Thread by @fitzfromdublin

Current reading

Side note: Christ almighty hardbacks are expensive

“Civil rights ideology” as “the model for a new and consistently churning political reform”

The present culture war over which is the constitution that deserves American’s allegiance- the de jure one of 1788 or de facto one of ‘64

“Today slavery is the centre of Americans official history, with race the central concept in the country’s self- understanding”

“The largest undertaking of any kind in American history”

He quotes the war on drugs in the 80s and 90s as part of this -would American black people agree that war was a blow for civil rights?

“There’s a reason most countries are not multi-ethnic”

LBJ, lol

The enforcement of the 64 civil rights act, in a chapter entitled “what did whites think they were getting”. Not crazy about his use of “quarreling and bloodshed” to describe racial history up to this point tbh

Tldr White Americans didn’t understand the implications of the 64 civil rights law

This is so great. That mocking tone is so familiar, until it’s too late and then the tone becomes about “how could you not have understood something so obvious, you caveman”

It seems to me this is true, at least in part, so I’m curious to see if he tackles it later

“The new political style was not suited for every goal. It was designed for breaking traditional institutions, not building new ones”

Our current nightmare posited as a utopia

Book is essential reading for Irish people imo since we are experiencing an equivalent era right now

Differing styles of sexual relations depending on whether we’re in a population boom or bust

Why is this so funny

Interesting thought about the impact of feminism on the workplace

Recurrent theme of the book is that critics of social liberalisation have a better sense of what’s going to happen than the general public or passive supporters of the changes. I mean did these guys call it or what

And again. Hoo boy

Not the Harvard graduating class!! 😟

“Seperate toilets for men and women would not be allowed” lmao ok mr conspiracy theorist

Use of the phrase “run their mouth” here is *chef kiss*

“Spoiled beats with an underdeveloped sense of history and a flair for self-protection”- the Ivy League never changes, I guess

He proposes “culturally unstable” as an alternative to “diverse”

Oh dear I feel there’s an octogenarian rant about rap coming on

He’s talking about Reagan and debt now, it’s not great, feels a little tangential to the book’s theme

“The Great Society... the institutional form into which the civil rights impulse had hardened”

All very familiar from the Trump era

This doesn’t feel true to me

So far I would say the book is not great on who drove these changes and to what end. Clearly some powerful people who fought for (say) Hart Celler & knew what the effect would be. Why? He doesn’t say. (I’m not looking for anyone to explain it to me, I have my own views)

Talking about Simpson Mazzoli. Very familiar stuff.

In 25 years the proportion of immigration stories that mentioned the dampening effects on wages dropped from 47 to 8%. “One of the many subjects that were becoming harder to discuss openly”

Yeah

Immigration breeds inequality - the gains accrue to the wealthiest first, to the immigrant second, and to the native worker not at all

Brief cameo from Ed Buck, pressuring Arizona to introduce MLK day

There is a legitimate extent to which PC is simply politeness that is glossed over here

Anti - pc had some strange bedfellows initially inc the nyrb

Globalism as “the managed destruction of the nation, it’s sovereignty, it’s culture, it’s people”

Great description of how political correctness is the absolute opposite of what it claims to be: “a top down reform... it’s “subversive” scholars supporting the government and corporate sector in all their funding and enforcement power”

So far the (ostensible) intended beneficiaries of the civil rights laws are somewhat absent. Did it improve the lives people who were black, gay etc. If his take is that doesn’t matter, grand but he should probably be more direct. Perhaps he will be later

This part reminded me of some recent cases (always plenty to choose from)

Highlighted bits here are excellent about the way politicians deceive both themselves and their electorate about what they can do to limit diversity/ civil rights etc type policies

25 years! Hahaha

This sucks

Criticism of the book so far- in an attempt to cover everything in the relevant time period, a lot of it connects tenuously to the central theme. It just becomes a laundry list of culture-war gripes.

Tldr “charity” from rich people is bullshit

Another mild criticism of the book, on the topic of diversity, it massive overestimates the tendency of companies to live up to the reality of their woke public image

Current section of the book is about gay marriage. I always think of it as separate from contentious issue like abortion and affirmative action. 90% of people don’t give a shit about it. I always wonder why it’s so different

Gay marriage as a distinctively elite concern. I think it’s true that corporations could feel free to row in behind this cause knowing they would look enlightened but in an economic sense it was completely unthreatening to their interests

The unintended cost of making civil rights the new American constitution is... white racial consciousness

Exquisitely said and accurate

Whiteness as a lower spiritual state

“Their numbers were shrinking, their electoral victories could be overruled in courtrooms... the moral narrative required they be cast as villains”

Done. Recommended, not withstanding the criticisms in this thread