Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Dissenting Voice
I want to ask you a question. Do you gravitate to news that agrees with your point of view, be it political or other? Do you want to hear the dissenting voice? How important, as a Ricochet paying customer, is it important to you? While Ricochet promotes itself as a conservative blog, we know that the many members that make up this site are from varying backgrounds, to say the least.
We have all faiths or no faith, we have different education levels, incomes levels, political views. This site is promoted as primarily politically-leaning, yet we enjoy poets, photographers, comedians, artists, doctors, lawyers, journalists, TV personalities, military, and so forth. What makes it such an interesting site is there is a community atmosphere, where all views are welcome. You get to know personalities, personal challenges. We even pray for each other – that’s right. There are groups within groups, on every interest you can imagine. It’s all monitored by a code of conduct – called respect. The sky is the limit with regards to topic and discussion, but there are no personal attacks allowed. People become friends, and support each other.
A case in point is the support of @TitusTechera and his summer in America, a citizen of Romania. His trip was funded by members who wanted Titus to come to America. We wanted to share with him who we are, and show how much we value him. What would Ricochet be without Titus? Another example is our @Claire. I fell in love with her books, her talent, her writing by accident. My sister found her book Menace in Europe, in a pile of used books in a thrift shop in Amish country, small-town America (sorry Claire). She saw the book, bought other things, went back to her car, got out of the car and went back in and bought the book. She could not forget the cover or the story. My sister read it in amazement and shipped it to me in FL. She said you have to read this book!!
Since then, I’ve read Claire’s books, passed them to others, just recently lent a couple her book on Menace, and have followed her ever since. Many at Ricochet got behind her and encouraged her to write a sequel. It’s going to be great. We “Go funded” her project without hesitation, as both investors and donators. We wanted to be a part of it, her experience as a journalist writing it. That is why I invested and I do not regret it. A Ricochet member flew to Paris @KateBraestrup and watched her cats while she was on assignment for the book. This is what Ricochet is about. It’s political, it’s fiery sometimes, and its personal. I love (literally) the people on this site. I have yet to go to a Ricochet meet up, but can’t wait.
This brings me to my topic. What is important to you as a reader, writer, commenter in the framework of a conservative, mainly political leaning blog? Do digressing voices have value? How much value? If you are a Christian, do you want to hear from an atheist? If you are leaning alt-right, do you value the left-leaning conservative opinion? If you love history, do you feel an obligation to share your knowledge? To teach new generations, new members of Ricochet?
I am disturbed by several things. I voted for Trump in the primary, but I wanted Ted Cruz. I rode the wave, because to me Hillary was worse. I don’t regret that. To date, I am 50/50 on Trump, but it is a new presidency and there has been a lot to deal with in the post-Obama election period. Our country has problems that need fixing. So do other countries, that have for the most part, relied on the US to fix them. I also am disturbed by the press, what makes up our American journalists. I would love to see Hannity on the Rachel Maddow show. I want to see ideas duked out, rather than protests in the street that yield nothing but burned out Starbucks. The Milo thing, for example. To expose his ideas in the light of day deserves a forum, what a great idea, yet many denied that. Why?
I want to know if Ricochet members want that forum, the dissenting voice, informative posts where you learn something that completely surprises you, good or bad, and you want more? Or do you want to hear from people like you, who agree with you? Are you quick to criticize a digressing view? I am. I want to criticize less and learn more. I want to learn period. I want to hear from everyone.
Freedom of Speech – we may not have it one day.
Published in General
If I may explain how I relate to the Left “obsession” with race, but more importantly I think, with representation: growing up, I had plenty of role models, but none that looked like me. They were great role models and they inspired me to be who I am. But there was always a part of me that felt that I could never be like them: a leader, champion, role model. After all, where are they? (This is also a problem with diversity of representation in education). So this must mean they were somehow inferior, that I am somehow also inferior. Albeit this is a child’s reasoning, but it’s still a deep and affecting consternation.
Separately, the issue of representation in government is important, because legislation impacts constituents. If you agree that different groups of people (black, female, gay, whatever) have different cultural backgrounds and experiences, and hence, perspectives on certain issues, then their representation in government is important to ensure that that group has a voice that understands their perspectives and concerns. After all, America is diverse, and leadership should be correspondingly diverse.
I don’t think that notion really means much to us here. Sometimes it may be relevant such as local governance whether private or public in an ethnically or racially dominated neighborhood but you’d still try to get the best you could. But since conservatism is rooted in ideas and traditions, diversity is meaningful only in the sense that different expertise, disciplines, experiences and education bring different views knowledge and understanding of the people we hire because they are the best we can get. We’d want Thomas Sowell in any position requiring a brilliant economist but not because he’s black and was raised in poverty, but because he’s a great economist and has spent his life trying to understand what that background and all other backgrounds really meant for him, his country and just about any other country. I don’t think the difference is subtle. Part of it is that one must be aware of where we come from as a people i.e. millennia of tradition, who we are now and care above all about truth. If you begin with some ideological notion into which you put new information, such as my approach is social equality you may be less interested in truth than why there is such great inequality. Which by the way Thomas Sowell has written volumes about.
What’s funny is many members, including me, were once liberal Democrats. I jumped ship back in 2000. Sometimes people go in the opposite direction and become more left-leaning – that is why its an interesting site. Who wants to communicate with people who agree on everything? Hence, the title of my post and my point. Diversity of ideas, people, backgrounds are what makes this site so interesting to me. You will be challenged, but you can challenge others. Personal respect is key here.
And this is how blacks end up with representatives like Maxine Waters and Keith Ellison instead of Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson — speaking of shallow!
Asians are the most successful demographic in the country. They’re doing better than whites. Yet their representation in government is practically nil. What’s the difference between them and you, @danfield ? Melanin? No. Values. Ideas. Attitudes.
Here’s the thing about liberals engaging with conservatives on Ricochet — we’re not going to walk on eggshells here. There’s way more diversity of thought and opinion on the Right and we’ve been sharpening our swords against the bad ideas of progressivism for a long, long time — in our daily lives and on Ricochet. All I can say is, armor-up. You’ll need the extra thick padding.
I also strongly recommend Jason Riley’s speech to you:
You’re looking for solutions to your problems in all the wrong places — particularly in government. Your solutions will come from you!
I’m confused about this argument. If Asians are doing better than whites (actually not true across all Asian groups, if you look at disaggregated data on Asians), and it is because of their values, ideas, attitudes, then why are they not more involved in government? There are numerous factors, including lower rates of civic engagement than white voters because of language barriers and voter registration (see section starting on page 13).
To be clear, wanting diversity in government, school boards, media, police forces, etc. is not about merely seeing a range of colors of people’s skin (although it is validating for some), it is more about representation of perspectives, ensuring minority groups have a voice, and reducing many forms of disparities that stem from unequal treatment of minorities. This article (albeit focusing on Chicago) provides examples of many positive impacts in reducing disparities from having more black and Latino representatives in government. As a public health researcher, my work focuses on disproportionate impact of health outcomes on minority groups, and increasing civic engagement and leadership among minority groups is one way of ensuring that their needs are heard, and policies are crafted to address their needs.
Embedded in your words here is an idea that really separates progressives or liberals as we refer to those on the left from conservatives and right libertarians who make up much of Ricochet. That idea is the opposition of the focus of value: on identity groups by the left and on individuals by the right. The former push for more inclusive collective effort and uniform reward systems and the latter for individual effort and personalized rewards. The right sees the left as favoring government involvement and promoting single solutions for problems and issues across the entire US as directed from Washington, what we sometimes refer to as one size fits all. Many on Ricochet favor a more distributed approach to dealing with common needs and problems, in other words, do more of this things at the state and local areas. Individual choice is another favorite of the right and we are seeing this now in the controversies surrounding healthcare and education. Choice is what we see disappearing when Washington is in charge.
I appreciate the ideological and value differences between conservatives and liberals, and as a former conservative who embraced individual choice, I became more sympathetic to identity politics because my underlying assumption was proven by literature and research to be incorrect: not all individuals have access to the same opportunities, because of a range of inequities. Individual effort does not explain all these inequities, but rather circumstances of birth, racism, poverty, access to high quality education, health, residence in high crime areas, etc. Thus, efforts to improve opportunities for those with less and achieve equality, are efforts to level the playing field, so to speak. I agree it’s imperfect and sometimes individuals are burdened by the needs of a minority group. This is one of the reasons I’m here–to see if there are solutions we can agree on.
I’d think school choice is an area we can agree on, given the results of the public school monopoly. Even Sweden has a voucher program for their schools.
Your assessment that some are disadvantaged by their circumstances is correct. My view of an approach to deal with this is to change the environmental conditions by removing obstacles that are inhibiting opportunity. The diminished opportunity situation has multiple causes, among those are economic conditions and cultural influences. As an example, ‘school choice’ for inner city education has the potential to help improve opportunity by affecting both of these influences. By improving the process we help those disadvantaged to help themselves rather than just doing something through government to hand out a better outcome which has been shown to make matters worse.
I would also suggest that opportunities will never be equally available. I believe much of what holds back black America is the continual rant of the Liberals that they are victims, that they will never have the same opportunities as those on the Right (especially those who are white), that they are helpless to change their circumstances–the litany goes on. Many of us are aware that blacks in America were substantially better off BEFORE the civil rights laws, with two-parent families, a thriving middle class and increasing opportunities. Then we got the War on Poverty, which has been a dismal failure. I think the narrative needs to change in those communities who feel they are being deprived and limited. Someone like you, for starters, would be a great role model.
Sorry, I’m not going to read 58 pages of “descriptive representation” newspeak, @danfield. My time here at Ricochet is short as Lent begins tomorrow.
But, if you don’t see problems with the abstract, I think we’re unlikely to find much common ground.
You didn’t watch the Jason Riley video, did you?
I definitely want to see the data on this, because I don’t see how civil rights laws, which include laws that forbid discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, could possibly have a negative impact on increasing opportunities for black Americans.
I think we’re in danger of talking past eachother here. I think one of the main misconceptions about republicans is that we’re not compassionate about the current situation that faces the black community, when in fact we just have a different solution (though some could still use more compassion in our words). The democrat answer is to have the government throw money at problems to make them go away, and it just hasn’t worked in this case. The republican solution is to re-think the welfare situation and engage more on the community level. In other words, help the black community help themselves without the dis-incentives. Sometimes this comes off as crass, but it’s definitely worth the discussion.
Thanks for engaging on these boards DanField, we 100% need more voices like yours in my opinion. Please don’t mind the criticism and be open to rethinking ideas as well.
Cheers!
Here is one link: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-progress-how-far-weve-come-and-how-far-we-have-to-go/
In part it says:
Beginning in the 1940s, however, deep demographic and economic change, accompanied by a marked shift in white racial attitudes, started blacks down the road to much greater equality. New Deal legislation, which set minimum wages and hours and eliminated the incentive of southern employers to hire low-wage black workers, put a damper on further industrial development in the region. In addition, the trend toward mechanized agriculture and a diminished demand for American cotton in the face of international competition combined to displace blacks from the land.
As a consequence, with the shortage of workers in northern manufacturing plants following the outbreak of World War II, southern blacks in search of jobs boarded trains and buses in a Great Migration that lasted through the mid-1960s. They found what they were looking for: wages so strikingly high that in 1953 the average income for a black family in the North was almost twice that of those who remained in the South. And through much of the 1950s wages rose steadily and unemployment was low.
Thus by 1960 only one out of seven black men still labored on the land, and almost a quarter were in white-collar or skilled manual occupations. Another 24 percent had semiskilled factory jobs that meant membership in the stable working class, while the proportion of black women working as servants had been cut in half. Even those who did not move up into higher-ranking jobs were doing much better.
A decade later, the gains were even more striking. From 1940 to 1970, black men cut the income gap by about a third, and by 1970 they were earning (on average) roughly 60 percent of what white men took in. The advancement of black women was even more impressive. Black life expectancy went up dramatically, as did black homeownership rates. Black college enrollment also rose—by 1970 to about 10 percent of the total, three times the prewar figure.
I also suggest you read the work of Thomas Sowell and Jason Riley, either articles or books. As well as view the video above.
Thank you @ianmullican, as well as @susanquinn, @frontseatcat, @goldwaterwoman, @julespa, @iwalton, and others for the warm welcome. I see I already have a lot of work ahead of me to keep abreast of the recommended and suggested videos, articles, etc., in addition to crafting my own responses. I can’t promise I will have the time to respond to everyone, as well as all posts/comments in response to mine, but I will do what I have time for (as I have both a regular job, and a self-employed business, as well as substantial volunteer work on a variety of projects, including a queer alternative media podcast). I am looking forward to having interesting, thought provoking, and informative conversations with those willing to engage with me in a civil, respectful way.
I think you will find most here willing and able. The occasional disrespect may appear, but it is against the code of conduct (CoC) and you should click the ‘flag’ link on any comment you feel was disrespectful or otherwise out of line. That will bring it to a moderators attention and they will determine if the CoC has been violated.
You will find plenty of argument and disagreement here, but you should not encounter nor endure any insults or disrespect, so please- if it happens, flag it, and don’t take it as coming from ‘all of us’. And welcome!
This represents another basic difference between conservatives and liberals.
We’re not inclined to see a group’s involvement in government as a measure of success. That’s more important if you want government to distrubute wealth or enforce equality of outcomes in some other way, if government is a spoils system.
The conservative view of government is smaller. It’s role is more limited. As long as it does it’s basic functions we don’t need direct influence. It’s only when government reach exceeds its proper bounds that you need to make sure you have more direct involvement so you can make sure you get your share of the spoils.
The first thing you need to do, IMHO, is to look at a person as an individual rather than as a member of a group. We are all members of only one group — the human race. Some of us are born with physical beauty, some with extremely high IQs; some are born with severe physical deformities; some have superior physical skills; some are born mentally deficient; some are born to wealthy families; some are born to poverty; some come from loving families; some come from parents who can’t show or give love.
I’ve done some fishing in my time, so I know bait when I see it. You aren’t interested in this site for any reason other than to get inside the heads of the people who stole your Queen from you so you can work to defeat us next time.
I hope everyone here who converses with you understands that.
I’ll take a little of that bait, though, and respond to the last line of your comment by saying that “diversity” at the barrel of a gun is just another form of hate. If you thwart the will of the people and do end-arounds to far-Left judges who force Americans to put less-qualified people in leadership positions based solely on the color of their skin and not the content of their character, that’s tyranny of the worst kind. I’d say you should be ashamed to even think like that, but I learned long ago that the Left does not understand the concept of shame.
So I see you’re one of those I’m going to respectfully agree to disagree with, and so this will be the last time I will respond to you on any topic we disagree on. You can trust that I will skip anything you write from this point onward, so don’t feel hurt if I never again rise to your bait. (As the youth will say: you’re nothing to me now).
I was not being deceitful about my motives for joining this group. In fact, I already feel I’ve gotten some value from joining and reading perspectives from other, more mannered members. To clarify (not that you would care, but others might): I never said I would rather put a less-qualified person in leadership positions based solely on their race or any other group identity. After all, minority status, competence, and quality leadership are not mutually exclusive qualities.
I would like to thank @bobthompson @mattwhite and others (and especially the content of the “Conservatives vs. Progressives” post that I haven’t had a chance yet to comment on) for giving me much food for thought. I had never quite appreciated the clear delineations and philosophical differences between the two parties.
I never had a role model growing up who looked like me either. Hello?
Okay…so? You seek to invalidate my experience with yours, whereas I never claimed my want for more diversity is universal. Where’s the individualism in this argument? Are we not both allowed these valid feelings? I don’t see how your experience has any bearing on mine.
I think she was saying that many people use this argument, not just you @danfield. It is puzzling to some of us why appearance or skin color of a successful person would motivate anyone to act in a particular way, such as striving for success or doing well in any area. The people I looked to were my parents, all of my teachers and others who spoke of important values and beliefs. If we resonated, if they were compassionate and caring people, that was incentive enough to try. Their appearance was not relevant.
DanField – representation of diversity in government doesn’t seem to have solved the problems of corruption, crime, drugs, poverty, lack of jobs, etc. in cities where minorities and liberals have been running things for decades: Atlanta, Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. Can you explain why things don’t get better, even with federal funding and a liberal agenda? Is diversity the real problem or is it political ideology?
I also question the lack of interest in the wonderful, successful role models within the black community: Condi Rice, Col. Allen West, Colin Powell, Ben Carson, Alan Keyes, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Congressman Tim Scott, Angela McGlowan, of course Martin Luther King and his children, who lean right, to name only a few.
Do African Americans know that Lincoln was Republican and the party that produced the KKK were the Democrats – they did not want slavery abolished at all. I feel as though the black role models that are followed, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton push victimization over success.
Thanks, that post on ‘Conservatives vs. Progressives’ is really great for a generalized understanding of what makes this views so ‘diverse’.
Thanks for helping me understand the issue in a way that stimulates discussion rather than shuts it down. I would argue as I have said before–it’s not about appearance, but perspective and knowledge of their cultural beliefs, understanding their challenges and struggles, and willingness to advocate for them. It is not about skin color, but representing their voices. After all, anyone can listen, understand, and advocate for another group. I myself am an ally and advocate for several groups that don’t look like or behave like me. The problem arises when marginalized groups are not heard because their legislative representatives for some reason or other don’t advocate for their needs. Only then do we feel the need to have a representative from the group that is not having their needs met–a person from their own community. Is that not one of the tenets of the American democratic system?