Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
I became aware of Glen Loury during his neocon phase and as such had about as much use for him as I have for Armstrong Williams. I've since come to respect him and understand some of the road he's walked. Paul Krugman, whom I also respect, has earned another notch by giving Mr. Loury his due…as has Brad deLong for pointing out Mr. Krugman's blog entry. It is timely for a number of reasons.
…Reading Loury's dissertation today, 22 years after he wrote it, is a depressing experience--precisely because the essays were so good and remain so relevant. In the first few pages, he stated the central dilemma of race policy in modern America. He was willing to give American society the benefit of the doubt, to assume that in the future, racism--direct economic discrimination--would no longer be a major force holding African-Americans back. But he argued that this probably would not be enough, and therein lay the dilemma.
…In a better world, Loury would have spent the last 22 years devising policies--working with other well-intentioned people to come as close as possible to squaring this circle, finding ways to eliminate the legacy of past racism with as little intrusion as possible on the colorblind ideal. But he has basically never been able to get off square one--because at no point over the past two decades has he been able to find allies who are even willing to accept the reality of the dilemma.
…He said what he thought. In so doing, he found himself labeled a "black conservative"--and thereby exposed to new and dangerous seductions. Let's face it: Any articulate minority intellectual who reliably espouses conservative positions is automatically offered a ticket to a very nice lifestyle. No more rejections from picky academic journals or grubbing for sabbatical time. Instead there are cushy fellowships at Hoover, guest editorials in the Wall Street Journal, and invited articles in Commentary--maybe even a regular column in Forbes--and a steady stream of invitations to plush conferences in nice places.
…But at some point Loury made the discovery that eventually confronts every honest intellectual who gets drawn into the political arena: The enemies of your enemies are not necessarily your friends. The Glenn Loury who wrote that 1976 thesis was not a conservative. He criticized the simplistic anti-racism of the liberal establishment because he wanted society to tackle the real problems, not because he wanted it to stand aside. His seeming allies on the right, however, turned out to be interested only in the critique, not in the next step. (According to Loury, "When I told one gathering of conservatives that their seeming hostility to every social program smacks of indifference to the poor, I was told that a surgeon cannot properly be said to have no concern for a terminally ill patient simply because he had moved on to the next case.") Loury found out that the apparent regard for his ideas by conservative intellectuals was entirely conditional. Any questioning of conservative orthodoxy was viewed as an act of betrayal, giving aid and comfort to the liberal enemy.
LATER: Calpundit also linked to this essay. His readers' comments are few but interesting.
Posted by P6 at September 6, 2003 12:36 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1559I think it's very important to understand that I have yet to find anything worth criticizing about Glenn Loury. Every time I read him, I am in exact agreement.
The red herring of black rejection by conservative think tanks or certain party aparatchiks of the Republicans does little to faze me. The Old School, once organized will inevitably bust a power move on the Republican party, and it will be the difference between JJWalker and Denzel. If Colin Powell ran for president as a Republican in 2004, night would turn to day and suddenly the world would see what I've been saying is not an idle Negro wannabe fantasy. But would Donna Brazile work for Colin Powell out of black solidarity?
Back in the day, Loury had to depend on white run conservative think tanks. That's because too many Negroes lived on the Democratic plantation and elected Bositis head of their policy world. Now he's John the Baptist.
I feel him.
Michael:
I saved this one to answer last…it was a toss-up for a minute between you and Rayne as to whom I wanted to answer most carefully.
I think it's very important to understand that I have yet to find anything worth criticizing about Glenn Loury.
I see you recognize why I found Mr. deLong's link timely.
I understand your view of Glenn Loury perfectly. The only criticism I have of him is his failure to recognize he was being used before he did. That criticism is not made in hostility (any more…).
The red herring of black rejection by conservative think tanks or certain party aparatchiks of the Republicans does little to faze me.
Apparently. Given the evidence at hand, I have no idea why you call it a "red herring."
The Old School, once organized will inevitably bust a power move on the Republican party, and it will be the difference between JJWalker and Denzel. If Colin Powell ran for president as a Republican in 2004, night would turn to day
Glenn Loury and J.C. Watts endorsed the Republican platform and couldn't get the party to consider Black people's issues…and they've moved further right since then. And have you seen who's being touted as "the next J.C. Watts?"
Seriously, brother, what can the Old School do to turn the party when they won't be allowed access to the machinery, won't be heard? How will you be more successful than Watts or Loury?
the world would see what I've been saying is not an idle Negro wannabe fantasy.
too many Negroes lived on the Democratic plantation etc.
Between two such politically conscious Black people as you and I, this is fairly inflammatory language.
We agree on too much for you to feel I'd ever approach you on the "Negro wannabe" level. I simply don't understand why you feel the Republican platform could contain Black people's issues and neocon social positions at the same time.
I'm not even trying to convince you otherwise. I'm trying to understand…because the neocons have shown themselves by their positions and actions to be active enemies of much that I find vital, and they run the party.