The liberal fascination and even fixation on gun control has long been a curiosity.
Quite aside from the issue of the Second Amendment and the non-nationalization of it
throughout the time during which the bulk of the Bill of Rights has been nationalized,
there are practical matters involved. Afterall, taking the Second Amendment as only the
second constraint imposed against federal power (coming only behind freedom of
expression), even those constraints of the First Amendment are not absolute. There are
important limitations placed on some speech.
It seems almost axiomatic to liberals that gun control laws reduce crime, but there
is little empirical evidence that this is the case. Indeed, in large measure, guns used in the
commission of crime are generally 'illegal' ones, already. What is important for the present
consideration, however, is the intriguing juxtaposition of gun control legislation with high
crime areas. For the most part, it is urban areas which have the toughest such laws on the
books, and it is these areas which rank among the highest in both crime overall, and in
illegal acts which involve the use of firearms.
The ecological fallacies which arise from the high statistical correlation between
crime and poverty have been extended to include the correlation between black population
concentrations and crime. But, while that ignores the real causes of crime and poverty,
what this boils down to is that it is areas with high concentrations of black population
which frequently not only have higher poverty levels (at least per capita) and suffer under
higher crime occurrence, but it is also these areas which have the most stringent gun
control laws. That there is obviously a problem involved here indicative of a question of
effectiveness of such measures seems quite apparent. What is generally missed even
beyond that is that such law seems intent on disarming the very people who may be most
in need of the protection from criminals gun possession can afford.
Invariably, under previous conditions, when black codes were enacted, they
included strict prohibitions on gun possession. Whether modern gun control measures are
enacted with such restriction in mind, or even subliminally inferred, the result it very much
the same. If any element of society should be more concerned with its Second Amendment
rights, it should be black communities. Usually, however, it is the very 'leaders' who garner
the greatest support from these populations that are the strongest advocates of such
legislation. But the resultant 'disarming' of black citizens is but one facet of a much
broader trend in measures which 'cordon off' black people, both de jure and de facto.
Taken in toto, the result is a very real 'resegregation' which is being instituted in the
United States. These measures are reinforcing the societal divisions which the Kerner
Commission argued were creating two separate and unequal Americas. They constitute a
virtual reinstitution of Jim Crow in this country.
It will come as no surprise to most people who are aware of this problem that the
premise of governmental intervention in the lives of citizens can usually be traced back to
notions that government can do a better job of running the lives of citizens than they can
do for themselves. This perspective, as deleterious as it is in its vision of the citizen
overall, is particularly more insidious and sinister when the realization is entered that the
notion amounts to the assessment that such measures are necessary because black citizens
in particular need the guiding hand of government over their lives.
This is not to deny that racism is a problem in our society, although there is a
considerable body of evidence in support of the argument that discrimination is not quite
the extent of a problem that it is frequently touted to be. Among those who have
demonstrated this most conclusively is Thomas Sowell. And yet, quite obviously,
prejudice is still very much a problem in this country. But what the chains of the new Jim
Crow suggest is that the most harmful prejudice, because it is fostering the very measures
of such neo-segregation, and doing so in the guise of purported equal rights, must reside
in the minds and hearts of the liberal advocacy of such prescriptions.
When my son was enrolled by his mother in the public school of the predominately
white Detroit suburb in which we make our home, questions were raised when she was
required to designate his ethnicity. Her 'color' apparently made it necessary that our son,
who is as light complected as I am, be designated as 'black.' But when my wife demurred
from making any designation, the school secretary became unglued. It is almost beyond
certainty that the indication she refused to make was made by others subsequently. What
will their response be when I (with my blond hair and blue eyes) undertake to register our
youngest child with her blond hair, blue eyes, and light complexion? The absurdity of the
mandated designations was a major impetus of civil rights efforts thirty years ago to
eliminate. In fact, if they ever went away, they are back. They have been for some time
now. That, of course, is no revelation. Nor is the concern that such designation itself
defeats the dream that we should be judged by the content of our character, and not by the
color of our skin.
Ever since the push for affirmative action beginning approximately two decades
ago, we have increasingly strayed well off course. But like so many other pinions of the
liberal agenda, there seems little question that such reverse discrimination has not worked.
Not only has it not helped, it has tended to do more harm than good, even to those it was
obstensively meant to assist, but clearly also in dividing us and in setting off legal
separateness. The first response of liberals who sought to derail the nomination of
Clarence Thomas was to contend that the only reason he had been named was that he was
black. They then set upon a course of character assassination determined to alter the terms
of debate beyond any consideration of his qualifications as a superb jurist or legal mind.
One of the principal points established by research like Woodward's Strange
Career of Jim Crow was the badge of inferiority, or separateness, that it was designed to
institute. Today's neo-segregationists will counter that no mark of inferiority is inferred, of
course, but even Brown was quite clear in its pronouncement that 'separate is inherently
unequal.' It has been extended to manufactured realities which create ethnic areas which
seem to be taken as perpetual, effectively locking particularly black citizens into districts
within which their identity is imprisoned. What such designation, and policies grounded in
it, create is this second timber of this new system of Jim Crow which the liberal
establishment has been erecting.
But affirmative action programs turn out to be merely the tip of the iceberg of a
much more sinister set of policies which are dividing America. These travel under
terminology that runs the gauntlet from multiculturalism to condemnation of Eurocentric
culture, economies, and the like. Perhaps one of the best explorations of this phenomenon
recently has been that articulated in Robert Bork's Slouching Toward Gomorrah. The
centrifugal forces being promoted by 'tribalism' of any of its varieties is a far-reaching
threat to our nation. But it is one that is part and parcel of the new liberalism that has
infected our society and our politics, and is fostered by the mentality of groups bidding at
the door of federal authority for hand-outs, and along with them more control of the
federal government over our lives. Most curiously, the greatest harm done by such
programs is to the individuals they are said to be designed to assist. As they relate to black
Americans, however, they have fueled the conscious effort to manufacture a counter-
culture, as well.
That alternative culture is replete with measures that operate to set black citizens
apart. It runs from the creation of the alternative to Christmas that is Kwanza to the
teaching of so-called 'black English' as ebonics as bilingualism and a plethora of myths and
worse propagated as actuality. It even extends to open hostility to capitalism as an
oppressive system, although it poses no real alternative to it.
Over the thirty years I have labored as a teacher in the public school system of
Detroit, yet another such pillar of that system has become increasingly severe. It cannot be
denied that a great number of public schools across this land are having a difficult time
coping with the task prescribed for them amidst a myriad of problems besetting the
institutions of education. Falling test scores, although in part attributable to the increasing
range of students being tested, are testimony to that. It often seems, however, that we
have gone beyond having resigned ourselves to being overwhelmed by these problems.
While my own attitude has been to accomplish as much as is possible against that
backdrop, the temperament of the 'system' has approached tactical measures which not
only relinquished any chance of making a dent, but actually seem intent on the education
of an underclass.
For instance, whereas it was once not peculiar to have some students who were
rarely absent, more recently it has become peculiar to have any students who are absent
fewer than a dozen times in a semester. Average absenteeism is rapidly moving beyond the
mark of thirty absences per semester. A school administration caught between a rock and
a hard place has of late undertaken 'pruning' of students absent more than forty days in a
semester from the class roll. This is done at the end of the semester, and the students
appear on the rolls once again with each new term. Of course, administrators are faced
with loss of staff if student population declines, so they see themselves constrained in their
options.
Part of the dilemna comes from state mandated days of student instruction and
student population for state aid. No one seems prepared to recognize that there may be
some relationship between students who are absent 1/3 of the time and test scores which
average at 2/3 of the level at which they should. Perhaps the allotment formulae are an
outdated measure. Especially as we proceed through the communications revolution, the
old criteria of days in class may be a poor measure of achievement and advancement. It is
certainly the case that teachers need to strain creativity levels in the attempt to circumvent
such problems.
Most of the students, however, are no where near the cutting edge of that
revolution. Nor would most school systems tolerate such levels of absenteeism. Moreover,
among the skills students need to develop, and obviously are not cultivating in such
situations, are good work habits, which, of course, encompasses disciplined attendance
performance. But there's the rub. Discipline, and particularly self-discipline, has become a
most nefarious commodity. Even for students who are attending, if irregularly, respect for
learning has seemingly become passé'. Tardy bells are ignored, except as the individual
instructor can invoke some semblance of order based on them. However, there is little
support for penalizing truancy or habitual tardiness, except where a teacher incorporates
that in grading. But is it is suggested that we cannot do that, and we are taken to task if
the grade point average of our classes is too low. Many students, in fact, care little about
grades, often not seeming to be interested in doing anything beyond the minimum
necessary to 'pass.' It obviously is the instructor's fault. Consequently, there is a process of
constant interruption as tardy students trickle in, and there is a regular commotion in the
halls which disrupts learning, such as it is. Few school systems would tolerate this, but,
after all, it does little good to send students home for such behavior. We want them in
school . . . I suspect that there are very few in leadership positions who would want the
revelation of spending some time observing the chaos of the typical 'inner city' school day.
The problem runs ever deeper than that. There is a cult of 'coolness' which infects
our culture. It is a much broader phenomena than the black community. Seymour Martin
Lipset has described it as an other-directness that marks the American psyche. Teenagers
-- those in those troubled schools -- are perhaps more susceptible to it and more harmed
by it, than more 'mature' citizens. A wide-spread manifestation of this notion does
considerable damage in black communities. Much of the shenanigans which 'liberal' public
schools tolerate is an expression of this. There are many black teenagers for whom being
seen with a book is simply embarrassing, even though quite clearly education is the ticket
out of such individuals. Among some segments of black communities, the term 'saditi' used
to describe those who 'acted' as if they were more 'intelligent' or learned than they were
supposed to, or sometimes phrased as 'acting white.' In such circumstances, 'coolness' can
be a major factor in the psychology of the new Jim Crow. That does not mean that it is not
a dilemna for other 'ethnic' groups - - liberal policies have worked to define us more and
more in hyphenated Jim Crow contrasts - - and there is a psychology among some white
people that it is 'cool' to 'act' black (in Macomb County, Michigan such teenagers are
referred to as 'whiggers'), but such practices only serve to reemphasize and reinforce the
badge of separateness and inferiority of the new segregation.
But therein is this additional pillar of the new Jim Crow. Whereas education and
with it, self-discipline, are a key element in achievement potential, these kids,
predominately black teenagers, are not getting it. They are being programmed for failure.
Human volition becomes sacrificed as a possibility. And the badge of separateness, if not
of inferiority, that is attached to them by 'affirmative action' contributes to and compounds
the problem as it brands such groups with burdens which undermine self-respect, another
force eroding the development of self-discipline.
As of August, 1996, Bill Clinton had backtracked on yet another issue pertinent to
this discussion. Having twice vetoed almost identical legislation, he now signed the
welfare reform package Congress sent him the third time (of course, in the process,
claiming credit for it!). The politics of his shuffle may be amusing, but there are deeper
strains of policy which will make the changes less effectual than they ought be. His
jumping on board a piece of legislation almost identical to those he rejected earlier is
probably in part due to its popularity in the country, and that is just one more example of
his abrupt right-face as election time approaches. Now, it might appear that this is only a
ploy to achieve re-election which would enable him to quickly veer left again. Given the
margin of the vote in both houses on this legislation, there is a good chance it might have
been passed over his veto. It is a gamble on his part, in that the action has raised the
rancor of the 'left' in his party, and particularly among many black 'leaders,' which cost him
key support in 1996. With a weaker than expected black vote, he had more difficulty
winning re-election. The legislation itself does pose what might appear to be an
undermining of another pillar of neo-segregation, the long established welfare system.
While there is no question that the system has had detrimental effects on a much
broader population than black Americans, it has done what even slavery could not succeed
in doing, going as far as it has in destroying the black family structure. Even though most
of those on welfare are not black, a much higher proportion of black citizens are on
welfare. Much the same can be said of the 'poor' more generally, in America. And it is this
break down of the family that has contributed to the higher incidence of crime found in
black communities. It should not be overlooked that another reason for this crime problem
is that the average age of black America is younger than it is for white America, and it is in
these more youthful segments, especially when the break-up of the family is entered into
the mix, and our kowtowing to juvenile delinquency since approximately the Gault
decision, that intensifies the criminal behavior statistics.
Thus, it might seem that the resultant limitation of assistance eligibility would
begin, at least, to reverse the direction. However, Clinton has made it clear that he will
seek modification of some of the measure's alterations of the system. He would be able to
do much of this type of tampering if he is re-elected along with a more liberal Congress.
Indeed, if you listen carefully to Clinton, or those allegedly to the left of him, the
'fix' is in. They planned on fixing the welfare reform bill after they were re-elected. Clinton,
speaking at the 1996 Democratic National Convention, called for a massive public works
program to provide government jobs for those whose eligibility for assistance runs out but
are unable to find jobs in the private sector. The money to fund that will come, in their
perspective, from higher tax rates. Of course, that will be in addition to higher rates to
'save' social security, medicare, and medicaid from bankruptcy (and you thought he was
pulling your leg about 84 % average tax rates thirty years from now in the 1995 budget).
But that will mean less income and investment, and due to that, less production (or less
increase in production), consumption, and jobs, as people are 'recycled' out of the private
sector into public sector dependency. It will not matter if those public jobs pay 'high'
wages, for governmental measures to force up wage rates inevitably creates lower real
wages, especially if wealth generation of the private sector is replaced by redistributive
public sector efforts. And the impact on Americans of color, whether black or Hispanic,
will be, as it is with welfare and poverty our of the Great Society, higher proportions of
the populations dependent on governance, as people are 'recycled.'
Whether or not the welfare reform plan actually survives as it is being changed to
become, without the Clinton 'fix,' another consideration which will have ramifications on
the impact of the welfare system on black Americans in whatever form it is
institutionalized is education. Indeed, even if recipients must seek to enter the workforce,
their preparation to do that will determine to what extent that opens doors of opportunity
for them.
The problematic character of black education referenced above suggests very little
alleviation of the situation. It is not that there are not opportunities that even a substantive
number of black citizens are being prepared to attain to. We should not forget, for
instance, that the great preponderance of black men in America go to work every day. At
the same time, however, we cannot overlook the fact that probably one-third of young
black males in America will end up either incarcerated or dead before they reach their mid-
twenties. The truth of the former does not mitigate the reality of the latter, and this, as
well, contributes to the 'badge' of inferiority and separateness of this new Jim Crow.
Continue
