Contributors

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

The Other Nixon Legacy

The Nixon Library released another 265 hours of conversations Richard Nixon recorded during his presidency. What's interesting about these conversations is how they show the kind of progress we can make in 50 years, and how far we still have to go.

In those conversations, according to the New York Times article, Colson told Nixon he had always had "a little prejudice." Nixon responded that he himself wasn't prejudiced but that "I've just recognized that, you know, all people have certain traits."

In other words, Nixon prejudged people based on their ethnicity because "all people" have certain traits. One of the dictionary definitions of prejudice is "preconceived notion or opinion." So there's no question that anyone who makes broad assumptions about someone based on race or ethnicity is prejudiced in at least one sense of the word.

Another dictionary definition of prejudice is "an irrational attitude or hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race or their supposed characteristics." This is the one that Nixon thinks he is innocent of.

But in practice, one sort of prejudice makes the other sort possible. By buying into the idea that certain groups all share some trait, you automatically exclude a person from consideration for certain jobs solely based on their ethnicity. And the crazy thing is, especially in the US, almost no one can claim any one ethnicity -- my ancestors came from at least five different countries and pretty much everyone here can say that.

Most of the headlines echo the New York Times: "In Tapes, Nixon Rails about Jews and Blacks." But Nixon was bigoted all around. From the Times:
“The Jews have certain traits,” he said. “The Irish have certain — for example, the Irish can’t drink. What you always have to remember with the Irish is they get mean. Virtually every Irish I’ve known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish.”

Nixon continued: “The Italians, of course, those people course don’t have their heads screwed on tight. They are wonderful people, but,” and his voice trailed off.
Paradoxically, this is a ray of light.

Nixon was obviously prejudiced in all senses of the word against pretty much everyone. At the time of these conversations people were becoming what the right loves to call "politically correct" about racism. But 10 years earlier Nixon's ethnic slurs would not have raised any eyebrows.

The headlines on this story trumpet Nixon's prejudice against Jews and blacks, but relegate his racism against the Italians and the Irish to minor talking points that burnish Nixon's racist credentials. These days Nixon's anti-Irish and anti-Italian prejudices seem silly, nonsensical and almost quaint.

The most damning thing in the Nixon story was this (from the Times):
At another point, in a long and wandering conversation with Rose Mary Woods, his personal secretary, that veered from whom to invite to a state dinner to whether Ms. Woods should get her hair done, Nixon offered sharp skepticism at the views of William P. Rogers, his secretary of state, about the future of black Africans.

“Bill Rogers has got — to his credit it’s a decent feeling — but somewhat sort of a blind spot on the black thing because he’s been in New York,” Nixon said. “He says well, ‘They are coming along, and that after all they are going to strengthen our country in the end because they are strong physically and some of them are smart.’ So forth and so on.

“My own view is I think he’s right if you’re talking in terms of 500 years,” he said. “I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred. And, you just, that’s the only thing that’s going to do it, Rose.”
It's taken less than 40 years for a black man to attain the highest office in the land, not 500. But, some will argue, Nixon was right after all: Obama is the son of a Kenyan and a white American. He had been "inbred."

No, Nixon was just racist and wrong. Colin Powell would have been able to run for president and win. I don't think Powell has the stomach for the crap you have to put up with to get elected (I don't see how anyone can stand it). But he has the ability to lead and he had the trust of the American people until he was caught up in the Bush administration's lies on Iraq. And he was serving in Nixon's military at the time Nixon made his pernicious remarks!

And, yeah, Powell too had been "inbred." But that's the point. Everyone in this country has been thrown into the melting pot. It doesn't take 500 years for this to happen: it only takes the time for racist bigots to die out and the artificial barriers that separate us to fall away and allow us to treat each other as equals.

In the next 50 years we'll likely see the last vestiges of racism against American blacks die out, and the anti-gay hysteria disappear completely. As groups assimilate prejudice eventually evaporates (new prejudices may form as new out-groups arrive, but that's life).

This question of assimilation seems to be the bone of contention for a lot of people on the right today. They aren't prejudiced, they insist, but it's not right that Mexican Americans "refuse" to learn English or that American Muslim women wear veils or that Somali Americans eat weird food. These people demand assimilation instantly, but they miss the lessons of history.

Assimilation doesn't happen in a day. Japanese, Chinese, Irish, Italian, Norwegian and German immigrants spoke their native languages.

But their kids assimilated and now all their descendants speak English and wear jeans and eat hamburgers and French fries. And we eat Kung Pao chicken and sushi and beef burritos.

The wrong way to force assimilation was what happened to many American Indians -- kids were taken from their parents, stripped of their clothing and their names and forced to learn English.

If you want to hire someone you don't criticize their clothes, what they eat and how they talk. It's the same thing with assimilating recent immigrants into our society. To encourage assimilation and remove racial tension we need to accept people for what they are. We can't insist they change instantly -- it's not possible. The adults will never change, because adults can't. But their kids -- their kids will be 100% American if we don't alienate them.

Like the generations of Swedes, Frenchmen, Russians, Poles, Czechs who came to this country, these new kids will forget their parents' native tongues, throw away their veils, and stop eating weird food. Their parents will bemoan the loss, but hey -- that's life in America. If we make the American way of life attractive and inviting the kids will be helpless to resist The Borg of American popular society.

At the same time we may get something new in the process. Like pizza: the staple of American life.

8 comments:

juris imprudent said...

It doesn't occur to you that Nixon was just an ass? Then again, if you had the same amount of LBJ on tape, perhaps it wouldn't sound all that different.

Haplo9 said...

>If you want to hire someone you don't criticize their clothes, what they eat and how they talk.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. In certain businesses where I might hire someone to represent my business (ie the service industry), then how someone talks and dresses is very much so going to be a consideration when I'm looking to hire. That's not the same as criticizing, necessarily, but it is holding someone to a standard that I choose.

juris imprudent said...

Three links for M and fellow believers to chew on...

A little progressive history

I can only imagine the howls this will produce.

Magic!

My apologies to jeff c on this - apparently he isn't in near the minority I presumed. Lots of people believe in magical things.

Another Manzi piece

Manzi, goes into some considerable depth, hopefully not so much that you can't digest it.

Enjoy!

Mark Ward said...

From the Stossel link:

"They promise to cure poverty. Then their programs make it worse."

Wrong. Social Security has drastically reduced poverty with the elderly from over 50 percent to under 10 percent.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/17/eddie-bernice-johnson/texas-congresswoman-eddie-bernice-johnson-says-soc/

"They promise to create jobs. But then they make life so complex and unpredictable that entrepreneurs are afraid to create jobs."

If I made a statement like this, juris, you'd blow a bowel. Where is his empirical evidence? Not to mention the fact that this is a gross simplification of a complex problem. There are a myriad of reasons why we have high unemployment. One main reason, as I have mentioned previously, is how much money businesses can make by cutting their work force.

"Holtz-Eakin said that the profit growth has been driven not by revenue gains but by businesses cutting workers to boost productivity. He conceded, however, this was also the story during Bush’s “jobless recovery” and acknowledged that Obama probably did deserve some credit for stabilizing the chaotic financial system he inherited in 2009."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44268.html

They're not hiring because they are making a ton of money without having to do so. Here are some numbers.

"Meanwhile, if the Recovery Act did save or create jobs, why is the unemployment rate back up to 9.8%? The simple answer is that government doesn't create private-sector jobs -- business does. And with profits expected to hit a record $1.66 trillion in 2010 and corporate cash balances at $1.84 trillion, businesses are doing just fine by not creating jobs. Unfortunately, there's nothing in either the older stimulus package or the new tax compromise to change that."

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/obama-gop-tax-cut-deal-job-creation-stimulus/19751474/

The other issue is aggregate demand. Soak the engine that runs our economy (the middle class) and you are going to have problems.

None of this even begins to address the real issues that are so eloquently detailed in "Inside Job." Seen it yet, juris or are we still being stubborn?

Mark Ward said...

Great post, Nikto. I was going to do something like this but you beat me to it. And wrote about it much more eloquently then I would. It looks like Nixon managed to fall into all four stages of denial when it comes to racism.

juris imprudent said...

Stossel certainly has an ax to grind, I don't deny that. What is funny is how you deny that any source you use is 100% bias free.

from your politifact link: "The second number was a bit harder to verify. The U.S. Census Bureau did not begin tracking the poverty rate until 1959."

In fact they could NOT verify the reduction in elder poverty. The 50% number was pulled right out of the good Congress-critters arse - may have been higher, no one really knows. But it clearly was NOT what she claimed and she had no real basis for the number she used. That's the fact jack.

Not to mention the fact that this is a gross simplification of a complex problem.

Oh? Like demanding regulation of derivatives, but not actually understanding what regulation might actually work? Or any of a host of other positions you have taken?

The other issue is aggregate demand.

So you are all for keeping the tax cuts as they stand? For encouraging more consumer spending to keep the economy humming?

Mark Ward said...

For the middle class, absolutely. In fact, they should be made permanent. The tax cuts for the upper two percent should expire or cap gains taxes should increase. Maybe both.

I've also been exploring the possibility that corporate taxes should be drastically reduced or possibly eliminated for companies that manufacture things that are used for infrastructure in this country. A line from "Inside Job" got me thinking about this. Funny, it had to do with engineering.

Andrew Sheng, the Chief Advisor to the China Banking Regs Commission, said "Engineers build bridges. Financial planners build dreams. But when those dreams become nightmares..."

It made me think..what exactly do we build these days?

juris imprudent said...

The tax cuts for the upper two percent should expire or cap gains taxes should increase. Maybe both.

Cap gains hits the middle class too you know. As for the top 2%, how much of the total income tax burden would you have them pay? If you really want Buffett to pay more taxes, upping the rate won't help - you have to kill a bunch of deductions.

I'd rather keep corporate taxes as they are then attempt to 'engineer' in special rates for any particular sector. You should realize that they will figure out how to game any advantage.