liberal political tradition than in the
conservative one, a lot of conservatives just don't feel comfortable in the
forefront of issues like civil rights, particularly when a considerable
amount of civil unrest is involved, (like in the 60's). My own reaction to
a cause becomes decidedly more negative when things start getting out of
hand, (like happened at many of the civil rights demonstrations). This
does not say that the cause is any less a valid one, its just that I might
be inclined to overlook that fact when the demonstrations start happening
in my front yard.
-JCP-
------------------------------
Date: Sun Jun 20 03:14:13 1982
From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley
Subject: flame Re: part of solution or problem
While I haven't studied the constitutional issues closely enough to
have an opinion on the civil-rights issues (having an international
border in between tends to reduce interest), I do take objection to
one statement made by Gary Feldman: "...in this area, if you are not
part of the solution, then you are part of the problem...". Anyone
who makes that statement about *any* topic either has not thought it
through or else is dangerous. I have long thought that one of the best
tests to determine presence or absence of fanaticism is whether the
person recognizes the notion of "innocent bystander". Denying the
existence of people who are uninvolved and have a right to stay that
way denies those people an important freedom: not to be conscripted
into somebody else's fight, or shot for refusing.
Mind you, there *is* a difference between not being vocal on an issue,
and not being part of it. Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights are
part of the problems in that area whether they speak up or not. But
the cry of "if you're not for us, you're against us" ignores such fine
distinctions.
Now, I'm sure the statement was innocently meant. It's a common form
of campaign rhetoric. But it makes the hair on the back of my neck
rise (quite a trick, considering how long it is), because while the
voice is that of Gary Feldman, the words are those of the PLO, the
IRA, perhaps the KKK, certainly the "Moral Majority", probably the
American Nazi Party, maybe the hard-core zealous Communists. Not to
mention the Inquisition. (Have I managed to offend everybody?) To
claim that there are no neutrals is one step along the road that leads
to blowing up airplanes full of people who never heard of you as a
"political statement" on behalf of "oppressed peoples everywhere".
In fact, those words tend to affect me the same way the word "nigger"
would. Think before speaking, please.
Henry Spencer
U of Toronto
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------