From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!poli-sci Newsgroups: fa.poli-sci Title: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #145 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7705 Posted: Sat Jun 19 00:22:28 1982 Received: Sun Jun 20 00:49:53 1982 >From JoSH@RUTGERS Sat Jun 19 00:17:40 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Sat 19 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 145 Contents: Antinuclear Rally Travel Restrictions (2 msgs) Leftists vs Rightists: Leftists Agonistes States' Rights Freedom Civil Rights (3 msgs) [No, you haven't missed a digest. The last was Tuesday's. I had an accident and was out of circulation in the meantime. --JoSH] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 15 Jun 1982 18:32:19-PDT From: cbosg!nscs!jpj at Berkeley Subject: Marching in the streets... I too was in NYC for the Rally last Saturday. Altogether an incredible event. The one aspect that impressed me the most was the amazing diversity of the participants. Many protests are easily dismissed by merely saying, "It's just another gathering of those crazy ------- " Where ------- is any special interest group (other than your own). Not this time. There were literally people of every conceivable cultural, religious and even political persuasion. A true display of what solidarity is all about. But can it change anything? The answer is *yes* - the *people themselves have been changed!* They have seen their numbers and their common beliefs in the face of incredible diversity. They are a force to be reckoned with. Not a moment too soon. Cheers... Jim Jenal BTL/Columbus ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 1982 1758-PDT Subject: travel restrictions From: Mike LeavittThe only credible reason that I can find for governments denying their citizens the right to travel outside their country is that people who work in governments, by and large, like to tell other people what they can and cannot do. In most of the rest of the world, the government denies travel outside because of the very real danger that they won't come back, although why this is a danger to them (an embarassment, maybe) is beyond me. In the US the most common justification is the inability to provide protection that McGrath suggests. Garbage. It is to prevent citizens from spending money in, and giving legitimacy to, unpopular countries. If the problem were really protection, the government could simply stamp on every passport: THE US GOVERNMENT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF ITS CITIZENS IN THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES: X, Y, Z. or words to that effect. Then those who didn't need or want the US government's protection can make and act upon their own decisions. Mike [I suspect that one major reason many governments don't want their people leaving is that they regard them as (publicly owned) natural resources. --JoSH] ------------------------------ Date: 18 Jun 1982 1721-PDT From: Jim McGrath Subject: Re: travel restrictions Unfortunately, this is not possible. International law holds governments responsible for actions of their citizens in other nations. An extreme case is one of spying (ie a "private citizen" photographing a top secret defense establishment for a "scrapbook" for his/her friends in the Defense Department would be treated as a spy by, say, the Soviets, and the US government held liable (in the sense that it could be considered a treaty violation)). This is mainly a consequence of the idea that only nations are "legal persons" under international law. Recently multinational and regional organizations have acquired some legal standing in international law, but private individuals have no standing. This is rational considering that international law deals with such topics as territorial jurisdiction, which private citizens have no direct say in. Unfortunately, as international law has moved to consider human rights as an object of attention (a recent development), the lack of standing for citizens has distorted the system somewhat. Remember, law is the most conservaive of professions. To be conservative is not bad, especially in the case of fundamental relations, which should not change with the wind. But it does sometimes lead to long adjustment times. I personally feel that citizens should have greater standing under international law. But that is not the case now, and until it is every country must, for its own protection, control the movements of its citizens (of course, it may continue to do so even after this issue is resolved - I am sure the Soviet Union for one shall). Jim ------------------------------ Date: 15 June 1982 1036-EDT (Tuesday) From: Robert.Frederking at CMU-10A (C410RF60) Subject: Re: Leftist Agonistes Shall I assume that the total lack of data to the contrary indicates that my hypothesis was correct? Specifically, that the government harasses non-violent leftists but not non-violent rightists? Again, don't just yell at me, give me a concrete example (i.e. "the Socialist Workers committed crime X" or "the John Birch Society has been harassed by the FBI"). Also, again, I'm not claiming that a conspiracy is at work, since the left is more of a threat to the status quo here than the right. ------------------------------ Date: 15-Jun-82 10:04:19 PDT (Tuesday) From: Reed.ES at PARC-MAXC "What are we afraid of?" - Martin Minow. 'We' (the government, that is) are afraid of freedom. Nasty, nasty stuff it is, that freedom. Just think how much better off we would be if blacks didn't have the freedom to vote, or couldn't find a place to stay in Atlanta. Just think how much better off we would be if left-leaners didn't have the freedom to assemble, or organize, or publish literature, or send misinformation to this list. Just think how much better off we would be if only non-communists could attend the UN. Just think how much better off we would be if we could blow the Soviets off the face of the earth. Yep, I'm convinced. Strom and Jim and Ronnie are my friends. Glad I'm not black, left-handed, poor, or any of those nasty things. -- Larry -- ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jun 1982 1846-EDT From: INNERS at CMU-20C I have never understood the belief of conservatives that state and local governments are somehow less likely to infringe upon the freedom of individuals than the federal government. Any examination of the history of state and local laws indicates that the reverse is true. I find disturbing that the key word in the 'States rights' argument is STATE, not individual. State's rights implies the STATE's right to regulate individuals, not the right of the individual to be free of government interference. And for that reason, I contend that any 'State's rights' advocate is an enemy of my individual freedoms. Note also that the current U.S. state has a size greater than the entire federal government at the time the Constitution was written, at least measured in population, economic size, or technical ability to abuse it's powers. -- Mike Inners ------------------------------ Date: 17 June 1982 01:08-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: Conservatives and Civil Rights Unfortunately, I was out of town when Gary Feldman's message on "Conservatives and Civil Rights" appeared in Poli-Sci, and thus couldn't respond until now. First, Strom Thurmond. He would probably consider himself a conservative, it is true. Personally, I dislike his views; they often seem to be barely-concealed racism. But certainly you are not going to make me argue that no one who calls himself a conservative can be a racist, just as I will not make you argue that no one who calls himself a liberal can be a racist. Both of these statements are patently false. Even so, the particular statement of Senator Thurmond's that you quoted hardly seems evidence of his racism. There has long been a tradition that "a man [does] not have to serve anybody on his own private property that he [does] not wish to." There have also been judicial precedents requiring \public/ trusts to serve any citizen who requests it. The constitutionality of requiring a man to serve people on his own private property that he doesn't want to was dubiously justified by saying, as Steve Bellovin noted, that not doing so would interfere with interstate commerce. In any case, it is clear that Senator Thurmond's argument has some merit, and it cannot simply be attributed (and thus dismissed) by calling it racist. Second, about the James J. Kilpatrick article in the \National Review/ of September 24, 1963: It became painfully obvious, upon reading this article myself, that either you grossly misunderstood his arguments, or you deliberately quoted him out of context in order to deceive the rest of us. I prefer to assume the former. [Aside to Jim McGrath: are Mr. Kilpatrick and Senator Thurmond friends of yours? If not, why not give them the respect they merit and use their titles rather than calling them by their first names?] You seem to have fallen into the trap Mr. Kilpatrick explicates in the very first paragraph of his article: The logic is said to go something like this: All decent Americans should support good things. All decent Americans should oppose bad things. Racial discrimination is a bad thing. Bills to prohibit racial discrimination are good things. The ... Civil Rights Bill [now law] is intended to prohibit racial discrimination. Therefore, [this] bill is a good thing and all decent Americans should support it. Unfortunately, as Mr. Kilpatrick later notes, things are not that simple. He says: .... One of the great distinctions of the American system is that we try always to distinguish between the means and the end. Such careful distinctions need to be made in this case. I believe this bill is a very bad bill. In my view, the means here proposed are the wrong means. The weapons the President would contrive against race prejudice are the wrong weapons. In the name of achieving certain "rights" for one group of citizens, this bill would impose some fateful compulsions on another group of citizens. It may be well-intentioned, but good intentions are not enough. He goes on to elucidate, clearly and persuasively, exactly why "this bill is a very bad bill." You may accuse Mr. Kilpatrick of being mistaken, or of reasoning badly, but it is dishonest argumentation to impugn his motives in place of so dealing with his argument. Third, the National Review article about "The Mississippi Dilemma." In this case, it seems clear that you actually did deliberately quote out of context. The passage you quoted goes: Granted the charges against Mississippi are overdrawn. Indeed, when they are uttered they sometimes have a ring of genocidal fanaticism--we recently heard a sophisticated man say that life in Mississippi is no better for the average Negro than life for the average Yugoslavian or Pole. This point is debatable. The quick dismissal of the "sophisticated man" probably shows some insensitivity to the problems of a Mississippi Negro. However, you neglected to include the succeeding sentence: .... But shrink the charges down, and you still have left over a despicable record of indifference to crime and humiliation. This seems a pretty clear denunciation of racist practice in Mississippi. As I said before, "many conservatives have long opposed racism and unequal treatment for racial minorities." But liberals mistake conservative concern about the drastic changes in the law and liberal interpretations of the Constitution for conservative indifference to civil rights. Conservatives understand the importance of a Judiciary and a Constitution which are resistent to radical political pressures, because they know that the political climate changes. Change must be accomodated within the framework of the system. Otherwise, ten years from now, when the Supreme Court is composed of Jerry Falwellian religious zealots, the liberals will be surprised when it bases its loose interpretations of the Constitution on the precedent set by the liberal Courts of the past. ------------------------------ Date: 18 June 1982 0021-EDT (Friday) From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A Subject: Civil rights The set of responses to my message show a lack of understanding of my point. Apparently no significance was put on the one (repeat, one) statement that was my own. My point is this: conservatives talk about civil rights, participate in civil rights debates in an obstructionist, rather than constructive manner, and have not (as a group) made contributions towards eliminating the oppression that remained after the blacks were freed from slavery. I never suggested that anyone who criticized civil rights legislation is a racist, or could not be in favor of civil rights. Obviously I want the right to make my own criticisms of such legislation. I understood Kilpatrick's arguments perfectly; many of them are even reasonable. Of course the quotes are out of context; you don't expect me to type in the entire thing. Why do you expect me to quote his position on separation of powers, when it is his position on civil rights that I am questioning? Instead, there is one common thread throughout all of the quotes. To find it, look at the shortest quote again: "I take no position one way or another on the merits of a poll tax." (JJK) What does this tell you? It tells me that Kilpatrick either doesn't know, doesn't believe, or doesn't care that poll taxes were being used to prevent blacks (and other poor people) from voting. Even worse, it suggests that charging people for the right to vote is something less than the assault on democracy that it is. Now if Kilpatrick wants to differ by suggesting this should be corrected at the state level, fine. He should then put forth an effort equal to that of other people in the same position, to see to it than all 50 states have laws protecting the right the vote regardless of financial status. Instead, he shrugs his shoulders. All the other quotes have this point in common. Thurmond's attitude indicated that he was unaware or indifferent to the effect that discrimination in lodging was having on blacks as a group, in obtaining employment in jobs requiring travel. Kilpatrick's statement on schools shows that a) he didn't know or chose to ignore the 1954 Brown v. B. of E. decision; and b) he didn't know, believe, or care that schools were being segregated by law for the express purpose of maintaining different levels of education for blacks and whites. (This quote was so outrageous that I had to read it several times to make sure he wasn't just talking about de facto segregation. I couldn't find anything to indicate otherwise, but I would be quite suprised if anyone today would claim that the equal protection clause does not prohibit de jure segregation.) Kilpatrick's other statments on the voting rights provisions again show that he didn't care about the use of literacy tests to discriminate. Finally, the National Review column quote. I think it is something like someone with four children and ten grandchildren telling parents who just lost their only child "It could be worse." It takes an incredible amount of gall (of which Buckley and NR have ample supplies) and insensitivity to make a statement like that, since the writer had quite likely never experienced anything close to the oppression that either the blacks or the east Europeans had. No amount of lip service against racism (which is what the follow-up statement was) could make up for the insensitivity of the quote. And that is exactly what the conservative view on civil rights is all about: lip service. I hear numerous arguments of the form "that should be done at the state level, not at the federal," but I never see effort to get such state action. I hear arguments of the form "the constitution doesn't permit it," when the proper argument is "first we ought to amend the consitution to permit it." The arguments all seem to be 100% "you can't do it that way," and 0% "this way is better." Three times in the past few weeks I have read in this forum that conservatives share in the effort for civil rights. In all three cases, no examples were provided. I am still wondering, where are they? Why didn't some conservative member or supporter of Rotary, International lead a drive ten years ago to eliminate their discriminatory policies. Who are the conservatives who don't support the jaycees because of their sex discrimination? Is there a conservative led movement to replace at-large municipal councils with district representation (or even one voter-one vote at-large elections)? I believe that in this area, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem. Feel free to correct and criticize liberal (or other) proposals all you want, but you better be working just as hard coming up with better ideas. Gary ------------------------------ Date: 18 June 1982 1944-EDT (Friday) From: Gary Feldman at CMU-10A Subject: Addendum on civil rights The overwhelming vote in favor of extending the voting rights act shows what can happen when liberals and conservatives finally do get together and agree on something. The question is why didn't this happen 17 years ago? Also, I realize that there were certainly many legislators who might be considered as liberal on other issues, but who voted against the civil rights laws in the sixties (mostly Southern Democrats). I hope no one inferred that I thought conservatives were the only obstructionists. Gary ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------