From: gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Racism in America (Re: Ed babbles again)
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:40:21 GMT
	<GPRIORES.92Sep14115357@fish.oracle.com> <BuL6z7.n0H@world.std.com>
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <BuL6z7.n0H@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:
> gpriores@oracle.com (gordon prioreschi) writes:
>>Hmm. It was recently observed (I forget by whom) that when
>>conservatives see Willie Horton they see a criminal, but when liberals
>>see Willie Horton they see a black. Which is the racist attitude? The
>>one that judges the man by his criminal record, or the one that judges
>>him by his color?
> As I recently remarked in another newsgroup, racists are everywhere.

Do you mean in every state? In every city? On every block? In every
house? Everyone?

Saying that racists are everywhere is somewhat like my recent
observation that "those damn Miatas are all over the place". It's
purely a personal, subjective observation, means nothing to someone
trying to determine the statistical occurrence of Miatas in the
general automotive population, and (an important point) is exacerbated
because I will notice a single Miata in a sea of other cars. You see
the connection, I trust.


> Conversely, given the propensity in most jurisdictions to convict
>blacks more often than whites, perhaps it is the system that judged
>Horton a criminal, that a liberal judges when he sees one more black
>convict.

Are you asserting that Mr. Horton _was_ in fact wrongly convicted? Do
you have any evidence to that effect? It seems to me that it is just
as invalid for the liberal to assume that all black convicts are
wrongly convicted as it is for the racist to assume that all black
defendants are guilty. 


Basically, it seems to me that the liberal argument is that, in
choosing their example, the Willie Horton ads exploited a widespread,
latent racism in the general population to increase the impact of the
campaign. Why else, you ask, was a black man picked?

I'm not naive enough to believe that the authors of the campaign
tossed all of the applicable names into a hat and drew one out
completely at random. However, before convicting them out of hand, I
would make at least a cursory attempt to find an alternate explanation
for the choice, and it is here that I wish I knew more of the
specifics of the case.

What was Willie Horton's crime? What was the typical crime of another 
example of Dukakis' softness (beneficiaries of a Dukakis
clemency program, was it)? Was Horton's situation somehow more
dramatic or suitable than the run-of-the-mill?

What was the racial breakdown of the applicable group? Given the
liberal propensity Steve admits above (I assume that, by defending it,
he agrees that it exists) for assuming the innocence of black
convicts, I would hardly be surprised if the beneficiaries of a
clemency program were more disproportionately black than the prison
population in general. Does Willie Horton accurately depict the
"typical" member of this group? Maybe, just maybe, the authors of the
ad campaign were subtly calling Dukakis to task for his own racial
bias?


Regardless of how or whether Mr. Horton's race figured into the
decision to use him as an example, my contention is not that
conservative politicians are above the use of slimeball methods to
gain tactical advantages (politicians on both sides, successful ones
anyway, are slimy almost by definition). I'm just noting the
strangeness of a political philosophy that (rightly) vehemently
condemns the assumption that a black defendant is guilty, but defends
the equally irrational assumption that a black convict is innocent.


                                       Cordially,

                                               -g
Newsgroups: misc.legal