Blacks and Republicans (Thomas Sowell)

Creators Syndicate ^ | March 15, 2011 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

San Francisco's irrepressible former mayor, Willie Brown, was walking along one of the city's streets when he happened to run into another former city official that he knew, James McCray. McCray's greeting to him was "You're 10." "What are you talking about?" Willie Brown asked. McCray replied: "I just walked from Civic Center to Third Street and you're only the 10th black person I've seen." That is hardly surprising. The black population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970, and it fell another 19 percent in the past decade. A few years ago, I had a similar experience in one of the other communities further down the San Francisco peninsula. As I was bicycling down the street, I saw a black man waiting at a bus stop. As I approached him, he said, "You're the first black man I have seen around here in months!" "It will be months more before you see another one," I replied, and we both laughed. Actually, it was no laughing matter. Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco, and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula, by high housing prices. At one time, housing prices in San Francisco were much like housing prices elsewhere in the country. But the building restrictions— and outright bans— resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose and most of the communities in between. Housing prices in these communities soared to about three times the national average. The black population in three adjacent counties on the San Francisco peninsula is just under 3 percent of the total population in the 39 communities in those counties. It so happens that these are counties where the voters and the officials they elect are virtually all liberal Democrats. You might be hard pressed to find similarly one-sided conservative Republican communities where blacks are such small percentages of the population. Certainly that would be hard to find in states with a substantial total population of blacks. In California, a substantial black population has simply been forced by economics to vacate many communities near the coast and move farther inland, where the environmental zealots are not yet as strong politically, and where housing prices are therefore not yet as unaffordable. With all the Republican politicians' laments about how overwhelmingly blacks vote for Democrats, I have yet to hear a Republican politician publicly point out the harm to blacks from such policies of the Democrats as severe housing restrictions, resulting from catering to environmental extremists. If the Republicans did point out such things as building restrictions that make it hard for most blacks to afford housing, even in places where they once lived, they would have the Democrats at a complete disadvantage. It would be impossible for the Democrats to deny the facts, not only in coastal California but in similar affluent strongholds of liberal Democrats around the country. Moreover, environmental zealots are such an important part of the Democrats' constituencies that Democratic politicians could not change their policies. Although Republicans would have a strong case, none of that matters when they don't make the case in the first place. The same is true of the effects of minimum wage laws on the high rate of unemployment among black youths. Again, the facts are undeniable, and the Democrats cannot change their policy, because they are beholden to labor unions that advocate higher minimum wages. Yet another area in which Democrats are boxed in politically is their making job protection for members of teachers' unions more important than improving education for students in the public schools. No one loses more from this policy than blacks, for many of whom education is their only chance for economic advancement. But none of this matters so long as Republicans who want the black vote think they have to devise earmarked benefits for blacks, instead of explaining how Republicans' general principles, applied to all Americans, can do more for blacks than the Democrats' welfare state approach.

[dsc]

“If blacks are underrepresented, then there is a reason other than just high prices. Otherwise affluent blacks (there must be a few somewhere in CA) would have no trouble affording the same costs as a white person or other race.”

I see what you mean. But then, what rich blacks, married with kids, would want to live in the Bay Area?

Who but a white libtard or a sodomite of any race would want to live in the Bay Area?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

At one time, housing prices in San Francisco were much like housing prices elsewhere in the country. But the building restrictions— and outright bans— resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose and most of the communities in between. Housing prices in these communities soared to about three times the national average.

Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco, and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula, by high housing prices.

And? How does that show intent to exclude?

Liberals talk about their good intentions. Conservatives talk about the actual effects of policies.

[from occupied ga]

There is however a fallacy in a critique that says that Republicans can never get a majority of the black vote, so they shouldn't try at all.

I don't believe that's what I said. It may be possible to sway some black voters if the Republicans don't come across as Democrat lite. I agree that Democrate lite will never do it, because if you're going to vote for the guy that promises you he'll loot the fruits of the labors of your fellow tcitizens and give you the pelf, then you're going to vote for the one who promises you the most loot.

However, going by what I see, the black folks I work with are not dumb (one's got a PhD in applied math), but they are all blind when it comes to politics. Every single of them who expressed any political opinion is a staunch 0 supporter. It's like all they see is race. Mortgaging and squandering our future, our childrens' futures, and our grandchildrens' futures doesn't seem to register with them. So how do the Republicans spend the finite resources they have to get their message out? First, they have to decide on the message, and frankly, except for the new tea party candidates, it's still the Bush democrap lite. I'd say concentrate on selling a message of significant reduction in government and it might work. Frankly, the Republicans have not in the past (at least not since Reagan) and still don't project that message. They didn't even vote to defund Amtrak.

[trisham]

Liberals talk about their good intentions. Conservatives talk about the actual effects of policies.

************************************

And who talks with arrogance? Is that a liberal or a conservative trait?

[jurroppi1]

And that is about the only conclusion I could come to also. I just noticed myself thinking... come on Thomas, you’re better than this! An uncomfortable notion to say the least, because I hold him in such high regard.

I think my main issue is that he has probably addressed my concern elsewhere, but I have no idea where unless and until someone points me there. I just wish Sowell would do it himself (cite his previous works where he more thoroughly explains himself on given issues like this). That’s really my main beef here I guess.

I appreciate the follow-up conversation though.

[trisham]

I agree with your post. I would add that if the Republican party alters its message to entice any group to join, imho, it will fail, regardless of which group that is. Any group whose focus is one issue will very likely never be a part of the whole (Republican party).

Simply put, the message should be "smaller government and lower taxes", and by that I mean much, much smaller government and much, much lower taxes. If that basic platform doesn't appeal, forget the rest.

[bert]

There is another possibility.

It could be that the black population found living in San Francisco to be so abominable and at odds to their values they just got sick of it all and left.

Economics is not the problem.

San Francisco is the problem

(plus.....the big’un is coming)

[jurroppi1]

I think a few posters are of the same thought process, but it would seem that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Are you saying that the normative amount of Blacks per capita doesn’t exist because they are somehow more sensitive and averse to the same conditions that everyone else apparently seems to be oblivious to? I mean, after all, if democrat policy is keepin’ the man down and he can’t live there, then he moves to a less affluent and likely more dangerous/filthy area or some other affluent area. If that isn’t the issue, then there has to be some other underlying problem that would tend to affect the rest of the populace similarly (again all things being equal) - think standard normal distribution of population.

Maybe black people are disproportionately homophobic and they choose to stay away (ooh, we need more diversity training). /sarc

That would be an entirely different premise than the article suggests (the choice to stay away vs. being somehow kept out by policy).

Either this affects the black populace only in this specific area of the country (which Sowell appears to be saying), or it doesn’t. If Sowell is right, then there is some reason for it. I just have a hard time believing it is as simple as he suggests on the surface (I really think he is hinting at more than what he lets on in the limited space of the article). I don’t think a citation would’ve hindered the length of his article enough to be troublesome - rather it would’ve helped immensely.

I know; everyone’s a critic :)

YMMV

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Every single of them who expressed any political opinion is a staunch 0 supporter.

IMHO you have an openly biased sample - the ones who are willing to go on record. The ones who aren't willing to go on record are the ones you want to reach, possibly to obtain their (secret) ballot. And you want more people unwilling to go on record.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Liberals talk about their good intentions. Conservatives talk about the actual effects of policies.

And who talks with arrogance? Is that a liberal or a conservative trait?

It is arrogant to assume, and argue from the assumption, of your own virtue. If you tell me of the wonders of your virtuous intentions, and I show you the practical benefits of my policies whenever/wherever they are applied, which of us is arrogant?

[trisham]

Oh, for Pete’s sake. Go bully someone else.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I don't know exactly what you have been asking, apparently.

I've checked your homepage for clues, and I am still clueless.

[bert]

——I know; everyone’s a critic :) ——

I am but a poor Free Republic poster with no worthwhile dog in the fight that merely ventured an alternative opinion. : )

However, it is but me arguing with the great Dr Sowell. He was once a contributor to Forbes, and his was perhaps the first piece I read in every issue.

[jurroppi1]

I hear you, and appreciate the responses, really I do.

[dsc]

Have you read Race and Culture (1994); Migrations and Culture (1996); and Conquests and Cultures (1998)?

[dsc]

“the choice to stay away vs. being somehow kept out by policy”

Not kept out by policy; rather, unable to stay as an unintended consequence of policy.

During the heyday of Silicon Valley, I’m told, no one who worked at McDonald’s could afford to live within a practical commute, be they white, black, or green.

[jurroppi1]

but just blacks or somehow disproportionately blacks? I have a hard time believing that... How can policy affect one race so disproportionately other than through choice somehow? And no, I have not read the books you mention, but I appreciate the tip regardless.

[dsc]

“How can policy affect one race so disproportionately other than through choice somehow?”

If you had seen the Fillmore in the old days, it would be clear. When all property values shoot up, people with low incomes have to move out.

[jurroppi1]

“When all property values shoot up, people with low incomes have to move out.”

I get that as well, but were there no whites that had to move out also? Hispanics, asians, indians, etc...? Are only blacks affected? Is the affect disproportionate to the demographics of the area based strictly on race lines because the wages are also disproportionate based strictly on race lines and only affecting one race this way?

Obviously there are some blacks there because Sowell writes about them being there, they are just fewer in number than what he seems to think should be there. Why is that - specifically? I don’t think we ever get a concise answer to that question; and thus we have come full circle in the conversation (or so it would appear).

[dsc]

“I get that as well, but were there no whites that had to move out also? Hispanics, asians, indians, etc...?”

Certainly there were, but nobody paid much attention to them. Blacks, on the other hand, are conspicuous by their absence.

“Is the affect disproportionate to the demographics of the area based strictly on race lines because the wages are also disproportionate based strictly on race lines and only affecting one race this way?”

It’s not disproportionate. Most of the blacks in SF were low-income/no-income denizens of the Fillmore slum. There were middle-class blacks, of course, and professionals, but the middle-class was priced out with the slum-dwellers, leaving only the affluent among the professionals.

It’s not that it only affected one race this way, at all. It’s that there were rich whites to move in, and rich asians, so there was no conspicuous change in those racial demographics.

Apparently rich blacks have not flocked to a town overrun by sodomites, and in which they will be such a small minority. Believe it or not, many blacks say they would rather live in a black neighborhood than a white neighborhood. Don’t know about the reconquistas.

“they are just fewer in number than what he seems to think should be there.”

No, Sowell would never think something like that. He’s saying that there used to be a lot, and now there’s not, and that’s the unintended consequence of libtard efforts to “fix” things. It’s an observation, not a complaint.

I think I have answered your question, but apparently you don’t. I don’t know what else to say; it looks pretty clear to me.