Should Donald Trump Embrace Economist Raj Chetty?

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* Obama, Cameron and Merkel have failed and yet they cannot see it. They have turned the Middle East and soon Europe into a giant disaster zone, left the West up to its eyeballs in debt and with dysfunctional cities, and yet they pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for being “sensible” and “measured”. They claim to be great businessmen and yet depend for their wealth on the ability to borrow at 0%. I wish I could.

Trump for America.

Orban/Le Pen for Europe.

Farage for the UK.

But still we vote for these people, because we was to be thought “sensible” and “responsible”. Sensible needs to be added to the list of words that mean the opposite of what they’re supposed to mean like “vibrant” and “nuanced”. “Calm down” also means: “the problem is so enormous that I am going to bury my head in the sand and pretend it away”.

* The orgasmic delight the MSM pundits have been enjoying in reporting that ghetto kids moved to middle class areas do slightly better than those who stay in ghettos seems to never be accompanied by what happens to the middle class kids who have to go to school with them. There seems to be an unstated, unproved assumption that as long as the area stays majority middle class, the underclass minority does no harm.

I have no data, but have seen first hand what a few underclass kids can do to a middle class school district.

First off, if an area becomes 10% underclass, the impact on the local school is far greater. The underclass families are younger and bigger, and none go to private school. This alone means that a 10% underclass local population is more like a 20% underclass public school. But what further happens is that members of the local resident’s extended family start showing up in the local schools. Sometimes this is to get out of a bad school, but quite often it is because the kid was expelled from their local school so they re-register in Auntie’s suburban district using her address. This effect then increases the underclass percentage to 25%. At that point you have a more than doubled special education population, declining parent involvement, and families with kids moving away or switching to private schools, creating a death spiral where the schools get worse and worse.

The end result is that in the space of 20 years you can have 50% of the white population, but 80% of the white population with school age children, abandon a suburb, in the process losing what may be their entire life savings in the form of home equity.

* 99.44% impure?

Remember the name of the soap.

* What happens when we run out of majority to lift up and pull the minority along?

* “Improving “entire neighborhoods” is far too modest an ambition. We need to improve entire cities, states, nations,”

You know, about starting with not undermining the current American nation?

Seriously, the Chetty/Brooks/Clinton idea is that we can sprinkle the tiny number of minorities all around the vast white majority … but there isn’t a vast white majority anymore. The only way the Chetty/Brooks/Clinton idea begins to be at all plausible numerically is if you combine it with shutting the immigration gates.

* It is amusing how the left insists that white people are evil but at the same time possess magical abilities to uplift minorities just by being in the same space. I wonder if some SJW children’s book author has written a story about some mythical monster along these lines.

Anyway, at the end of the day the fact is that although they cannot say so in a forthright manner – or perhaps don’t even realize what their true beliefs are – most of the gentry liberals believe in the benefits of the values of upper middle class white America, demonstrated by their own behavior and advocacy for minorities living near people like them to lift them up (but always near some other white people, not their own enclaves of course).

* Isn’t Chetty’s plan to turn white counties brown with the effluent spewed out by the geysers of inner-city, hyper-fertile ethnics just a ruse? A Trojan horse the real purpose of which is to turn red counties blue or somehow dilute the voting power of blue counties? Somewhere down the line it will turn out that the alleged intention of humane intervention was just a cover story for back-handed gerrymandering. Even Chetty will realize that he had been used.

* So according to Brooks the “sensible” thing is not to mention immigration or trade. He’s either ignorant or a PC chicken (aka hypocrite).

Interestingly political correctness on the left means that any suggestion to moderate mass low-skilled immigration is taboo while on the right any suggestion to moderate trade with low-wage Goliaths like China is also taboo. The bottom line is whether liberal or conservative, all who occupy the commanding heights of our culture care more about the good opinion of their friends and colleagues than they do about truth or the welfare of the American people. You can’t be respectable and honest (or well-informed) at the same time. A disease of our time and a threat to the future of our civilization. We need a bull in the china shop.

* In my experience, it is the Chinese folks who are the first to recognize that a school’s demographics are changing for the worse.

When they pick up Ming from band practice, and see all the black kids hanging around waiting for a ride, fighting and scuffling and hitting on girls, they go right home and call their Chinese real estate agent.

Then they buy a new home, and rent the old one out to a black family.

* I assume Brooks lives in a decent neighborhood. So how about Raj Chetty, Obama & Brooks import a couple of thousand of homeboys, baby mommas, and their progeny, to that neighborhood. And send the kids to whatever school Brooks’s kids (or nephews or whatever) go to. We must all do our part, no?

* Professor Chetty has just relocated from Harvard to Stanford, which is located in the small community of Stanford, California. Census data indicate that Stanford is about 86% white or Asian, 9% Hispanic and 5% black. The adjacent larger city of Palo Alto is 91% white or Asian, 6% Hispanic and 2% black. Stanford has a per capita income of about $32,000 and, for Palo Alto, $73,000 (California mean – about $30,000). However, Oakland, not too far away, is about 35% white, 17% Asian, 25% Hispanic and 28% black. Per capita income is about $32,000. So perhaps Chetty would like to consider living in one of the poorer minority sections of Oakland (and send his kids to the local public schools) – think about how much he could help the residents, and it’s only a 35 mile drive to Stanford, not bad by California standards; and I’m sure he’d get lots of support from the Stanfard professors to help relocate minorities from Oakland to the Stanford-Palo Alto area – you know, to one of the nice leafy neighborhoods where the faculty live.

* Troublemaking girl in a school classroom not complying with police. Oh, the cop is on leave and being investigated for being physical with the non-compliant girl. And the school is criticizing the cop. Does the school believe this should be handled non-physically by talking her into leaving and complying? Then why call the cops? Why not have the school counsellors and school psychologists, who are in abundant supply, handle her. What white person in his or her right mind would go into the education field today, despite the high pay for little work?

* The challenge of saving Western Civilization will include upgrading the quality of White Supremacists.

Posted in America, Race | Comments Off on Should Donald Trump Embrace Economist Raj Chetty?

Will Seventh-Day Adventist Questions Fail Donald Trump?

Stereotypes are usually true. For instance, about Seventh-Day Adventists, the two main stereotypes are that they are very nice healing people and that they are a bunch of apocalyptic wackos.

From my experience growing up as the son of an Adventist theologian on various Adventist college campuses, these stereotypes are true.

One of the things I hated about growing up as an Adventist was how irrelevant we seemed.

So now I am loving it that my former church is in the news. Ben Carson is an Adventist and Ted Cruz’s wife is an Adventist.

Adventists tend to be apolitical and heavenly minded.

From USA Today: DES MOINES — Iowa Republicans say Donald Trump’s sneak attack on Ben Carson’s religion won’t work.

“It will fail miserably,” said Mike Demastus, a pastor at Fort Des Moines Church of Christ. “For Donald Trump, as a name-only Presbyterian, to be criticizing somebody else for their faith statements is laughable. This is a guy who can’t even quote a Bible scripture to someone.”

Several influential Christian conservative leaders in Iowa, even those who publicly back GOP candidates other than Carson, came to the defense of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Monday.

Trump touched off the controversy when he said at a campaign rally in Florida on Saturday: “I love Iowa. And, look, I don’t have to say it, I’m Presbyterian. … Boy, that’s down the middle of the road, folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don’t know about. I just don’t know about.”

Trump didn’t name Carson, then he denied in an interview on ABC’s This Week on Sunday that he was trying to plant seeds of doubt about his chief rival, who’s now the front-runner in Iowa, polls show. But Republican caucusgoers say they got the message.

“He cast questions about Carson,” said Andrea VanBeek, a 63-year-old Orange City Republican who intends to caucus for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. “In some ways, he’s pretty smart in the way he says things without saying them, you know.”

The Des Moines Register, in an article published Saturday about the 100 days until the Iowa caucuses, had noted that some conservatives have argued Seventh-day Adventists aren’t Christians.

Trump’s support in Iowa has plunged, although he remains securely in second place, according to a Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll and three other recent Iowa surveys.

Posted in Adventist | Comments Off on Will Seventh-Day Adventist Questions Fail Donald Trump?

Weekly Standard: Jewish Immigration Group Fights to Bring Syrian Refugees to America

I hope the Syrian refugees all move into Park Slope and Westchester and Foggy Bottom, where the elites in Washington live.

I wonder what the Israelis would do to a prime minister that was determined to make the Jews a minority in their own country?

Of course, the Jews would be totally fine with an Arab or African Prime Minister. An Ethiopian “Jew” is totally going to be elected in our lifetime.

In their own country, Jews always go the extra distance for multiculturalism. Nothing is more important to Israelis than showing they aren’t racist.

Am I a racist for wanting my president to be white like me? I can’t imagine the Nigerians would be happy with a white leader or the Japs with a black leader.

Daniel Halper writes:

A top Jewish immigration group — an organization “Founded in 1881 originally to assist Jews fleeing pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe” — is fighting to bring Syrian refugees to America. The group is called HIAS, which once meant Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

Mark Hetfield, the president and CEO of HIAS, emailed supporters last week to thank them for their generosity.

“We are leading the American Jewish response to the Syrian refugee crisis. We are on the ground in Europe and, more importantly, demanding that our own government and others around the world take bold action to ensure that Syrian refugees can rebuild their lives in safety and freedom,” Hetfield boasted.

On its website, the Jewish group is calling for the United States to bring in 100,000 Syrian refugees.

“Stories and photos documenting the unspeakably tragic plight of Syrian refugees have shocked the world.

“We cannot stand by idly and watch the largest humanitarian crisis of our generation unfold. Our country and the American Jewish community must step in now to provide protection and aid for Syrian refugees,” Hias writes on its website.

“Secretary of State Kerry recently announced that the United States will take in 15,000 refugees above our normal refugee resettlement operations (85,000 in total in Fiscal Year 2016, 100,000 in 2017). This is a symbolic gesture—not a response to a crisis.

“Please ask the President to resettle 100,000 Syrian refugees in the United States, to provide aid to the severely underfunded humanitarian efforts abroad, and to make resolution of the conflict in Syria a foreign policy priority.”

By contrast, the Jerusalem Post reports:

BERLIN – Germany’s security and intelligence agencies expressed alarm over the influx of refugees and migrants who harbor radical Islamic views and hatred of Jews, according to a Sunday report in Welt am Sonntag.

According to a security document obtained by the paper and read by top-level agency personnel, “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples as well as a different societal and legal understanding.”

The newspaper wrote that security sources warn that “the integration of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants Germany is no longer possible in light of the number and already existing parallel societies.”

The term “parallel societies” in Germany is frequently defined as insulated Muslim communities that have little or no contact with mainstream society.

The document, called “the non-paper” because it was not signed, stated: “German security agencies…will not be in the position to solve these imported security problems and thereby the arising reactions from Germany’s population.”

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Immigration, Jews, Syria | Comments Off on Weekly Standard: Jewish Immigration Group Fights to Bring Syrian Refugees to America

Donald Trump Was A Disaster On Sean Hannity Last Night

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* He said that he would “expedite” the return of the “good” illegals once they had left the country and re-applied for entry. Said there were a lot of good, hard-working, honest people who had lived here for a long time and that they deserved to have their legal re-entry “expedited”. But said he would make the “criminal” illegals leave so fast your head would spin. Also said he never liked the word “alien” and preferred “illegal immigrant.”

If he’s going to let the 80%+ of illegals who are not criminals come right back again after being deported, how is this different than just giving them an amnesty while they’re here? A token requirement that they briefly leave the country before he “expedites” their return is meaningless.

I thought he got it: we want America to remain a white majority (a growing white majority) country. That’s why he zoomed into first place in the Republican race. But apparently he doesn’t get it. If he’s going to let all the “good” illegals back in, what’s the difference between his plan and Obama’s or any other amnesty? They all promise to make the criminals leave. Big deal.

For the record, here’s my transcript of Trump on Hannity, talking about letting the “good” illegals back into the country on an expedited basis (starting at minute 10:00 of the third block of the Hannity radio program on 10/26, from Hannity’s web site):

Hannity: “Why do we as a nation…why do people get outraged at the idea that you’re saying ‘go back, and if you’ve been a law-abiding citizen, then you can come back legally’…

Trump: Right.

Hannity: …and everyone freaks out. Why?

Trump: Well, if you noticed when I said that this morning in New Hampshire, I got a tremendous ovation. It was one of the biggest ovations I had was when I said, ‘you have to go out, and we’re gonna come back, and we’re gonna expedite, because you know, that’s fair, they’ve been here for a long time, some of ‘em have been here for very very long, and they’ve done fine, and some of them great, some of them really good, they’ve been great people to be in the country, and we expedite. But you know Sean, you have tremendous bad ones, you have a lot of the gangs in L.A., you have many many illegal – you used to say aliens, I’ve never used that word actually, I never liked that word, and I hear now it’s politically correct to do it, so for the first time I’m OK with political correct – but I call it illegal immigration, illegal immigrants. You have a lot of ‘em here in gangs and you have a lot of them that are really tough dudes and we gotta get ‘em out. And we’re gonna get them out so fast your head will spin.

How is this not essentially an amnesty? What difference does it make to just require them to leave the country for a token period of time?

I predict that when word of this gets around, Trump will plunge in the polls. All the man had going for him, as far as I’m concerned, was that he was going to make the illegals all leave. We assumed that meant for good.

* I heard the interview, also. Basically he was proposing one of the plans from the early 2000s, in which illegals leave the country for some period of time but many are let back in. I think it totally depends on the numbers that are let back in. If it’s 80%, yes, that’s way too high. Twenty percent who created viable businesses? I might be able to live with a couple million — so long as future illegal immigration is well and truly stopped.

* There will be no plunge in the polls. Trump has been saying it this way all along and has not changed his position one iota.

* Exactly – what defines what is a “good” illegal who deserves to be “expedited” back into the country? His statement on Hannity sounded like the fact that they were here for a long, long time already ought to weigh in the decision.

Trump is very big on not giving away concessions in negotiating any sooner than you have to. Here the election is a year away and he’s already massively qualified his statement about “they all have to go.” What difference does it make if they go, if they’re just coming back again? Hell if they’re coming back again, don’t waste their bus money and make them jump through that pointless hoop. Just amnesty them right here. And you know very well that that is the next “compromise” that will be offered: “these really good people, really great people, been here a long, long time – it’s really unnecessary to make them leave, just to turn around and come back again. And we’re getting rid of the real tough dudes, that’s what matters.”

Trump never had much credibility with me because of his blowhard statements about how rich he is and how he’s nice to people so they better be nice to him, etc. What he had going for him was adopting Sen. Sessions’ immigration plan and making blunt plain statements about how the illegals have to go. For me, to hear that he’s already, at this early point, stating that the “good” ones can come back on an “expedited” basis shows that he doesn’t get it, after all. It’s not about legality or illegality of immigrants. It’s about maintaining a majority white population. And that means at the very least that ALL the illegals have to go, for good. (And if they’re such great people, then they will be nice, hard-working assets for their homelands, which need people like that.)

I have to say that I’d completely given up on ever voting again but was seriously considering voting if Trump won the Republican nomination, just on the outside chance it might save a white America without a civil war…but with this nonsense about “expediting” the “good” illegals’ re-entry, I’m back to saying to hell with voting.

And yes, there is an alternative to Trump for right-wing voters: not voting at all, and letting the whole s**t-house go up in flames that much faster.

* Many Somalia were placed in the south, in accord with your reasoning. They were unhappy with the local blacks and the stingy freebies. The community was quite proactive finding a more congenial spot, sending their own to check them out.

Maine with its 99% white population and decent welfare benefits despite being a poor state, won the competition, or lost depending on your viewpoint. And so it came to pass that Lewiston and portland now host a growing Somali community. In addition, maine is one of the few states that allow asylum applications to be made locally instead of overseas. The governor is trying to change that rule.

This situation demonstrates the “free rider” problem in a big way. A high trust white society comprised of french Canadians and the descendants of puritan’s build an adequate social safety net for their own, despite their meager resources. Only to be overwhelmed with alien freeloaders.

* One positive I can see is that if the illegals are made to leave and then apply for readmission, their numbers should count toward the quota of Mexicans we let in legally every year anyway, right?

Posted in Donald Trump, Immigration | Comments Off on Donald Trump Was A Disaster On Sean Hannity Last Night

Neil Strauss & Monogamy

In the conventional MSM narrative about Neil Strauss’s new book, the former pick-up artist embraces monogamy. But that is not true. Neil’s new book does not say he’s embracing monogamy. It says he’s embracing integrity. If he or his wife have sex with someone else, they want to be able to do it without lying. They want to live in truth with each other.

People, including journalists, don’t like to deal with complexity. They prefer to follow conventional attitudes because it saves on time and struggle.

Here are examples of the false media narrative:

* Chicago Tribune: In ‘The Truth,’ Neil Strauss takes the long way to monogamy

* CBS News: Ex-pickup artist reveals struggle with monogamy in “The Truth”

* Daily Mail: World’s most famous bald pick-up artist and author of The Game reveals why he’s given up orgies and porn and having any girl he wanted – for monogamy

* MSN: Author Neil Strauss On ‘The Truth’ & His Journey To Monogamy

* Huff Post: Author Neil Strauss On ‘The Truth’ & His Journey To Monogamy

I am unaware of any of these media outfits apologizing for lying about Neil and his new book.

Published on Oct 21, 2015: Neil Strauss, in celebration of his new book The Truth, discusses relationships with authors Christopher Ryan & Esther Perel.

Posted in Journalism, Marriage, Monogamy, Neil Strauss | Comments Off on Neil Strauss & Monogamy

WP: How a hip-hop mogul’s company made a mess of people’s finances

WP: “This month, though, some RushCard customers have not been able to access their money for nearly two weeks due to what appears to be a technical malfunction. Paychecks deposited directly onto the cards simply vanished. The economically vulnerable people Simmons had sought to help were suddenly left in a precarious spot.”

What a surprise.

Posted in Rap | Comments Off on WP: How a hip-hop mogul’s company made a mess of people’s finances

Jews & Multiculturalism

Posted in Adolf Hitler, Israel, Jews | Comments Off on Jews & Multiculturalism

A Tale Of Two Faiths — Global Warming & Racial Differences

Robert Weisberg writes: Now, compare what ordinary people can observe regarding global warming with the in-your-face facts regarding hard-wired genetically determined group differences. Even the most PC environment-is-everything egalitarian cannot avoid this reality. For example, outside of genetic predispositions how can one explain the readily visible evidence regarding the sizable and enduring differences in academic achievement between whites and blacks or between these two groups and Asians? And that nothing, even billion dollar panaceas have closed these gaps over a half century of trying? Similar enduring, well-known disparities exist in violent crime, welfare dependency, illegitimacy and poverty. Why are predominantly white cities such as San Francisco far more livable than black-dominated Detroit or East St. Louis? Can anything but innate differences in cognitive ability explain why sub-Sahara Africa remains forever economically under-developed despite hundreds of billions in foreign aid while Germany and Japan quickly returned to prosperity following WW II devastation?

These only begin the cataloguing of highly visible group-related differences suggesting a strong genetic element. Complicated contentious statistical models are unnecessary to show that schools populated by under-class African Americans are disasters compared to those with enrolling immigrant Chinese and Vietnamese and that these varied outcomes span generations. Any sports fan can see on TV that racial groups differ sharply in athletic performance.

As in the case of global warming, there are substantial financial benefits associated with upholding the environmental determinist orthodoxy. Why lavish billions on social engineering if group differences are largely intractable? The blank slate vision of human nature is a bonanza to all those who labor to close racial gaps in education, work on eliminating inner-city poverty and for those NGO’s trying to transform Rwanda into Switzerland.

The irony we have depicted bodes poorly for the future informed public discussion on these two issues. As the doomsday predicted by global warming believers fails to appear for all to see, its champions can only double down on suppressing disbelievers (it is hardly accidental that “global warming” has morphed into the scientifically nebulous “climate change”). Perhaps a parallel exists with the reaction of cultists who alleged that the end of the world was imminent and when that fateful day arrived and life continued, they became even more fervent in their obviously wrong beliefs. All those feeding at the climate catastrophe trough will not go without a fight, even if these means wasting billions, stalling economic growth and unemploying millions whose livelihood depends on fossil fuels.

A similar uptick in heresy prosecution will afflict those who argue that some group differences are sufficiently hard-wired that not even mighty Washington can force the incoming MIT freshman class resemble a cross-section of America. At best, a few heretics may gain their 15 minutes of notoriety but such voices are barely heard in public before being censored as “hate.” So, get ready for more inquisitions to stamp out “racism,” more mandatory sensitivity training, and more mainstream media dishonesty. Remember the travails of James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA, when he merely suggested that the lack of economic progress in Africa might be a result of low IQ’s though there is compelling evidence for his case. Alas, the repeated failures of social engineering projects will only further motivate lying and suppression.

We are not suggesting that modern science should rest exclusively on verification by personal experience. That would be a disaster–I for one have never observed an electron let alone an infinitesimally small vibrating string and I suspect that 99% of science is beyond what most people can readily grasp let alone observe. Rather, while we have come a long way from when scholars took pains to avoid offending the prevailing religious faith, we still have a way to go.

Posted in Science | Comments Off on A Tale Of Two Faiths — Global Warming & Racial Differences

“In Ways Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon’s The Origin of Races

Abstract. This paper examines the controversy surrounding anthropologist Carleton S. Coon’s 1962 book, The Origin of Races. Coon maintained that the human sspecies was divided into five races before it had evolved into Homo sapiens and that the races evolved into sapiens at different times. Coon’s thesis was used by segregationists in the United States as proof that African Americans were “junior” to white Americans and hence unfit for full participation in American society. The paper examines the interactions among Coon, segregationist Carleton Putnam, geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and anthropologist Sherwood Washburn. The paper concludes that Coon actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity.

Posted in Biology | Comments Off on “In Ways Unacademical”: The Reception of Carleton S. Coon’s The Origin of Races

The Myth of Criminal-Justice Racism

Earlier this week, Heather Mac Donald testified on criminal justice and the deincarceration movement before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her opening statement follows.

Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Leahy, and members of the Committee, my name is Heather Mac Donald. I am honored to address you today regarding the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. I am the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a public policy think tank in New York City. I have written extensively on law enforcement and criminal justice.

Today I want to examine the broader political context of the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. We are in the midst of a national movement for deincarceration and decriminalization. That movement rests on the following narrative: America’s criminal justice system, it is said, has become irrationally draconian, ushering in an era of so-called “mass incarceration.” The driving force behind “mass incarceration,” the story goes, is a misconceived war on drugs. As President Barack Obama said in July in Philadelphia: “The real reason our prison population is so high” is that we have “locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than ever before.” In popular understanding, prisons and jails are filled with harmless pot smokers.

The most poisonous claim in the dominant narrative is that our criminal justice system is a product and a source of racial inequity. The drug war in particular is said to be infected by racial bias. “Mass incarceration” is allegedly destroying black communities by taking fathers away from their families and imposing crippling criminal records on released convicts. Finally, prison is condemned as a huge waste of resources.

Nothing in this dominant narrative is true. Prison remains a lifetime achievement award for persistence in criminal offending. Drug enforcement is not the driving factor in the prison system, violent crime is. Even during the most rapid period of prison growth from 1980 to 1990, increased sentences for violent crime played a larger role than drug sentences in the incarceration build up. Since 1999, violent offenders have accounted for all of the increase in the national prison census.

Today, only 16 percent of state prisoners are serving time for drug offenses—nearly all of them for trafficking. Drug possession accounts for only 3.6 percent of state prisoners. Drug offenders make up a larger portion of the federal prison caseload—about 50 percent—but only 13 percent of the nation’s prisoners are under federal control. In 2014, less than 1 percent of sentenced drug offenders in federal court were convicted of simple drug possession; the rest were convicted of trafficking. The size of America’s prison population is a function of our violent crime rate. The U.S. homicide rate is seven times higher than the combined rate of 21 Western nations plus Japan, according to a 2011 study by researchers of the Harvard School of Public Health and UCLA School of Public Health.

The most dangerous misconception about our criminal justice system is that it is pervaded by racial bias. For decades, criminologists have tried to find evidence proving that the overrepresentation of blacks in prison is due to systemic racial inequity. That effort has always come up short. In fact, racial differences in offending account for the disproportionate representation of blacks in prison. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas found that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to be sentenced to prison, however, due to their more extensive criminal histories and the gravity of their current offense.

The drug war was not a war on blacks. It was the Congressional Black Caucus that demanded a federal response to the 1980s crack epidemic, including more severe penalties for crack trafficking. The Rockefeller drug laws in New York State were also an outgrowth of black political pressure to eradicate open-air drug markets. This local demand for suppression of the drug trade continues today. Go to any police-community meeting in Harlem, South-Central Los Angeles, or Anacostia in Washington, D.C., and you will hear some variant of the following plea: “We want the dealers off the streets, you arrest them and they are back the next day.” Such voices are rarely heard in the media.

Incarceration is not destroying the black family. Family breakdown is in fact the country’s most serious social problem, and it is most acute in black communities. But the black marriage rate was collapsing long before incarceration started rising at the end of the 1970s, as my colleague Kay Hymowitz has shown. Indeed, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan issued his prescient call for attention to black out-of-wedlock child-rearing in 1965, just as that era’s deincarceration and decriminalization movement was gaining speed.

It is crime, not incarceration, that squelches freedom and enterprise in urban areas. And there have been no more successful government programs for liberating inner-city residents from fear and disorder than proactive policing and the incapacitation of criminals.

Compared with the costs of crime, prison is a bargain. The federal system spends about $6 billion on incarceration; the state system spent $37 billion in 2010 on institutional corrections. The economic, social, and psychological costs of uncontrolled crime and drug trafficking dwarf such outlays. And prison spending is a minute fraction of the $1.3 trillion in taxpayer dollars devoted to means-tested federal welfare programs, as Senator Sessions has documented.

To be sure, the federal drug penalties are not sacrosanct. But though all sentencing schemes are ultimately arbitrary, our current penalty structure arguably has been arrived at empirically through trial and error. Sentences were increased incrementally in response to the rising crime rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Those rising crime rates were themselves the product of an earlier era of deincarceration and decriminalization. Sentences lengthened until they took a serious bite out of crime, in conjunction with the policing revolution of the 1990s.

Violent crime is currently shooting up again in cities across the country. Police officers are backing away from proactive enforcement in response to the yearlong campaign that holds that police are the greatest threat facing young black men today. Officers encounter increasing hostility and resistance when they make a lawful arrest. With pedestrian stops, criminal summons, and arrests falling precipitously in urban areas, criminals are becoming emboldened. While I do not think that the current crime increase is a result of previous changes in federal sentencing policy, it behooves the government to tread cautiously in making further changes. However, I unequivocally support the “productive activities” component of Section 202 of the Act, to the extent that it aims to engage all prisoners in work.

In closing, let me say that the committee would provide an enormous public service if it could rebut the myth that the criminal justice system is racist. Thank you for your attention.

Posted in Blacks, Crime | Comments Off on The Myth of Criminal-Justice Racism