June 19, 2012

"Ann suggests that the Supreme Court striking down the law might help Obama's political fortunes."

"Glenn [Loury] disputes this, while observing that conservatives have certainly benefited over the years from the Court's pro-abortion rulings. They discuss the uproar over Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's Native American ancestry, and, invoking the career of Justice Clarence Thomas, debate the politics of affirmative action. Responding to the failed attempt to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Ann thinks her formerly blue state is turning redder by the day. Glenn defends and Ann criticizes efforts to promote public employment during this recession."

Here's the whole 40-minute discussion:



IN THE COMMENTS: Chip S. said:
I was surprised that Loury defended Warren so much.

His career exemplifies what's best about affirmative action: Making an extra effort to find people with potential who would otherwise be overlooked.

Hers exemplifies the worst aspects of affirmative action: A cynical numbers game that doesn't benefit anyone whose light is actually hidden under a bushel.
As Glenn tells his own story — growing up poor on the south side of Chicago — he would be someone a law school admissions committee would pick out for multiple factors and not a simple race-balancing, box-checking approach to affirmative action. And unlike Elizabeth Warren and other individuals with a claim to some Native American ancestry, Glenn does not have the power to check and uncheck the box depending on whether or not an advantage is available. He can't be creative about his conception of himself when it comes to race.

32 comments:

Pete said...

Obama wins either way the Supreme Court rules.

If they rule against Obamacare, he can say, see, those evil Conservatives on the Court want you to die.

If they rule for Obamacare, he can say, see, those evil Conservatives on the Court want you to die but we Progressives saved you.

MadisonMan said...

I think the country is getting redder, not Wisconsin. This will continue until Mitt Romney is elected, at which point the country will get bluer.

Isn't that how it always works?

Fen said...

Video. Meh.

We're expecting the decision to come down this week, yes?

Johanna Lapp said...

Might you suggest Glenn tilt his camera down so his face is in the top half of his frame and his eyes are level with yours? He looks like Wm. F. Buckley, slouching diffidently in his chair.

Also, his eyes are frequently obscured by glare off his specs. He suffers from poor focus. And the large expanse of bright wall behind him upsets the contrast of the shot.

Your attentive posture, crisp contrast, well-lit face and leaning forward into the camera, give a distinct advantage.

Scott M said...

If we strike it down, will it become more powerful than we can possibly imagine?

MadisonMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

Nerd.

(How could I have misspelled that the 1st time!)

Scott M said...

Your geekfu is weak.

Chip S. said...

I was surprised to find myself watching the whole thing.

Excellent give-and-take, with no histrionics and a premium on good arguments.

Not that it matters, but my scorecard had Loury winning the segment on the Supreme Court and Obamacare, with Althouse prevailing on the other two.

Triangle Man said...

@MadisonMan

Do not come here with your reasonable suggestions and moderate conclusions. The whole country will be Topeka, Kansas by the end of the decade.

bagoh20 said...

On the idea that achieving your goals makes your opposition more energized: The solution to that is to make sure your goals are good, and will clearly be visible as such soon after you achieve them. This was Walker's strength and Obamacare's weakness. Even though it was purposefully deigned to hide the bad stuff and front load the good, Obamacare has so many problem and they are so large that it's obvious to many that it's a boondoggle. Add to that the total lack of bipartisanship in it's creation and you get the perfect energizer of the opposition.

This is all good. It's a safeguard against the survival of bad legislation and it forces those who want to be successful to provide solutions that work clearly and quickly. The left has a major weakness with that. They love big, long-term solutions that they claim will work "eventually".

Almost Ali said...

SCOTUS:

To reiterate, Obamacare, Yomamacare; we're not worthy of a decision.

(or maybe they're just terribly, terribly bashful)

bagoh20 said...

I think Glenn died right before the video started, but blogging heads just inserted some old audio, because a head is a terrible thing to waste.

Bertram Wooster said...

The socialists are winning and have been for over a hundred years. All that their "reversals" mean is that they're not winning as fast as they otherwise would be. The experiment in limited government is over. We're just picking over the bones. The carcass is large. It will take a while longer yet.

First principles are sometimes brought into political discourse but more often the discussion is just about which tactics are most expedient and whether one side or the other is screwing their chances up.

Blatherers will be arguing the whole way down the tubes about the exactly proper rate of decay rather than whether reviving the corpse is possible or desirable. This is natural. Free people employ and empower few blatherers.

edutcher said...

It's been suggested that a reversal by the Court would be disheartening for the Lefties.

YMMV.

Bertram Wooster said...

The socialists are winning and have been for over a hundred years. All that their "reversals" mean is that they're not winning as fast as they otherwise would be. The experiment in limited government is over. We're just picking over the bones. The carcass is large. It will take a while longer yet.

No, they've run out of road and the can can't be kicked anymore.

They're at the point of collapse and, when it comes, it will make '29 and what followed look tame

traditionalguy said...

That was a very good discussion.

Loury is definitely affirmative action based. He does not go beyond a thoughtful restatement of the problems. He probably has never had to do so.

Der Professor did another marvelous job of retreating on every position until the end thought where she stood her ground. As a result Loury's ego remained happy while she talked circles around him.

The Warren case is not a rejection of affirmative action any more than commenting on blatant cheaters who fake their Blue Stickers in order to get the closest parking place is rejecting Hanicapped Parking Spaces.

Romney needs to hope all remains the same until November. His base is all fired up, which is the secret of winning the election.

But if Romney is forced into revealing his flip-flop wisdom on Hispanic Immigrants and on a replacement for Obamacare before November, then his base will wilt and stay home pouting.

rhhardin said...

Nobody cares about your degree whatever color you are.

That's the fact that Loury is dancing to avoid. You can't rest on your degree, which is a problem for affirmative action graduates who, other things being equal, won't measure up as well. Affirmative action ends somewhere.

Chip S. said...

I was surprised that Loury defended Warren so much.

His career exemplifies what's best about affirmative action: Making an extra effort to find people with potential who would otherwise be overlooked.

Hers exemplifies the worst aspects of affirmative action: A cynical numbers game that doesn't benefit anyone whose light is actually hidden under a bushel.

rhhardin said...

The I'm an economist and you're not, to summarize Loury.

LarsPorsena said...

An interesting moment was when AA expressed abhorrence for 'blood' tests to confirm your affirmative action identity. I keep having this fantasy that at some point in the future that all 'white' kids just check any of the preferential race boxes on their applications as a form of protest. This would force the powers that be to do DNA analysis on every applicant.

Bertram Wooster said...

What Chip said.

Anyone who values affirmative action should be excoriating Warren like a mother grizzly whose cubs are threatened.

Just like anyone who deplores racism should be scrupulously careful about heaving it back at those who do damage others from such motives.

Instead all we see is hair splitting and finger pointing. Simple pragmatism should dictate a more honest approach. People are just completely helpless to see the weakness in their own rationalizations.

rhhardin said...

The status of African Americans hasn't moved that much in 25 years because the left keeps appointing itself as the leader of African Americans.

It turns out that grudges don't have economic value except as corruption.

Meade said...

As [Barack Obama's literary agent told Barack's...] story — [community organizing] on the south side of Chicago — he [would've been] someone a law school admissions committee would pick out for [the...] race-balancing, box-checking approach to affirmative action. [Like] Elizabeth Warren and other individuals with a claim to some [sort of exotic] ancestry, [he had] the power to check and uncheck the box depending on whether or not an advantage [was] available. He [could] be creative about his conception of himself when it [came] to race.

Meade said...

LarsPorsena said...
"[...]at some point in the future that all 'white' kids just check any of the preferential race boxes on their applications as a form of protest. This would force the powers that be to do DNA analysis on every applicant."

Revealed: All Americans are African Americans.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger Meade said...

LarsPorsena said...
"[...]at some point in the future that all 'white' kids just check any of the preferential race boxes on their applications as a form of protest. This would force the powers that be to do DNA analysis on every applicant."

Revealed: All Americans are African Americans.
_____________________________

Yes, but some are more African than others. (Hat tip to Mr. Orwell)

PackerBronco said...

Ann, you are falling victim to one of the classic pitfalls of punditry: saying something nonsensical because as a pundit you feel you have to say something original.

It's very simple: If ObamaCare is struck down then Obama would hae wasted 18 months in crafting legislation that: a) the majority of people hate, and b) was shown to be unconstitutional.

The incompetence involved with that kind of debacle will in no way rebound to Obama's benefit. The fact that Obama had huge majorities in congress so that the bill he signed was his and his alone gives him absolutely no place to hide.

n.n said...

MadisonMan:

Yes. Which is why Republicans need to identify a better compromise which is line with the founding principles of this nation derived from classical liberalism tempered by Christian principles.

Saint Croix said...

He can't be creative about his conception of himself when it comes to race.

Of course he can. Most African-Americans have some white ancestry. Both Obamas have white ancestry.

It's just there's no point to check a white box. Checking a white box gets you nothing. Checking a white box screws you.

Saint Croix said...

The entire concept of race is preposterous, in fact. It's utterly unscientific. We can't even answer the question, how many races are there? Nobody knows. Race is the ultimate bullshit category. Babies blow those categories up every day.

Curious George said...

What's scary is Lourey failing to recognize that states that have issue have those for a reason. The Feds gave WI some $800 million of stimulus...Doyle used it to INCEASE spending. His example of Europe is similarly retarded...France needs cash to cover their pension obligations, which they just lowered. They want Germany to pony it up because they have the cash, because they just increased their retirement age.

fivewheels said...

Just listened. The very simple answer you didn't quite come up with to the question "Why is this a scandal?" is: The scandal is that Elizabeth Warren is not the kind of person who should be getting affirmative action, even if you believe wholeheartedly in affirmative action. She neither has suffered the discrimination faced by Native Americans nor does she contribute the diversity a real Native American would.

Blue@9 said...

I much prefer watching you debate Glenn than that BadHair Michelle chick.