From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!poli-sci Newsgroups: fa.poli-sci Title: Poli-Sci Digest V2 #146 Article-I.D.: ucbvax.7722 Posted: Mon Jun 21 08:42:38 1982 Received: Thu Jun 24 01:53:35 1982 >From JoSH@RUTGERS Mon Jun 21 08:37:16 1982 Poli-Sci Digest Mon 21 Jun 82 Volume 2 Number 146 Contents: Voting Rights (3 msgs) States' Rights (3 msgs) Civil Rights (2 msgs) Part of the Problem (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 June 1982 03:00 edt From: Schauble.Multics at MIT-MULTICS Subject: Voting rights act Re Steve Bellovin's message Truly an excellent piece. I lived in Virginia and traveled through the South at the time. The abuses he describes are, if anything, understated. It was indeed necessary for the Federal government to step in. Left to themselves, it would have taken generations for those states to clean up their act. Nevertheless, I can't manage to support the Voting Rights Act. I think it is the wrong solution. I would much rather have seen either a reduction in those states representation to match the registered voters or a mandate of properly administered literacy test. Setting the states representation according to the number of voters actually registered rather than population strikes me as a very good idea. This would produce some power shifts, I am sure, but it might also motivate state politicians, who would stand to lose power in Washington, to solve some of the registration hassles. It seems to me that the framers of the Constitution intended that the states set their own requirements for voting, with their representation determined by the resulting vote. What do y'all think of having the states representation in Congress determined every ten years by the average actual vote in the Presidential election during the previous decade. Literacy tests I feel are a good idea. I do NOT think that sufferage should universal. I think it should be limited to those people who have demonstrated that they can run their own lives in a reasonable fashion. Again, this seems to be what the framers had in mind. Recall that most of the states limited voting both in state and federal elections to landowners and that this was a long standing British tradition. Such a requirement does not fit our currently mobile society, but I feel that requiring voters to be - able to read a newspaper - self supporting, and - (perhaps) high school grad or equivalent would be to the benefit of all. This assumes that these requirements could be properly and fairly administered. The experience with the old-style literacy tests shows that this is very hard. But I think it no harder than administering the present voting rights act. Paul ------------------------------ Date: 19 June 1982 13:12-EDT From: Gene SalaminSubject: Poll tax What is so horrible about poll taxes? One man, one vote, one dollar; it sounds like a fine way to finance the electoral process. I wish the rest of our taxes were so neatly compartmentalized, and that we could choose to accept or decline individual government services. ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 1982 1431-EDT From: Seshashayee Murthy The topic of literacy tests for voters is a very interesting one. Consider the condition of a democracy like India. The government in India is not really bothered about how the educated middle class perceives it. The present government, and I think most politicians in India have started to ignore the middle class. You might criticize and expose the government all that you want in the papers but the government is not bothered because the people who read the papers control only about 20% of the votes. A significant percentage of the people don't know what the government is up to at all. These people can easily be swayed by last minute bribes in the form of money. Also the government forces traders to lower prices during the month before the election. The net result is that democracy is not functioning as it should. It seems to me that in this context literacy tests do seem to make some sort of sense. Of course literacy tests would not be an unqualified boon. Undoubtedly the interests of the educated minority do not coincide with the interests of the majority of the people. Also the best way out is to raise the awareness of the masses through media like the movies that the government does not control and that are accessible to everybody. I wonder whether the people who wrote India's constitution realized that such problems would occur. I wonder what other readers of this digest think about such a real world problem. Of course it must be realized that it is almost impossible to introduce literacy tests in India; no matter what happens the government will not let the strength it derives from the uneducated masses be diluted. Sesh ------------------------------ Date: 19 June 1982 04:21-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: States Rights (Response to INNERS at CMU-20C) Local governments are less likely to infringe upon the freedom of individuals than the federal government is for several reasons. First, the people governed by a local government are much more homogenous than those governed by the federal government, and thus more people are likely to agree with more of the laws. Also, local governments have authority over fewer people, thus each person has proportionally greater influence to wield in defense of his rights. Third, local governments are less powerful financially than the federal government, and thus have less attractiveness to special interests seeking government aid. Forth, and most important, the jurisdiction of local governments is quite limited, and it is generally easy to move from a locality in which the laws are distasteful (e.g. Santa Monica, CA) to one in which they are more reasonable. (The above applies, with less force, to state governments.) You may be correct that in the past, local governments have interfered more with individual rights than the federal government has. But in recent years (i.e. since the end of World War II), the federal government has increased vastly in size and authority. Local governments would have to violate a lot of my rights to equal just one thing the federal government did last year: it took away several thousand dollars of my income through taxes. ------------------------------ Date: 19 June 1982 12:49-EDT From: Gene Salamin Subject: States' rights Of course, it would be best to have minimal government. However, for any given abuse, it is preferable that the abuse be confined to the most local level of government. It is much less inconvenient to kiss off a city or state and move out than to do the same with the entire country. This way, we have free competition among local governments, and unpopular systems go bankrupt, as would NYC if the federal government didn't keep bailing them out. Let this be a warning to those who are tempted by the suductive lure of world government. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 1982 0022-EDT From: INNERS at CMU-20C I am going to try to respond to James Cox point-by-point, so let us dig right in: [James Cox] First, the people governed by a local government are much more homogeneous than those governed by the federal government, and thus more people are likely to agree with more of the laws. This is probably the best argument in favor of limiting the powers of local governments. The parts of the population that are not homogeneous are quite likely to have their rights trampled upon by the majority. The history of Southern (and Northern) racist policies clearly indicate what can happen to a minority when the rest of the population has homogeneous views on a subject, in this case the inferiority of Blacks. Religious intolerance has an even more unsavory history, in all parts of the world. Modern day examples would be No. Ireland, Iran, and the minds of Falwellites right here at home. I am sure there are many towns in the U.S. that are homogeneous enough that 90% of the population would support making XYZ Church the official Town Religion. Such a consensus would be impossible at the federal level. The diversity of the federal government's constituency is one of the strongest forces preventing repressive measures from being passed, or accepted. Also, local governments have authority over fewer people, thus each person has proportionally greater influence to wield in defense of his rights. See above as to why this won't do much good. If I am in the losing 49% my only hope is outside intervention or departure (if permitted by the 51%). It is small consolation that I has a full 1% of the influence, instead of the 2x10^-6% influence I have nationally. Unfortunately, Democracy undiluted by a set of limitations is a winner-take all proposition. Third, local governments are less powerful financially than the federal government, and thus have less attractiveness to special interests seeking government aid. This is true. It also implies great limitations on the ability of the local government to perform important functions. It implies no limit on the ability of the government to oppress. Executions can be had for $2.50 of rope, $10.00 in torches, $50.00 in white sheets, and 1/2 hour of time on a tree (free). Total budget:$62.50, but worth it to get rid of a Black...(I hope not to be quoted out of context on that one!). Forth, and most important, the jurisdiction of local governments is quite limited, and it is generally easy to move from a locality in which the laws are distasteful ... to one in which they are more reasonable. (The above applies, with less force, to state governments.) Indeed. The Mean Nasty Federal Government is the ONLY reason that local governments are restrained, especially at the state level. No action has brought more fire from Conservatives than Federal laws that prevent state and local governments from imposing the local brand of homogeneity, be it racial, religious, or 'life-style' (used here in the broad sense) upon their jurisdictions. Local governments would have to violate a lot of my rights to equal just one thing the federal government did last year: it took away several thousand dollars of my income through taxes. The last time I checked, my state government, city government, school district, and county government were all taxing me also. Only the magnitude differs, and if you subtract out the Federal aid to smaller entities, the magnitude differs by only a factor of 2 or so. I do not believe that a State or Local government has any more right to reduce my individual freedom than the Federal government. Accordingly, I will support most laws or judicial decisions that deny a subunit the right to restrict anything, especially if it does not also give the Federal government the right. I also hold that it often requires positive measures to correct abuses, which come not only from official governmental entities but also from many non-governmental associations, such as unions, corporations, underground groups (e.g. KKK), Chambers of Commerce, or informal agreements. Much of the racist society in the South was maintained through these means, as well as government. The Federal Government is rife with abuses, and also needs to be restrained. However, I find most Conservatives in the vanguard of those pushing for abuses. As pointed out by many others, the silence of Conservatives when asked for their own ideas betrays the hollowness of their arguments against civil rights measures. They should not be surprised to be labeled racist when their only response to civil rights legislation is grumbling about Federal interference in local matters! -- Mike Inners ------------------------------ Date: 19 June 1982 05:53-EDT From: James A. Cox Subject: Civil rights You make an cogent point, which deserves to be answered. I apologize for misinterpreting your earlier message. However, I think you could have made you meaning a bit clearer. First, I will address some of the particular comments you made about the quotations from \National Review/. "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. I think you give an importance to this statement of Kilpatrick's far beyond what it merits. Kilpatrick simply did not wish to discuss the merits of the poll tax at that point in his article. After all, he is objecting to the mention of the poll tax in the civil rights bill on the grounds that there was a Constitutional amendment pending before the states at that very time, not because of any affection he had for the poll tax. The merits of the poll tax were beyond the scope of Kilpatrick's article, and he wisely avoided taking a position on it which he did not have time or space to justify. That's not insensitivity or shoulder-shrugging; it's just good expository writing in the best tradition of Strunk and White. I agree with you that Kilpatrick was wrong about whether the "equal protection" clause and \Brown v. Board of Education/ were sufficient to prohibit segregation, whether de jure or de facto. Unlike you, I do not think that this means that he lacked any sensitivity to black problems. As for his failure to endorse another method for reaching the goal of desegregation, I must again plead the scope of the article. Kilpatrick is arguing against the bill, not for another remedy. I'm sure that at the time, he felt that the danger of this bill was great enough to require him to commit himself to an entire article opposing it, and to reserve any positive appeals for later. As for the editorial about Mississippi blacks, I disagree that a person must have suffered at the hands of the oppressors himself in order to understand, at least to a degree, the sufferings of others. If that were true, I doubt you yourself could claim any authority in the matter. Also, unlike you, I felt the article did contain a sincere comdemnation of the racist goings-on in Mississippi. You seem so caught-up in disbelief that you are unwilling to accept what is stated explicitly. As for the lack of conservative support for liberal civil-rights groups, is there any wonder considering the sorts of solutions for the problems that liberals proposed? True to form, liberal members of Congress passed bills, some only loosely based on the Constitution, increasing the power of the federal government; liberal members of the Judiciary both ratified those new laws and extended the meaning of old laws wildly beyond any reasonable interpretation; and liberal members of the executive branch aided and abetted both of the other branches in their crimes. Perhaps conservatives found themselves so engrossed in fighting the immediate dangers of the civil-rights movement that they had no opportunity to propose solutions of their own. Yes, discrimination is a bad thing. But there are a lot of other bad things in the world, and it is not the government's job to get rid of all of them, or even any of them. It is the government's job to enforce laws against racial discrimination in the public sphere. It is not the government's job to make or enforce such laws in the private sphere. As Kilpatrick said, In this emotional hour, one is tempted to leap from a sincere conviction that discrimination is wrong, to a false conclusion that a federal law is the proper way to prevent it. I do not believe that intensely presonal pro-racial feeling can be solved by any federal law; the roots go deeper than Congress can reach. ------------------------------ Date: 19 June 1982 1058-EDT (Saturday) From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A Subject: foreign nuclear protesters, etc. The right of the government to keep out undesirables (in its eyes, and specified beforehand) was recently upheld in a New York court. You will recall that this controversy stems from the US keeping out certain people who wanted to attend the NY anti-nuclear rally. Just as the left isn't a united front, neither is the right. The only part of the civil rights movement that I object to, and perhaps it isn't part of the movement per se, is affirmative action, or whatever you want to call it. That is, people getting hired, fired, promoted, etc other than on the basis of merit, or ability, or likelihood that they will succeed. Now there is nothing wrong with taking the fact that someone had to work 40 hours per week to help support their family in high school. This shows that such a person is likely to succeed in college through hard work. But racial origin shouldn't have anything to do with it. Ditto for sex. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 82 0:53:22-EDT (Sun) From: J C Pistritto Re: Gary Feldman's comments on conservatives & racism Being a conservative, and as little of a racist as possible, I find it annoying when someone says that 'on this issue, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem'. In a representative democracy, this point of view is totally out of alignment with reality. On EVERY issue, even important ones, there are going to be a large number, possibly even a majority of people who are basically neutral. This is particularly true if the issue is a distant one for the people involved. Since, in my experience, most conservatives I have met or know of, are not members of minority groups, I am not surprised that they are not out in the forefront of the civil rights push. Similarly, I do not expect poor people to be active in the rewriting of the corporate tax codes, or Alaskans to be greatly involved solving the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico. Activism is much more in the liberal political tradition than in the conservative one, a lot of conservatives just don't feel comfortable in the forefront of issues like civil rights, particularly when a considerable amount of civil unrest is involved, (like in the 60's). My own reaction to a cause becomes decidedly more negative when things start getting out of hand, (like happened at many of the civil rights demonstrations). This does not say that the cause is any less a valid one, its just that I might be inclined to overlook that fact when the demonstrations start happening in my front yard. -JCP- ------------------------------ Date: Sun Jun 20 03:14:13 1982 From: decvax!utzoo!henry at Berkeley Subject: flame Re: part of solution or problem While I haven't studied the constitutional issues closely enough to have an opinion on the civil-rights issues (having an international border in between tends to reduce interest), I do take objection to one statement made by Gary Feldman: "...in this area, if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem...". Anyone who makes that statement about *any* topic either has not thought it through or else is dangerous. I have long thought that one of the best tests to determine presence or absence of fanaticism is whether the person recognizes the notion of "innocent bystander". Denying the existence of people who are uninvolved and have a right to stay that way denies those people an important freedom: not to be conscripted into somebody else's fight, or shot for refusing. Mind you, there *is* a difference between not being vocal on an issue, and not being part of it. Israeli settlers in the Golan Heights are part of the problems in that area whether they speak up or not. But the cry of "if you're not for us, you're against us" ignores such fine distinctions. Now, I'm sure the statement was innocently meant. It's a common form of campaign rhetoric. But it makes the hair on the back of my neck rise (quite a trick, considering how long it is), because while the voice is that of Gary Feldman, the words are those of the PLO, the IRA, perhaps the KKK, certainly the "Moral Majority", probably the American Nazi Party, maybe the hard-core zealous Communists. Not to mention the Inquisition. (Have I managed to offend everybody?) To claim that there are no neutrals is one step along the road that leads to blowing up airplanes full of people who never heard of you as a "political statement" on behalf of "oppressed peoples everywhere". In fact, those words tend to affect me the same way the word "nigger" would. Think before speaking, please. Henry Spencer U of Toronto ------------------------------ End of POLI-SCI Digest - 30 - -------