On the subject of protesters and police, at no point did I deny that some cops engaged in inappropriate behavior. The protesters and the cops are not morally equivalent because the cops, unlike the protesters, were not conveying a message. They were simply trying to protect us and themselves from chaos. They were doing a job that they were paid to do. The protesters, on the other hand, were espousing a message, and by and large, that message consisted of hateful, profane anti-cop rhetoric and divisive racial incitements. That is why I am very comfortable holding them accountable for others who were predictably incited by the rhetoric and took it a bit too far.
On the subject of independent thinking, I completely agree with what you wrote here: "Independent thinking, to me, is not merely thinking for yourself, but standing by your principles and values instead of resorting to tribalism when something makes you uncomfortable. It’s not just about having sensible views, but upholding the values behind those views even when 'under pressure.'” I would espouse such a definition as well and have no hesitation in saying it applies to me every bit as much as you might think it applies to you. If it's okay for you to march in protests (and, therefore, join that "tribe" when you happen to agree with its message), then it's just as okay for me to note places where I agree with Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, Ben Shapiro (whom I generally don't think very highly of, as I said), John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes and others. And I don't think these are the right-wing equivalent of the left-wing crazies, as you suggested. Their right-wing equivalents would be more like Hannity, Giulianni and other people of that sort (I can't name too many because I don't pay much attention to them, but I'm sure you can turn on Fox News and find a whole bunch blathering away). Carlson, Hughes, McWhorter and Loury are thoughtful individuals who, in the case of McWhorter and Hughes, aren't even right-wing, and in the case of Carlson is not a traditional conservative either.
As far as the criticism of the Hughes piece, I don't intend to go through assertion by assertion that the guy makes, but even if I were to start from one of his very first points about Hughes' omission of the fact that the Civil War is obviously what got in the way of the South benefiting from slavery as fully as it otherwise might've, such that Hughes' point that the Southern states today are comparatively poor is irrelevant, this is very misleading. First, ironically--given his criticism of Hughes--he completely misstates what Hughes says, omitting a key detail. Here is what Hughes wrote:
"But slavery is hardly the root cause of America’s prosperity. If it were, then we would expect American states that practiced slavery to be richer than those that did not. Yet we see precisely the opposite. The South, where slavery thrived, was “the poorest and most backward region of the country,” according to the economist Thomas Sowell.1 This remains true today. A recent analysis of census data found that Northeastern states, which forbade slavery, “are among the wealthiest,” whereas “states in the Southeast are among the poorest.”
Sheremet either wasn’t reading closely (which would still be ironic given his uncharitable close reading of Hughes' piece and accusation that Hughes didn’t pay attention to or deliberately misrepresented his source material) or else (more likely) was himself being deliberately disingenuous. What Hughes said wasn’t only that the South TODAY is poorer than the North, but rather, that even at the time, it “WAS ‘the poorest and most backward region of the country.’" Here is some more detail on that from this article (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/11/was-america-built-by-slaves/): "Thanks to Fogel, we actually can calculate the amount of extra income enjoyed by Southern whites as a result of owning slaves. In the 1850s, the zenith of the cotton economy, it came to between 1 and 1.5 percent of the nation’s GDP, not a trivial sum. By this period, however, the United States was already the second-largest economy in the world and was investing every year between 13 and 15 percent of GDP in new capital. Even if the entire ‘slave surplus' were saved (which it wasn’t, because there were mansions to build and ball gowns to buy), it would have made a respectable contribution to growth, but it just wasn’t large enough to be the basis of an empire." So the claim being made, for which Hughes cites Sowell, is about the South even BACK THEN. (As far as Sheremet’s quibble about slavery being a significant cause rather than the "root cause" of prosperity, that’s just silly because the point being made by Ta-Nehisi Coates is obviously that slavery was a very big contributor to American prosperity, and I think, in fairness, that’s the point Hughes takes on.)
But the failure of Sheremet’s analysis is worse than just this. He misses the forest for the trees. If, as he admits, the South "squandered" its prosperity that had been based on slavery or lost it as a result of the Civil War, then it follows that it no longer had those ill-gotten gains afterwards. Sheremet has forgotten the big picture: this is about refuting (or supporting) the case for reparations. Insofar as that case is built in any significant part on ill-gotten gains from slavery (which it is), then if those gains were squandered or lost, the case for reparations just lost one of its biggest supports. If white Americans living today did not benefit from those ill-gotten gains from over 1.5 centuries ago because those gains were largely squandered, then what’s the basis for holding those Americans living today accountable for slavery? (I understand there are other arguments for holding them accountable for more recent history, but the point about slavery, as I said, was supposed to be a big piece of it.) Now, I could imagine Sheremet trying to advance an argument that they should still somehow be held responsible because to the extent they have wealth, perhaps, it can still be attributed to slavery to some more limited extent, but that already becomes a much harder case to make if much of that earlier wealth was squandered. You see, then, that what Sheremet thinks is a knock-down point against Hughes is actually something of a knock-down point against Sheremet, not only because of the notable misrepresentation/omission I already mentioned but also because of a failure to acknowledge the fact that the squandering of the South’s wealth is very relevant to the final analysis.
So that’s one example. There were many other moments during the piece where I cringed at things he was saying or things he was leaving out -- for example, making it look like African Americans are being jailed primarily for marijuana use while not even mentioning the reality that they are incarcerated primarily for violent crimes and, when for drug crimes, then largely for dealing, not use/possession. This distorts a big part of the picture in ways I would have to write many more words to explain, but I’m just trying to give you a sense of where some of my objections might be. (I would also make an independent compelling case that reparations have already been paid to African Americans in spades by this country, but that’s another story….)
I do have to say that I completely agree with Sheremet’s ultimate recommendations (except for one) that he makes in response to one of the comments on the piece, where he suggests some of the same things I’ve suggested -- legalizing drugs, banning private school (one of the things I feel about very strongly), ending the dependence of schools on local funding and eliminating concentrations of poverty by devoting 10% of other buildings to affordable housing instead of putting all the poor people in the projects (a friend of mine and I were talking about this exact proposal -- with this exact 10% number in mind -- just the other day). I don’t see these as "reparations," but rather, as necessary measures for the sake of ALL Americans, because I think the present-day black ghettos are having a devastating effect on our culture and dragging us all down together.
On the subject of Carlson, I don’t think any of those arguments against him that you linked me to were worthy of engagement on my part. I don’t find anything remotely credible about the "he’s elite, so he can’t really be against elites" argument or the "he accepts funding from elites, so he can’t really be against elites" argument. This exact argument could be leveled against pretty much every single far left professor in universities at the very heart of the establishment. It’s a silly argument. If someone can rail against elites while on their payroll, more power to him. Again, as I keep stressing, I don’t think Carlson is some profound intellectual, but as far as the people you might see on t.v., he’s worlds above nearly all the rest in my estimation.
Finally, on the subject of "right-wing populists, who[m] [I] [am] so quick to praise, not because they have any genuine insights or solutions, but because they satiate [my] tribalistic tendencies," I praise right-wing populists where I agree with them because they are closer to my position than anyone else within the regular political spectrum. I do not see myself as belonging to their "tribe" because I have significant points of disagreement with them on many issues, but I have no problem agreeing with something they said where I ... well, where I agree with it. It's as simple as that. I don't see anything whatsoever wrong with that.
And I must add, once again, that I still don’t see your ultimate point other than -- you disagree with me on some issues. Okay, fine. That’s your prerogative. I’m guessing that you and I might even find many points of agreement as well, if we were trying to do that. But suggesting that I’m not thinking for myself because I happen to agree on some matters with certain other people with whom you don’t agree or whom you don’t respect is a non sequitur. I’ll go ahead and assume you probably disagree with and don’t respect more than a few of those protesters you were marching with. That didn’t stop you from marching with them, right?
