Posted 4 years, 4 months ago in the late afternoon by oso
Note: This is the final post in a series of five. Here are parts one, two, three, and four. Down below, I’m calling people out and asking questions to try and include more people in the conversation.
I’ll tell you something that I rarely tell anyone: I secretly want to be a conservative.
I don’t want to have to tell anyone what they should do with their money. I don’t want to be the one going up to some rich guy and saying, “look man, don’t you think you should be spending some more of your money on schools and less on all those cars?” Or telling my employer that he should really be offering me health care. Or telling some hardworking businesswoman who has spent the last two years looking for the perfect place to put her business, “sorry, but I think it might affect this rare species of birds that calls this place home. Or even demanding that a company not selectively hire employees based on age, sex, or ethnicity. All this regulation that we as liberals, demand of our government. I wish I didn’t have to be a part of it.
Wouldn’t it be cool if we just put an end to all that regulation – all these crazy laws and offices and paperwork – and just let things flow? Maybe HP’s right. Maybe everything will get better. We’ll implement a flat tax to be more fair to the wealthy (I mean, is it a crime to be rich?) and with the lost revenue we’ll make cuts in programs like welfare which just makes people dependent on the government. And sure, maybe an affordable education will be less accessible, but you heard HP, if someone wants it bad enough, they’ll work hard enough for it and they’ll feel better about themselves because nobody helped them out.
In fact, I totally envision it right now. We cut welfare. We cut social programs. We cut afterschool programs. We cut outreach programs. No more free health care at the emergency room. Then, when we do all that, all the inner-city minorities are going to wake up the very next day and they’re going to think, “what the hell have I been doing with my life. All this time I’ve been pretending I was the victim, but really HP was right, it’s because we don’t “embrace the American work ethic with life-or-death fervor” and also because of “the special role of television in the life of black children and the low expectations of their parents.”1 Blacks will realize that if they could just learn how to pronounce ask, all their worries would be gone.
Then Latinos will stop sleeping away their entire days under a sombrero with a Corona in their hand and Blacks will throw away their TV’s which will bankrupt all the major channels in one day because we all know that only blacks watch television.
Please.
Personal Responsibility Is A Good Thing
Conservatives like HP, Black Pundit, Thoms Sowell, and Star Parker adopt the very best of conservative ideology – self sufficiency, fiscal responsibility, and the freedom of individual choice. But because those concepts are so appealing, they then get drawn into the daker side of conservativism: low corporate taxes, lower taxes for the wealthy, low minimum wage, little or no worker’s comp or health care, less social spending, less spending on education, more military spending, lower environmental standards.
I can relate. After reading Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, I was infected by a completely new understanding of personal responsibility. It forever changed my outlook on life. I came to understand, for the first time, that absolutely nobody was responsible for me except myself. And that I should not be dependent on anyone else. I have always been an independent person, but not always self-sufficient and reading Atlas Shrugged changed that.
Do I think self-responsibility should be encouraged? Absolutely. That is always what I tell my little sister. It is what I told every student I worked with at Gompers. You have to do this because you want it yourself, not because anyone wants it for you.
If there’s one sentence in this series that will piss off some minorities – liberal and conservative alike – it is this: I agree with Cornel West that the development of minority conservativism is “healthy”. (Chapter 4 of Race Matters) That sounds patronizing, but I say “healthy” because the impetus of the minority conservative movement is not to pull the ladder up, but rather to take the mechanism of social change away from the government and into the hands of the individual. Though most conservatives wouldn’t admit it, this directly parallels the autonomy movement of the Zapatistas in Southern Mexico and the “demand side supplying itself mentality” of the open source movement. Basically, people are beginning to look beyond the government for ways to both offer help and receive it and I think that’s just swell. I only hope that in the process, these self-described minority conservatives don’t fall into the trap of supporting policy which adversely affects the very populations they claim to support such as a flat tax and low spending on education.
It will forever be argued whether programs like Social Security and Health Care fare better under government or private sector control. I would argue, hands down, that in the US the government does a better job administering both. However, in Mexico I would actually favor the private sector as the skyscrapers of Guadalajara and Monterrey are filled with much less corruption than the political palaces of Mexico City and Los Piños. But regardless, what is most important is that the programs are well accounted for. Citizens and the press must be relentless in making sure public money is neither squandered in government beuracracy nor carried away in CEO bank accounts.
But Now What?
There are things we can all agree on. We want more diversity. We want more integration. We want more underrepresented minorities in the sciences. We want less poverty and more social mobility. We want choice and we want equality.
In fact, the only thing we disagree on seems to be how to get there. As liberals, we like to think that it’s ideology first and policy second. That we believe in things like equality and justice and then set policy and make programs to promote our ideas. But really, we come up with the ends first and then deal with the means. What we want is diversity and equality. HP says this is because we feel guilty. But really we’re just like him.
So we come up with programs like affirmitive action because it’s the easiest fix, or as Cindylu calls it, “band aid.” But the unintended consequences of affirmitive action are that some minorities feel like they are admitted or hired because of their skin color and not their ability. Meanwhile, other students who are well qualified get turned down from their top choice schools to make room for underrepresented students who will increase the on-campus diversity.
But the question remains, how do we increase diversity in higher education? It’s not an easy problem to deal with, but when I look at just who is dealing with it, they are always liberals. Conservatives such as HP either pretend ethnicity is not relevant or blame underrepresentation on “cultural deficits.”
Fine, let’s say, the problem lies in cultural deficits. Then what? What are you going to do about it? Just give me one single plan of action that will promote diversity in higher education.
HP is saddened when minorities are admitted to a high caliber school like a UC and then choose to major in something like Chican@ studies. I wish HP would take a couple Chican@ studies (or even urban planning) classes himself. Then he would learn the history of how the city of San Diego has gone to such lengths to keep Barrio Logan isolated from the rest of San Diego and filled with junkyards and factories and the very worst of public schools. He would learn that an entire community of Paisanos called Chavez Ravine was razed without compensation to clear the way for Dodger’s stadium. He would better understand that, while racism is not as pronounced today as it was 30 years ago, the after-effects of such deeply ingrained (and top-level) discrimination just a few decades ago stll have a very lasting impact that needs to be counter-balanced. And by interacting with other students in these classes, he’ll better understand what drives them to focus on ethnic studies and righting the wrongs of the past.
Do universities have a role to play in promoting diversity and integration? Absolutely. Cindylu calls it the service component, I call it an agenda and every university has one. Unlike the NBA, the university system has a clear interest/responsibility in defining the society which its alumni will both be a part of and help change. And the university understands that a society functions best when it is diverse and integrated. You could also ask if universities should require their science students to take history classes and vise-versa. The answer is yes because a society functions better when it’s citizens are well rounded.
As many problems as EAOP has, I can say with absolute confidence that every student who interacted with an EAOP tutor/mentor (even me) was better off for it. It is a shame that, as Cindylu said, they are cutting so much of the program and probably soon, the entire program due to budget cuts and conservative disapproval of outreach programs.
In Closing
I hope HP will:
- Continue to be my friend in the decades to come.
- Stop obsessing over the differences between liberals and conservatives.
- One day become an activist for what he believes in, be it pro-life/anti-choice legislation, urban education, minority success, whatever. My point is that just getting more people to say they’re conservatives is really not accomplishing anything at all.
Watch out for some warm and fuzzy bleeding heart liberal sentiment here. I’ve learned a great deal writing these posts and especially from the comments following them. I think the conversation between Cindylu and HP about affirmitive action and outreach programs does an amazing job at showing both sides of the debate.
In order to give HP some time to study for his midterms and DD enough time to do her 5000 crunches, I’m asking them not to comment on this one for a couple days.
I’d really like to hear from some other people who have been mostly quiet so far. Rarely do I beg for comments and call people out, but …
Wizzal – what do you think about this series? Do you agree/disagree with any of it? Have you taken anything away?
Moreno – still no comments about anything related to ethnicity?
Karen – as an immigrant yourself who has “succeeded” in American society and also participated in an inner-city outreach program, did this series spark any thoughts?
Abogado and Bobbo – how has ethnicity come into play in your first year of law school? We’ve said in private that we think ethnicity influenced which law schools some of our friends got into. Are there any unspoken assumptions in your classes that some of the students are only their because of their ethnicity?
Yvette – Any thoughts on the series?
Elena – did you come away with anything from the series or are conservatives still fascists?
Rosalí – What’s your south of the border perspective?
Elenita, DT, Julio, Seyd, LP, Thivai – Anything?
And anyone else. If you’ve been following this blog for a while (or even if you haven’t) and have anything to say, we’d love to hear it.
“But overall, the trend is clear: at combined SAT scores of 1300 and above, the presence or absence of affirmative action makes no significant difference at all to the odds of a white student being admitted. At lower scores, the difference exists, but is tiny. A white student with a combined score below 100 has a 96.7% chance of rejection from a selective school with affirmative action, and a 93.3% chance of rejection if affirmative action didn’t exist. In either case, the odds are overwhelming she’ll be rejected; and the primary reason for the rejection is her poor SATs, not her race.”—I am trying to find the studies, the link I had for this is down.
No, your series hasn’t added much. I’ve grown in compassion for you and understood you a little better (I think) but other that I haven’t learned anything new. Is HP a facist? No, he is just someone who has chosen to reject reality and I don’t know how I am supposed to show it to him. I know he believes that he has pulled himself up from his boot straps and that if we all just work hard we too will be able to achieve great things. Again, I just don’t know how to show him the way.
I’ve had a chance to hear from some of the people who make admissions decisions here. I don’t think a single person is here because they are an “under-represented” or black or brown or whatever minority. I am really impressed with how seriously administrators here take their role, and how thoroughly they review every application. We are basically the biggest law school in the country and I think we also receive the most applications, but I swear, they knew us by name when we got here. Race is a very small factor (some fraction of “background experience”) in the admissions process that I would imagine is statistically insignificant. Still, I believe we have a very diverse student body and this place wouldn’t be the same otherwise.
At any rate, the bottom line for me is that there is a problem with race in this country, affirmative action is a patch for that much larger social problem. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it is worth pursuing or that it can’t make a difference, but there are structural problems that still have significant effects. I don’t know how anyone can honestly deny that but obviously people do. I’ll chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.
Government Regulation:
Oso – I’d like to touch on your government regulation vs. Non-regulation comment, but I’m affraid I wouldn’t make much sense without a long-winded rant. Basically, and at a very superficial level, the distinction between regulation and non-regulation is a fallacy. If the government doesn’t say “you can’t do that” then they are saying “you can do that”. Why is one regulation and the other not? There is no difference. Each proclamation is backed by the coercive power of the government as an institution. Think of it in terms of property. I imagine a conservative would say that property rights are basically non-governmental or non-regulatory – probably alluding to notions of natural rights. But what is a property right without the backing of the government (i.e. police)? So when someone says “the government should not regulate where this business women can set up her business”, they are totally missing the point. If the government allows her to set up her business they are regulating by saying “nobody else has the right to interfere with this business woman setting up her business where it will destory the environment. If they do they will be stopped by and injunction, fine, criminal prosecution or some other governmentally instituted punnishment.” Either way there is government regulation. That same line of thinking applies nearly everywhere and is generally accepted as far as academic circles go. So the question becomes not “should the government regulate?” but “which side/cause/class/group etc. should the government protect?”. There is still plenty of room for argument within that question, and in some respects it may ammount to essentially the same thing, but I believe it fosters a much more honest and revealing discussion about people’s underlying values.
So there you go. That probably made very little sense, but I didn’t want to go too far in to it. If anyone wants to discuss the issue further I will try to clarify, otherwise…discuss on.
Oso,
Thanks again for your continuing effort to think through multiple perspectives.
Its 3 in the morning and I have been writing my diss for the last 6 hours so I’ll be brief.
My major problem these days is the perversion of the notion of a conservative. When I think of a conservative I think of Wendell Berry or Martin Luther King–someone who reaches back to their traditions and teaches us about our communities and encourages us to come together to make our places better (reread the first paragraph of the fifth part of this series–are those really liberal moves, or are they conservative?)
I don’t view George Bush as being conservative at all… and very few of the democrats or republicans seem very conservative to me? Now when I visit a magazine like Orion those are conservatives who want to reinvest in their society to make it stronger and to build community/culture (not tear it apart). True they are radicals in the sense of rad=root, returning to the roots of democratic knowledge, democratic relationships, and democratic places–conservatives…..
Ah hell, I’m tired, it is the nature of dualistic systems–they distort the perspective of both sides as they hype their positions out of wack beyond their natural stances….
I know few people agree with me on this and have a hard time swallowing my rants that the neo-liberals are increasingly reactionary and that the neo-conservatives are increasingly liberal…..
All I want to know is what conservative could support Bush?
My comments definitely won’t be so long. I’m fixing to go to my friends to watch the super bowl! Race, conservatives, liberals – all very interesting. I do learn from reading. I learn that people can be passionate, but mostly I learn that I’m more confused and very uniformed. I feel I can’t give a well thought out argument for anything. At least not now, especially when there’s a bowl of cheese and chips waiting for me.
With that said:
I would not be anywhere without affirmative action. I didn’t get into college through an affirmative action program “officially,” but – if it weren’t for affirmative action programs, i wouldn’t have ever been afforded many opportunties.
I agree with Abogado. There’s a problem with Race. We need to do more talking. We need to realize that we’re not going to agree, but we need to talk. I wish the people from my hometown read this blog or just read. They need to be having these conversations as well.
Before I begin commenting properly, I’d like to invite everyone–conservatives, liberals, minorities, Fascists, Communists, all–over to my house to destroy my old networking equipment. I would have posted earlier if not for my damn cable modem. GRRRRR. Maybe we can hash out our differences while we beat the crap out of useless hardware?
I’m not sure I have much to add here, really. I identify more as a liberal than a conservative, but I identify more as a political independent than anything else–a moderate, if they still exist in our current political climate. I’ve never particularly identified with any party, even if I’m registered as a Democrat for sake of the primaries–I prefer to make my own choices on the issues, and on major pieces of legislation. So, for me, this series was an interesting read and raised some worthwhile questions, but I’m not sure it gave me any sort of new perspective.
Okay, I take it back–I have one thing to add: like Cornell West, I see the “rise” of minority conservatism to be a good thing. Too often in recent years, politics has been made out to be a zero-sum game, this sense that if one side is right the other must be wrong. I prefer to think that liberals and conservatives need each other to balance their respective weaknesses–conservative focus on the individual offset by remembering a sense of cohesive social community, for example–especially in a two-party democracy. And the more diverse each party becomes, the better policies become as a whole.
I think a political balance…er equilibrium is healthy for democracy…but what is it really that American right-wingers want? Do they want an economic model that looks like what is in place in most countries in Latin America and for the most part the rest of the Third World? Let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Why do these people tend to use religion as an underlying motivation in their ideology? Do we really want to get rid of the middle class and allow the elite to prosper at the expense of those at the bottom? Is it not a government’s duty to look out for all its citizens?As for Affirmative Action…if there was an equal playing field then there would be no need for this program, which I am proud to say I was a part of. We all come from different experiences. When I was thirteen I was working in the fields, picking grapes alongside my parents. Does that count as anything? Should a university value that more than a privileged students higher GPA or their SAT score? It has been fifty years since Brown v. Board and that suffices to create equality for all? Give me a break. I probably don’t make much sense pero ni modo! Anyhow, great series Oso!
“Then what? What are you going to do about it? Just give me one single plan of action that will promote diversity in higher education.”
I hope I am not being repetative and am staying in context of subject here because I have to admit I did not read the whole series.
I am going to step out of the box here and may sound conservative. I do not believe in programs such as Affirmative Action and grants for minority students. Sure it helps in the short term and there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of these “solutions.” But they are quick fixes and not the solution thus the quotations.
It starts in the community. It starts when you are a kid. It starts with where your passions are. I see kids more passionate about Hip Hop than about school. And that is great you are into something but is that going to put the bread on the table?
It starts with the family and there are a lot of broken down minority families these days that is no wonder there are broken down aspirations. But don’t get me wrong and blame it on the family. It is up to the individual. But it does help to have leaders. And that is what we all must become Oso.
Heroes – worth of being looked up to because of your success be it financial, family, spiritual, or whatever and accountable of other’s respect. That is our mission for those who have climbed the ladder and reach down to the lower rung. I am responsibly for my succes and me alone but, there was always help that helped me along the way and that is no contradiction.
So maybe we need more posts like this. Maybe we need more voices calling in the vast sea and make sure those who are listening come to our shores instead of The Sirens.
I have a lot to say on this topic and Oso addressed some far reaching points that definitely need an appropriate answer by people on my side of the isle. Being that this is his last post of the series I want to make sure that my ‘concluding remarks’ fairly represent my side of the isle. In addition, I want to take in everything he has said, think about what my answer is, and than chew on the best way to explain my side to a liberal leaning audience. So that you guys can better understand what motivates, if not all minority conservatives, atleast this minority conservative.
So since this post requires such a high level response, I am going to postpone responding until after my midterm on Thursday. Probably during next weekend, when I have more free time to gather my thoughts.
So please, post away, but be sure to check back in a week or so, because as my governor once said, “I’ll be baackk”.
Interesting header image you’ve got here… does it signify something relative to your blog?
Conservatives and all that bushwa
Well, at the risk of sounding dull am writing this with no liquor or beer in my veins which pretty much cuts down on the creative and hip aspect of this blog, so be it, am going cold turkey on the enhancement products I use when I write.
Oso want’s…
Oso – You may get your “wish”.
try this one.
Elena,
If you would unlock your chones we’d probably have better luck leading HP in the right (digo left) direction.
Thivai,
Thanks for taking the time to comment after 6 hours of dissertation writing. That sounds painful. I’ve become a regular reader of Orion thanks to you. I agree … I have a much easier time understanding the “classical conservative” than a fan of Bush. Maybe HP will comment on that … I know he’s a big admirer of Dubya.
Daily Texican,
I agree with you whole heartedly. I really have learned much more this past year blogging than I did any given year of college. Very few of my actual friends read this blog and assume we all write about what we eat for breakfast. But the truth is we learn so much from each other and we have so much more to learn. What a trip … imagine if we’re still reading each others’ blogs 40 years down the road.
Elenita,
Only recently did I come to understand that it’s true … the checks and balances between liberals and conservatives help make the system as a whole better. It’s too bad there’s not an objective measurement of where we are. I’d say we’ve gotten way way too far to the right, but HP would probably say we’re just now getting to where we should be.
It’s also too bad that we always frame the arguments as strictly dualistic – blue and red. But so it goes.
Gustavo,
I think you and Abogado really make the most important point. Which is that there is no actual thing as “deregulation.” Rather it is which people the government will protect. Especially after Bush’s recent budget proposal, it’s pretty obvious that this administration is much more interested in protecting the small wealthy minority than the at large citizenry.
Louis,
I agree with you that community leadership plays a very important part. But it’s also about integrating that smaller scale leadership with mainstream media and institutions. It’s about knowing where the power is and taking hold of it. Here in San Diego there are some amazing leaders in districts 4 and 8, but the local media treats them like well-intentioned amateurs.
A lot of kids in the inner cities (why do I feel like I’m not allowed to write hood?) don’t see the same opportunities around them as kids growing up in more affluent areas with access to internships and family connections (what some call cultural capital). Government funded programs can do a great job to try and help make up for that imbalance.
HP,
Good luck on your midterms man.
Hpnadig,
Nothing relative to the blog. I’ve been meaning to write about that header image forever. Do you know who the little green guy is? I really like the green guy.
Abo,
Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing when I read a similar article in the UT. It’s good to know Bush is still listening to me.
Also, I agree with all of you who say we need to discuss race more in this country. For those of you with an mp3 player (or just burn it on a CD), Making Contact did a pretty good job with this podcast on Race and Public Policy in the United States.
Unknown browser
tavaresforby @ 6:20 pm
I would like to forward you guys a post by El-Oso about “Understanding Minority Conservatives.” I am assumi [...]
Elena,
If you would unlock your chones we’d probably have better luck leading HP in the right (digo left) direction.
Very true, I’ve always been one to look at all sides of the issue.:D
Come on Elena, what do you say? You know what they say about minority conservatives, right?
I have a much easier time understanding the “classical conservative” than a fan of Bush. Maybe HP will comment on that … I know he’s a big admirer of Dubya.
Good idea. I’ve been wanting to post on this topic for some time now, I feel my boy Bush gets a bad rap.
If I forget, remind me.
Especially after Bush’s recent budget proposal, it’s pretty obvious that this administration is much more interested in protecting the small wealthy minority than the at large citizenry.
Ohhh, the self-control….So much to respond to, so little time.
Also, I agree with all of you who say we need to discuss race more in this country.
Right, which is a (very important) fringe benefit of more minorities becoming conservative, we can finally start talking about the issues without all the (liberal) censorship. Everybody presenting ideas, nobody cares who you are (black/white/brown/male/female), just analyzing what works and doesn’t work, ahh, the conservative dream. One day!!!
Btw, this isn’t my concluding post…just stopping by in between breaks (I kinda miss you guys – especially Elena
).
Oso,
I had no idea you were writing these —I’ve been so busy, it’s been hard to keep up with my reading, linking and blogging. I’ll respond with more later but, just wanted to put this out there; because it is something I always end up discussing with the likes of Avery Tooley (a conservative) and Prometheus 6 (a liberal) : Yes race, but what about CLASS. What is considered a race issue in this country, elsewhere, especially in Latin America, it’s a question of class in the most basic of Adam Smith/Karl Marx sense of the term. But again, I have to go back and read all the posts to respond properly. With that in mind : You rock!
“moreno – still no comments on ethnicity?”
you know what i think. ethnicity rocks. its the foundation of this puzzle we call human existence. we pull apart the threads and trace their lineage until we go blind. we tie down the inferior and replace it with the mouths of the hungry and the poor. ethnicity is the rock buried miles beneath the surface of our skins, bruised and beaten like a racehorse yet persistent like the traffic of the city. ethnicity cries out “recognize me” yet forces us to shun its talents. we scrape and scrape and get nothing but flowers for fingernails. and so, dear readers, i propose a toast: to ethnicity!
p.s. i will eat your children
HP said:
“Good idea. I’ve been wanting to post on this topic for some time now, I feel my boy Bush gets a bad rap.
If I forget, remind me.”
Once you finish your exams and tear yourself away from your adoring fans please do address this…
“Especially after Bush’s recent budget proposal, it’s pretty obvious that this administration is much more interested in protecting the small wealthy minority than the at large citizenry.”
… and of course they are not speaking of discriminated minorities but privileged ones (you know Bush’s crowd–just look in his pictures or the cash calls)
“Right, which is a (very important) fringe benefit of more minorities becoming conservative, we can finally start talking about the issues without all the (liberal) censorship. Everybody presenting ideas, nobody cares who you are (black/white/brown/male/female), just analyzing what works and doesn’t work, ahh, the conservative dream. One day!!!”
This whole thing about the rise of “minority conservatives” is ridiculous. There have always been “minority conservatives”, and in fact minority groups can be just as “conservative” as the “dominant culture”… I know you don’t buy into this notion that there is this sudden influx of MCs in Aztlan nation. Perhaps it just behooves the dominant elite to throw some choicer table scraps to chosen MCs and they have also recognized the benefit of annointing a few MC spokespeople to interpellate their own people?
The benefit to me of the sudden visibility of “already” existing minority conservatives is that we can call out exploitation and oppression and injustice where we see it and not allow our alliances to be divided by race. Racial distinctions (the American form–we are all equal in theory, but in reality or God’s eyes some are more equal–naturally gifted) were originally emphasized by dominant groups in order to combat labor awareness and allegiance in America … See This Review of Many Headed Hydra or T. Allen’s “The Invention of the White Race” or David Roediger’s “The Wages of Whiteness” or “The Radical Reader” or “Voices of the People’s History of the United States”
I’m supposed to be writing on my diss and only wanted to drop a few thoughts… I’m glad Oso pays attention to his opponents, just hoping he doesn’t get distracted by the “smoke and mirrors” … thinking of San Diego on a cold, rainy, miserable day…
That’s the best picture of me in awhile!
Come on Elena, what do you say? You know what they say about minority conservatives, right? -HP
Yeah, I hear you can fuck about as good as you park.
Yeah, I hear you can fuck about as good as you park.
Definitely!! Rough, wild, and filled with passion.
(For the record, I am an expert parallel parker, don’t know what happened that night, must have been being in La Jolla so late that got me nervous – you know, damn racial profiling can be a bitch!!).
Thivai,
For the record, I am not going to defend Bush’s foreign policy. I think that is a touchy topic, especially among present company. Although I was for the Iraq war, my position on it is quite nuanced (not John Kerry nuance, but consistent nuance). In addition, my (liberal) Hispanic friends, here at work and online, have been informing me about certain aspects of history that I did not know. So lately, I’ve even moved a bit to the left on that topic.
If I had to list the main reason I like Bush, it would be that he is teaching the party how to seperate gansters and welfare dependents who happen to be Mexican, from Mexicans in general. He is making things alot easier for me, and my efforts (We have an invisible agreement he and I, he works from the top down, I work from the bottom up).
Sure, there are some things I disagree w/ him on. I didn’t like his perscription drug plan (for, most likely, very different reasons that many libs didn’t like it, though). But lately, he has been doing several things to mend those wounds. A perfect example of that is his most recent cut in social spending that Abogado links to above. Heres more things that would make me happy.
What are your primarily qualms w/ Bush, I am curious?
Its 2:30 and I have to teach at 8am so I’ll be brief and hopefully catch you later (thanks for the comment at Dialogic) to explain in more detail…
Top Ten Reasons I Dislike Bush (The President!) In No Particular Order (not just Bush personally, but also his whole administration):
Using Religion as a Club (I was raised by Holy Roller grandparents when i was young–I know fanaticism when I see it)
State Sponsored Homophobia
The Continuing Rollback on the Environmental Regulations of the 1970s
The Continuing Assault on Labor
The Coddling Of Corporate Offenders
This Ridiculous War (I know you didn’t want to mention the war–if I was a Bush supporter I wouldn’t want to either)
The Hypocritical Pose That He Is a Washington Outsider (he’s the fucking son of a former president!)
His Pathetic Attempt At Fixing Education Through Standarized Testing
The Fact That He is In No Way a Conservative (as in conserving and restoring)
The Fact That He is Proud That He Does Not Read!
and a bonus bitch:
His Spoiled Child Smirk (seriously people, you know this man, you’ve dealt with man-childs just like for most of your life)
Peace Hispanic Pundit … last year I was placed in the strange position of condemning so-called liberals at Progressive Blog Alliance because they were condemning you for having an opinion and because they were calling you a sell out to your race. I thought it was one of the most ridiculous statements I had heard (that minorities “should” only be liberal otherwise they are selling out their people) and found it to be very disturbing coming from people posing as progressives…
Is this the face of minority conservatism? One of the more interesting statements from this conservative, wealthy African-American woman (in an interracial marriage) was her statement to the homosexual woman that if she would “just hide her true identity a bit” she would be able to achieve so much more in life. Oso, HP, others, did you see this–what do you think:
Wife Swap Episode
i dont watch wife swap. i live it.
Is this the face of minority conservatism?…Oso, HP, others, did you see this–what do you think
I tend to follow a strict policy of not engaging in topics that are ‘hot’ and I can careless about. Reason being that the discussion will quickly become a great black hole that sucks all of my time. And why waste my time on things that I have no interest in.
With that said, since you specifically called me out, I will respond but keep in mind that I will not defend my position, only explain it. In addition, I have not watched the episode in question, or for that matter, any of the episodes that have been featured (TV, what is that? Conservatives discourage TV, remember!!!).
Homosexuality, unlike race, unlike ethnicity, unlike sex, is defined by its actions. It is a behavioral attribute, and as such, can be analyzed, criticized, and debated on like all other actions. This distinction may be subtle, but it is fundamental.
So, with that said, some religions find homosexuality immoral. You may agree or you may disagree, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is an issue religions are free to disagree with.
For example, the Catholic Church teaches that masterbation is wrong. You may disagree, you may agree, but that is clearly the Churches right to teach that. If I find a Catholic who argues against masterbation, I listen to what he has to say, process it and make up my own mind. But I don’t take it personally even if I
domay masterbate myself.Now, if I understand Christians correctly, I think their philosophy dictates that it is in fact compassionate to tell someone who is commiting immoral acts that those acts may result in the damnation of the individual. But if the person doesn’t share those views, they can always either ignore the person, or tell the person to leave them alone.
So do I consider her a conservative, following conservative philosophy. Sure, I don’t see why not. I am sure you consider vegeterians your comrads, even though you may personally see nothing wrong with eating meat.
In the same way a Christian, whether I agree with her or not, is a conservative regardless of her religious affiliation.
I hope that helps.
Now, as far as issues I do care about, you mentioned liberals were calling me a sell out and what not above, well hopefully in the next few months, when I am studying for my GRE, I can devote more time to blogging and online discussions. Because I have had it on my ‘things to do list’ for some time now to go out gunning for these liberals, especially the minority (specifically Mexican) ones. The more I study politics, specifically the differences between liberals and conservatives, the more I realize that a Mexican who stays true to his cultural roots (as I have!!), will be much more at home in the Conservative Philosophy than in the Liberal one, and I think a good public discourse on that topic will be healthy and give everybody a chance to see who is right. So stay tuned, good times are coming!!!
HP,
In my experience conservatives are the main consumers of network TV (look at the repressed content of sex as titilation–TV news shows, very conservative–ratio of cop shows, have you read Hakim Bey on “cop culture” on TV) My conservative students are fascinated by Reality TV and celebrities–I haven’t figured it out yet, but I’m thinking about it… what is it they are missing?
“Homosexuality, unlike race, unlike ethnicity, unlike sex, is defined by its actions.”
This seems somewhat naive in that you think cultural definitions and experiences of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality are “solely” biological determined and that homosexuality is “solely” determined by mental action…
Did you lay in your bed as an adolescent/teen and ponder whether you wanted to fuck males or females, wrestling with the decision, until you made the “right” choice/action? ??? Or did you just become attracted toward a particular sex because that is inherently your orientation (however you want to deem its origins–nature or nuture, the reality of this attraction is beyond simplistic designations of “choice”)… you might think about your stance here? Furtermore, designations of ethnicity, race, sexuality and gender should also be “analyzed, criticized, and debated” along with designations of heterosexuality and homosexuality and every other sexual orientation.
I have no problems with religions deciding they find something immoral and condemning it… I have a problem with them attempting to legislate their fantasies. Don’t forget (like the african american woman on Wife Swap) that it wasn’t to long ago that interracial relationships were considered “immoral” and “abhorrent” and “illegal”–often resulting in violence and death. Go visit a Christian Identity (more self-identified conservatives) site to check out current racist views on interacial relationships…
It is never compassionate to make a person cry and to tell them their life has no value–that their love for another person is evil and an abomination… how fucked up must be a person to do that to another person. Any Christian (a real Christian?) would condemn this as cruel and a betrayal of Christ’s teachings (you know the guy that hung out with the workers, prostitutes, and thieving tax collectors). Jesus preached radical love for others, not discriminatory hatred…
As for my considering vegetarians my comrades… I wouldn’t make that assumption just because someone is a vegetarian. A major problem is your essentialist thinking.
Vegetarians = eating habits outside the mainstream
Thivai = thoughts outside the mainstream
Thivai and vegetarians are comrades
Faulty reasoning…
Vegetarians come in all stripes and the choice to forgo meat doesn’t have a direct correlation with someones political beliefs. I have found vegetarians with wonderful open personalities and I have found vegetarians with oppressive, controlling, intolerent temperments.
“In the same way a Christian, whether I agree with her or not, is a conservative regardless of her religious affiliation.”
Are all Christians conservatives? Once again this seems to be an essentialist distillation that ignores the radical characteristics of Christianity (ignored by many American protestants–although there is a powerful strand of progressive American Christians). For instance, Liberation Theology, Quakers, Episcopilians (some), Progressive Christian Groups, Unitarian Universalists, etc…
I look forward to your posts on conservatives and liberals (mostly because I find the designations somewhat ridiculous and seek to understand why people so fiercely embrace them as their major identification) and hope you give as good as you get. I also hope that you develop a stronger sense of self-reflexivity mapping out your own frameworks (as you attempt to dismantle others).
Peace,
Thivai (who is seriously fucked-up, hypocritical and often fails to recognize his own frameworks)
I seem to lack the personality characteristic of self-control. For some reason or another, my biggest pet peeve is not having my point understood. To be honest, I can careless whether the person agrees with me or not, it is understanding my position that is of paramount importance to me. Maybe this is why I have decided to respond to your statement, even though I told myself I would not (for the record, I am not implying that the misunderstanding is your fault, it may be yours, it may be mine, my only point is that it bugs me when I don’t get understood).
So here, let me try to explain this better. You write,
This seems somewhat naive in that you think cultural definitions and experiences of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality are “solely” biological determined and that homosexuality is “solely” determined by mental action…
I made no such claim. I intentionally sidestepped the contentious issue of whether homosexuality is innate or not. I did so because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion. For example, if you were a homosexual (for example, with innate homosexual desires) who decided not to act out those desires, and if I was a heterosexual who, for some reason or another, decided to perform homosexual acts, the definition of homosexual, atleast in the way Christians use it, would apply to me, not you.
My point here is that the way the term is coined, specifically in moral philosophical discussions, is with its relation to the act, not the person. This is why I specifically used the analogy of masterbation. Who would deny that sexual desires are inherent in a person? Yet the Catholic Church specifically forbids this. In other words, it is irrelevant whether you are wired towards such acts, or not.
This is not the case with regard to sex, or race, or what not. For example, what acts can you give that seperate a black person as opposed to a white person? Or a male as opposed to a female? This is not the case with regard to homosexuality.
This is how a friend of mine framed it,
So your comparisons to race, gender, etc…is not comparing apples to apples.
As for my considering vegetarians my comrades… I wouldn’t make that assumption just because someone is a vegetarian. A major problem is your essentialist thinking.
I was just trying to use a group of people that forbid acts that I assumed you might find acceptable, and ask you if you would consider them fellow liberals, even though they may find your practice of eating meat abhorant. Vegeterians just happened to be the first group that popped into my mind.
Are all Christians conservatives? Once again this seems to be an essentialist distillation that ignores the radical characteristics of Christianity (ignored by many American protestants–although there is a powerful strand of progressive American Christians). For instance, Liberation Theology, Quakers, Episcopilians (some), Progressive Christian Groups, Unitarian Universalists, etc…
For the record, I was just answering your direct question of whether or not this women can be classified as a conservative, while still maintaining her Christian principles and practices.
You wrote,
I was just responding. I did not imply that Christian means Republican, or that all Christians are Republican, or whatever you read into my post.
On a side note, I wasn’t trying to imply that conservatives actually watch less TV, I was just trying to make light of the situation by using a commonly heard stereotype that conservatives discourage watching TV, that’s all (For the record, aside from Fox News
, I watch hardly any TV at all).
Hispanic Pundit,
I understand your frustration … but remember the writer is responsible for the effective communication of their ideas. If you are having problems being misunderstood by your readers then you might want to refine your writing. You seem to throw out a lot of general statements as if your readers should just nod their head and say “yep.”
My intent was to just point out some of these generalizations, essentialist assumptions, and fallacies …
Once again in this response you do the same thing, but like you I am tired and have other responsibilities so I’ll let it go for now in order to pay attention to other projects…
Let me just mention, I believe there really is nothing harmful in watching TV–its only a problem if it monopolizes one’s time and attention–or if it is there only osurce of information (not speaking to you directly–just refining my earlier comments on the problems of TV).
Perhaps when you have more time and I have more time we can disagree some more… good luck on your GRE’s (the anticipation is much more worse than the test–at least it was for me)
Thivai… neither solely of a liberal or conservative mindset, rather both/and… as well as…
Ample evidence above of a long held theory of mine that people don’t actually read on the internet so much as skim through and look at pictures. Check out what Black Pundit says:
What the fuck!? I’m about as close to conservativism as Fidel’s beard.
But y’all gotta understand, the point of this series wasn’t about whether conservativism or liberalism is better. The point was to try and demystify how the hell a minority in this country can call himself/herself a conservative. And I put a lot of time into it and was hoping that somebody would come out at the end and say, you know what, yeah, I understand their position a little better now. Am I the only one that happened to during this whole series?
When even my communist comrade in arms, Thivai, hopes I don’t “get distracted by the ’smoke and mirrors’” of conservatism, I feel obligated to write out all 6,493 reasons why I will always be a progressive and reject ideology like HP’s. But that’s what I’ve been doing for the past year.
So the fact that there are still those in the blogosphere who think I’m a Latino and on the cusp of giving Bill O’Reilly a blow job (am I allowed to write that during Lent?), just makes me hope that they’re at least enjoying the embarrassing pictures I put up of my homies.
I agree with Thivai that there have long been conservative minorities. I’d call Booker T. Washington a minority conservative. But I disagree with his claim that there is no new minority conservative movement. There very much is a movement. You sense it in the way the leaders of the movement describe it and evangelize it.
And the very fact that it is a movement is what draws a lot of people to it like HP and BP. There was one section I left out of this post because I felt like it was getting too long and that was a comparison of minority conservative movement today with the communist movement in Eastern Europe in the 1950’s. I think I’ll post it here as a comment after looking back over it and finding some references.
Finally, and most importantly, Moreno, gracias for living wife swap. I had a great time with Priya up in LA this past weekend.
Oso–just providing equal opportunity misreadings of both conservatives and liberals…
my comment about the “smoke and mirrors” was in jest.
as for the statement about the new trend of minority conservatives… I’m just saying the press (both mainstream and alternative) these days are acting as if minority conservatives are something new under the sun, when anyone that takes a passing interest in history would learn that minority groups in their struggles to “fit in” or “achieve” have often internalized the conservative values of the mainstream society–even bringing them to a new level.
I have no ideal if these new CMs represent a new philosophy/politics/worldview… but they are not “originating” as a context-free new force at this point in time–there is a long tradition and they sound very similar to white conservatives (in my very partial and incomplete readings/discussions)?
Great quote from the Black Pundit–he wiffed big time on that one. Who came up with their name first: the Hispanic Pundit or the Black Pundit?
Thivai … marxism, existentialism, buddhism, yoga (all ill-formed and misunderstood–luckily the middle two thrive on that)
It’s late at night, and I have lost my energy to post…so I thought I’d post something that I had written a few months ago on my blog(links on original blog – comments here won’t allow me to post so many links – some BS about Karma or something like that).
—————————
There are two necessary parts to succeed in anything. There is the internal element and the external element. The internal element involves the personality traits necessary to succeed. The personality traits that help you stay up late at night when necessary to pass a certain test, the personality traits that teach you a good work ethic necessary to survive and move ahead in any field, and the side that pushes you to keep going and overcome obstacles when they arise. But than there is also the external element. One could work as hard as one can, and have all the personality traits necessary to succeed, but if there are no opportunities because of your race, or if your financial circumstances limits your options, you are also limited in how far you can go economically.
In my opinion, liberals seem to focus on the external forces involved in getting minorities out of the ghetto. They will push for affirmative action, they will push to get more government money for student loans, they will fight to make college cheaper, they will create minority business networks to help promote minority-based businesses. They will put a strong emphasis on the racial barriers to minorities prosperity.
Liberals will also push for social programs that they think will help minorities and depend on the government to implement those programs. They also tend to promote increased government funding of those social programs as the way to solve minority problems.
In other words, liberals’ focus is on the external factors and using the government to implement solutions.
Conservatives, on the other hand, will address the internal factors more. They will stress hard work and dedication, personal responsibility and the need to learn the tools necessary to succeed in life. Conservatives will advocate for crime laws that remove criminals off the streets; they will encourage and assist faith based initiatives that give inner city Churches the tools necessary to solve the economic and cultural problems from the inside. They promote solutions that encourage couples to stay married and help reduce out of wedlock births.
Conservatives will also push for programs that don’t compromise the above beliefs. Conservatives will emphasize free market solutions to the problem of minorities, and tend to shy away from government solutions. They will push for the privatization of social security, thereby giving those who choose to use them the opportunity to take control of their own economic destiny. They will push for non-race specific solutions that will help minority businesses succeed. Things like tax breaks for small business, a reduction in regulations that hamper business growth. Last, but certainly not least, conservatives will push for a free-market solution to tackle the failing problems of our public schools. They will push for vouchers, a solution that gives parents of children in failing schools the economic choice necessary to send their kids to the school of their choice, this in turn indirectly puts much needed pressure on schools to succeed.
In other words, conservatives focus on internal forces and tend to rely on free-market, non-government methods to implement their solutions.
I am not saying that these are mutually exclusive lines, or that supporting one political philosophy implies you don’t support the solutions of the other political philosophy. My point here is to show the difference in emphasis, not in specific applications.
After reading this, one will naturally ask the obvious question, which side is better? If one’s ultimate goal is to get minorities out of the ghetto and towards a prosperous living, which side is better at doing it? I would answer that it depends more on the circumstances of the time than anything else.
To succeed you need both elements. You need the internal and the external. If any one is lacking, you will not be able to succeed.
So both the conservative and the liberal emphasis are necessary. However, I think that depending on the circumstances of the time, one should be emphasized over the other. I agree that there was a time when combating racism was necessary and perhaps affirmative action was needed back then. The country certainly needed to be made aware of the fact that many minorities were not succeeding because of the external limitations imposed on them. But I believe that a lot has changed since then. Racism and the external limitations on minorities are, for the most part, a thing of the past. I am not saying that racism has ceased to exist, only that it doesn’t have the power that it did before. There isn’t enough racism to stop you from succeeding in life. In addition, there is more than enough college funding going around than most people are aware of. Nowadays, there are so many options available to poor people wanting to go to college and there aren’t enough people taking advantage of that. I know a Hispanic female friend of mine that grew up living in a trailer, when she finished high school she won a grant from the Bill Gates foundation that completely paid for her education at USC. The grant paid for her books, education tuition, and gave her money for rent, a computer and transportation. Could you have imagined anything close to that 30 years ago?
I am not arguing that more progress shouldn’t be made with regards to external factors (although I’d disagree with how liberals go about it), but rather that the focus needs to be on internal factors.
Today, the primary problems limiting minorities from getting out of the ghetto are not racial, they are not financial, they are cultural. When you have a high percentage of minorities growing up in single family homes, or a high crime area that hampers economic innovation, or a culture that frowns on academic success, or a public school system that doesn’t give minorities the resources necessary to succeed, the primary problems have ceased to be external, and are now internal.
In other words, minorities now need to hear more Bill Cosby and less Jesse Jackson.
So not only do I believe that the emphasis should be on the internal, but I believe liberals have drifted so far to the external that they have started to hurt minorities.
Liberals’ overemphasis on race leads them to be over sensitive on that issue. I have a very liberal Hispanic friend that I was discussing the problem concerning the lack of Hispanics in the sciences, something that is of particular concern to me. And it was like pulling teeth to get her to even admit there is a problem, as if my bringing it up was the result of some racism on my part. I could only imagine what her response would have been if I had been a white person, as opposed to Hispanic. Many times, if you talk to a liberal minority and you happen to be white, many of them will not even listen to what you have to say, simply because you are white or don’t have the same poverty upbringing that they have. In addition, liberals have become so sensitive on racial issues that it becomes very difficult to even talk about cultural problems without the fear of being branded a racist.
In addition, liberals’ overemphasis on race issues leads them to be very divisive – emphasizing the difference among Americans instead of the similarities. For example, Mexican-American minorities will quibble endlessly about the proper term that defines us, is it Latino? Is it Hispanic? Or, is it even Chicano? Some take this argument so seriously that they have publically stated that they will not even view or address my solution to failing public schools (vouchers) because I have decided to call myself Hispanic. When your ideology drives you to stress the importance of whether to call yourself a Hispanic over the problem of failing schools, I think it’s fair to say you need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Furthermore, contrary to common belief among liberals, social programs don’t have the wonderful track record that liberals seem to think they do. Some argue that using the government to promote social programs only divides and actually makes matters worse.
Than there is the belief that social programs when done through government do not come free. They have trade offs like everything else in economics. The bigger you make government, the more you tax citizens, the less efficient the economy runs, and the less economic mobility is available to those at the bottom.
Maybe I am lucky to have entered politics at such a young age. To have entered politics without experiencing the civil rights era of the 1960’s and 70’s. To have only read about the great Martin Luther King Jr, the great civil rights fighters of that time instead of going through the struggles with them. Maybe the lack of personal experience in that area has allowed me to enter politics with no historical bias, only judging what I see now.
Now…to respond to individual comments.
I wish HP would take a couple Chican@ studies (or even urban planning) classes himself. Then he would learn the history of how the city of San Diego has gone to such lengths to keep Barrio Logan isolated from the rest of San Diego and filled with junkyards and factories and the very worst of public schools.
It’s funny that you say this. I remember when I was getting my undergrad I had to take this sociology course. I was still living in Compton at the time, and the teacher asked us to write a paper on any type of subconscious influence society imposes on us. I couldn’t think of anything to write about until one day, after driving home from this girl’s house, it hit me how by some odd order of events, Compton is separated from some of the cities surrounding it. If you leave Compton, and drive down Alondra Blvd, towards lets say Gardena or Carson, you will notice several streets filled with factories and what not that separate the cities from Compton; almost no homes at all between the two cities. Carson and Gardena are not rich areas, but they certainly are much better areas to live in than Compton. I remember thinking that the only way they could have preserved such a difference in culture is to keep Compton at arms length. Anyway, I decided that is what my paper should be on. After a couple days of thinking about it and writing it, I turned it into the teacher.
I didn’t think the paper was all that special, but I remember being approached by a couple professors saying that they got a hold of my paper and that they really liked it; how I have a gift for sociology and if I have ever considered getting into that major. Blah blah blah. I didn’t realize it at the time, but those events had a huge impact on my life. They were the first experiences I had of being valued for my intelligence (I am not saying I am smart, just saying what people thought) as opposed to how tough I was. I had never experienced that sort of praise before, and I probably wouldn’t admit this to many people but I kind of liked it. Looking back, I think that was one of the main things that catapulted me into the study of philosophy/politics/economics, I thought maybe I could add a unique perspective to the debates on the topic (On a side note, my second paper in the class, I took much more seriously, I had always found it extremely annoying to hear rich never-been-in-the-hood people preach about how they ‘just can’t understand how people do what they do in Compton’ or how it ‘is so stupid to be in a gang, to get caught up in that stuff’ as if they are smarter and wiser than those in the ghetto – so I took it upon myself to give a description of how life is growing up in Compton – how the culture through school or just shooting craps with the fellahs in the neighborhood molds you little by little through each year of your life, and how life gets when you enter your teens – how its all a logical step that even the smartest kids can fall into – basically arguing that intelligence has nothing to do with it, its more cultural and socioeconomic than anything – I even interviewed one of the most known killers (used a fake name) in my neighborhood for it – my professor also really liked it, and when I graduated, she, along with my Physics professor nominated me for ‘most outstanding student’ – but it required giving a public speech at my graduation, and being terrified of public speaking – i declined) .
Looking back on it now, I am pretty sure the teacher was liberal, and was trying to awaken a victim mentality (yuck!!) in me and make me another fighter against ’social injustice’ and all that stuff. I am so glad that I didn’t take her up on the offer and jump out of a real science major and into the land of limousine liberals (give me a math problem anyday, over that subjective stuff). I was very young back than (19) and might of not had enough backbone to stay true to who I am (It gives me chills just picturing it, sipping lattes w/ my colleagues talking about how infants aren’t really valuable in themselves only in their connections to the world or how Che had his heart in the right place and how real Communism should be given just one more chance – after all, it’s primarily the poor people that feel the brunt of our mistake anyway – we are safe in these university walls – I get goose bumps all over).
But she did have a huge influence on my life, and I can’t take that away from her. So, for ever in my life, every time I get really angry at a liberal or intellectual, I think about her, and what she did for me, and I calm down and breathe a bit, and realize that they are not all bad.
I hope HP will:
* Continue to be my friend in the decades to come.
No problem there bud. I definitely want to stay in contact with you if not for any other reason but to see just how things will turn out w/ you and your girl. From the little that I have read of her writings, and what you tell me about her, I can already tell that her cultural upbringing and connection to the real world will teach you a lot about life. I am as interested to see how you will change over the years (and move to the right), as I am in how interested you probably are to see how I will change (give it up, there is more of a chance that Barbara Boxer will support a partial birth abortion ban than me ever becoming a libbie).
So, cuándo quieras mi amigo, I’m down to go to the local pub and get a couple
bud lightsmicrobrew pale ale w/ you anytime.Another point I can’t let go (damn alcohol!!), elenamary writes about me, “I know he believes that he has pulled himself up from his boot straps and that if we all just work hard we too will be able to achieve great things”.
No, elenamary, this is not true. In fact, the very opposite is true. I cringe everytime somebody tells me ‘how proud they are of me to have pulled myself out of the ghetto and into where I am now”. I cringe because I know that’s not the truth. I don’t know exactly all the details, but I do know that it wasn’t primarily my doing. One minute I am hanging out with the forgottens in the alley in Compton, the next minute I get my heart broken by a girl who had a huge impact on my life (It’s a strange turn of events how I met her too, I had never been to Church in years, and one day, out of nowhere, my mom practically begged me to go to Church with her, she even offered to buy me Pizza that day and the next day if I went – it was an offer I couldn’t pass up – so I went and we made eye contact as I was driving into the parking lot in my moms car ).
So one day (I’m 17ish), heartbroken (although I am holding it all in, shieett, the way real men deal with pain!!!) sitting at home, what I have been doing for the past couple years since I dropped out of highschool. Decide to register in school…and the rest is history. I remember that the only thing I could do to forget about her was study, hanging out with the fellahs, none of that stuff really stopped me from thinking about her, afterall, that is all the stuff I did while I was with her. So no, I didn’t consciously think to myself ‘if I study I will be able to live like my limousine liberal friends’, it just sorda happened that way. To make a really long story short, that, along with five other crucial events within my life, ended up being the reasons why I am where I am today.
And thinking about all those reasons that got me out of Compton, there is one thing that is common among them. They were all pretty much outside my control. You see, I didn’t consciously choose to get out of Compton, the more accurate picture is that I was pushed out. I don’t know why those things happened to me, and not to the others I grew up with. Probability theorem tells me I am the ‘abnormality’ in a consistent pattern. Part of me says that it must have been because my saintly grandma in Mexico prayed to St. Jude everynight, and me ‘recomiende a su cuida’, but than I remember several of my dead friends had moms/grandmas just as saintly, yet they end up with different results, and wind up crying uncontrollably at their sons funerals, and my grandma/mom never had to go through that, and that idea starts to diminish. I have thought about this for several years now, and to be honest with you, it weighs heavily on my heart. If pressed, I would say that the reason I came out and others didn’t, is that someone up top likes to roll the dice too…and it just happened to roll my number (11). It’s a cruel way to order lifes events, and its one of the first things I am going to ask if I ever get to see him, but its the way things are, and you can’t do anything but ‘roll with it’.
I’ll tell you this much though, I’d give everything I have now, and in the future to go back and have one last night with my friends I grew up with. To roll the dice in front of my house with my friends I grew up with, or the guys from the next street over. I’d give it all to bring back my friends who are dead or forever in prison. But I know there is one thing I can’t reverse, and that is time.
For some reason the link above didn’t take…here is the link to the original blog.
HP,
In response to #32 … you are a good writer, but this constant reliance on simple labels of conservative and liberal makes posts like this useless–where does your reader grab a hold of–how do these labels mask over a multitude of differences within and without these two positions–how does simplistic dualistic mapping of issues frame out any dissenting voices (those that do not claim to be either just liberal or conservative)–how does ahistorical framing of a discussion make any response or critique difficult or impossible… you mention no clear references–how is one to respond other than to engage in pointless carping about liberals and conservatives?
You mentioned you are studying for your GRE… your intellectual opponents in grad school will tear apart this kind of writing (just warning–not trying to be dismisive… but probably comes off that way???).
On the other hand–your personal statement about where you come from and how you developed intellectually was powerful and made me think–thanks. I can relate … I made a strange trip (with no true understanding as it developed–more like just happened to catch that wave as it approached) to where I am, through dropping out of high school, drugs, gangs, and incarceration (no doubt our geographical places made our experiences along these lines very different–yet I would assume there are shared commonalities)… to being clean, in another region, college, grad school, teaching in universities and writing/editing …
Anyways, link below, another conservative, religious (conserving and restoring) thinker I admire (how is this person liberal? how is this person conservative? how does this person provide another example of being both/and, neither/nor, and puts the lie to simplistic dualistic labels of conervative/liberal?):
Why Be An Activist?
I’m not saying we should quit using the concepts of C and L–just that we might be a little more reflective about our usage and challenge the current usage…
Hello Thivai,
I didn’t know you grew up like that too? And here I was thinking you were another intellectual with no contact to everyday problems…I need to read your blog more closely now!!
As far as labels go, it would be hard to have a discussion on ‘Minority Conservatives‘ without the ability to categorize certain beliefs under the conservative flag, or the liberal flag. Granted, my response was a generalization, but an accurate generalization nonetheless.
With that said, I think I understand your point. You want some concrete beliefs that make me a conservative. Things you can wrap your hand around, and argue with. That is certainly a fair thing to ask, so here, let me lay down some of the things that make me a conservative as opposed to a liberal (specifically related to minority issues only, because I am also pro-life as opposed to pro-choice).
Affirmative Action
If it was up to me, affirmative action would be done on economic status as opposed to racial status. I think that this would result in overall the same thing (diverse environment) but without all the negatives of race based affirmative action. You would truly be following a color blind environment (practice what you preach), and would allow for what truly does factor into a persons education (A person who got a 3.8 at Compton High School would have went through alot more to get that 3.8 than a person who got a 4.0 at Beverly Hills High School).
I believe in the brotherhood of men.
I believe the primary reason people in the ghetto are not succeeding is not due to institutional problems,or racism, it is cultural and to some degree socioeconomical. So solutions that try and solve problems in the inner cities need to address those aspects primarily, as opposed to aspects involving racism and institutional problems.
Economics
I believe in economic growth over income inequality.
I am laissez faire because I feel that a more regulated economy hurts primarily the poor.
I believe immigration is a better tool to solving poverty than welfare.
I believe that hand outs, and helping people with out helping themselves breeds a bad culture. Giving people other people’s money is less likely to instill in the beneficiaries a sense of achievement, self-respect, and responsibility than it is a sense of entitlement. And I think Republicans/Conservatives understand this better.
But here, if you want to get this radical conservative to vote Democrat, there is one issue that I value so highly, that I would vote for a Democrat on this single issue if he supported it and the Republican did not. That issue is vouchers.
This is what I wrote in the “MyViews” section of my website.
Education:
Some people think that the most important political topic with regard to education and how it relates to poor people is affirmative action. I disagree strongly. I think it is vouchers, sometimes referred to as school choice. Now, I personally disagree with affirmative action, but that is not the reason I lean conservative on this issue. It is not because I disagree with affirmative action, but because I so strongly believe in School Choice.
School choice means many things to different people. But what I call school choice, and what I believe to be the heart of school choice, is accountability. The key to the success of Capitalism is not the companies it creates, but the inefficient companies it eliminates. And the reason it does that so well is because of competition. Competition has repeatedly shown to be the greatest cause of efficiency than anything else. Under the current school system, if you lived in Compton, California, like I did, you would be forced to send your kid to that cities school system. What if that school system was wrought with gangs, failing teachers, and failing methods of teaching? There is nothing you could do, you would still be forced to send your kid to that school. Too bad for you.
Under vouchers/school choice, all of that changes. Before I get more into vouchers, let me give some background info. Currently in California, the government spends an average of $7,000 a year per student. In some other states, that number could approach 11K/year per student.
If a voucher plan was implemented, what would happen is all public schools would immediately go on a grading system. Those schools that fail for one consecutive year (or whatever time deemed by the Voucher designer), would be given a warning to improve and given a certain amount of time to do it. If that school does not improve in that period of time, vouchers would come into play, being phased in little by little to give the market time to catch up. The government would give the parents the $3,000, or some other fraction of the original amount of money that they had originally sent to that childs public school for that childs behalf. It’s important to note a few things here. One, that money is not coming out of anybodies taxes, it is coming out of money that was already being allocated for that child. Another point, the remainding ($4,000, in this example) goes back into the public schools that are passing to help encourage their success.
Now, what does that parent get to do with that 3k? This where the name voucher comes from, that voucher must be used for some other alternative means of education for that child, of the parents choosing. If the parent wants to send that child to some other school, in some other city, that is ok. If that parent wants to send that child to a private school fine. Shoot, if that parent wants to leave that child in the current school, that is fine too. In other words, the parent gets options that he/she never had before.
It’s important when discussing school choice not to get bogged down into the details of how school choice is implemented. Some voucher programs only allow the parent to send their kid to other public schools, some allow private schools. Some voucher programs give more money to the parents, some give less. Some have tougher grading scales on schools, some have more lenient grading scales. Some allow home schooling as an alternative to public schools, others don’t. Some don’t take the money given to the parents away from the school that fails, others do. The point here is not to get bogged down in the details but to see the overall picture. Vouchers, unlike any plan the liberals suggest, adds accountabilty to a school system that has never seen it before. A school system that has been a monopoly for most of its existance. And competition, just like its track record in economics, does wonders to create efficiency.
And vouchers can only be found under the conservative banner. It makes more sense for them to be under the conservative banner as well, since conservatives are the pro-capitalist, remember. So every problem they encounter, they naturally want to solve that problem by a free market competitive solution. A solution that has proven to work time and time again.
And what exactly is the liberal alternative? That’s easy. It’s not reform, its simply more of the same thing. The liberal solution today, like that of yesterday and yesteryear, is simply more money. Liberals have this tendency to believe that the school system is like a bucket in the corner of the room, the more money you throw at it, the more money may eventually fall into the bucket. The bucket being those students who attend these schools. However, experience has shown that there is very little correlation between more money spent on schools, and better results out of our children. In fact, often times the very opposite is true. The most highly paid schools in the nation (DC for example) have the absolute worse educational record. And the reason is simple, in a monopolized market, you don’t have to improve, the consumer has no alternative. And in education, the consumer is us.
And I must admit, I have never seen an objection to vouchers that can not also be made against Capitalism in general, yet Capitalism works very well. So again, I think on another central issue, conservatives win over liberals.
—————————-
I look forward to your feedback.
Hispanic Pundit,
Yes, I’m not a silver spoon–fortunate son. I do not often write about my past as it sometimes compromises my professional position. Working within a conservative institution I cannot always be honest about my life experiences. Up until last year (I did this for six years at two different universitites) I used to start off my writing classes by giving my background and experiences, felt comfortable enough to seek me for advice with life crisis that the typical college instructor wouldn’t understand (sexual assault, drug problems, family problems, arrests, etc…).
Last year immediately after having a great discussion with my honors writing course in which students questioned me about my life, a self-identified conservative student (definitely silver spoon) marched out of the classroom and went to the dean’s office and tried to get me fired … since then I have been a little bit hesitant to be so open with my students–sad, but necessary (until I’m a tenured professor). This is also why I use a pseudonym on my blog–even though my students all know it is mine–push comes to shove … I have no idea who that Thivai character is…
Anyways, I appreciate very much your response and I think we agree on more than we may have thought, but still disagree on some very key issues–my response will have to wait a bit though as it is 6:30 and I have to teach this morning.
Here are two links in the meantime. Perhaps they may shed some light on why I find your dualistic framing of issues problematic.
The first is a response of mine to an essay about mentoring for social justice:
Are You Mentoring for Social Justice
The second is a weblog I have set up for an education activist group in Kentucky (Oso actually hooked me up with them–imagine that!). They are conservative (most of them were govt and education administrators) yet we work together because we all see the current conservative administrations educational policies as destructive:
Grandparent Coalition
Peace
Dangit, you guys write too much, it will take me 2 entire Cantinflas movies-length of time to finish reading this. I will have to read and take breaks, conserve my eyesite and energy that way. Wait, does that make me a “conservative” now! W00T!
[...] [...]