Why I No Longer Listen To Dennis Prager (4-2-23)

Posted on April 2, 2023 by Luke Ford

01:00 Dennis Prager on the indictment, https://www.youtube.com/@thedennispragershow2017
05:00 Trump ceded the high ground on president indictments, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/trump-ceded-the-moral-high-ground-on-presidential-indictments-long-ago/ar-AA19mkUE
30:00 Like Many Right-Wing Pundits, Dennis Prager Has Been Consistently Awful With Regard To Covid, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=142220
45:00 William Barr on the Trump indictment
50:00 Pigger calls in with remonstrance for Luke
1:29:00 Elliott Blatt calls in, spectacle vs testicle
1:40:00 Does livestreaming enhance or detract from the host’s life?
1:43:00 Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=121464
1:53:00 EB: Luke goes out of his way to alienate his audience
2:22:00 Most people shouldn’t speak out on politics or anything controversial

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on Why I No Longer Listen To Dennis Prager (4-2-23)

Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review

Posted on March 31, 2023 by Luke Ford

Here are some highlights from this 2020 paper in the Annual Review of Political Science:


* Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? Continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity have prompted this essential question for modern societies, but few clear answers have been reached in the sprawling literature. This article reviews the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies.

* Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? This question is the quintessential derivative of the wider debate about whether the positive interpersonal ties characteristic of socially cohesive societies can be preserved when societies’ inhabitants to a decreasing extent share a common ethnic background. The answer to this question is crucial for understanding the potential challenges that developed societies are facing from increasing ethnic diversity stemming from immigration and refugee settlement. It also provides a potential explanation for the challenges to governance in countries that have historically been ethnically heterogeneous (Alesina et al. 1999, Alesina & Glaeser 2004). Further, because social trust stimulates cooperation between individuals (Gächter
et al. 2004), the link between ethnic diversity and trust provides a plausible explanation for why ethnic diversity has been found to inhibit the enactment of redistributive welfare policies…

* One account posits that mere exposure to people of different ethnic background erodes social trust (Dinesen & Sønderskov 2015). This approach does not impose any assumptions regarding the mode or form of interaction between people in a given context. It is simply “being around” interethnic others that is proposed to influence trust, although this influence might be accentuated or mitigated by specific forms of interactions (e.g., competition or positive contact). This account builds on the assumption that people display heterogeneity—or out-group—aversion (Alesina & La Ferrara 2002, Olsson et al. 2005). That is, they trust those who are different from themselves less than those who are more similar, because similarity is an indicator of shared norms and other behavior-regulating features relevant for trust. By implication, because ethnicity is one—often highly visible—cue of similarity, social trust is predicted to be lower in ethnically diverse settings, where cues of dissimilarity are more frequent.

* In his much discussed “constrict theory,” Putnam (2007) presents an argument for why ethnic diversity may erode social trust, independent of the specific target. This is premised on the idea that ethnic diversity leads to social isolation. That is—using Putnam’s famous metaphor—people “hunker down” in more ethnically diverse areas. Because ethnic diversity is expected to induce such general anomie, this mechanism predicts that ethnic diversity lowers all forms of social trust, including both out- and in-group trust. As such, constrict theory is the most daring and wideranging account suggested to link ethnic diversity and social trust.

* First, as a consequence of people’s inherent preference to interact with people like themselves (i.e., homophily) (Lazarsfeld & Merton 1954), ethnically diverse settings might be less socially integrated (e.g., in terms of density of acquaintanceship and friendship networks). This reduces both the flow of information and the potential for sanctioning freeriders, which lay the foundation for trusting others. Second, ethnic diversity might result in preference diversity (i.e., fewer shared collective goals), thereby lowering people’s expectations that collective endeavors are possible while also creating incentives to manipulate process and agenda (Page 2008). Both set people further apart. Third, ethnic diversity with its associated linguistic and cultural differences might inhibit communication—and ultimately coordination—which makes trusting others more risky. Importantly, other people who live in such disintegrated environments are considered less trustworthy,
irrespective of whether they are in- or out-group members themselves, because their behavior is not constrained by the social structure in the local environment. These inferences may—in an attenuated form—extend beyond the local area to trust in specific groups as well as to trust in other people more generally.

Posted in Diversity | Comments Off on Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review

Diversity and Its Limits

Posted on March 31, 2023 by Luke Ford

Charles Murray writes for Claremont Review of Books:

* The crisis of American democracy demands a clear-eyed understanding of the ways in which differences in ethnic groups and some sources of political polarization are never going to be resolved.

* In The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure, political scientist Yascha Mounk asks the most far-reaching political question of our age: can democracies that are ethnically diverse survive?

* The first disparity between America and western Europe is that whites continue to be an overwhelming majority of the population everywhere in western Europe. Ten west European countries have populations that are over 90% white. The most diverse country in west Europe by this measure is the Netherlands, with “only” 84% whites. Compare that with the United States, where whites amount to only 60% of the population and are on their way to becoming a minority. The reason this is important has nothing to do with whiteness or European culture. Rather, Europe’s white population matters because a large ethnic majority can unilaterally set the terms of assimilation by minorities. This is as true of the Chinese majority in Singapore as of the white majority in Norway. The countries of western Europe still have the option to do what the United States did throughout its history until the 1960s: energetically socialize immigrants into the culture of their new country and require, as Theodore Roosevelt famously put it for the United States, that an immigrant’s naturalization be “predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.” Whether any west European nation will do this is an open question, but it is an option for them. It is no longer an option for the United States.

The second disparity is the size of the individual ethnic minorities. No one ethnic minority in any west European nation is large enough to be a political force on its own except France’s North African population (estimated at 10%). Everywhere else, the largest discrete ethnicity is a few percent of the population. A few percent of the population cannot become a political force on its own, and different immigrant ethnicities seldom form alliances. In contrast, the United States has two large and politically powerful minorities: Latinos (19% of the population) and blacks (12%). Asians (6%) are emerging as another.

* The problem is that ethnic diversity in a community significantly erodes social trust, not only between different ethnic groups but also among people within the same ethnic group. This ominous relationship was first documented in 2007 by Robert Putnam in “E Pluribus Unum” (Scandinavian Political Studies). By 2020, a meta-analysis of the relationship (“Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust,” Annual Review of Political Science) could call upon 87 separate studies. All 87 found a statistically significant negative correlation between ethnic diversity and social trust…

* the third sin of omission, ignoring the literature on ethnic differences in social behavior, is definitely mortal. Social behavior refers to the constellation of ways in which people act with respect to social institutions (marriage, civic activities, religious activities) and places (workplaces, schools, sidewalks, public parks, or others’ homes). The question regarding Mounk’s topic is whether social behavior varies by ethnicity, and the answer is yes on a host of behaviors. If the differences were small, the implications for sustaining a diverse democracy would also be small. For America’s East Asians and South Asians, the differences with whites are, in fact, small. For Latinos, they usually vary from small to moderate. For blacks, they usually vary from moderate to large.

To illustrate, I use one of the most important social behaviors: marriage. The following numbers refer to the percentage of adults aged 20 and over who are in heterosexual marriages with the spouse present, using data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Surveys for 2013–2020. Asians had the highest marriage rate (61%), followed by whites (54%), Latinos (44%), and blacks (28%)—a huge difference from top to bottom. Since marriage rates are known to increase along with education, it may be asked if the ethnic differences persist for people with high school diplomas, associate’s degrees, bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, and professional degrees. In the case of whites and Asians, the differences ranged from zero to five percentage points across those educational levels—small. In the case of Latinos and whites, the differences ranged from nine to 13 percentage points—moderate. In the case of blacks and whites, the differences ranged from 18 to 24 percentage points—large.

Posted in America, Race | Comments Off on Diversity and Its Limits

Teaching The Holocaust

Posted on March 31, 2023 by Luke Ford

From the Claremont Review of Books:

* I have observed substantial variations among schools in their approach to the Holocaust. Jewish schools are more likely to place the Holocaust in historical context by reviewing the long history of European anti-Semitism, including medieval Jewish ghettos, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, and the Russian pogroms of the 1800s and early 1900s—sometimes including a gratuitous showing of Fiddler on the Roof (1971), which students at Jewish schools have already seen too many times. The Jewish schools also are more likely to complete the unit with an exploration of the role played by Holocaust survivors in launching the state of Israel. Schools with a Protestant or Catholic affiliation typically portray the Holocaust as a manifestation of pure evil, putting Adolf Hitler alongside mass murderers and serial killers. Schools without a religious affiliation, both public and private, commonly present anti-Semitism as one kind of prejudice, and sometimes set the Holocaust alongside the genocide of Native Americans and the treatment of African-American slaves in the South before the Civil War. Twenty U.S. states now require the Holocaust to be taught in schools. In some schools, it’s painfully clear that the teachers are assigning Anne Frank’s The Diary of a Young Girl (1947) merely to fulfill this requirement; serious in-depth discussion of the origins of the Holocaust is absent.

But in almost every case, whether the schools are Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or secular, public or private, the Holocaust is taught using books and media in which most of the German characters are cardboard caricatures of evil.

* Most of us have a desire to belong to something bigger than ourselves. Whether it’s cheering at a football game, singing in a choir, or line-dancing at a wedding reception, there is a domain of human experience that can be enjoyed only in the company of many of our fellow creatures. Watching a football game on TV with a buddy at home is fine, but it’s not the same as singing the team fight song in a stadium in unison with 90,000 other fans. Maschmann’s memoir shows how the Nazis understood and exploited this primal human longing. Nazi mass festivities—such as the yearly Harvest Festival at Bückeberg attended by 500,000 or more; the Mayday celebrations; and of course the days-long Nuremberg rallies—were skillfully crafted to elicit and sustain this transcendent ecstasy.

It is popular today among intellectuals to devalue tribal experiences. Instead of group ecstasy, we moderns focus on individual fulfillment, self-actualization rather than self-transcendence. But this emphasis on the individual impoverishes and flattens the human experience. To transcend oneself, to sacrifice oneself for others, to love all the world, can indeed be a pinnacle of moral experience. Millions, be you embraced! This kiss for all the world!

* In March 1940, six months into World War II and nine years before the publication of his dystopian novel 1984, George Orwell wrote, “Nearly all western thought since the last war, certainly all ‘progressive’ thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues.” The Nazis, Orwell realized, understood something that the democracies did not:

“Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades…. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people, “I offer you a good time,” Hitler has said to them, “I offer you struggle, danger and death,” and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.”

Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on Teaching The Holocaust

The lights are going off in South Africa

Posted on March 31, 2023 by Luke Ford

Helen Andrews writes:

* “We blacks saw businesses we thought had no challenges,” a failing farmer tells her. “But we were lying to ourselves.” There you have it in a nutshell. Black South Africans thought their white neighbors were rich because of the things they had. As it turned out, nice things didn’t stay nice for very long without the codes of behavior that kept them nice. Being a white South African looked very easy from the outside, but it turned out to depend on lots of little habits that, even with the best will in the world, would have been hard to explain in advance. (Why is getting up early to mow your lawn a better quality in a neighbor than staying up late at a party?)

Nowhere is this gulf more evident than in South Africa’s political leadership. Whatever you want to say about the old National Party, they were not personally corrupt. Prime Minister J.G. Strijdom used to refund to the government every month the stamps he had used in personal correspondence. The ANC, on the other hand, has presided over a frenzy of personal enrichment. The current president, Cyril Ramaphosa, has a stated net worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and this is likely an underestimate, considering that some lucky burglars who happened to strike his personal farm in 2020 made off with $4 million cash in foreign currency. Punishment for corruption is rare. Former president Jacob Zuma is unusual in having been prosecuted for, and convicted of, money laundering. During his trial, he protested that corruption is only a crime “in a Western paradigm.”

* Would better leaders have saved South Africa? This is a standard argument: Mandela was a great man, then Thabo Mbeki and his successors screwed it up. The assumption is that if we could find another leader as good as Mandela, everything would be fine. This is unlikely. Consider Eskom, the embattled utility unable to provide reliable power. What could a new Mandela do about rampant theft from the company’s warehouses, where valuable replacement parts are often found stripped of their copper and left useless? Or about the refusal of many customers (including the vast majority of Sowetans) to pay their bills? In 1984, when the apartheid government tried to make one neighborhood of delinquent customers pay higher electricity bills, the resulting riot led to three local officials being hacked to death and their bodies burned in the street.

* Imagine if one day the international community decided that Latin Americans should be able to vote in U.S. elections, since our economy depends on their labor and their fates are affected by U.S. policies. The counterargument would have nothing to do with whether Latin Americans are good people or possess human rights. It would be that they outnumber us more than two to one and would, by sheer numbers, render native voters null overnight. That was Verwoerd’s case for apartheid: strictly mathematical. As long as blacks were 80% of the population and voting as a solid racial bloc, it would be folly to put the two communities into one democracy.

The argument that borders are the moral equivalent of apartheid is not just theoretical; it is being made today. The quality of life we enjoy in America is the result of exclusion. Otherwise, entire favelas would pack up and move here. On what moral basis do we keep them out? Do the people of Latin America not deserve nice things? One might ask why they can’t have nice things in their own country, but the answer would probably be that it is somehow our fault. Certainly it is not anything the Latin Americans are doing. That would imply that they are incapable of sustaining nice things, and that would be racist. Eventually the only reply to these liberal gotchas is to say that foreigners can’t have our country because it’s ours. That is precisely the kind of basic moral claim that the current Left would like to deprive Americans of the authority to make.

* When people say America is becoming more like South Africa, they usually mean that California can’t keep the lights on and private security is a booming business for middle-class neighborhoods in Baltimore and Portland. That is all part of it, but the most South African thing about our politics is the current effort to push white Americans into that same position as permanently powerless scapegoats.

Posted in South Africa | Comments Off on The lights are going off in South Africa