poli-sci (06/19/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Sat Jun 19 00:17:40 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 19 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 145
Contents: Antinuclear Rally
Travel Restrictions (2 msgs)
Leftists vs Rightists:
Leftists Agonistes
States' Rights
Freedom
Civil Rights (3 msgs)
[No, you haven't missed a digest. The last was Tuesday's.
I had an accident and was out of circulation in the meantime. --JoSH]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Jun 1982 18:32:19-PDT
From: cbosg!nscs!jpj at Berkeley
Subject: Marching in the streets...
I too was in NYC for the Rally last Saturday. Altogether an
incredible event. The one aspect that impressed me the most was the
amazing diversity of the participants. Many protests are easily
dismissed by merely saying,
"It's just another gathering of those crazy ------- "
Where ------- is any special interest group (other than your own).
Not this time. There were literally people of every conceivable
cultural, religious and even political persuasion. A true display of
what solidarity is all about.
But can it change anything? The answer is *yes* -
the *people themselves have been changed!*
They have seen their numbers and their common beliefs in the face of
incredible diversity. They are a force to be reckoned with.
Not a moment too soon.
Cheers...
Jim Jenal
BTL/Columbus
------------------------------
Date: 17 Jun 1982 1758-PDT
Subject: travel restrictions
From: Mike Leavitt <LEAVITT at USC-ISI>
The only credible reason that I can find for governments
denying their citizens the right to travel outside their country
is that people who work in governments, by and large, like to
tell other people what they can and cannot do. In most of the
rest of the world, the government denies travel outside because
of the very real danger that they won't come back, although why
this is a danger to them (an embarassment, maybe) is beyond me.
In the US the most common justification is the inability to
provide protection that McGrath suggests.
Garbage. It is to prevent citizens from spending money
in, and giving legitimacy to, unpopular countries. If the
problem were really protection, the government could simply stamp
on every passport: THE US GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROTECT
THE INTERESTS OF ITS CITIZENS IN THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES: X, Y,
Z. or words to that effect. Then those who didn't need or want
the US government's protection can make and act upon their own
decisions.
Mike <Leavitt at USC-ISI>
[I suspect that one major reason many governments don't want
their people leaving is that they regard them as (publicly
owned) natural resources. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jun 1982 1721-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Re: travel restrictions
Unfortunately, this is not possible. International law holds
governments responsible for actions of their citizens in other
nations. An extreme case is one of spying (ie a "private citizen"
photographing a top secret defense establishment for a "scrapbook"
for his/her friends in the Defense Department would be treated
as a spy by, say, the Soviets, and the US government held liable
(in the sense that it could be considered a treaty violation)).
This is mainly a consequence of the idea that only nations are
"legal persons" under international law. Recently multinational
and regional organizations have acquired some legal standing in
international law, but private individuals have no standing.
This is rational considering that international law deals with
such topics as territorial jurisdiction, which private citizens
have no direct say in. Unfortunately, as international law
has moved to consider human rights as an object of attention
(a recent development), the lack of standing for citizens has
distorted the system somewhat.
Remember, law is the most conservaive of professions. To be
conservative is not bad, especially in the case of fundamental
relations, which should not change with the wind. But it
does sometimes lead to long adjustment times.
I personally feel that citizens should have greater standing
under international law. But that is not the case now, and
until it is every country must, for its own protection, control
the movements of its citizens (of course, it may continue to
do so even after this issue is resolved - I am sure the Soviet
Union for one shall).
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 15 June 1982 1036-EDT (Tuesday)
From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60)
Subject: Re: Leftist Agonistes
Shall I assume that the total lack of data to the contrary
indicates that my hypothesis was correct? Specifically, that the
government harasses non-violent leftists but not non-violent rightists?
Again, don't just yell at me, give me a concrete example (i.e. "the
Socialist Workers committed crime X" or "the John Birch Society has
been harassed by the FBI"). Also, again, I'm not claiming that a
conspiracy is at work, since the left is more of a threat to the status
quo here than the right.
------------------------------
Date: 15-Jun-82 10:04:19 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC
"What are we afraid of?" - Martin Minow.
'We' (the government, that is) are afraid of freedom. Nasty, nasty
stuff it is, that freedom.
Just think how much better off we would be if blacks didn't have the
freedom to vote, or couldn't find a place to stay in Atlanta. Just
think how much better off we would be if left-leaners didn't have the
freedom to assemble, or organize, or publish literature, or send
misinformation to this list. Just think how much better off we would
be if only non-communists could attend the UN. Just think how much
better off we would be if we could blow the Soviets off the face of
the earth.
Yep, I'm convinced. Strom and Jim and Ronnie are my friends. Glad I'm
not black, left-handed, poor, or any of those nasty things.
-- Larry --
------------------------------
Date: 16 Jun 1982 1846-EDT
From: INNERS at CMU-20C
I have never understood the belief of conservatives that state and
local governments are somehow less likely to infringe upon the freedom
of individuals than the federal government. Any examination of the
history of state and local laws indicates that the reverse is true.
I find disturbing that the key word in the 'States rights' argument
is STATE, not individual. State's rights implies the STATE's right
to regulate individuals, not the right of the individual to be free
of government interference. And for that reason, I contend that
any 'State's rights' advocate is an enemy of my individual freedoms.
Note also that the current U.S. state has a size greater than the
entire federal government at the time the Constitution was written,
at least measured in population, economic size, or technical ability
to abuse it's powers.
-- Mike Inners
------------------------------
Date: 17 June 1982 01:08-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: Conservatives and Civil Rights
Unfortunately, I was out of town when Gary Feldman's message on
"Conservatives and Civil Rights" appeared in Poli-Sci, and thus
couldn't respond until now.
First, Strom Thurmond. He would probably consider himself a
conservative, it is true. Personally, I dislike his views; they often
seem to be barely-concealed racism. But certainly you are not going
to make me argue that no one who calls himself a conservative can be a
racist, just as I will not make you argue that no one who calls
himself a liberal can be a racist. Both of these statements are
patently false. Even so, the particular statement of Senator
Thurmond's that you quoted hardly seems evidence of his racism. There
has long been a tradition that "a man [does] not have to serve anybody
on his own private property that he [does] not wish to." There have
also been judicial precedents requiring \public/ trusts to serve
any citizen who requests it. The constitutionality of requiring a man
to serve people on his own private property that he doesn't want to
was dubiously justified by saying, as Steve Bellovin noted, that not
doing so would interfere with interstate commerce. In any case, it is
clear that Senator Thurmond's argument has some merit, and it cannot
simply be attributed (and thus dismissed) by calling it racist.
Second, about the James J. Kilpatrick article in the \National Review/
of September 24, 1963: It became painfully obvious, upon reading this
article myself, that either you grossly misunderstood his arguments,
or you deliberately quoted him out of context in order to deceive the
rest of us. I prefer to assume the former. [Aside to Jim McGrath:
are Mr. Kilpatrick and Senator Thurmond friends of yours? If not, why
not give them the respect they merit and use their titles rather than
calling them by their first names?] You seem to have fallen into the
trap Mr. Kilpatrick explicates in the very first paragraph of his
article:
The logic is said to go something like this: All decent
Americans should support good things. All decent Americans
should oppose bad things. Racial discrimination is a bad
thing. Bills to prohibit racial discrimination are good
things. The ... Civil Rights Bill [now law] is intended to
prohibit racial discrimination. Therefore, [this] bill is a
good thing and all decent Americans should support it.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Kilpatrick later notes, things are not that
simple. He says:
.... One of the great distinctions of the American system is
that we try always to distinguish between the means and the
end. Such careful distinctions need to be made in this case.
I believe this bill is a very bad bill. In my view, the
means here proposed are the wrong means. The weapons the
President would contrive against race prejudice are the wrong
weapons. In the name of achieving certain "rights" for one
group of citizens, this bill would impose some fateful
compulsions on another group of citizens. It may be
well-intentioned, but good intentions are not enough.
He goes on to elucidate, clearly and persuasively, exactly why "this
bill is a very bad bill." You may accuse Mr. Kilpatrick of being
mistaken, or of reasoning badly, but it is dishonest argumentation to
impugn his motives in place of so dealing with his argument.
Third, the National Review article about "The Mississippi Dilemma." In
this case, it seems clear that you actually did deliberately quote out
of context. The passage you quoted goes:
Granted the charges against Mississippi are overdrawn.
Indeed, when they are uttered they sometimes have a ring of
genocidal fanaticism--we recently heard a sophisticated man
say that life in Mississippi is no better for the average
Negro than life for the average Yugoslavian or Pole.
This point is debatable. The quick dismissal of the "sophisticated
man" probably shows some insensitivity to the problems of a
Mississippi Negro. However, you neglected to include the succeeding
sentence:
.... But shrink the charges down, and you still have left over
a despicable record of indifference to crime and humiliation.
This seems a pretty clear denunciation of racist practice in
Mississippi.
As I said before, "many conservatives have long opposed racism and
unequal treatment for racial minorities." But liberals mistake
conservative concern about the drastic changes in the law and liberal
interpretations of the Constitution for conservative indifference to
civil rights. Conservatives understand the importance of a Judiciary
and a Constitution which are resistent to radical political pressures,
because they know that the political climate changes. Change must be
accomodated within the framework of the system. Otherwise, ten years
from now, when the Supreme Court is composed of Jerry Falwellian
religious zealots, the liberals will be surprised when it bases its
loose interpretations of the Constitution on the precedent set by the
liberal Courts of the past.
------------------------------
Date: 18 June 1982 0021-EDT (Friday)
From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A
Subject: Civil rights
The set of responses to my message show a lack of understanding of my point.
Apparently no significance was put on the one (repeat, one) statement that
was my own.
My point is this: conservatives talk about civil rights, participate in civil
rights debates in an obstructionist, rather than constructive manner, and have
not (as a group) made contributions towards eliminating the oppression that
remained after the blacks were freed from slavery.
I never suggested that anyone who criticized civil rights legislation is a
racist, or could not be in favor of civil rights. Obviously I want the right
to make my own criticisms of such legislation. I understood Kilpatrick's
arguments perfectly; many of them are even reasonable. Of course the quotes
are out of context; you don't expect me to type in the entire thing. Why do
you expect me to quote his position on separation of powers, when it is his
position on civil rights that I am questioning?
Instead, there is one common thread throughout all of the quotes. To find it,
look at the shortest quote again:
"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.
Now if Kilpatrick wants to differ by suggesting this should be corrected at
the state level, fine. He should then put forth an effort equal to that of
other people in the same position, to see to it than all 50 states have laws
protecting the right the vote regardless of financial status. Instead, he
shrugs his shoulders.
All the other quotes have this point in common. Thurmond's attitude
indicated that he was unaware or indifferent to the effect that discrimination
in lodging was having on blacks as a group, in obtaining employment in jobs
requiring travel. Kilpatrick's statement on schools shows that a) he didn't
know or chose to ignore the 1954 Brown v. B. of E. decision; and b) he didn't
know, believe, or care that schools were being segregated by law for the
express purpose of maintaining different levels of education for blacks and
whites. (This quote was so outrageous that I had to read it several times to
make sure he wasn't just talking about de facto segregation. I couldn't find
anything to indicate otherwise, but I would be quite suprised if anyone today
would claim that the equal protection clause does not prohibit de jure
segregation.) Kilpatrick's other statments on the voting rights provisions
again show that he didn't care about the use of literacy tests to
discriminate.
Finally, the National Review column quote. I think it is something like
someone with four children and ten grandchildren telling parents who just lost
their only child "It could be worse." It takes an incredible amount of gall
(of which Buckley and NR have ample supplies) and insensitivity to make a
statement like that, since the writer had quite likely never experienced
anything close to the oppression that either the blacks or the east Europeans
had. No amount of lip service against racism (which is what the follow-up
statement was) could make up for the insensitivity of the quote.
And that is exactly what the conservative view on civil rights is all about:
lip service. I hear numerous arguments of the form "that should be done
at the state level, not at the federal," but I never see effort to get such
state action. I hear arguments of the form "the constitution doesn't permit
it," when the proper argument is "first we ought to amend the consitution to
permit it." The arguments all seem to be 100% "you can't do it that
way," and 0% "this way is better."
Three times in the past few weeks I have read in this forum that conservatives
share in the effort for civil rights. In all three cases, no examples were
provided. I am still wondering, where are they? Why didn't some conservative
member or supporter of Rotary, International lead a drive ten years ago to
eliminate their discriminatory policies. Who are the conservatives who don't
support the jaycees because of their sex discrimination? Is there a
conservative led movement to replace at-large municipal councils with
district representation (or even one voter-one vote at-large elections)?
I believe that in this area, if you are not part of the solution, then you are
part of the problem. Feel free to correct and criticize liberal (or other)
proposals all you want, but you better be working just as hard coming up with
better ideas.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: 18 June 1982 1944-EDT (Friday)
From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A
Subject: Addendum on civil rights
The overwhelming vote in favor of extending the voting rights act shows what
can happen when liberals and conservatives finally do get together and agree
on something. The question is why didn't this happen 17 years ago?
Also, I realize that there were certainly many legislators who might be
considered as liberal on other issues, but who voted against the civil rights
laws in the sixties (mostly Southern Democrats). I hope no one inferred
that I thought conservatives were the only obstructionists.
Gary
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------