The Unpopularity of Racial Preferences in College Admissions: Liner Notes

In a busy week, I have yet another column up at The Federalist, “Why The Media Will Never Tell You 85 Percent Of Americans Oppose Race-Based College Admissions.”

The backstory here is mildly amusing. I had written about the Beto hangover as the result of a mini-rant I had circulated by email (knowing there might be interest at the Fed in dunking on Beto). Part of that column relied on the newly-released “Hidden Tribes” study, coverage of which was generating traffic, particularly at The Atlantic. I mostly wrote about the study’s findings on political correctness, with just a line or two on affirmative action.

But before it got published, Joy Pullman’s piece on the study ran, so my working assumption was that my column might not run. And Joy’s column also seemed to generate a lot of traffic. Accordingly, I pitched The Fed on a similar column focused on the study’s equally lopsided finding regarding racial preferences. Now both this column and the Beto column have run and there is a certain thematic consistency as a result.

What got left out for space? In retrospect, while I use the word “now” in a few places, I probably could have emphasized that race preferences in college admissions have become widely unpopular over the course of the past five years or so. You can tease that out if you construct a timeline of the additional polling Alice Lloyd cited at TWS. Accordingly, the questions I ask about why the policy is unpopular are a bit less rhetorical than some may think. That the policy is now unpopular with many liberals and members of minority groups suggests something more than the rise of white identity politics is at work here, but it’s not clear what has changed. But few are thinking about it because of the media bias at work here. (I’m still less enthused than some — and less enthused than I once was — in the typical media bias rant. But it is interesting in cases where the media seems out of step even with typical liberals.)

Also, since writing the column, Avik Roy cites a WSJ piece to point out the essential dishonesty of Harvard’s claim that it is simply looking at qualities like applicants’ personalities. In my column, I do try to get at the notion that those who do support these racial preferences would seemingly prefer to do so on grounds the Court has put off-limits. As a result, schools act dishonestly to circumvent the law, while the media acts dishonestly to avoid talking about the dishonesty of the schools.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

The Beto Hangover: Liner Notes

I have another column up this week at The Federalist, “Beto O’Rourke Is A Perfect Picture Of Democrats’ Misalignment With Voters.” To be frank, I thought that maybe they had taken a pass on this one, inasmuch as dumping on Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke and those with a crush on him suddenly became an entire subgenre in the days since I submitted it. But this piece has a little bit of a twist, so I’m glad they ran with it, quite apart from the payment.

To be sure, some of the other coverage of this topic focuses on the media’s love affair with #ElectoralJesus on a partisan or ideological level. But what has struck me is that this time is how much the media’s mania dovetails with their current tendency to pretend that the United States is not a union of states. Granted, the left has been tired of states since the New Deal — and Jim Crow seems to have discredited the idea of federalism entirely on the left. The stain of segregation, however, does not change the structure of the country or the structural barriers that render changing it a near-impossibility. Perhaps even more relevant here, the fact that we have a national economy and the ability to transmit the same popular culture throughout has not completely erased cultural differences in states or regions in a vast, sprawling nation of hundreds of millions of people. In this piece, I focused on the Hispanic vote because that is one of the main ways in which the political press tended to analyze Beto’s plight, to the extent that they recognized he had a plight — but the same principle largely applies regardless of demographic.

Yet the left’s dominance of establishment journalism and their general impulse to nationalize all the things tends to dull their senses when it comes to figuring out that a politician marketable in Massachusetts might be less so in Texas, even in a political year that’s likely to be bad for the GOP in the House and even governorships. They occasionally seem to get this on an intellectual level, but fail to truly internalize it. If I’d had more space, I probably would have expanded on the theory that the left is simultaneously running against Trump while adopting attitudes that seem pretty nationalist (in the sense of rejecting federalism and the union) and populist (in the sense of rejecting anti-majoritarian institutions). But maybe I can get a column out of that phenomenon later.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

Abolishing the Supreme Court: Liner Notes

I have a new column at The Federalist today, “Abolishing The Supreme Court Isn’t The Left’s Most Extreme Idea For Weaponizing Courts.” Vox interviewed Harvard law prof Mark Tushnet about abolishing judicial supremacy, the idea that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution means. My column notes that Tushnet is more influential than the average Harvard law prof, the idea of abolishing judicial supremacy was advanced by Robert Bork (for almost the opposite reasons Tushnet has), and Tushnet has advanced more extreme yet more feasible ideas for further transforming the Court into another purely political branch of government.

What got left out? Mostly details and examples that would have enriched the main points. For example, I note that Tushnet was present at the birth of a school of legal thought called “critical legal studies” (CLS), the essence of which is the idea that “law is politics.” I did not have space for stories like this one, which can be found at that first link in this graf:

“Mark Tushnet was the spokesman for the Marxists and he gave a speech at the end of the first day in which he said no serious theory of law is possible without the labour theory of value. When Mark made the speech there were only about 35 people in the room, but you could see just about a million different expressions. This is what provoked Galanter, Macaulay and Friedman to basically walk out. They didn’t actually walk out; they just didn’t come back for the remaining sessions.”

So I had to make due with Tushnet’s more well-known and recent quote about using the courts to advance socialism — which makes the point, though I would have loved to tell that story with its kicker: “Mark actually abandoned the labour theory of value soon thereafter.”

It also would have been nice, for example, to note that one of the cases Tushnet would overrule for being “wrong on day one” is Bakke, the case which both allowed yet limited the use of affirmative action in higher education. Affirmative action is also widely unpopular, except with the far-left bloc that dominates academia, Big Media, etc. According to a newly-released report from More in Common (not a right-wing organization), progressive activists comprise a mere 8% of Americans and hold views out of step not only with moderates and conservatives, but other liberals and core demographics of the Democratic Party base. Progressive activists are the least racially diverse group, except for the most devotedly conservative 6% of Americans. The report found that 85% of Americans believe that race should not be considered in decisions on college admissions. Even 72% of traditional liberals are against the practice. Yet 60% of progressive activists support it. So while progressives are trashing institutions for not reflecting the popular will, understand that the popular will is merely the left’s justification when convenient. And that populism really serves the popular will less than it serves some faction.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

Darth Vader, Liberal Fascist: Liner Notes

I have a Friday column up at The Federalist, “Why Darth Vader Is The Archetypal Liberal Fascist.” Don’t worry, this is not one of these columns that decides to judge a popcorn entertainment through a political lens. Rather, because the generally bad prequels address the politics of the Galactic Republic, I have a little fun with how Anakin Skywalker views politics (and perhaps why). A tangentially related Twitter chat caused me to run the idea past Ben Domenech, who is an impressive Star Wars nerd, and we were off to the races. But in the process, I get to remind people of the common features of fascism and how easy it can be to shift from one flavor to another.

What got left out? To sustain the column’s conceit, I don’t get much into the nanny state of liberal fascists versus the bully state of traditional fascists. The films don’t get much into the question of whether the Republic has a social safety net and I didn’t want to get into ancillary products like books that may or may not be canon for hardcore fans. For reasons of space (no pun intended), I did not discuss Vader’s offer to Luke to kill the Emperor and rule the galaxy as father and son. Was this simply an offer to act as the Sith might — a master and apprentice? Or was this family again asserting itself as Vader’s main motive, in which case the ideology of the Empire might have shifted? such counter-factuals just went too far afield.

Lastly, it remains implicit in the column that a key concept to any free, non-fascist society is the right to be wrong. I have written here about how politics without compromise isn’t really compromise, and part of that is embracing the idea of making peace with those you believe to be wrong at any given moment. Moreover, politics without compromise looks like the pre-Enlightenment model that lacks the separation of church and state. This appears to have been a problem a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

How “Write-Throughs” Risk History: Liner Notes (and Air Drumming)

Hey, another new column from me at The Federalist: “The New York Times Stealth-Edited The First Draft Of History On Brett Kavanaugh.” If you’re feeling oversaturated with Kavanaugh stories, note that my larger point (and I almost always have one) is about the long-standing journalistic practice of “write-throughs” — a holdover from the pre-internet era in greater and greater need of re-examination.

This story is somewhat about media bias, but more about how the NYT decided — seemingly at the very top — that it could not afford to be seen as critical of a story in The New Yorker containing allegations against embattled SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh, such is the power of the #MeToo mood and the partisan desire to keep Kavanaugh off the court.

It’s that last bit that mostly got glossed over in the column for space considerations. But reporting on a partisan opposition research effort with thin substantiation is an interesting standard of newsworthiness. In contrast, Team Kavanaugh’s feints toward exploring a theory of mistaken identity regarding the allegations made against him was reported on quite negatively. Some of that negative coverage was entirely warranted, notably Kavanaugh backer Ed Whelan’s bizarre and unconvincing internet detective work on Twitter. But mistaken identifications can happen under circumstances where  you would think they would not. Given that several Senators have publicly said Kavanaugh must prove his innocence, it arguably would be incompetent for his team not to consider the possibility. Ironically, given that Kavanaugh’s detractors seem to want him to confess to something, a mistaken identity theory would be a concession of sorts on Kavanaugh’s part that something may have happened to his primary accuser. Anyway, even if you disagree with this analysis — or think it misguided politically — the fact that one side’s dirt-digging campaign gets much better coverage than the other side’s is indicative of what we’ve seen over the past weeks. Insofar as emotions are running high on all sides of the controversy, my column focuses more on the “write-throughs,” a problematic practice that knows no party or ideology.

And on an entirely lighter note, I forgot to note over the weekend that I wrote a short column critiquing Senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke’s air drumming skills. It wasn’t really my idea and didn’t realize my goofing around would turn into a column, but there it is. As noted above, even when I’m trolling a bit, I prefer to have a larger point. Here, the tone is a little satirical, but is making a point of what the political discourse becomes when we rely more on personality and “cool” and less on issues.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

Journalism Loves Absentee Landlords: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at The Federalist today (busy week!), titled “What Journalists Want From Media Billionaires: Lots Of Money, No Influence.” It would be easy — and semi-accurate — to describe it as a goof or a troll, and some took it that way:

It would be a bit more accurate, however, to classify it as “kidding on the square.” Perhaps it is a function of age, but along lines noted earlier this week, we do seem to be going through a period vaguely like the late 60s or early 70s, in which the young feel entitled to tell the old how to run things without adult supervision. Not surprising really, as both periods feature failing institutions and a resulting widespread distrust of said institutions. That said, one could debate the pluses and minuses of that dynamic for institutions at length.

For those who may find the piece a bit too trollish, I would quote the fictional Pres. Andrew Shepherd:

“America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say ‘You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free” ‘.”

As recently as 1995 this was stirring rhetoric for liberals, classic and modern. Shepherd was Hollywood’s fantasy version of Bill Clinton (and a widower, which maybe contained a message for Democrats in 2016, but I digress).

Does anyone think that today’s Big Media institutions buy into this ethos? Do you think that they believe people not only have the right to kneel during the national anthem, but to criticize at the top of their lungs those who do? Or cheerfully engage those who think such protests are merely bad tactics? Does anyone think a profession where only 7% will admit to being Republican celebrates those who stand center stage advocating that which the vast majority of journalists do not believe will “make the world a better place”? As a general matter, I do not (there are always exceptions and I applaud them).

But most of all, it’s grating that this sort of hubris dares taking offense when their hypocrisy is noted. If Rupert Murdock walked into the Wall Street Journal bullpen today and announced he wanted them all to focus on putting evil banksters out of business, one suspects the staff would cheer, not revolt.

What got left out? I forgot to include WSJ staffers leaking the full interview Gerard Baker conducted of Pres. Trump. And this was pure oversight, as I’m sorta sympathetic to why it was done, despite the obvious insubordination. But that’s the point: the fact that I may be sympathetic does not mean that the move was ultimately not a politically-motivated tantrum that in the longer run keeps the professions reputation in a ditch.

And for reasons of flow, I would up skipping A.J. Liebling’s classic quote: “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” That’s a hard fact for today’s journalist class, but no less real today.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

It All Comes Down to Turnout: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at The Federalist, “Huge Spikes In Democrat Voter Turnout Across The Country Should Alarm The GOP,” which surprised me a little because the site does not do much of what is basically data journalism.

These two grafs should give you the overall flavor:

“The 2018 primary turnout numbers should alarm the GOP when compared with recent midterm “wave” elections. Before the 2006 blue wave, Democrats received 54 percent of 24.4 million primary votes. Before the 2010 red wave, Republicans won 56 percent of 28.5 million primary votes. In 2014, the GOP got 55 percent of a lower 23.9 million primary votes.

In 2018, even before the New York primary, Democrats won approximately 53 percent percent of an astounding 35.7 million primary votes. The Democrats have swung to a near 2006-level primary edge amid a 47 percent increase in overall turnout.”

What got left out? Mostly things that went — or would have gone — up front. In the late 20th century, primary turnout wasn’t all that predictive of general election turnout, opening room to hypothesize why it seems to have become more predictive, e.g., polarization and sorting of the voter pool. And more on the sorts of things that may now be embedded in the notion of “competitive” races, i.e., what drives retirements, politicians leaving seats for administration jobs, sheer partisan passion, etc. It just made sense to get to the grafs just quoted quickly to try to hold the reader’s attention.

On the back side, I could have discussed more states, even though most of the undiscussed results were less interesting. The main difficulty in writing this sort of piece, however helpful or necessary, is that they can wind up reading like the weather report, but without animated graphics. This was another reason to get to the scare grafs ASAP.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

Bert and Ernie, Still Not Gay: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at The Federalist, “Trying To Make Bert And Ernie Gay Makes LGBT Activists Look Insecure,” which is not the headline I would have written (though in fairness I submitted it with a headline someone else suggested). One might make the argument asserted in the headline, but the argument I make at the conclusion of the column is somewhat different. Even after accounting for the desire for clickworthy headlines, I tend to view this as a probable failure on my part to have made my point sufficiently sharp.

What I sought to suggest is that the desire on the part of the LGBTQ to claim Bert & Ernie as gay — an assertion rejected for decades by Sesame Street’s producers — is a reflection of a very specific moment in our culture. Historically less-represented groups are becoming more represented in the popular culture, but the internet age makes older, established intellectual property from the prior monoculture more valuable, incentivizing claims by rising groups on these older properties.  It’s perhaps not an idea that lends itself to an easy headline, especially when it is built on the observation that joking about Bert & Ernie being gay often used to come from latent or patent majority prejudices, making the cultural transition that much more striking.

What got left out? In sketching the evolution of the humor of imputing homosexuality, I skipped the Seinfeld episode that birthed the catchphrase “not that there’s anything wrong with that,” which I think brilliantly captured both the cultural transition under way at the time, as well as the lingering discomfort with it. Also, while the piece reflects my continuing interest in how the internet fracturing the popular culture has affected our culture and sub-cultures, I had to skip another of my favorite themes. The phenomenon described here also seems to me to be a reflection of the way consumers (esp. younger consumers) view producers as obligated to serve them in very specific ways, e.g., the tendency of college students to believe their schools must serve their psychological needs.  If you read George Gilder, supply-side economics has always been grounded in the idea of capitalism incorporating a measure of altruism in the sense of succeeding when consumer’s needs or desires are met.  But I don’t think he foresaw this particular mutation (reminder: I should effort reading some more recent Gilder).

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

The Fall of Rahm Emanuel: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at the The Federalist, “Rahm Emanuel’s Decline Mirrors The Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis.” You may not like him; I certainly don’t. In fact, when he first ran for Mayor of Chicago, I may have given a petition collector the line about not crossing the street to put him out were he on fire.  But that doesn’t mean his successor will be any better, because his fall is about (among other things) the Democrats’ march toward identity politics and “democratic socialism.”

What got left out?  Plenty, because the Byzantine, one-party politics of the Windy City creates endless, weird stories that tend to prevent people from seeing how Emanuel was at least partly a victim of overarching national trends.  For example, outside the city, it may be hard to fully comprehend how isolated Emanuel was even before the Chicago policing mess really exploded with the Laquan McDonald case.  His public schedule was frequently empty, in favor of private meetings with what passes for the donor class here.  The degree to which Emanuel seemed to eschew building grass-roots support is strange even after accounting for the fact that getting people to like him was outside his core skill set.  After all, when he ran for the House, the local news would always run stories of Rahm pressing the flesh on some train platform during the rush hour, even if the coverage had a sort of “man bites dog” feel to it.

More seriously, I could have included much more about Chicago’s scandalous history of police brutality.  The hundreds of millions paid out in settlement in the latter Daley and Emanuel eras reflected the rule more than any exception.  The Wikipedia entry for Chicago police Commander Jon Burge gives only a flavor of the depths of the problem, but perhaps enough to understand how difficult it would have been for Emanuel — or any Mayor — to clean up this stain in the course of a few years.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.

 

Taking the Democrats’ Kavanaugh Clown Show (Slightly) Seriously: Liner Notes

I have a new column up at The Federalist, “Democrats Have Very Good Reasons To Go Crazy Over Kavanaugh,” arguing that the right should have a moment of sympathy for a left that has only clown show theatrics to deploy when it really matters. At the risk of giving it all away: “At a time in which our politics and our media run through several cycles of outrages, faux rages, and hoaxes daily, the left has at least chosen to dramatize something important.”

What got left out for space? Hardly anything. Sometimes a column virtually writes itself. I ticked off the main points I wanted to make in an email, and when it was suggested I turn it into a piece, it was mostly filling out sentences into paragraphs. To avoid interrupting the flow, I left out a graf about what the Dems might actually want to accomplish with their confirmation hi-jinks. Although I think I have the long-term motive covered, I skip the short-term motive, which likely is the perceived necessity of keeping the party’s base energized for the midterms. Whether that is a good idea on balance may depend on whether the midterms are in fact a base turnout exercise, or whether swing voters still matter. Also, Allahpundit may have been on to something in July when he theorized that “liberals need to use the next few months to show Trump that no hardcore pro-lifer can be confirmed lest it ignite a ferocious backlash.”

The column also discusses the nature of Pres. Trump’s support. Given that regular churchgoers tended to favor Cruz over Trump in the 2016 primaries, there is probably a lot more to be written about religious conservatives’ support for Trump, and particularly the siege mentality many have maintained even after he won. But this column was not the moment for it.

PS: Consider sharing this post with the buttons below, as well as following WHRPT on Twitter.  Thanks for reading and sharing.