How A Racist Blended In
As I followed—and I confess, participated in—the mini-firestorm on Twitter over John Derbyshire’s vile Taki Magazine post last night, I started wondering what the point was. National Review is severing ties, but has anything been accomplished? Derbyshire is nearly 70 years old, and has apparently been a self-described racist for many years; I highly doubt one more public shaming is going to disabuse him of his views. I also doubt if it’s going to cause anyone in the conservative camp to do much soul-searching; in fact, for those who think Derbyshire-type thoughts, the episode only confirms the alternative-universe narrative that truth-telling white people are always victims of political correctness.
The temptation for liberals would seem to be to use this incident as an example of the deep-seated, thinly-veiled racism many of them believe are driving forces behind conservative politics. But Derbyshire’s racism is so outlandishly crude and bizarre as to be absolutely singular; it doesn’t automatically reveal much about what most conservatives or what most people at National Review think. Stretching it too far would be counterproductive, and the exact sort of thing that hardens certain “victimized” white right-wingers into the kind of ideology that at best tolerates, at worst sympathizes with racist views.
But I think we have to talk about the fact that, as John Podhoretz pointed out on Twitter today, Derbyshire has been writing stuff nearly this vile on The Corner for years, and other NRO writers have sometimes called him out in the same place while National Review’s leadership did nothing about it besides bray about how liberals complain too much about racism. Rich Lowry’s post announcing the separation admits that Derbyshire “has long danced around the line on these issues,” but as Elspeth Reeve helpfully catalogued, that’s putting it mildly. He referred to himself proudly as a mild, tolerant racist and homophobe. He bitched about what political correctness keeps science from “uncovering about human nature,” namely that white people are genetically superior. He joke-complained that Hollywood has indoctrinated kids into thinking God is black. He described post-1960s America as a pact with whites promising blacks handouts in exchange for not being violent criminals, which he dubbed the “slavery tax.” Perhaps worst of all, he wrote in 2006: “I can’t for the life of me see anything wrong, or even unpleasant, in wishing the country to have a certain ethnic mix, and not some other ethnic mix.” Helpfully, he added, “Goodness only knows what ‘racism’ means this week.”
These brazen episodes come in a context—namely National Review’s website—that is steeped in “contrarian” thinking about race that sheds a lot of light on Derbyshire’s long presence there. Just to be clear, I am not calling anyone else at National Review racist. Even if they do protest way too much, many of their observations about vapid media coverage of race are valid. But the kind of stuff you read there is frequently so racially charged, often in such a logically twisted way, that it can only be understood as a a partisan reaction to an issue on which the ‘enemy’ (liberals) is widely seen to have the moral high ground. The 2008 presidential campaign was a constant sideshow of bloggers on The Corner pouncing on anything Obama said that could somehow be twisted into a racial remark and using it to support the ludicrous D’Souza-esque meme that Obama holds white, middle-class America in contempt.
And then there’s Victor Davis Hanson, a one-man blizzard of bristling, line-toeing racial commentary. For example, this incomprehensible essay that accuses Barack Obama of “racial tribalism” and “race-based strategy” and Michelle Obama of being “race-obsessed.” Apparently Hanson is the one who is obsessed: he’s been on these themes for years now, touting the Obama campaign’s “racialist message,” contorting every offhand Obama remark into a statement smoldering with racial subtext and repeating the litany virtually every time he writes about race, which is constantly. He has also charmingly argued that Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama, and the Democratic Party “have done more to destroy racial relations than all the David Dukes in the world.”
Outside Hanson’s compulsive accusations of Obama racism, just browsing at random, we find Michelle Malkin hyping the New Black Panthers (a Fox News meme) and an unnamed “liberal writer” who called Herman Cain racist names. In an otherwise relatively sane column, Jonah Goldberg slams America’s “race industry” for its crime of keeping Jim Crow laws too fresh on its mind. Goldberg also writes about racism as consistently as the clock strikes twelve, almost always to mock it as mostly a liberal fantasy.
One more time: don’t read more into this than I’m saying. I am pointing out the type of dialogue that surrounds NRO. It can be described as consistently skeptical that white racism is relevant to contemporary politics despite its own evident fascination with the topic. It shows no reservation about caricaturing/over-interpreting a black president’s statements and policies to paint him as a racial aggressor. It consistently addresses the topic of racism in a glib, dismissive, or superior tone. I cannot recall—and could not find in several hours looking through the NRO archives—one substantial piece of writing that addressed racism in the U.S. as anything besides a minor, unimportant problem. With a big stretch of generosity, one could say National Review treats the subject casually. Even Lowry’s dismissal of Derbyshire had to be archly worded and sweetened with praise.
Keeping a racist on your masthead long after you know he’s a racist goes a long way toward undermining all that hypersensitivity about conservatives being called racist. I can’t really improve on Josh Barro’s line from last week: “Conservatives so often get unfairly pounded on race because, so often, conservatives get fairly pounded on race. And this is the Right’s own fault, because conservatives are not serious about draining the swamp.” NRO took this situation seriously, but only after years and years of not taking it seriously.
Great job of point ‘n’ sputter argumentation!
— Steve Sailer · Apr 8, 03:55 AM · #
Keep trollin’, Steve.
— David Sessions · Apr 8, 04:02 AM · #
I never understood how some conservatives (of which I am one) used Victor Davis Hanson as their go-to guy on military matters just because he once wrote a book about the Greek way of war. It was so weird and worthless that I quit reading him soon after I started (back during the Bush warmongering days) so completely missed out on the obsession with race that you describe.
— The Reticulator · Apr 8, 04:35 AM · #
Derb’s sin is that he is not a hypocrite. He said what he believed. And this highlighted the hypocrisy of white liberals and progressives – most of whom live exactly according to the rules he describes (stay out of black areas; be wary of large numbers of unfamiliar blacks; have an “acceptable” black friend to show your non-racism and appreciation of “diversity”).
In reality, most white liberals are just as racist in their behavior as Derb is in his prescriptions.
— Ponderer · Apr 8, 01:07 PM · #
But that’s all racism. NRO, by this light, believes that equality and social justice are for everyone but black people. How is that not racist?
In that context it makes a lot more sense why the NRO kept Derbyshire on all these years.
— Chet · Apr 8, 02:32 PM · #
You’re going to run into trouble with the union for doing that much projection, Ponderer.
— Chet · Apr 8, 04:30 PM · #
I once again agree with and endorse your post, and commend you for taking the time to document it so thoroughly.
I for one should like that it brings us a step closer to the swamp-draining that Josh Barro so rightly called for.
— PEG · Apr 8, 04:40 PM · #
“But Derbyshire’s racism is so outlandishly crude and bizarre as to be absolutely singular; it doesn’t reveal much about what most conservatives or what most people at National Review think.”
And how in the world do you know this as a fact? The opposite can easily be argued. Derbyshire admitted to being a “mild” racist a long time ago. Why was he still writing for NR even after such an admission? Why are they just firing him now?
— Patricia Kayden · Apr 8, 08:52 PM · #
I love how the right tries to accuse liberals of racism. Ponderer is a great example. Do you think these racist liberals you see everywhere advise their children to stay away from black people like Derb?
I grew up in Georgia to Republican parents. We got the National Review, my mom was very active in the party (she was friends with Newt before he ever ran for Congress), and we were upper income. And this was back in the 70s, when the south was still voted largely Democrat.
My college-educated, top 3% income father once told me he would never vote for a Democrat because, and I really am quoting here, “they want to give all my money to the niggers.” This was a common sentiment in my hometown.
All that said, I do think a lot of that is generational, and growing up I could see that things had already changed for the better. Schools had only integrated a few years before I started school. (Like clockwork, a private school for upper class whites popped up the same year integration began.) My favorite grammar school teacher was black and I later interviewed her for a high school history project about county schools. She had taught only in (segregated) black schools until the last five years of her career. Some of her black students before me later went on to become some of my teachers.
I had plenty of black friends in high school and college. Interracial dating was still taboo, but it did happen. Nowadays, based on conversations with friends who still live there, it’s not a big deal anymore.
One of my black friends went to law school at U of C and had Obama as a professor. He now lives back in my hometown and is mostly retired after making a ton of money as a big shot lawyer. So obviously it wasn’t so bad a place that he would never go back.
— D · Apr 8, 10:11 PM · #
“Keep trollin’, Steve.”
There’s some more of that quality argumentation!
— Steve Sailer · Apr 9, 12:22 AM · #
Steve: No one cares.
David: Great post, thanks. Though I also wonder whether it’s really true that NRO is ultimately as blameless as you say, given Derbyshire’s history. But from the point of view of making a sound argument that can be heard I think you were right to extend them the benefit of the doubt.
Ponderer: As a white liberal who lives in a high majority black area and gets nervous about it sometimes, it’s certainly true that white liberals are no strangers to a couple of the underlying sentiments of Derbyshire’s post. The difference is that liberals are struggling with those feelings and trying to be better, while Derb and his ilk are content to wallow in and impose their shortcomings on the world as standard so that they don’t have to feel compromised. That is a big difference.
Like Derbyshire I would also classify myself as ‘racist,’ but I know that these are lizard-brain feelings while Derb seems to be proud of his problem.
— Max · Apr 9, 02:11 AM · #
I love how the right tries to accuse liberals of racism. Ponderer is a great example. Do you think these racist liberals you see everywhere advise their children to stay away from black people like Derb?
No, it manifests itself a little differently on the left. It’s still racism, though, according to the standards liberals taught us to use years ago. (There are no liberals these days, at least not on the left.)
— The Reticulator · Apr 9, 03:30 AM · #
D says: “Do you think these racist liberals you see everywhere advise their children to stay away from black people like Derb?”
Maybe not in the exact same way, but yes, I’ve known a lot of liberals, leftists and Democrats, and in private conversation, they admit to following many of the same principles that Derbyshire laid down. Whether they feel guilty about it or not is irrelevant. They are afraid to express these feelings in public, because they know the consequences will be unpleasant for them. Eric Holder called Americans “cowards” for not wanting to discuss racial issues openly. In view of what just happened to Derb, I would say they are being prudent.
Max says: “liberals are struggling with those feelings and trying to be better”
This is part of the problem. You put the FEELINGS of liberals at the center of your argument, rather than the real-world facts of the situation. So Derb is being condemned for having the wrong feelings, rather than for the actual argument he makes. Liberals may be nicer, but that doesn’t mean they win the argument.
— Ponderer · Apr 9, 06:29 AM · #
David Sessions writes:
Perhaps worst of all, he wrote in 2006: “I can’t for the life of me see anything wrong, or even unpleasant, in wishing the country to have a certain ethnic mix, and not some other ethnic mix.” Helpfully, he added, “Goodness only knows what ‘racism’ means this week.”
My comment: at some point the similarity between Derb’s point and what even sensible J Street liberals think about Israel will become too obvious to ignore—and then where will we be?
— nglaer · Apr 9, 04:51 PM · #
Ponderer, on average, a person who lives in a poor, black, inner city neighborhood will not die of a gunshot wound. I know because I did exactly that for 8 years. Statistically they may be more likely to die that way, but statistically they also are much, much, MUCH more likely to just live a normal life.
Explain to me again about how liberals care about feelings more than facts?
— D · Apr 9, 05:01 PM · #
Actually Ponderer, knowing you may be wrong, because an issue is complicated, and examining your motives and feelings to help navigate complex issues of race and personal safety, is way more defensible than embracing and celebrating racism.
White liberals might think about avoiding a poor black neighborhood because it could be dangerous, but also understand the conditions that make it so, and work to change them. This is human, and decent.
Urging your children to avoid ALL black neighborhoods, and believing that they are dangerous because blacks are inherently stupid, is simply racist.
— htownmark · Apr 9, 05:22 PM · #
“ worst of all, he wrote in 2006: “I can’t for the life of me see anything wrong, or even unpleasant, in wishing the country to have a certain ethnic mix, “
Actually it is considered terrible to favor the current ethnic mix but wanting to change the ethnic mix is considered morally superior. It is never explained why wanting to change the ethnic mix is considered to be the better choice.
After the ethnic mix is changed with more low skilled immigrants the same people who favor changing the ethnic mix will complain that it is expensive to live in a place with “good” schools because all the new Latino immigrants have caused the test scores for many formerly “good” schools to collapse.
— Mercer · Apr 9, 05:33 PM · #
D: Re your poor black urban hood – it’s not just gunshot wounds; statistically, you are far more likely to be robbed, raped, burgled, and assaulted in such a neighborhood than in other locations. Staying away from such places is just common sense.
Let me clarify my position, because it probably seems like I’m defending Derbyshire in full. Actually, there are points in his argument I disagree with. For just one example, take his advice to avoid “large gatherings of blacks.” This is way too broad – I don’t think anyone has to fear a gathering of black professional women, or of elderly black military veterans. He needs to be more specific in places like this. If, for instance, I see 3 teenage black guys in typical ghetto gear heading toward me, I cross the street; but if it’s a middle-aged black man wearing a suit, I see no reason to take evasive action. Also, I disliked the cynicism of his advising people to get a nice black friend as a form of inoculation against charges of racism.
But despite Derb’s faults, “The Talk” is something that hits home with me for personal reasons. My wife comes from a foreign country, and I’ve had to let her know that certain people and situations need to be avoided for her own personal safety (like, if you take a wrong turn and find yourself in a dumpy, overwhelmingly black part of town, you get the hell out ASAP). This is not “embracing and celebrating racism,” as htownmark might say. I’m not happy about it, but I’m not ashamed of it either. This is real life, and it’s better to be racist and alive, than PC and dead. I think this holds for virtually everyone when it concerns their own self and loved ones.
— Ponderer · Apr 9, 06:17 PM · #
@Max. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Thanks.
— smatthew · Apr 9, 08:50 PM · #
First Mr. Sessions proves he knows very little about religion and public discourse. Now he proces he knows very little about race. One more and you’ll be three for three.
P.S. “It can be described as consistently skeptical that white racism is relevant to contemporary politics despite its own evident fascination with the topic.” — Did it ever occur to you that conservatives (or at least those squishes at NRO) do this because it is THE LEFT that continues to insist that white racism is relevant ot contemporary politics and then all we try to do is point out that it is not (and folks like Derb use complicated numbers and stats that you liberals, and conservative squishes, seem to struggle with — my recommendation is more stats classes for stupid writers).
— Fake Herzog · Apr 9, 09:41 PM · #
Ponderer, I agree that staying away from tough neighborhoods is common sense. For example, I also avoid trailer parks in my hometown even though they tend to be white. Explain to me how liberals behave like racists again? It’s a just-so story the right likes to tell itself. See also “MLK was a communist.”
— D · Apr 9, 10:04 PM · #
Derbyshire wasn’t fired because he was racist; as has been said, he admitted to being racist long ago. He was fired because he admitted discriminating against black people, claimed it was justified, and advocated that all other non-black people should do the same. There’s a difference: the same as the difference between saying, “I am a sadist” and saying “I torture my intimate partner, I am right to do so, and everybody else should too.” The first is a confession of private vice; the second calls for massive evil to be inflicted on other people. I’m not a fan of Rich Lowry, but I can understand why he considered Derbyshire’s latest outrage worse than what had gone before.
— Daniel B. · Apr 9, 10:54 PM · #
Your definition of a racist is essentially anyone who is not a liberal. The obsession with racism that liberals have is cynical and fundamentally Stalinist. There are vast numbers spies and saboteurs- excuse me, racists- out there constantly undermining the lives of blacks and the goodness of society. Blacks have the entire establishment and legal system behind them, but the secret army of racists still ruins everything.
— Thrasymachus · Apr 9, 10:59 PM · #
LOL! I think there’s a family in Sanford, FL right now that’s wishing they had the “entire establishment and legal system behind them”, instead of a system that is frantically trying to whitewash the cold-blooded murder of their 17-year-old son.
— Chet · Apr 9, 11:41 PM · #
Chet,
I thought you didn’t believe in supernatural forces? Yet you claim to possess them in knowing with certainty that Trayvon was involved in a “cold-blooded murder” instead of foolishly attacking a man who killed him in self-defense. Maybe there is still hope for you to someday learn about the details of a different murder that had a much better outcome…
— Fake Herzog · Apr 10, 12:48 AM · #
I don’t see any place in my post where I express a level of certainty I don’t hold. Regardless, “self-defense” simply isn’t supportable by the facts that are known. So you’ve chosen to adopt a position unsupportable by both the facts and the plain reading of my words.
— Chet · Apr 10, 01:24 AM · #
D: “Explain to me how liberals behave like racists again?”
Here’s an example: by promoting integration while fleeing as far away from it as they can. Integration is fine for the white working class, who get to experience the consequences of black criminality and dysfunction. But the white liberal elites do everything they can to keep their kids out of black schools and themselves out of black neighborhoods. They can only take “diversity” in small, carefully controlled doses.
— Ponderer · Apr 10, 05:44 AM · #
The more you rail against “the homosexual lifestyle/agenda” the more likely it is that you’re a repressed homosexual. And if you went to Andover and you’re obsessed with “the left’s” and Michelle Obama’s “obsession with race,” the more likely it is that you’re obsessed with your own guilt playing the part of righteous indignation in the theater of the soul.
like if you write some George Will “I don’t see race” shit like this:
…who get to experience the consequences of black criminality and dysfunction.
(truly amazing)
— Daboozy · Apr 10, 12:19 PM · #
I don’t see what George Will and homosexuality have to do with anything, sorry.
— Ponderer · Apr 10, 02:45 PM · #
“Here’s an example: by promoting integration while fleeing as far away from it as they can.”
That’s not the behavior of racists. Racists don’t promote integration for themselves or anyone else. If you can accuse white liberals who behave in such ways of anything it’s hating other white people for subjecting them to “black criminality and dysfunction”. But even your garden variety conservative race monger knows how stupid they’d sound saying that.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 10, 03:27 PM · #
A strong argument can be made that such is indeed the case. Liberal whites have long looked down on the hardhats, white trash, rednecks (just to use a few terms), and other proletarian whites that used to make up most of the working class. See E. Michael Jones’ argument in “The Slaughter of Cities.”
As for “the behavior of racists,” white liberals talk a lot about how wonderful black people are, yet few want to live around large numbers of them. Neighborhoods where white liberals congregate tend to be overwhelmingly white, or at least overwhelmingly non-black. I could take their stated love for integration more seriously if they would actually go live in places like Detroit or Newark and set an example for the rest of us.
— Ponderer · Apr 10, 03:46 PM · #
“As for “the behavior of racists,” white liberals talk a lot about how wonderful black people are, yet few want to live around large numbers of them.”
1. White liberals don’t “talk a lot about how wonderful black people are”. White liberals talk about sports and the weather and what’s on TV, just like everybody else does. I wonder if long standing right wing racism is the actual source of the conservative compulsion to caricature EVERYTHING.
2. It would have been one thing to be obsessed with integration if you were living in Boston and had to go through the busing controversy of the mid 70s through late 80s. For someone to still be going on and on about it in 2012 is a pretty good indication of…well, you know.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 10, 05:45 PM · #
Ponderer, city populations have been on the upswing for the last 20 years (except for basket cases like Detroit), largely because liberals like me moved into tough neighborhoods.
Think of Chicago, where I lived. Bucktown, Wicker Park, and Pilsen were ghettoes in the 80s. Now they’re incredibly hip (and expensive) places to live. Why did white people move there?
— D · Apr 10, 05:58 PM · #
“If you can accuse white liberals who behave in such ways of anything it’s hating other white people”
Bingo. Of course, the race distraction helpfully hides this fact from both ‘sides’.
— Matt · Apr 10, 06:11 PM · #
D: There’s tough and there’s tougher. From what I’ve heard, the places you mentioned were mostly Hispanic, with some gang violence and poverty, but not nearly as hellish as the black neighborhoods on the South Side. They were much more “salvageable”. In general, Hispanic areas are safer than black ones. Some of America’s safest cities are majority Hispanic. I can’t think of any majority black cities that are among the safest.
— Ponderer · Apr 10, 06:15 PM · #
You work hard to put all non-liberal opinion under a bridge, and then complain that rightist commentators are trolls.
— Evan · Apr 10, 06:55 PM · #
Ponderer,
You are quite right about Bucktown, Wicker Park and Pilsen — to describe any of those neighborhoods, even in the 70s and 80s as “ghettoes” [sic], is ridiculous. When Mr. D moves into Englewood or North Lawndale or Roseland, then we’ll talk.
As for Hispancis and crime, unfortunately, due to massive illegal immigration, Hispanic crime rates and family dysfunction (out-of-wedlock births are close to 50%) are now approaching underclass black levels. Importing lots of Hispanic peasants has turned out to be not a good idea…but liberals like their cheap chalupas!
Chet,
I forgot you have problems with basic vocabulary. Calling someone a “murderer” suggests you know for a fact that they have actually, you know, murdered someone. And right now, none of us, even those who might think Mr. Zimmerman is innocent of murder, know whether or not he is guilty of murder (he might end up being found guilty by a jury). All we know for a fact is that he killed Trayvon. Murdering Trayvon means something different altogether.
— Fake Herzog · Apr 10, 07:18 PM · #
Pilsen was 95% hispanic when I moved there, mostly Mexican. Explain to me again how I’m a racist?
— D · Apr 10, 08:13 PM · #
And by Fake Herzog’s measure, unless I move to the toughest neighborhood in the entire city I’m a racist. I remember when I first moved into the city. When I told my suburbanite co-workers, they thought I was nuts. These would be the folks in the Republican collar counties of greater Chicago.
— D · Apr 10, 08:16 PM · #
I know for a fact that Zimmerman murdered someone. Whether he’ll be found guilty of it is another matter. But his innocence before the law in Sanford has nothing to do with my ability to draw incredibly obvious conclusions from incredibly overwhelming evidence. But, you know, I forget that you have problems being a human being.
— Chet · Apr 10, 09:52 PM · #
D,
I admit that moving into Pilsen in the 80s was gutsy — back then there wasn’t even the hipster scene that has grown up around 18th and Halsted. But there were thriving businesses (hello Nuevo Leon) that you could go visit without a worry even back in the late 80s and early 90s (or at least I did). I bet your rent was cheap.
— Fake Herzog · Apr 10, 10:02 PM · #
At the Atlantic website, Robert Wright makes a strong point about Derbyshire’s bullshit:
“The piece consists of advice Derbyshire has given his children for navigating a world featuring black people, and one of his tips is, “Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.”
So let me get this straight: If you see five black people that you know personally, and they’re in conversation with a sixth black person whom you don’t know, there’s a danger that the sixth person will assault you or something? Don’t you think that, actually, if those five people are decent people, chances are they’re not hanging out with a thug—and certainly not with a thug who would assault a friend of theirs in their presence? Wouldn’t Derbyshire apply that rule of inference to white people? Why wouldn’t the rule hold for black people?
And of course, there’s also the fact that, even if you knew none of the six people, there might be cues that could put your mind at ease. If, say, these six black people are well-dressed middle-aged men, you could make the same generalization you’d make about well-dressed middle-aged white men: they’re not crackheads who need money for their next fix. Similarly, for both young black males and young white males, there are cues that correlate with danger and cues that are cause for reassurance.
I realize this is all obvious. That’s my point. John Derbyshire and his ilk like to cast themselves as the ones who are telling obvious truths about race that the rest of us gloss over. But Derbyshire himself seems to have been living in a world where some obvious things aren’t visible, a world in which race looms so large as to obscure lots of valuable cues for navigating your social environment.”
— Pamela · Apr 11, 01:41 AM · #
Here’s a kind of response to the silliness of Sessions and his ilk from the NR racists themselves: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295717/very-long-post-about-john-derbyshire-daniel-foster#more
— Corey · Apr 11, 03:56 AM · #
Chet,
Read and learn before you organize the lynch mob.
— Fake Herzog · Apr 11, 04:39 PM · #
I find it fascinating how a young black man getting killed turns all sorts of people into card carrying members of the ACLU. Seeing how it causes all conservatives to rally around you, I imagine the Romney campaign is on constant watch for their own “tragic accident” with a minority in a hoodie.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 11, 04:54 PM · #
Sorry, Fake, not convincing. Much in the article is wrong; we now know that police coached at least one witness to identify Zimmerman, instead of originally Martin, as the one who called for help. And what would a lie detector possibly prove? Zimmerman doesn’t deny shooting Martin and I’m sure he felt “threatened” by the presence of a young black man in the vicinity: he’s a racist.
The only person who would have been indemnified by Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law is Martin. Zimmerman, clearly, is a murderer.
— Chet · Apr 11, 06:41 PM · #
Chet,
Well, we are all going to learn a lot more during the discovery phase and if it come to it, the trial of Mr. “White Hispanic” Zimmerman. I find it amusing that folks are talking about the “Stand Your Ground” law — totally irrelevant to a basic self-defense defense — if a young kid comes up to you and punches you in the face and then starts smashing your head against the ground, and furthermore if said kid starts groping for your gun and even says something threatening, well, you don’t need special State laws for that — just basic self-defense. Now, I admit, this is all speculation and the events as detailed above come to us by my favorite white Hispanic — we don’t know what “no_limit_nig*a” has to say about all this because we’ll never get his side of the story. But with the charges against Zimmerman we’ll probably eventually read about the call to the girlfriend and as I said above, we’ll all get more facts to understand the case better. So put down your noose for now Chet — the fun is just starting!
— Fake Herzog · Apr 12, 12:48 AM · #
@MBunge
Mike, surely it’s a caricature to suggest that conservatives didn’t believe in the right to a trial pre-Zimmerman, or that opposing lynch mobs makes you a card carrying member of the ACLU. (For the record, I was a card carrying member about 20 years back and have always admired some of the ACLU’s stands in any given year, but I have no desire to take the card back up.)
My perception is that most people on both sides are taking a “let’s wait for the evidence to come out, and if it turns out that Zimmerman didn’t act in self defense, he should be punished.” I suppose compare to Chet, that looks wildly civil libertarian, but it seems pretty mild to me.
Yes, there are some tools who think it’s obvious that Martin is the instigator, but like the people who are 100% certain that Zimmerman doesn’t have a self-defense case, I think they’re just not very smart. Surely you’ve grown accustomed to cutting people some slack in that regard.
— J Mann · Apr 12, 02:21 PM · #
“My perception is that most people on both sides are taking a “let’s wait for the evidence to come out, and if it turns out that Zimmerman didn’t act in self defense, he should be punished.””
Your perception is wrong and self-serving.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 12, 02:28 PM · #
Mike,
Surely humility would require you to amend to: “Assuming I have understood you correctly, J, then at least one of our perceptions is wrong, and probably self-serving.” I’m open to testing the claim, but I’ve read a lot of opinion pieces on it and that’s certainly my impression. I guess I haven’t read poll data, so I can’t actually speak to “most people,” only “most opinion columnists and public figures who have expressed an opinion.”— J Mann · Apr 12, 03:20 PM · #
“Stand Your Ground” suggests that if you’re in a public space you have a right to be in, and are obeying all laws and unarmed, you have a right to defend yourself by whatever means are necessary when you are pursued and attacked by an armed aggressor.
Martin didn’t “come up” to Zimmerman; Zimmerman pursued Martin. Even if Zimmerman was attacked – and there’s abundant evidence that his supposed “injuries” are wishful thinking by his defenders – by Martin, Martin was fairly obviously in the legal right. “Stand Your Ground” is a right to not retreat, not to pursue. But I think we’ll see that Zimmerman is the one who started the fight, probably by unlawfully placing hands on Martin.
Indeed. Recall that, absent the outcry that you despise, no trial would ever have occurred.
— Chet · Apr 12, 04:38 PM · #
“I’ve read a lot of opinion pieces on it and that’s certainly my impression.”
George Orwell would either be amused or aghast at how people vanish things down the memory hole. It is absolutely NOT the case that most people have taken a “wait and see” attitude toward this matter. What happened first was an explosion of anger and criticism after a unarmed black teen was shot to death and the local authorities were apparently going to let the shooter off scott free. What’s followed that is now a backlash from previously “law and order” conservatives who, for reasons left unexpressed, are INTENSELY interested in making sure that every possible defense of the shooter is vigorously made. Sean Hannity has practically become a one-man George Zimmerman Anti-Defamation Squad.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 12, 07:49 PM · #
Well, Mike, I did use a present tense, not a past tense. You’re right that most commentators on the right or libertarian side to point out possible Zimmerman defenses, but most of them say “If it turns out that Zimmerman is guilty, he should be punished.”
For the record, that’s more or less where I am. I think he’s more likely guilty than not, although I’m not sure he can be proved guilty. In any case, I think he’s entitled to his defenses, just like anybody else.
For the record again, I agree with Chet that Zimmerman very probably wouldn’t have been charged without the public pressure. The Martin family definitely did the right thing from their perspective.
— J Mann · Apr 13, 12:58 PM · #
As usual, the best commentary on this matter comes from the best writer on the internet, Steve Sailer. Just read these two posts for a taste and keep following his blog for updates.
P.S. The Derb is back!
— Fake Herzog · Apr 13, 04:20 PM · #
“most of them say “If it turns out that Zimmerman is guilty, he should be punished.””
You bring that up as though it’s something they should get credit for, that because they don’t say “Zimmerman should get off, even if he did murder that colored boy”, we should all give those guys a cookie.
I’m less interested in the pro forma “he should be punished if he’s guilty” crap and more interested in the “Why the hell are you so determined to make sure Zimmerman gets a fair shake, especially when that’s often not the way your approach criminal suspects” thing.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 13, 09:48 PM · #
Mike, I wasn’t arguing that you should be giving righties cookies,* just that I didn’t see anyone becoming a “card carrying member of the ACLU.” It seems to me that the rightie and libertarian commenters are pretty much consistent in their approach to civil liberties. I don’t know a lot of righties who believe that other criminals should be convicted without trial, or that if they have a defense, it shouldn’t be considered.**
— J Mann · Apr 16, 05:30 PM · #
“It seems to me that the rightie and libertarian commenters are pretty much consistent in their approach to civil liberties.”
What is this “seems to me” bullshit? Were there conservatives so agitated about Jonbenet Ramsey’s parents getting convicted in the media? Were there conservatives standing up for OJ being innocent until proven guilty? Where was the conservative mania for civil liberties and due process in the recent Troy Davis death penalty controversy? To suggest that the conservative reaction to this case is somehow typical is to suggest you’re an idiot.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 17, 02:37 PM · #
You might be right, Mike – I don’t recall how most commentators came out on the Ramsey parents. (Kobe Bryant would be another good test case).
My vague perception of most of those cases is that the only people talking about them are the late night shows that cater to crime fans (Nancy Grace, Geraldo, Greta Van Susteren). Those shows usually have two or three guests – a former prosecutor whose job it is to tell you that so and so is guilty and a celebrity defense attorney whose job it is to tell you not so fast, we still don’t know all the facts and they may have some good defenses.
Some of the difference is the argument for a public policy change — if this is being used as an exhibit for why we shouldn’t have no retreat laws but the no retreat law doesn’t apply in the way people think it is, then you can expect a gun libertarian to chime in when they might not have otherwise.
— J Mann · Apr 19, 03:28 PM · #