Some Thoughts on Ta-Nehisi's 'Reparations' Essay

I read TNC's reparations essay  in The Atlantic last night. The following is a slightly edited and modified version of my thoughts on first reading. I plan to read it again one or more times.

1. The piece should be read without reference to the headline. I think the greatest power of the piece is in its history and its ability to frame public policy in a milieu that is seldom discussed or addressed in educational or policy settings. 

2. The history he recounts is only a fraction of the horrors the government and the American people inflicted upon black people for generations. The reason I think this is important is that ideologues, of all stripes, neglect what our government and our country looked like for the vast majority of its history. As I talk about in my upcoming essays for Libertarianism.org, there is a vast chasm between what we think should or will happen given our policy 'druthers and what experience and history tell us has happened. This is a lesson for conservatives, progressives, and libertarians alike.

3. Ultimately, I remain unpersuaded that anything resembling financial reparations would be feasible or effective in combating the damage done to blacks over the course of the past several centuries. Marginally, perhaps, but there is no "good" solution in reparative compensation within the American context. Our system just won't sustain any meaningful shift in that direction. I think, however, that this is a relatively minor point in the piece, headline notwithstanding. The greater message TNC suggests--a historical reckoning of what transpired in this Land of the Free--is, I think, very important to moving forward as a society. How we accomplish that is something I'm still trying to figure out, but a better understanding of American history is a prerequisite first step. A simple glance at the backlash on Twitter should confirm how reactionary and ignorant many people still are about the current state of black America.

4. Somewhat tangentially, when I read The Jungle for a history class on early 20th century America, I was not at all put off by the meatpacking stories or even the conditions of industrialization, horrible though they were. I was most struck by the practice of contract purchases of homes, and I was aghast at its cruelty and inherent unfairness. Ta-Nehisi's essay deals with this topic in a way that cannot help but anger and frustrate an empathetic reader.


For the foregoing reasons, I highly recommend reading the essay, in full, as well as the implicitly suggested reading list throughout the essay, particularly anything and everything by Eric Foner on the Reconstruction era.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

A Quick Comment on What the Right to Privacy Isn't

There has been some recent handwringing about the recording of Donald Sterling's comments, allegedly by his ex-girlfriend, that ultimately resulted in his lifetime suspension from the NBA;  and that somehow the recording violated Sterling's 'right to privacy.'

Well, no, not really.

From what I understand, it's against California law to release a surreptitious recording of someone if he or she didn't consent to the release even if the recorder was part of the conversation. Now, that is a matter of law and I'm not going to argue Sterling doesn't have a legal case against her. But the law's propriety is questionable and I'll explain why.

If V. (Donald's xgf) made the recording herself, then it was a recording of a conversation she was a part of. It wasn't the government tapping the office or the phone without a warrant, it was a conversation she witnessed and participated in. I don't think anyone would say that if she went public saying that's what Sterling said to her that it would be a violation of his privacy. Just because you assume someone will keep a conversation between the two of you or keep a secret for you doesn't mean they will. Assuming there is no contract involved or they are not serving in a privileged capacity--doctor, lawyer, etc.--they are bound by no law to not say what you told them.

So, if V. has a recording verifying what he said, what privacy interest was violated that would not be violated by her simply saying that's what he said? None. It's just verification. (That she is alleged to have used this information as extortion is certainly illegal as it should be, but the possession of damning or embarrassing information shouldn't itself be against the law.)

If V. had left a mic in Sterling's office and recorded a conversation that she wasn't a part of, then yes, that would be an invasion of privacy because she would be gaining access to information she was not privy to herself and, if she were the government she would need a warrant to violate Sterling's "reasonable expectation of privacy"--which is where the Fourth Amendment jurisprudence usually hinges.

But anyway, the point is, it may be unethical and icky--and, absurdly, against California state law--but relaying information conveyed directly to you is a violation of no one's actual right to privacy (provided you weren't trying to extort someone with it). The simple fact is, every time you tell someone something, you run the risk of them telling someone else. That she put it on blast doesn't change the fact he said what he did and, improper CA law notwithstanding, she had the right to let people know he said it. If she just went to the news media with her information without the recording, people would want proof beyond he said/she said. She provided it.

The California law is V.'s problem, on several fronts I imagine, but let's try to remember what a right to privacy is, and is not.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

Video of February AFF Panel

For anyone interested, here is video of the AFF panel on poverty I spoke at in late February.



If you just want to see me, my clip is here:



I need to get better about not reading off script, but otherwise I'm rather happy with how my first public event turned out.


bellum medicamenti delenda est

AAG West: 'Just So You Understand Where I'm Coming From'

There's an event in New York City going on right now called the "Strengthening the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and Communities of Color Forum." I don't know much about it, other than the NYPD could stand to learn a lot about how to deal with minorities fairly, so it sounds like a good idea, at least.

Today, Associate Attorney General Tony West gave a speech there in support of a new federal program to study ways to improve how law enforcement deals with persons of color. And while I know better than to endorse any government program solely based on its conceptual framework--let alone a loose framework laid out in a speech--I did want to highlight parts of the speech I think is important.

I come to this discussion as one who has been privileged to work with law enforcement for most of my career -- for several years as a federal prosecutor in a U.S. Attorney's Office; as a lawyer in the California Attorney General's Office; and now as part of the United States Justice Department's leadership. That experience has left me both profoundly grateful for and humbled by the dedication and commitment of so many in law enforcement who serve to keep our communities safer places to live, to work and to play; and who do so with integrity and in compliance with the law.

Theirs is not an easy task, and their duties are often performed under difficult and dangerous circumstances. And the reality for most officers, I believe, is that policing is not a job; it's an honor and profession. It's about service. It's about promoting safety and security and fostering strong neighborhoods for the residents who live there.

I also come to this discussion as my father's son. He was a man born and raised deep in the Jim Crow south. And when the time came for his eldest child and only son to take up driving lessons, dad was my teacher, imparting all the familiar lessons of keeping my eyes on the road and signaling before I turned.

And then there were the lessons not found in any driver's manual; lessons informed by family history and community experience: When -- not if -- you are pulled over by the police for no ostensible reason, keep your hands visibly planted at 10 and 2 until instructed otherwise. Always ask permission before reaching for your license and registration, and even then verbally explain what you're doing. No quick movements. End every sentence with "sir." Speak only when spoken to and never, ever talk back. 

Dad called these "survival skills," and I put them into practice on more than a few occasions, well into adulthood. I suspect that I'm not alone in bringing such divergent, perhaps even conflicting, perspectives to today's discussion.

AFF Poverty Roundtable: Follow-Up

I'd like to again thank AFF for hosting the poverty roundtable last night. It was a great opportunity for me, not only to give my views, but to hear what other organizations are doing on poverty, and how this will play out on the Right going forward. A special thank you to Lori Sanders of the R Street Institute for organizing the panel and inviting me to speak.

I'd like to congratulate my co-panelists for a good discussion on how the Right can move forward on poverty issues: Elise Amyx of IFWE, Brandon Smith of Fed Soc, and Brad Wassink of AEI.

I have excerpted parts of my comments below. I didn't give them verbatim, but this should paint a decent enough picture of what I think the role of policymakers should be as we look to take on the root causes of cyclical poverty.

My primary area of interest is criminal justice. When discussing criminal justice reform, there are two key components to think about: “Front end” reforms deal with policing, alternatives to incarceration (like drug courts), and revisiting laws on the books. “Back end” reforms deal with early release, mental health support, and job training after incarceration. If you look at the reforms being discussed among policymakers today, they are concentrating primarily on back end reforms.
 [...]
There is a lot of talk about “reentry programs,” like regularizing punishments for parole violations, reducing collateral consequences like housing and employment restrictions, and providing mental health assistance, all in effort to decrease recidivism. These ideas are particularly salient today because more than 10,000 people per week—and more than 650,000 per year—are released from jail or prison into society. A large number of these people will be concentrated in economically depressed neighborhoods with little or no infrastructure to support them—further burdening those areas with more unemployed people looking for work and seniors with no one to care for them.

These programs are important, but they don’t go far enough. None of the back-end solutions address the fundamental problem at the front end: The way in which the government treats the people hanging onto the lowest rung of society is a travesty across the board.

Hey DCers: AFF Roundtable on Poverty

I'll be part of a roundtable hosted by America's Future Foundation tomorrow, Feb. 25, at Wise Public Affairs here in DC. The topic is, broadly, how the political Right should tackle poverty 50 years after LBJ declared War on Poverty. I'll be talking about how criminal justice reform may alleviate poverty, which is rapidly becoming a bi-partisan issue (and that's a good thing!). It's free for AFF members, $5 for non-members. Oh, and there'll be booze.

My friend R.J. Lehmann put a nice piece up on the R Street blog that sets the table for the event. You can register for the event here.

bellum medicamenti delenda est

My Minimum Wage Skepticism

I'm not an economist. My preference for free markets is based on a lot of reading, but I'm not a quant guy and I'm not going to pretend I can predict what exactly will happen if the minimum wage is increased to $10.10 per hour.

But if we go on the CBO projection, these things should happen (via Josh Barro):

CBO estimates the proposal (raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10) would:

1. Raise wages for 16 million workers making under $10.10 and millions more making slightly above that,
2. Increase family income by $2 billion overall and $17 billion for people earning less than three times the poverty line (about $72,000 for a family of four),
3. Lift 900,000 people out of poverty, and
4. Reduce employment by 500,000.

So of course our discussion is focusing around the employment number.

Another reason I like free markets is that I'm generally uneasy with directing policy to create winners and losers, so yes, I'm going to focus on the employment number.

The reason I think this is important is because certain segments of our population already suffer disproportionate unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that in January 2014, the white unemployment rate was 5.7 percent; the Hispanic rate was 8.4 percent; and black unemployment was 12.1 percent. Blacks have had double digit unemployment every month since July 2008, and Hispanics had double digit unemployment for 45 out of the 46 months between January 2009 and October 2012.  White people, on the other hand, haven't been in double-digit unemployment during any point in or since the Great Recession.

This isn't to say there should be more whites unemployed or that we should enact policies to even this out--just that, when economic crunches happen, they hurt blacks and Latinos more. So when we're talking about a net loss of half a million jobs, and those losses can predictably (but not certainly) fall disproportionately on minorities already suffering from higher unemployment, I think it's OK to ask whether it's fair to help a lot of people at their expense thereby widening the gap in inequality.

It's a value judgment, and my value system favors more employment rather than less and not implementing policies that further punish the already disadvantaged, when at all possible. Good people can think the gain for the people who will benefit outweighs the suffering of others, if only because it helps more people than it hurts, but I'm not one of them. Whether it is race or gender or whatever, manipulating free exchange of labor destroys economic opportunities, most likely for those whom society has already marginalized.

 There are a lot of things we can do to half a million people that would make lives better for many others, but that doesn't make it right or fair to do them.

 bellum medicamenti delenda est