Let’s not have a conversation about race

My daughter told me that her high school English teacher asked the class for their views on race.  Of course not a single student dared to speak up. High school students have many flaws, but they aren’t stupid. Just to be clear, she goes to a very liberal high school. Those who haven’t been paying attention to social trends over the past 50 years might wonder why extremely liberal students would be afraid to talk about race. Let me put it this way, would it have made sense for Chinese students to speak up in 1967, if the teacher asked for an airing of views on the good and bad points of Mao’s ideas?

I was reminded of this recently when reading a post by Noah Smith, who lacks the good sense of the students in my daughter’s class.  That’s right, he waded right in:

These days American public discourse tends to feel like a giant continuous race war. Well, I guess we had that “national conversation about race” that Bill Clinton always said we needed. Oops. But anyway, I guess I might as well wade in.

The right’s way of talking – and thinking – about race is just totally poisonous.  .  .  . So it is basically now impossible to talk to people on the right about race in a rational way.

Well if a “rational way” is how they talk about race at Salon.com, then I have to agree with Noah.  So since I’m on the right, I won’t attempt to talk about race. Instead I’ll talk about talking about race.

Let me start by conceding that there is a tiny grain of truth in Noah’s claim.  Of course not everyone on the right is racist, but there are probably many more racists (or at least white racists—which are the only kind that matter if you are on the left) on the right than on the left.  And yes, I do see lots of right-wingers who “don’t get it.” But in fact it’s not just people on the right who have trouble talking about race, it’s all Americans.  The Chinese Cultural Revolution reference was not intended to be hyperbole, I honestly think it fits America circa 2016.  When it comes to talking about race, the entire country is deranged. (Probably including me.) Heck, I’d add sex and gender to the list. A conversation about race? I’d rather recommend Americans have a conversation with their spouses about their deepest hidden resentments, that would be more productive.

Sometimes I read thoughtful progressives who are obviously very bright, and then when they switch over to talking about race their IQ seems to immediately plunge by 30 points.  I think to myself, “surely they can’t be this stupid, perhaps they are just trying to feel more righteous.”  Noah confirms this suspicion:

Declaiming against “structural racism” feels good. Racism is generally recognized as being a bad thing, and declaiming against bad things makes one feel righteous (certainly feel that way). It also allows one to link up with like-minded people, making you feel like you have an army on your side and are not just shouting into a wilderness.

Well thanks for clearing that up! I mean, who would have guessed that motive after seeing Smith insinuate that Garett Jones was being racist when he entitled an academic paper “The Hive Mind”?  That’s right, the title of one of the most well received social science books of 2015 is actually a dog whistle to anti-Asian racists, so subtle that the Asian editors of the journal he first published it in didn’t notice.

OK, enough fun and games.  The rest of his post is sort of intelligent and thoughtful, at least mostly.  Noah tries to warn leftists that if they constantly attack moderate white people for being a part of structural racism, then the whites will be turned off, and become more right wing—the only group that isn’t telling them they are racist.  That’s actually a good point, although I’m not sure one needs a PhD to figure it out.  Indeed I think it’s good for both the left and the right if there are fewer white racists in America.  That’s right, the Trump phenomenon is not good for the right.  Unfortunately Noah won’t be able to escape the “structural lunacy” of the left, on the issue of race. He’s unwilling to call out the radical left, and insists on treating them as well-meaning folk who have just gone a bit too far.  Their own worst enemies.  But Noah doesn’t realize that they are not his friends, in their view he’s also part of the problem.  You and I may view Noah Smith as a liberal, but to the modern left he’s a white male with reactionary views on economics. Yes, he’s liberal on race, but so am I.  Do you think they view me as one of them?

Noah Smith has lots of good qualities.  He’s highly intelligent, and willing to say what he thinks.  But that quality will eventually get him into the same hot water as a Scott Aaronson or a Larry Summers or any number of other well-meaning people.  You might think that you’re safe, because you are one of the “good guys.” Your motives are pure.  But views that seem reasonable today will at some point be hopelessly reactionary. It’s only a matter of time before Noah gets into trouble. (Nothing new here, this phenomenon goes back to at least the French Revolution.)

PS.  Here’s a thought.  Instead of having a conversation about race, which will solve nothing, let’s have a conversation about the various societal problems that indirectly exacerbate racial tensions.  Toward the end of his life, Martin Luther King turned his attention toward issues such as the Vietnam War, and poverty reduction.

PPS.  Ask my wife (who was a victim of some “macroaggressions” during the Cultural Revolution) what American PCism reminds her of.

PPPS.  Smith says we should be polite to those with whom we disagree:

In case you hadn’t guessed, I’m not a big fan of this aspect of the culture of economics. And the reason is not just that it results in more offensiveness than necessary (thus tarnishing our reputation among non-economists). It’s also that the fetishization of offensiveness reduces the quality of our economics. All too often we use offensiveness as a signal of the intellectual quality of an argument, but it’s a false signal.

So I hope my right-wing readers were not offended by Noah Smith calling you all racist, it was just a false signal of his intellectual quality.


Tags:

 
 
 

94 Responses to “Let’s not have a conversation about race”

  1. Gravatar of Nick Rowe Nick Rowe
    18. January 2016 at 17:38

    Good post Scott.

    “We need to have a conversation about X” really means: “You had damned well better say what I want to hear you to say about X”. It’s the kindergarten teacher’s version of the cultural revolution’s self-criticism sessions. The last thing they want is a *conversation* about race. Like Stalin asking what people really thought about his leadership. Right. Only a fool would give an honest answer (in both senses).

    “PPS. Ask my wife (who was a victim of some “macroaggressions” during the Cultural Revolution) what American PCism reminds her of.”

    Well, since I can’t easily ask her, could you tell me? Though I expect I could guess.

  2. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    18. January 2016 at 17:48

    Thanks Nick, I recall her saying that she was “criticized” at school as a child, because her grandpa or great grandpa was a landlord. Or course she was quite poor, as were almost Chinese at the time. Her mother was sent to the countryside and she sometimes lived alone, even as a child.

    Yes, the PC nonsense does remind her of the Cultural Revolution, although thank God it’s nowhere near as damaging.

    America really is a fool’s paradise; we have no idea what real life is like in most of the world. If I don’t laugh at the nonsense here I think I’d go insane.

  3. Gravatar of Noah Smith Noah Smith
    18. January 2016 at 18:10

    I didn’t say everyone on the right was racist. I think there are multiple definitions of “racist”, some of which apply in some degree to all human beings.

    What I said was that discussion about race on the right was “poisonous”. By that I mean that I don’t think it’s possible to have a productive, thoughtful discussion about race in any rightist circle that I know of. I think this blog post helped to demonstrate that this is the case.

  4. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 18:18

    “That’s right, the Trump phenomenon is not good for the right.”

    -Nonsense. Though the Trump phenomenon has certainly not been the best thing to happen to the right even in the past decade, it has certainly been the best popular thing to happen to the right since the Tea Party.

    “But that quality will eventually get him into the same hot water as a Scott Aaronson or a Larry Summers or any number of other well-meaning people.”

    -Wow! Three Jews mentioned in a sentence!

    And you’re absolutely right about the institutional antiracism in America being similar to the institutional Maoism of the Chinese 1960s. The examples I keep pointing to again and again are those of Hulk Hogan and Donald Tokowitz. Just. Look. At. Them.

    PS., It seems to me that the U.S. Chinese, especially the younger generation, lean towards Social Justice. I actually knew a young female Chinese in real life recently who used “microaggressions” unironically and pointed to the Spider-Woman variant cover

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-spider-woman-variant-cover-20140911-story.html

    as evidence of sexism.

    Young female Chinese also led a “free the nipple” protest at some Californian university.

    BTW, spellcheck gives me “nonaggression” for “microaggressions”. I guess it has a sense of humor. :-)

    And, BTW, I’ve been banned from commenting on racial and IQ-related matters on Noah’s blog since the middle of 2015. When I asked Noah about his more or less random deletion of my comments (at first he wanted to ban me entirely) he immediately wrote “Give me your real identity!”.

    After I explained to him the pointlessness of this repeated request of his, his later remarks included

    “Now I’m just gonna start deleting your comments for fun!! Wheeeeee”

    “I don’t like you! You get joy from telling black people they’re stupid. You’re a cruel, juvenile person! And why should I have to give a reason for anything? Really I don’t even have a reason!”

    “Well if your whole purpose is to troll me, don’t whine when I troll you back… ;-)”

    At last, he finally agreed to this:

    “You are allowed to comment, but you are NOT allowed to discuss any IQ-related topic, even if I’m discussing it, even if everyone else is discussing it. Nor are you allowed to talk about black people”

    And I wrote a comment at the Noah Smith blog post mentioned here (as I presume he usually reads what he deletes) pointing out how the growing SJW domination of atheism drove me toward the far right. I am grateful for it, as the far right taught me a lot more about the world than SJWs ever could.

    Noah also blocked me on Twitter the first time I replied to him and deleted a long comment I wrote on Israel. This is not to give a comprehensive account of Noah’s less respectable deeds, but to give some info about what kind of person he is.

  5. Gravatar of Nick Rowe Nick Rowe
    18. January 2016 at 18:21

    Universities are among the worst and most insane places, I think. I come from a farming family (“kulaks”), and farmers (especially those who farm their own land) are relatively free to say what they think, because nobody really cares about who they buy their wheat from. Not that anybody listens to farmers much, except other farmers.

    My (non-Chinese) GF was studying and then working in China, beginning shortly after the cultural revolution. It left a bad taste for all that stuff. Cubans when I taught there in the late 1990’s would all pay lip-service to the Revolution in public, but would all disparage it in private. Timur Kuran(?) calls it “preference falsification” and talks about fragile equilibria. For all his faults, Trump deserves credit for putting a few cracks in that false equilibrium.

  6. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 18:21

    “By that I mean that I don’t think it’s possible to have a productive, thoughtful discussion about race in any rightist circle that I know of. ”

    -And I don’t think its possible to have a productive, thoughtful discussion on Jewish power or on why Chinese are so successful in Malaysia in any leftist circle I know of.

  7. Gravatar of Nick Rowe Nick Rowe
    18. January 2016 at 18:28

    Razib Khan is very good on race, IMO.

  8. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 18:30

    Razib talks a lot about the origin of races, as well as their biology, but he really doesn’t say much about how significant the genetic differences between the races are to their modal behavior.

  9. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    18. January 2016 at 18:41

    Noah should apologize to Garett about the Hive Mind thing, just as the ante to this discussion. It would go a long way.

    Whats cray cray is that Noah thinks THIS POST IS NOT ACCEPTABLE CONSERVATIVE DISCUSSION ON RACE.

    But you know why?

    Because Scott so completely pwnd Noah about the Garett thing, that facing the true loss, Noah’s BRAIN convinced himself instantaneously, to lower his own plum line below the racist sea…

    Which is how it goes, Scott to discuss race in this post has to NOT PWN NOAH, in any way, so as to try and lure the eel out of his rock…

    Whereas Scott was simply proving that Noah’s previous grip on race reality was off skew.

    AND LADIES AND GERMS

    This is why Trump is only answer.

    Not his policies, but until the right routinely speaks in un-nuanced ways, short sentences, small words, draws the audience and then later finds nuance, until the right completely and utterly smashes any efforts to limit the bounds of discussion… it will go on like this forever.

    This doesn’t mean Steve Sailor can’t speak, it means after we explain and win the debate with him on time that IQ ad race don’t matter bc what matter is can entrepreneurs, god’s chosen people, make profits off a given man, no matter his IQ or race, and that this country ins’t run for middling whites, its run for entrepreneurs…. after that he can speak but no one will listen… we won’t get to the right and winning argument. The one that beats Noah and Sailer.

    You don’t have to like Trump, but conservatives speaking and discussing things like Trump is the only way the policy debate moves forward.

  10. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    18. January 2016 at 18:47

    I think there is a lot of racism on the right. You just have to go to Facebook to figure it out. Not all on the right are racist, but many are. They want a return to the “old” America.

    All you had to do was watch CNN when Ferguson was happening. Don Lemon, globalist that he is, threw blacks under the bus time and time again. And that even though the cops in Ferguson were openly racist, and it was proven they were racist.

    You should all read about Cointelpro before you attempt to understand what is going on. And if you understand Cointelpro, you realize the government is capable of anything, including 9/11, including hoaxes and false flags.

    Read about Cointelpro, which was discovered by some guys who raided an FBI office. Cointelpro was a program to make all peaceful movements violent. Contelpro was an admission by the government that they fear non violent movements, and our government feared MLK, which is why they had him killed after the JFK coup.

    There is a globalist push to instill racism in America. There is a globalist push to register all guns in America. I am a liberal for gun rights, like JFK was.

    But when you have website, inciting people, like globalist owned WND, and even globalist owned CNN with Don Lemon throwing blacks under the bus, you have to be concerned.

    There were witnesses that reported the kids who were involved in initial confrontation in Ferguson, were actually FORCED to stay at the mall, and were not permitted to board buses and go home. It was set up.

    And there was a fire guy, who was not heard from again, who said the fires were not set by amateurs. Well, three months before, there was a meeting in Ferguson for planning the URBAN RENEWAL of Ferguson. Ferguson, Delwood and North St Louis were scheduled for urban renewal redevelopment. I say Homeland Security set the fires.

    And it is known that Homeland Security types would be hanging around Ferguson. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/us/ferguson-hotel-employee/

    So, racism on the right is big, because it is part of the government plan to make America a bigoted nation. Read up on Pamela Geller and her plans to make America bigoted. This goes beyond race, to religion, but she has publically stated she hates all religious Muslims. Not just some of them, all of them.

    Tolerance is key to overcoming the globalists and their perverse desires to mold America into their image.

  11. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 18:53

    “There is a globalist push to instill racism in America. There is a globalist push to register all guns in America.”

    -It ain’t working, as American support for both is declining. And the overwhelming media message in Ferguson, despite all evidence, was that the protesters were right, even when they clearly weren’t.

    When you hear footprints, think horses, not zebras. When you see fires in some city suffering under the Eye of Soros, think low-IQ Blacks, not Homeland Security.

    “So, racism on the right is big, because it is part of the government plan to make America a bigoted nation.”

    -Yes. Against Gentile Whites.

  12. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    18. January 2016 at 18:59

    “-And I don’t think its possible to have a productive, thoughtful discussion on Jewish power.” Of course you can, Harding. You can keep race out of it. Historical Judaism and 1890’s Zionism are two different things. The Zionists won and the Jews who don’t recognize the Zionists are physically persecuted in Israel. Zionism is multiracial. Joe Biden is a Zionist. Zionists are GLOBALISTS. There may be other globalists but clearly, the father of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, was a globalist who called for a world court of justice in Jerusalem to rule the nations. That court has, of course, nothing to do with Judaism or Christianity. Zionists were colonialists, and the father of Zionism, Herzl, was a friend of Cecil Rhodes. Cecil Rhodes believed the UK empire was the center of the New World Order. Ask Jamie Dimon and he will tell you it still is.

  13. Gravatar of oblivia oblivia
    18. January 2016 at 19:13

    “Instead of having a conversation about race, which will solve nothing, let’s have a conversation about the various societal problems that indirectly exacerbate racial tensions.”

    Sure. But Scott must understand that this is a liberal viewpoint. Conservatives don’t want a conversation. They want minorities to shut up or, preferably, go away.

  14. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 19:18

    Gary, I said Jewish power. In any leftist circle I know of. Not “Zionist power”. Jewish. Summers. Yellen. The last four Secretaries of Treasury. No, Gary, you can’t honestly keep race out of talking about Jewish power. True, Zionism is important, but it is simply one out of many manifestations of Jewish power (and it’s a strange one, since it was also an outgrowth of 19th century nationalism).

    And here we have another email from Noah:

    Hehe

    Ha, I just saw you talking trash about me on Sumner’s blog!

    Finally, I have an excuse to ban you permanently from my comments section! 😀

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAbye

    – N

    Another manifestation of Jewish power? Nah, just the petty deed of a petulant blogger. Won’t miss Noah’s blog, as I have little to contribute there, and the blog is getting worse by the month.

  15. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 19:21

    oblivia, wrong and totally baseless.

  16. Gravatar of Paul Paul
    18. January 2016 at 19:26

    As a mixed (Chinese/Canadian White) kid growing up in a very white place race never seemed to matter. When I went to a liberal private university in upstate New York (for ice hockey, a very white sport) the bending over backward (to not be racist) way people talked about race was comically racist. It gave me four fun years of playing the race card to great comedic effect (never seriously of course). So hopefully your daughter can enjoy this entertainment as well!

    Race has always struck me as a lazy way to make most arguments. Like gender, sexual orientation, and place of birth it just seems like you should be required to come up with a better reason to support an argument about policy or an individual action (well intentioned or not).

    Consistent with my own anecdotal experiences, it seems plausible that Asians excel at academics (on average) because their parents herd them into hobbies and habits that promote excelling at academics (on average) and they don’t give them participation rewards when they bring home an A when an A+ was available.

    Do they do this because of their race? I don’t know. But it seems like you can derive alot more useful information about the inputs if you don’t focus on race.

  17. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 19:35

    Here’s another one of Noah Smith’s emails:

    Hahahahahaha that’s so weak.

    You’re a medium-IQ person. 😀

    -Of course, my IQ is >125.

  18. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    18. January 2016 at 19:51

    “Hehe

    Ha, I just saw you talking trash about me on Sumner’s blog!

    Finally, I have an excuse to ban you permanently from my comments section! ?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAbye

    – N”

    Lol!

  19. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    18. January 2016 at 19:53

    “No, Gary, you can’t honestly keep race out of talking about Jewish power.”

    I can keep race out of it. My natural father was Jewish and I am adopted. You want a racial discussion about Jews. That, for me, is just the standard diversion. You lie when you say Zionism is a manifestation of Jewish power because you are rotten to the core. Zionism is a manifestation of multiracial globalist power, and the chief government globalist was Dick Cheney. You can be a Zionist and a murderer and not be Jewish. And the whole royal system in the UK is Zionist. But most are not Jewish.

  20. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    18. January 2016 at 19:56

    And, by the way, while I apologize for calling you rotten to the core, Harding, know that Cecil Rhodes was a non Jewish globalist and there is a list of non Jewish globalists a mile long. Even the Saudis are Zionists.

  21. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    18. January 2016 at 20:07

    For me, the arrow of causality works as thus:

    Jewish power+nationalism—>Israel+Gentile Zionism

    The full bloom of Jewish power in the 19th century was contemporaneous with the rise of Zionism. This was before the State of Israel began to exist. So I can see why my equation makes sense. I can’t see how whatever your proposing does. How can Zionism on its own result in a massive influx of Jews into positions of power? Clearly, it cannot.

    The Saudis are very anti-Semitic, but are not per se anti-Zionist.

    “You can be a Zionist and a murderer and not be Jewish.”

    -True. But Zionism would not have been nearly so predominant among Gentiles today were 19th century intellectual and financial Jewish power nonexistent.

  22. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    18. January 2016 at 20:34

    “-True. But Zionism would not have been nearly so predominant among Gentiles today were 19th century intellectual and financial Jewish power nonexistent.”

    I accept that, and into the 20th century as well. And FYI, there is a Brandeis prof who said many rabbis converted from Judaism to Zionism. That is unfortunate since Judaism always waited on the Messiah and Zionism was anti Messiah.

  23. Gravatar of rtd rtd
    18. January 2016 at 21:08

    It’s these pop-econ “intellectuals” like Noah Smith who are really giving the economics profession a bad name. They’re often far too subjective, myopic, anecdotal, and normative in their attempts to be “relevent”. It’s sad – for them, but more so for tainting their innocent peers.

  24. Gravatar of Krzys Krzys
    18. January 2016 at 21:24

    Right on. It’s the red guards all over again.

  25. Gravatar of Gene Callahan Gene Callahan
    18. January 2016 at 21:31

    Good one Scott!

  26. Gravatar of Andy Andy
    18. January 2016 at 23:05

    New World Order mentioned! The fact that right-wing conspiracy theorists have crawled from under their rock to this comment section at least partly validates Noah’s point that you can’t have an intelligent conversation about race on the right. Of course Scott’s point about left-wing PC issues is also true.

  27. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    18. January 2016 at 23:06

    Scott,

    what happened to your comments section? It used to be an asset, now it’s a liability. Why did these people choose your blog to come out of their holes?

    I agree of course on the ‘comically racist anti-racism’ on the “left” in US media. But at the same time, over the past few years a new kind of racism seems to have taken hold of the US right. It’s acceptable now in these circles. Trump is late with his emulation of the European right. I have a feeling in the US it started from intellectual circles down the Steve Sailer alley before reaching the Trumps. It doesn’t feel like old style reflexive racism. This one is draped up intellectually. The whole human biodiversity movement on the internet appears to be linked to it or maybe started it.

    I welcomed the focus on human biodiversity at first. But soon enough it became obvious that for a lot of people it’s a motte-and-bailey thing, biodiversity and racism. They found a way to finally defend their racism “scientifically”. We’ve seen this before but we’ve seen the Trump kind before too of course, elsewhere in the world.

    Morgan Warstler BTW said the key thing here, any different qualities of different races (if they exist) don’t matter to begin with (say, race and IQ). So the whole public hand wringing on it on the right, and on the biodiversity front, is moot. It is not just poisonous, but utterly useless.

  28. Gravatar of David Welker David Welker
    19. January 2016 at 00:46

    This post was extremely worthless. Complete lack of insight. Nothing useful was said here. Total waste of time.

    I don’t blame Sumner. I think that is the problem when you get too meta instead of addressing actual issues.

    Was the purpose of this post an attempt to AVOID talking about race? If so, a more direct way to not talk about race is to just not talk about race. Just saying.

  29. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    19. January 2016 at 03:02

    Gary does not sound very right-wing to me. And I only began to accept human biodiversity because [drumroll] it made sense. Why’s Japan rich while the Philippines poor? HBD (also, Spanish institutions, also influenced by HBD). Why is there only one first-world Black-majority country, which itself was richer in 1969, before independence, than in 2014? HBD. Why do the more southerly parts of Europe look more run-down than the more northerly? HBD. Why do Yemen and Qatar both have very low TIMSS scores? HBD. Why are Ashkenazi Jews so smart (on average)? HBD. What causes the gap between the typical Malay and typical Chinese in Malaysia? HBD. Why do Guatemalan second-generation immigrants to the U.S. (on average) wallow in relative poverty, while Vietnamese almost converge with Whites? HBD. Why are Japanese so disproportionately represented in Brazilian educational institutions? HBD. The idea has vast explanatory power, which is so often and so clearly ignored by the mainstream media. Race matters.

    Now, if anyone could show me clear evidence culture is so independent of genes as to turn (in Scott A.’s words) a group of Papua New Guineans into a group resembling Chinese in their cultural characteristics, I would be glad to toss the idea. But for now, it must remain one of the most essential parts of my thinking on international development and behavioral diversity.

  30. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    19. January 2016 at 03:29

    “Let’s not have a conversation about race”

    I thought pretty much the same thing when Scott was suddenly talking about “classes” in like two of his last four posts. That was so weird.

    All the things Scott said about the so-called “race war” are also true for “class warfare”. It’s just a substitution really. Just substitute race with class in all these posts and you might see what I mean.

    Conversations about races/classes/sexes/whatever solve nothing and explain nothing.

  31. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    19. January 2016 at 03:39

    “So it is basically now impossible to talk to people on the right about race in a rational way.”

    I would say it’s more like the other way round. You can totally talk with right-wing people like Thomas Sowell about race. In a very rational way. It’s pretty hard to do the same thing with people from the extreme left. They usually rely on name-calling and wishful thinking to back up their arguments. At least in my experience.

  32. Gravatar of Philip Philip
    19. January 2016 at 05:47

    In Wisconsin, we can (should) focus on poverty (not race). Since poverty is so closely related to skin color, this approach should appease both “sides”.

    The right (and middle) is more likely to support anti-poverty efforts than efforts that are focused on race. The left, if they were to wake up, would see these efforts as helping decrease structural racism. imo.

    Scott, you’re not on the right. At least, I’m not sure those on the right would see you as being a member of their group.

  33. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    19. January 2016 at 06:00

    @Philip,

    “Scott, you’re not on the right. At least, I’m not sure those on the right would see you as being a member of their group.”

    Agree!

  34. Gravatar of Dan W. Dan W.
    19. January 2016 at 06:05

    The basic truth is the political Left wants to control the conversation and prevent any acknowledgment of their racist past and their role in harming minorities. So the Left leads the charge to blame racism on the Confederacy and this leads to them blaming Southern Whites and this leads them to blame all white people and the “white power structure”. Their purpose is to keep the focus on scapegoats of their choosing so the focus never turns to them and their racist history. The Progressives of the early 20th century embraced Eugenics and there is no better icon of this union than former Democrat US president and former Ivy League college president Woodrow Wilson who was a diehard racist and segregationist.

    A real “conversation about race” would involve recognition of both the strengths and weaknesses of each race. But the Left will not tolerate such honesty. Oh, they have no problem stereotyping whites and Asians and Christians. But there can be no recognition, with few exceptions, of the faults of blacks and Muslims. The exception is if a black liberal makes the observation, such as Obama observing the failure of black men to care for their wives and children. He can do that but such observation is isolated and never matched to policy. It is dangerous territory and, as Bill Cosby has learned, you will make great enemies if you get too loud about what you say or think, even if you are a member of the minority.

    Yet in reality there is not much to say about race other than that a person’s race and culture should not overshadow who they are as an individual. People should be judged by the quality of their character. Race and culture and religion are factors that mold each person’s identity but no person should be judged based on the stereotype of those factors. Yet it is the political Left who is insistent on classifying people based on their race, religion and ancestry. Why? What is their fixation with this? I wish I knew. I think that is a question worth discussing.

  35. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    19. January 2016 at 06:25

    What would happen if we didn’t talk about race, if suddenly we all stopped categorizing people that way? Who would benefit and who would suffer? That is an interesting economic question for this topic. The other questions on this topic bring us into a discussion of primal fears and self-righteousness; and those are better “discussed” through drama and comedy.

  36. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    19. January 2016 at 06:29

    “PPS. Ask my wife (who was a victim of some “macroaggressions” during the Cultural Revolution) what American PCism reminds her of.”

    Those really were macroaggressions I’m sure! However the worst of the transgressions of the left (the worst PCism) and the worst of the right (while not equivalent to each other) surely both pale in comparison to the blood bath of the Cultural Revolution at this point.

  37. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    19. January 2016 at 06:31

    E. Harding: what’s your opinion of Mark Levin and David Horowitz?

  38. Gravatar of AL AL
    19. January 2016 at 07:45

    Scott, Joseph Heath’s Enlightenment 2.0 has a very interesting take on this subject, if you haven’t read it.

  39. Gravatar of Jose Romeu Robazzi Jose Romeu Robazzi
    19. January 2016 at 08:11

    It is impossible to have a serious conversation about racism with the left, because almost anything that one might say would be labeled “racist”. If that is not “poisonous” I don’t know what is …

  40. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    19. January 2016 at 08:28

    Good post.

    Warstler gets it.

    Harding gonna harding.

  41. Gravatar of Lawrence D’Anna Lawrence D'Anna
    19. January 2016 at 08:38

    That sort of sleazy insinuation is what Noah does. Remember the time accused Robin Hanson of being pro-rape?

  42. Gravatar of Nick Rowe Nick Rowe
    19. January 2016 at 09:01

    Noah is not a 100% PC party-liner. He does actually think, and doesn’t always avoid unpopular views. But sometimes he goes a bit random. There’s something to be said for getting old.

  43. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    19. January 2016 at 09:05

    Noah, You said:

    “The right’s way of talking – and thinking – about race is just totally poisonous. . . . So it is basically now impossible to talk to people on the right”

    And now you say:

    “I didn’t say everyone on the right was racist.”

    Thanks for clearing that up.

    E. Harding, You commented at Noah’s blog? That explains where he got his ideas about the right.

    Morgan, This post wasn’t about race, and Trump is not the answer.

    Oblivia, I don’t think the two sides are capable of having a conversation, it has nothing to do with what they want.

    Paul, Thanks, a breath of fresh air.

    Andy, As I said in the post, there are a lot of racists on the right.

    mbka, I agree that the right is becoming increasingly racist. Every time Trump makes an outrageous statement about Chinese, Mexicans, Muslims, etc., his poll number rise. And I think Noah’s right that some of the is backlash from the PC movement. It’s like they think, “If the PC movement is this loony, then the exact opposite must be sensible.” But it isn’t, racism is even worse than PCism. There needs to be a sensible middle ground, combining courtesy with realism.

    The comment section deteriorated due to my non-censorship model. Fortunately most of my posts are not on race, but even on finance people occasionally find ways to bring up “the Jews”

    David, You said:

    “Was the purpose of this post an attempt to AVOID talking about race?”

    Yup, and to make some jokes. Americans really should stop talking about race, especially Trump.

    Philip, Ah, but those on the left see me as being on the right, even though I’m liberal on almost all non-economic issues.

    Carl, You asked:

    “What would happen if we didn’t talk about race, if suddenly we all stopped categorizing people that way?”

    We’d be France?

    Lawrence, I forget about that one.

  44. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    19. January 2016 at 09:42

    “There needs to be a sensible middle ground, combining courtesy with realism.”

    Scott, that sounds like the basis of a new political party: the “Courtesy and Realism Party.” The party mascot could be a cup of tea. 2016 too soon to launch?

    Actually, a “Courtesy and Realism” bumper sticker might sell (as an alternative to the hippie “Coexist” one). Hmmm

    I wonder who would/could possibly take offense at a

    “Courtesy and Realism 2016!”

    bumper sticker?? I wonder if Nikki Haley has any idea. ;D

  45. Gravatar of Dan W. Dan W.
    19. January 2016 at 10:32

    Scott, you wrote “mbka, I agree that the right is becoming increasingly racist. Every time Trump makes an outrageous statement about Chinese, Mexicans, Muslims, etc., his poll number rise.”

    This is an extremely lazy remark on many levels. Consider this quote from this recent BBC article:

    “There’s a common misperception that all Trump voters are white, working class men. But break down the polls and you get a very different picture of a Trump follower. Many of them are women – possibly more than half, according to some surveys. Many have college degrees, and many don’t even describe themselves as particularly conservative.”
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35116035

    Trump is not Conservative. His rhetoric on immigration is labeled “right-wing” but polls show that common Americans of both political parties desire stronger immigration controls. Of course this explains Trump’s popularity. He is popular because he is an authoritarian who is challenging the status-quo authoritarianism. The people who support Trump do not care what he says, only that he is willing to challenge PC authoritarianism and then back up what he has said.

  46. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    19. January 2016 at 10:53

    Instead of having a conversation about race, which will solve nothing, let’s have a conversation about the various societal problems that indirectly exacerbate racial tensions.

    Aren’t you funny? If ordinary people attempt to do that, you’ll have one bloc impugning everyone’s motives and another distracting everyone with genetic determinist babble (supported with factoids). And, of course, libertarians will whinge about the drug laws and second the cretins babbling about ‘mass incarceration’.

  47. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    19. January 2016 at 10:54

    This is an extremely lazy remark on many levels.

    He still has to eat lunch in the faculty rathskellar.

  48. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    19. January 2016 at 11:04

    Conservatives don’t want a conversation. They want minorities to shut up or, preferably, go away.

    Actually, I would like John Conyers and Marilyn Mosby to shut up and go away, because I do not think they have it in them to be anything but grotesque public nuisances. I wouldn’t mind if Ta-Nahesi Coates elected to shut up and go away, because the sum total of additions to human insight from his utterances approaches nil.

    One person who actually did shut up and go away was Bruce Gordon, because he had it in his head that the NAACP should undertake useful social work projects (which bothered many on the board which had hired him) and because he was of the view that he, a man of some accomplishment, was not hired to take orders from a loser like Julian Bond. After he went away, the NAACP elected to devote itself to the urgent task of … a federal hate crimes bill.

  49. Gravatar of sean sean
    19. January 2016 at 11:06

    I feel like I’ve become racists by some definitions. Chicago and the neighborhoods you don’t see and their murder rates tends to do that to you.

    Meanwhile I spent my saturday night with a group that was 25% african american 50% brown and 25% white.

    But racism or something like it seems pretty big in Chicago but I think its largely due to the drain those communities cause on the city finances and the crime they bring.

  50. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    19. January 2016 at 11:07

    I suppose having dueling cranks on a thread is amusing, in a World Championship Wrestling sort of way.

  51. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    19. January 2016 at 11:08

    “This is an extremely lazy remark on many levels.”

    Perhaps. But perhaps also a true one.

    “desire stronger immigration controls” … fair enough. But in light of net immigration with Mexico already being approximately 0, it seems people have been sold a bill of goods. An easy scapegoat for their troubles. I never see Mexicans out holding a cardboard sign in my city: that’s pretty much exclusively whites. The Mexicans have jobs. Also, stronger controls are one thing… revoking the 14th amendment, constructing a giant physical (and trade) wall, and hiring an anti-immigrant deportation force to go door to door is another.

    And I don’t think that “authoritarianism” is a good description of any of the governments I’ve lived under in the US, right or left. I can think of other negative adjectives, but that one doesn’t fit. That one sounds like hyperbole. Like something a Bundy boy might say while bravely “fighting tyranny.”

  52. Gravatar of Dan W. Dan W.
    19. January 2016 at 11:18

    Tom,

    Just reading what Politico is saying:

    “I’ve found a single statistically significant variable predicts whether a voter supports Trump—and it’s not race, income or education levels: It’s authoritarianism.”
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533

    The immigration support divide in America is not aligned with political parties. Leadership of both the the GOP and the DNC desperately WANT more more immigration. But the electorate of both parties does not. And this is why immigration reform has not passed – a majority of Americans do not support the Federal government on immigration.

  53. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    19. January 2016 at 11:21

    Scott:
    Touche’. Come to think of it, even though I often don’t answer race based questions on questionnaires out of the principle that doing so contributes to the Balkanization of America, I do find myself wondering whether my position is counter-productive. I often find the data from those questionnaires provides evidence of success rather than material for dividing Americans.

  54. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    19. January 2016 at 12:00

    “E. Harding: what’s your opinion of Mark Levin and David Horowitz?”

    Levin: a pretty uniform “booo”.

    Horowitz: My rule, even before I realized the Jewish connection, was “never trust a Horowitz”. This rule applies in this case as well. Nevertheless, Horowitz has done some good work on political correctness and the Left, going the stereotypical neoconservative route from authoring “Free World Colossus” and praising Stalin to realizing America’s really not that bad and Israel is a civilized state in a desert of low-IQ Arabic-speakers and becoming an anti-academic-Left neoconservative. Nothing wrong with that, per se. He does some stuff (inherently untrustworthy, of course; see the rule) exposing Islamist apologists, academic Stalinists, etc. Nothing wrong with that, either.

    “Who would benefit”

    -Jews. As they do now. Also, East Asians. As they do now. And Indians, as well, probably the most of the high-average-IQ ethnicities in America. Remember, most hate crimes in the U.S. are (if the amount of fabrication isn’t huge) committed against Jews, for obvious reasons.

    Probably lots of Mexicans, too, but by no means all. Lots of Cubans.

    “and who would suffer?”

    -Blacks. Especially Black activists who still happen to be alive. And quite a few Puerto Ricans.

    “And I don’t think that “authoritarianism” is a good description of any of the governments I’ve lived under in the US, right or left.”

    -I think it fits the Reagan, FDR, Nixon, Eisenhower, LBJ, Bush II, and Obama administrations.

    “I suppose having dueling cranks on a thread is amusing, in a World Championship Wrestling sort of way.”

    -At least Gary admitted the truth of my point; that Jewish power predated Zionist power.

    “factoids” -interesting how you refer to facts, Art Deco.

    “Yup, and to make some jokes. Americans really should stop talking about race, especially Trump.”

    -Trump really doesn’t talk about race very often.

    “mbka, I agree that the right is becoming increasingly racist. Every time Trump makes an outrageous statement about Chinese, Mexicans, Muslims, etc., his poll number rise.”

    -I don’t agree at all. The right is, however, becoming increasingly xenophobic, and that’s not necessarily good for America.

    “If the PC movement is this loony, then the exact opposite must be sensible.”

    -That’s not what I thought. I thought “if the PC movement is this loony, then the exact opposite might well be sensible”. And Steve Sailer (the man who exposed the UVA rape hoax) and the Right Stuff (warning: Nazism) often are, Steve 80-90% of the time and the Right Stuff 40-60%. I don’t mind having a diverse set of intellectual influences. I read Communists and Nazis, libertarians and SJWs. Ideology serves as a set of blinders to reality, so it’s best to remove as many of these blinders as possible.

    “Fortunately most of my posts are not on race, but even on finance people occasionally find ways to bring up “the Jews””

    -Uh, no. Even on finance Gary occasionally finds ways to bring up Zionists, and I point out he often confuses Zionists with Jews. What’s so Zionist about the last three Fed Chairs? And I certainly don’t use the phrase “the Jews” the way you imply I do. Jews are an ideologically diverse group of people. They are also strongly disproportionately represented in higher occupations, and have an especially strong presence in constructing ideology of questionable value (e.g., Marxism, Freudism, second-wave Feminism, Neoconservatism, SJWism).

    If SJWs didn’t talk about race, I would have never thought of bringing it up. Now, I think it’s better if Americans did notice and publicly acknowledge average (likely genetic) differences in behavior between those belonging to various races (including those native to Europe), try to come up with explanations for them, use race as an important explanatory variable in explaining why some places are poor and others are rich, and not try to remedy those differences with inefficient tools in a stupid quest for perfect human equality.

  55. Gravatar of Jason H Jason H
    19. January 2016 at 12:05

    I’m curious why even write this post. I think the general, Americans can’t talk about race point is generally normally true. I mean just read this comment section. Plus linking to Scott Alexander’s “untitled” post? Social justice + race, that’s a complete mind-killer.

    I think you’re generally good about staying above the fray with object level points about poverty and education and affirmative action, etc. I don’t a post like this adds much value, other than to simply say, contra Noah, that it isn’t just the right that can’t have any sort of productive discussion of race.

  56. Gravatar of Floccina Floccina
    19. January 2016 at 13:46

    Whenever I hear someone say: “We need to have a conversation about race?”, I think: you really don’t want to have a conversation about race. Some reasonable people will be torn to shreds if they openly express what they think. Sometimes I think it best we all pretend that race does not exist, but people left and right keep bringing it up.

  57. Gravatar of Floccina Floccina
    19. January 2016 at 13:55

    BTW I am not a Trump fan because I am pro-immigration and pro-international trade but why do you consider him racist?

  58. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    19. January 2016 at 14:14

    I agree with Scott that talking about race will solve nothing.
    I still don’t get why he started to talk about class in some of the last four posts.

    Not so long ago he argued that America is a 90% middle class country and that it’s going to stay that way.

    Maybe someone can explain this shift to me?

  59. Gravatar of Gary Anderson Gary Anderson
    19. January 2016 at 14:23

    ““There’s a common misperception that all Trump voters are white, working class men. But break down the polls and you get a very different picture of a Trump follower. Many of them are women – possibly more than half, according to some surveys. Many have college degrees, and many don’t even describe themselves as particularly conservative.””

    That is even more frightening.

    When Trump first poked his ugly head into politics I thought he was a sovereign nation guy, you know America first. But no, he is globalist first. He is no JFK. He is a fraud, a bully, and a racist idiot. I even wrote an article on Talkmarkets, beyond the scope of their subject matter so it went on my personal blog, that Trump had some strong points about the sovereign US.

    But truth is, he is in the pocket of Netanyahu, having made a political commercial for him. Trump is a New Yorker. There are no true patriots who live there, are there, except for the firefighters who heard explosions on the bottom floors of the towers and were forced to endure a code of silence?

    Trump has offended everyone and you wouldn’t want the finger of a guy like that on the nuclear button. He would need a handler, the president behind the president, lol.

  60. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    19. January 2016 at 14:41

    Dan W.

    “But the electorate of both parties does not.”

    I don’t know, but I’ll grant you that’s true for the sake of argument. That doesn’t change the fact that the American electorate has been sold a false “crisis” on this point. There is no “flood of immigrants.” Am I wrong about saying that net immigration from Mexico is close to zero? If I’m wrong, please show me, and I’ll change my tune.

    As for that article on authoritarianism, and how Trump’s supporters are characterized by being a fan of it: that’s too bad, but not surprising given his message. Still, I don’t think it describes my life experience in this country, nor anybody I know, except perhaps my wack job neighbor who’s worried about “chem trails” and all the usual whack job conspiracy nut stuff.

    I’ve never lived in a country like Mao’s China, Hussein’s Iraq, Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s Germany or even a Pinochet’s Chile. I have an idea (as crazy as it sounds) that our problems with authoritarianism here being imposed on us by our government are and have been trifling (at least in the last century or so — so not including 1800s slaves or native Americans) compared to what those citizens went through.

  61. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    19. January 2016 at 15:42

    I kind of enjoyed Noah’s remarks about the right’s dialogue on race being poisonous. It is on the left where belief in racial egalitarianism (and gender egalitarianism for that matter) has become widely regarded as ‘right wing.’ And it is on the left (readily apparent for those of us who went though university social science departments) where racist revanchism among some races is not merely tolderated but actively encourage. It has been noted by ‘right’-leaning academics before that there are certain things that, when a white person says it about black people, it’s career ending and induces a life time of shame; but when a black person says it about white people, it’s a PhD thesis or a widely praised ‘scholarly’ talk.

    There’s no denying that a white supremacist is going to side with the Republicans; I don’t think many dispute that, though it’s also true that a black person who hates white people is going to side with the Democrats. What is increasingly happening though is that egalitarian people, including people who used to be leftists and still consider themselves such, are being driven right-ward by the increasingly convoluted and asinine theories popular among the academic left designed to justify racial revanchism, ‘reverse’ racism, and racist policies in general (so long as they’re racist against the ‘right’ groups).

    I mean, Larry Summers getting run out of Harvard for stating undeniable scientific facts on gender and sex should have been enough of a sign that the political left is losing it’s mind on things like gender and race. Or the fact that leftists broadly sided with the university protesters who drove their president to resign over a poop swastika someone claimed to have found in the bathroom! Or the students who ran the Christakises to resign and leave their university because… one of them refused to police their students’ halloween costume. This crap makes the Red Guard look sane. Anyone with a grasp of reality would have dismissed these ‘protesters’ as hysterical melodramatics at best; the sheer number of notable people on the left who instead sided with them was a good indicator of the level of sanity on that side of the fence I think.

    If the right remains the bastion of old racism, the left is increasingly the bastion of new racism and racial lunacy that views actual equality under the law the enemy, and accuses anyone critical of affirmative action, ironically, of being racist, or worse (a Democratic congressmen, Rangel, went so far as to equate them to Hitler). Leftists are in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone on poisonous racial rhetoric.

  62. Gravatar of Mark Mark
    19. January 2016 at 15:50

    Floccina: “Some reasonable people will be torn to shreds if they openly express what they think.”
    Not even just what they think. Just stating facts can get you torn to shreds. I’ve made the mistake of asking a progressive race warrior to explain why, if the banks are so motivated by white supremacy, Asians have a higher rate of approval (in other words, it’s mainly socio-economic factors correlated with race that cause the disparity in loan approval rates), I got an indignant dismissive rant in response. Arguing that the majority of disparities between the races are statistically explained not by employer or institutional racism but by things like differences in upbringing and education, which have already happened by the time people of different races are competing for jobs, it seems renders them irate and irrational. Like the idea that somewhere, someone isn’t or wasn’t racist is itself highly offensive, and that the solution to racial disparities isn’t actually more racism is positively insane.

  63. Gravatar of Scott Freelander Scott Freelander
    19. January 2016 at 16:06

    Scott,

    You seem to be hyper-sensitive on this issue to me. You admit that there are probably many more racists on the right than the left. You actually referred to white racists, but since they’re the big majority, they likely easily have a great deal more racists than the left.

    Of course, I think you’re being too careful with your writing. The ascent of the likes of Trump and Cruz to the top of the Republican polls seems to indicate to me that the conservative party in the US is decidedly bigoted in a large number of ways.

    Sure, Democrats have their biases. I would say they have about an equal number of economic fallacies, they certainly have their anti-science positions, and generally are full of supply-side unfriendly policies ideas. The vast majority of Democrats are obviously economically, and generally, scientifically illiterate.

    But, let’s not pretend that the social problems in each party or anywhere near equal. Republicans have taken a hard turn toward social prejudices of all kinds, authoritarianism, demagoguery, blind nationalism, and even endorsement of incitement of violence against certain minorities, as seen at Trump rallies for example.

    Yes, there are Republicans horrified by this, but they are clearly in a very weak minority. Kasich and Bush actually seem to have some human decency, along with Rubio to a degree, and even Ben Carson. Pataki also seemed to have some considerable decency. But, obviously Trump alone leads them all put together in the polls by a large factor.

    Scott, I think Bernie Sanders has lots of bad ideas for achieving some worthy goals. In fact, I think many of his policies would have the opposite of the intended effects. That’s surely a problem, and even potentially a big problem if he wins. But, if it’s between him and one of the crazies on the right, I’ll gladly vote for him.

    By the way, I wonder how improbable you now think it is that we end up with Trump versus Sanders? I’m going to stop making political predictions, because I’ve been wrong about almost everything over the past year or so.

  64. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    19. January 2016 at 16:13

    Gary, you’re totally wrong about Trump. He’s the sanest electable guy in the GOP on foreign policy. Christie and Rubio are the least sane. Carson is the most amoral/immoral. And despite being occasionally paid by Netanyahu’s backers, he’s the only guy in the GOP who refused to bow to the Elders of Zion at the Republican Jewish Likudnik Coalition meeting:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/04/the-daily-202-carson-and-trump-were-biggest-losers-at-republican-jewish-coalition-meeting/

  65. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    19. January 2016 at 16:21

    “Republicans have taken a hard turn toward social prejudices of all kinds, authoritarianism, demagoguery, blind nationalism, and even endorsement of incitement of violence against certain minorities, as seen at Trump rallies for example.”

    -Support for Michael Brown is incitement to violence against Asians.

    “Kasich and Bush actually seem to have some human decency, along with Rubio to a degree, and even Ben Carson.”

    -No, they don’t. They’re absolutely all horrible people, especially on foreign policy, the most or second-most important policy a U.S. President can control. If any of them were to be elected President, I’d be truly scared for the future of America. No doubt they know and understand themselves to be the wannabe heads of the Great Satan they are.

    “But, if it’s between him and one of the crazies on the right, I’ll gladly vote for him.”

    -Nah. If it came down to Bernie v. Trump, I’d have to vote for Trump. It’d be roughly a tie between the Bern and Cruz. In a Bern-Cruz contest (which will never happen) the difference will almost purely be about Federal court appointments.

    “By the way, I wonder how improbable you now think it is that we end up with Trump versus Sanders?”

    -Sanders has a 0.0% chance of becoming the Democratic nominee as long as Clinton stays healthy and alive. The odds rise to 20% if she’s disabled.

  66. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    19. January 2016 at 21:34

    Scott, Trump is fine.

    HOW HILARIOUS is it to tell Iowans DOUBLE ETHANOL SUBSIDIES! It’s pure comedy.

    The one thing I am actually nervous about is Eminent Domain, bc Trump is really, for all his bluster a Real Estate Developer in his bones.

    BUT! That does buy us our first true Libertarian Foreign Policy Specialist -forcing Mexico to adopt private property rights (the wall) and letting US $ and middle class colonize it into #NewFlorida.

    So it’s a mixed bag there, but overall a positive.

    The rest of it, is simply, do we get a GOP POTUS to sign the bills sent to him by the GOP Congress?

    One final note, if Trump actually won, we’d have to see that as the organic systemic response to trying to cram a parliamentary foot into a Republic (States’ Rights) shoe.

    Whenever Republicans and Democrats in Congress FEEL FRUSTRATED ABOUT ANYTHING…

    The American system only has one real option… send the power to do your precious to the states, so that SOME states get to do your precious & other states get to do sh*t you hate.

    The other option is a God King Executive which leads to Trump.

  67. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    19. January 2016 at 23:08

    Morgan,

    I don’t get where your optimism on Trump is coming from. To me he seems like a modern day Juan Peron, not completely without merit (no one is) but ultimately confused, ill informed about how stuff works, divisive, and authoritarian. And he sure has the potential to transform the US into a kind of Argentina. To sum it up with The Economist’s words on Trump: A sinister clown. Evidently he would end up blaming China for the results of his policies, whatever they may be. Not to mention the examples of other business-mogul-turned-politicians such as Berlusconi or Thaksin who also didn’t end up well.

    Scott,

    hang on in there with the uncensored comments. Even the worst end up getting tired once they fired off their single issue fanaticism often enough. Haven’t seen around Ray Lopez here in a while for example.

  68. Gravatar of anon anon
    20. January 2016 at 00:27

    E. Harding,

    > Why do Guatemalan second-generation immigrants to the U.S. (on average) wallow in relative poverty, while Vietnamese almost converge with Whites? HBD. Why are Japanese so disproportionately represented in Brazilian educational institutions? HBD.

    This is fun, so let’s keep going! Why is South Korea so much wealthier than North Korea? HBD! Why is Singapore so developed compared to Malaysia or Indonesia? HBD! Why was Hong Kong so wealthy as a British colony, compared to mainland China? HBD again! Wait, it’s not working very well… Could it be that Morgan Warstler is right, and it’s all down to culture, institutions and how you treat your entrepreneurs?

  69. Gravatar of J.V. Dubois J.V. Dubois
    20. January 2016 at 00:53

    This is nothing new, similar thing is happening in Europe now accelerated by Syrian conflict and influx of immigrants from Africa and Middle East.

    There was the sort of behaviour you describe: suppressed conversation about imigration, race and everything related. Everybody would remain silent rather then join the conversation that remained between far-right and social justice activists.

    Now however, the immigration debate is almost unavoidable. Suddenly many people feel forced to talk about it. The problem is that the old approach by social justice to call “Nazi” for even the mildest critical stance is doing the opposite of what it was doing so far. If people get called Nazist, then at first they may be angry. But in the end people solve the cognitive dissonance by the most effective way: “If I am Nazi and I know I am not a bad person, then Nazis probably are not bad”

    So now you see right-wing party on the rise, (of course helped by insane economic policies of ECB). Even in Scandinavia right-wing parties like “Finns Party” or “Sweden Democrats” went from obscurity of sub 1% results in early oughts to double digits now, attacking 20%.

  70. Gravatar of anon anon
    20. January 2016 at 00:55

    E. Harding, I think the “Jews” thing you mentioned was interesting too, actually. See, it’s so easy to focus on ‘Jews’ because they are a _visible_ minority. But what about all the _other_ cliques and good-old-boy-networks – the ones we _don’t_ know about. Do you really think they’re not there? I’m not sure that there’s a good solution to the actual problem – U.S. institutions are quite good, but they’re far from being perfect or a complete meritocracy. The outsized importance of “elite” colleges would be enough to tell you that.

  71. Gravatar of JC12 JC12
    20. January 2016 at 01:07

    Racism has virtually become a meaningless term these days.

  72. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    20. January 2016 at 04:31

    mbka, if there’s anyone who reminds me of Peron, it’s Sanders. And Peron was actually a dictator for a while, so the analogy isn’t very good. Papandreou should yield better analogies.

    anon, please don’t make such stupid comments. North Korea is poor because of its unconventional, to say the least, economic policies. Singapore is, in fact, richer than Indonesia and Malaysia partly due to HBD, but most of the difference is probably due to its being a tax haven. With the Hong Kong-mainland difference, again, it’s the tax haven aspect.

    “Could it be that Morgan Warstler is right, and it’s all down to culture, institutions and how you treat your entrepreneurs?”

    -And where do those come from?

    “Do you really think they’re not there?”

    -Sure, they might, but you have to provide evidence they exist if you’re arguing for their existence. In mostly free societies without institutional structures of dynastic privilege (cough, U.K.), it’s rare to see a good-old-boy-network persist that isn’t due to a bunch of its members being very smart or otherwise particularly genetically well-endowed.

  73. Gravatar of JC12 JC12
    20. January 2016 at 04:50

    Scott

    Lets be very, very clear about this. Firstly let me say that I don’t go for Trump’s policies. His trade polices are remarkably similar to Bernie’s yet Bernie doesn’t get tagged as a racist.
    Trump has argued (stupidly) that American trade policies are unfair and that he would do something about the unfairness. He has singled out China, Mexico and recently japan for promoting unfair policies. This is economic illiteracy, but I see don’t racism here.

    Trump has also gone nuke on illegal immigration and has said that he would stop Muslims coming in.
    Neither of these policies are racist. He does have an argument about illegal immigration and last time I looked Islam is not a race. He may be religiously bigoted, but there’s also a reasonable concern in voterland about a disturbing number of Muslims going postal.

    As far as i know, Trump has not talked about yanking away the legal immigration rope. At least he has not been critical of it in any major way.

    How can you argue that Trump is racist?

  74. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    20. January 2016 at 06:19

    To me he seems like a modern day Juan Peron, not completely without merit (no one is) but ultimately confused, ill informed about how stuff works, divisive, and authoritarian.

    Because an elderly real estate developer who has made billions in several lines of business is a precise analogue to a middle aged professional soldier who spent his entire career in a military that had not been mobilized for more than four decades at the time he entered it.

  75. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. January 2016 at 06:20

    Dan, I never said that support for immigration controls is racist.

    Jason, You asked:

    “I’m curious why even write this post.”

    Because I enjoyed writing it, I agree it’s a worthless post if you don’t find it amusing. Ditto for Noah’s post.

    Floccina. I have no idea if Trump is racist, but he’s obviously trying to appeal to racists.

    Mark, Yup, both sides are bad on this issue.

    Scott, You said:

    “But, let’s not pretend that the social problems in each party or anywhere near equal.”

    I agree, although I don’t think they are nearly as unequal as you do. And Noah’s right that the left is creating white racists, I’d say at a rapid rate. That’s not wise. I know people who have lost academic jobs for PC reasons, so sorry if I don’t consider PCism a minor problem.

    I also was wrong about Trump’s chances, they are clearly much higher than I thought.

    Morgan, What’s happened to you? How can you say Trump is acceptable?

    Thanks mbka.

    JV, Yes, but in Europe I don’t think it’s quite as bad.

    JC12, I agree that racism is a virtually meaningless term today. Not because some people are not clearly racist, but because the term is used for a wide variety of essentially unrelated types of speech.

    I have no idea if Trump is racist, but he’s clearly appealing to racists by singling out groups like Muslims and Mexican rapists and cheap Chinese and Japanese workers. These are themes that appeal to racists. I’ll bet you’d find that America’s racists are supporting Trump in overwhelming numbers. (And yes, I’m using the term ‘racist’ loosely here, to apply to ethnic, religion, and even gender bias.)

    But it doesn’t even really matter if Trump’s a racist or not. That’s not even 1% of what’s wrong with Trump. He’s a complete clown who is totally unqualified to be President. He speeches only make sense if you assume it’s all a joke, like when comedian Pat Paulson ran for President. The fact that people take him seriously is the biggest joke of all. You do know he’s just kidding? Don’t you? Nobody that stupid could become a billionaire. It’s an act.

  76. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    20. January 2016 at 06:24

    How can you argue that Trump is racist?

    Because ‘racist’ is now a synonym for ‘poopy-pants’.

  77. Gravatar of Dan W. Dan W.
    20. January 2016 at 06:42

    I’ll add that it is becoming all the more apparent that the political Left has “jumped the shark” with its racism / racist ideology. Middle-age white guys like me grew up admiring and respecting black celebrities and athletes. We held no bias towards people with black skin as we freely spent our money to purchase the products these talented people produced and we imitated their art. In our communities we were colorblind (at least in mine this was the case). There were very few blacks in my school but one was the most popular kid in the school. The greatest bigotry in school was religious (anti-semitism) and the greatest social divide was economic (the rural, village and suburban kids self-segregated).

    Now we are told that the plight of minorities and in particular blacks is our fault! Not because we have done anything deliberate but because of the color of our skin and our subconscious bias we have supported the “white power structure” that has disadvantaged non-whites. What hogwash and drivel! This is a farcical argument one would imagine only being made in a dark comedy. For the argument itself is racist as it claims to judge others by the color of their skin and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary! And yet the argument has been gaining traction. What does this say about the non-seriousness of the Left and liberal institutions? I think it reflects very poorly on them.

    The challenge from the Left on race cannot be answered except to be utterly dismissed. For any consideration of the complaint accepts as valid the indictment that certain races can be held responsible for the color of their skin. To allow this is to be at best irrational. The alternative interpretation is worse. That such feeling is tolerable because revenge is justified and the wrongs of the past must be avenged. The trajectory of this feeling must be stopped for it points to a balkanization of society according to race and political ideology. The answer to reducing racial contention is to stop making race the focus of the conversation. Yet as long as such focus is entertained and profited by it will continue.

  78. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    20. January 2016 at 06:49

    He’s a complete clown who is totally unqualified to be President.

    This upsets you? You do recall who the current incumbent is and what he’d done with his life ‘ere 2007, do you not?

    Consequential candidates for President in the last 35 years or so have included a mess of people who had no executive experience whatsoever (John Anderson, Edward Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Robert Dole, Richard Gephardt, Albert Gore, Paul Tsongas, Tom Harkin, Patrick J. Buchanan, John Kerry, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz); people whose pre-political career suggests general mediocrity (Edward Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Albert Gore, John Kerry, Marco Rubio); and people who manifest grossly immoral, sociopathic, or criminal behavior (Edward Kennedy, Bilge Clinton, John Edwards, Hellary). That observation does not include people with issues, gross peculiarities, and more episodic shabby lapses (under which heading you might put Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Richard Gephardt, Pat Robertson, John McCain, Alan Keyes). It does not include insipid Capitol Hill fixtures, either (Robert Dole).

    What’s your idea of a ‘qualified’ candidate? Of a non-joke?

  79. Gravatar of Dan W. Dan W.
    20. January 2016 at 06:52

    Scott,

    Trump is a vulgarian and this persona has appeal to a large faction of our society – apparently about 35% of it! It is extremely doubtful Trump can muster more than 45% popular support. Whether he can reach 40% is a question. This means it is doubtful he can be elected president.

    On the other hand the candidates on the Democratic side are woeful. Hillary should be indicted and Sanders is a professed Socialist. O’Malley, if we go further down the list, is a fake and pretender.

    IMO, that leaves the door wide open for Biden. He’s just waiting for Hillary to depart the race so he can make a gracious entrance. On the GOP side I would not be surprised if at the end of the day it is Jeb Bush whose name makes the ballot in November.

    The important thing is to consider all that is going on as entertainment. To take it serious would lead to mental depression!

  80. Gravatar of anon anon
    20. January 2016 at 06:55

    > you have to provide evidence they exist if you’re arguing for their existence.

    Well, you didn’t provide much evidence for your description of ‘Jewish power’ either. See below for why this matters.

    > In mostly free societies without institutional structures of dynastic privilege (cough, U.K.), it’s rare to see a good-old-boy-network persist

    This is very, very wrong. Free societies do tend to diminish cronyism and corruption over _generational_ timescales: the mid-19th-century U.S. were economically quite free, but also quite corrupt, compared to today. These things are nonetheless common enough that they can be considered garden-variety phenomena. Especially so in sectors that are largely shielded from short-term market competition, such as media, politics and big, institutional finance. When you hear hoofbeats you should expect horses, not zebras.

  81. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    20. January 2016 at 07:00

    It is extremely doubtful Trump can muster more than 45% popular support. Whether he can reach 40% is a question. This means it is doubtful he can be elected president.

    He isn’t polling badly in general election match-ups, none of the Republican leaders are. Partisan Democrats fancy the office is Hellary’s for the asking, because they live in Pauline Kael’s special world.

    Have a gander at Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. They’re a reminder of who we once were, and who we aren’t anymore. In a more qualified way, so are George and Barbara Bush. Trump’s vulgar? Well, look around you. Shabbiness and vulgarity are a fact of the age, and faculty ordinarily have not a thing to say about it except when they’re being self-aggrandizing.

  82. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    20. January 2016 at 07:16

    IMO, that leaves the door wide open for Biden. He’s just waiting for Hillary to depart the race so he can make a gracious entrance. On the GOP side I would not be surprised if at the end of the day it is Jeb Bush whose name makes the ballot in November.

    ¡Jeb! has seen 2/3 of his surveyed support evaporate in the last six months, his pile of SuperPac money notwithstanding. You’re due to lose a packet if you placed any wagers on your proposition. The live question at this time is whether he finishes 5th or 6th in Iowa. As for Slo Joe, he might have an opportunity if post-concussion syndrome or a criminal indictment compel Hellary to withdraw around about June. Wouldn’t bet the farm on that either…

  83. Gravatar of Bob Bob
    20. January 2016 at 09:52

    Thanks again for a good look at the problem Scott.

    It seems to me that we can’t talk about race because it is that it’s an easy channel for emotional issues people fail to try to understand. We have similar equivalents on the left too: Instead of putting blame of things on immigrants, groups put all evils on GMOs, vaccines, guns or gluten. The real size of a each problem(whether real or imagined), or its consequences, are not really relevant: Finding a way to channel ones outrage is. Those emotional responses make it impossible to have a real conversation about underlying issues. This is especially troublesome on race because the differences in outcomes are hard to dispute.

    It’s very hard to tackle this situation well while respecting the people that appear unreasonable. The best I have is to tackle the reasons why the IQ points drop first. Easy to do in smaller settings, not so much when we are having national debates. It’s a global problem too: A friend of mine from Sweden was just telling me about how people are now afraid of foreigners that come in and take their jobs. In their case, the worry is about people that look so very different, and have very different culture. They happen to be from Norway.

  84. Gravatar of Ben P Ben P
    20. January 2016 at 10:00

    According to pundits the market crash doesn’t match the fundamentals. I agree. It looks like tight monetary policy to me!

  85. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    20. January 2016 at 10:06

    “Nobody that stupid could become a billionaire. It’s an act.”

    -I know. And that act is still the best candidate running for President today.

    “Well, you didn’t provide much evidence for your description of ‘Jewish power’ either.”

    -Lol. Look. See the fnords.

    The key word in my last comment was “persist”. They exist all the time, of course, but persistence is something different.

    “Have a gander at Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.”

    -Disgusting. Down with the monarchy!

  86. Gravatar of Don Geddis Don Geddis
    20. January 2016 at 10:37

    Sumner: “Trump [is] a complete clown who is totally unqualified to be President. He speeches only make sense if you assume it’s all a joke … The fact that people take him seriously is the biggest joke of all. You do know he’s just kidding? Don’t you? Nobody that stupid could become a billionaire. It’s an act.

    Yes, it’s an act, and yes Trump is far more intelligent than he first appears.

    But it seems to me that you’re missing a far better explanation. It’s clearly not “all a joke”. Trump is seriously running for President, and he’s dominating the [GOP] field in terms of voting support.

    The question is why. You might find it enlightening to skim Scott Adams’s (“Dilbert”) “Master Persuader” blog posts. He make a compelling point that Trump is communicating at a different level than you are evaluating him at.

    As a quick summary, Adams says that “identity beats analogy, analogy beats reason.” You’re evaluating Trump’s statements based on reasoning — which I admire — but that’s not what Trump is trying to achieve. Trump is working at the level of hypnosis, or religious evangelism, or a master used car salesman or con man.

    You can’t use his speeches (especially your “reasoned” evaluation of them), to accurately predict his policies or how he would act as President. You need to be much more careful, if you really want to predict what kind of President he would make.

    The main thing Trump has accomplished so far, is totally emasculating his GOP rivals. What happened to Jeb Bush? What happened to Ben Carson? What happened to Carly Fiorina? Cruz? Rubio? Trump happened to them, in very specific, highly targeted persuasive attacks of rhetoric.

    He’s not a fool, or a clown. He’s just not (yet) trying to appeal to your demographic as a voter. Right now, he’s trying to win the GOP nomination. And he’s doing an incredible job of it. I think you’re underestimating his skills, to dismiss him as a joke.

    (P.S. I’m only a Trump observer, not a Trump supporter.)

  87. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    20. January 2016 at 10:47

    “You’re evaluating Trump’s statements based on reasoning — which I admire”

    -Uh, so am I.

    “You can’t use his speeches (especially your “reasoned” evaluation of them), to accurately predict his policies or how he would act as President.”

    -I dunno. But what I get from his statements is way better than what I get from Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Christie, etc. I can only hope for an Assad victory and a U.S. recognition of Krim’s status. But that’s way more likely to happen with Trump than with any other candidate besides Sanders.

  88. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    20. January 2016 at 11:44

    Yes, it’s an act, and yes Trump is far more intelligent than he first appears.

    He hasn’t emasculated Cruz, and I would not attribute the failure of most of the rest of them to Trump, either. Republican nomination donnybrooks in the last five decades have never had more than four competitors, so most of these (17) people were bound not to catch on; three campaigns withered when Trump began sucking the oxygen out of the room – Gov. Walker’s, Gov. Huckabee’s, and Gov. Bush’s.

    I suspect you’re right that the moderator is making use of the wrong interpretive sense in evaluating Trump’s statements. Andrew Bacevich used to read (and remark on) George W. Bush’s occasional speeches as if they were inter-office memoranda; academics do that sort of thing; they shouldn’t. Academics are also given to confusing bourgeois tastes with sensible assessments (see Charles Fried on Sarah Palin for an example, or Oxbridge graduate Charles Cooke).

  89. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    20. January 2016 at 16:50

    Scott:
    Trump is running as Andrew Jackson: an anti-establishment, nativist, alpha male of the people. Admittedly, he’s not a war hero himself, but he covers that shortcoming with his effusive praise for everything military. And since times have changed, his supporters are industrial not agrarian.

  90. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    21. January 2016 at 07:32

    Art, I think you misunderstood me. I think he’s acting like a clown. He might as well wear a clown suit during his public appearances. I don’t deny that in private life he may not be a clown, I’m just describing his campaign.

    And of course it’s all relative. You can find the same in other candidates, but not to the same extent.

    He’s a bit like North Korean President Kim, or Putin, or Chavez, or the former Iranian president who’s name I can’t spell, or Burlesconi. He likes to clown around with crazy ideas. He likes to engage on macho posturing, that sort of thing.

    Perhaps the funniest thing about his supporters is that people like E. Harding believe they actually know which policies Trump secretly supports. It’s simply an act, I suspect his actual policies might be similar to Obama’s. Whatever they are, they won’t be the policies he’s running on, as it would be impossible to enact those policies. I don’t mean politically impossible, I mean logically impossible. Violating the laws of physics.

    Don, You said:

    I think you’re underestimating his skills, to dismiss him as a joke.”

    I did underestimate his skills, but he’s still a complete joke. It’s just that if he wins it shows that Americans want a clown President. Which is their prerogative.

    Carl, Sounds like a good analogy, but of course Trump favors big government.

  91. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    21. January 2016 at 08:49

    Art, I think you misunderstood me.

    No, I’m not. I’m suggesting you clarify your thinking for your own benefit (and not be an ass like Charles Fried). If Trump is unqualified, who is qualified? I’m suggesting you actually compare Trump to the people who’ve actually run for the office in the last generation.

    The experienced executives not suffering gross moral flaws who’ve run since 1979 are as follows: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush the Elder, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Paul Simon (just under the envelope), Jerry Brown, Robert Kerrey, M.S. Forbes, George Bush the Younger, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Mitt Romney, and M. Huckabee. To that, you might add a legislator who really knows how to work Congress (R. Dole) or a serious wonk (B. Bradley; Gary Hart too gross). To that you can add Ross Perot. That’s 17 men running in 14 competitive nomination contests. Of these 17 men, 4 have entered 2 contests. So, that’s 19 candidacies in 14 nomination contests appended to which were Perot’s non-party candidacies. That’s 1.3 ‘qualified’ candidates per contest. If you’ve a mind to exclude the clowns, Howard Dean and (arguably) Ross Perot would have to be removed from the list. If you insist that executive experience is only salient when it’s in the public sector, Ross Perot, “Steve” Forbes, and Paul Simon would have to be removed from the list. If it has to be an elected official, Wesley Clark would have to be removed as well.

    Some of the remainder do not impress. Jimmy Carter seemed to move from one failure another (and has been an episodically abrasive public nuisance since leaving office, in spite of all). Walter Mondale was a perfectly unremarkable St. Paul lawyer whose advancement within the Minnesota Democratic Party was once described as ‘most amazing’ by Hubert Humphrey; Humphrey never thought highly of Mondale and was remarking on his vapidity. George Bush the Elder, whatever his talents and virtues, was a transparent opportunist for whom issues were fungible. (You could make the case that that describes Gov. Romney as well, though I think his problems stem from having had to navigate Massachusetts politics). As for Bob Dole, recall Michael Kinsley’s description: “Classic Capitol Hill apparatchick”.

    Now, this year’s line up includes six people. Mr. Cruz has never superintended an apparat with diverse responsibilities or had more than about 20 people working under him. He’s also a tyro without a history of building relationships in Congress. The administrative experience of Dr. Carson and Sr. Rubio is less than that of Cruz. Sr. Rubio’s effortless lying and stoogery re ‘immigration reform’ might also be remarked. As for Hellary, she’s about the grossest and most unethical person to run for the office since Aaron Burr.

    So what do you want us all to do, vote for Bernie? You don’t have the choices you want. You have the choices you have.

  92. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    21. January 2016 at 16:18

    Scott:
    Agreed. Trump wants to be seen as Andrew Jackson but, of course, he’s not at all like Andrew Jackson, especially when it comes to the philosophy of limited government.

  93. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    21. January 2016 at 17:41

    Art, Which of that long list thought that the way they should present themselves to the public is to act like the spoiled class bully in the eighth grade? I say none. On that alone he is disqualified to be president.

    Don’t you think that the guy with his finger on the nuclear trigger ought to have at least a tiny bit of emotional maturity? He probably wouldn’t even pass the psychological test required to pilot a nuclear sub. This is something I shouldn’t even have to explain to any reasonable person, if you can’t see it there’s really nothing I can tell you.

    Bernie would certainly be preferable to Trump.

  94. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    21. January 2016 at 20:35

    Your complaints are aesthetic ones. There’s nothing wrong with public dignity, but that horse left the barn in stages between 1960 and 1998 and people like you didn’t complain. Bit late now. Yes I did notice the shallow dig at Sarah Palin. Those flat vowels of hers…

    I would have no reason to believe that Trump lacks ’emotional maturity’ even if I thought that were a coherent concept. He runs a diversified portfolio of businesses and his children haven’t generated any scandals. He’s not feuding with his siblings. He’s divorced and remarried, but so are John McCain and Wesley Clark. Albert Gore managed to blow up his 40 year marriage, a feat few men accomplish. As for the Clintons that’s a domestic arrangement too gruesome to contemplate. I think the ruins of Joan Kennedy are living in Connecticut under the conservatorship of a 2d cousin.

Leave a Reply