OxBlog

Sunday, April 13, 2003

# Posted 11:06 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

CUBIN REVOLUTION: Yesterday, I called on principled conservatives to condemn Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) for her racist remarks on the House floor. While Josh proudly answered the call, a number of readers have sent in passionate defense's of Cubin's conduct. In fact, one of them suggested that I apologize to Cubin for calling her a racist.

According to this line of thought, such accusations of racism reflect the misinterpretation of Cubin's statement on the House floor. According to JAT,
Rep. Cubin's position, agree or not, is that while drug addiction may in fact be correlated with violence at some level, and that those who use drugs are more likely to be people to engage in gun violence, that there is not a causative relationship. Therefore, she argues that it is an arbitrary and irrational basis to deny someone the right to buy a weapon....

To illustrate her point, she pointed out that it is a well-known fact that, deplorably, gun violence is higher in the inner city and (related to that) among blacks. No one denies this sad fact. Therefore, there is a clear *correlation* between being black and being more likely to engage in gun violence. Therefore, Rep. Cubin pointed out
that under the same logic of the amendment she was opposing, one would make gun sales illegal to blacks. EVEN THOUGH, as she stressed, this was an ILLEGITIMATE INFERENCE, as there WAS NO CAUSATION, and that this was something that OUGHT NOT BE DONE.

Her argument is an obvious reducto ad absurdum. She's attempting to claim that her opponents' argument, when logically followed, naturally leads to the restriction of sales of weapons to blacks. This being ridiculous, she asks that one of the premises be discarded-- that it is right to restrict gun sales based on correlation like drug use.
While JAT has an interesting point about causation vs. correlation, I think his interpretation of Rep. Cubin's remarks is far too generous. What Cubin said was that
One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person, or does that mean because my -- "
From what I can tell, this is not a sophisticated argument about the nature of causation, but rather a crude suggestion that drug addiction is a black problem. Even if there is statistical evidence that per capita drug use is greater in black communities , there is no question that it is a pervasive problem in other communities as well. [NB: This is not my area of expertise, so I have no idea what sort of statistical evidence exists.]

For Cubin to suggest that a ban on selling guns to drug users might result in a ban on selling guns to black Americans is disturbing evidence of her belief that drug addiction is a black problem. While one might consider this simply to be a mistaken belief, it is hard to know how any non-racist individual could make such a mistake.

This conclusion raises the question of whether one should condemn not just Cubin, but also those congressmen who voted against censuring her. As JC asks,
How would you deal with the solid phalanx of Republicans who voted against taking down Cubin's remarks? Doesn't this vote suggest an insensivity, to use a polite word, widespread in the ranks of the party whose presidential candidate in 1964 voted against the Civil Rights Act? Whereupon the party began its
surge of support in the South? A party whose core view of the remaining large disparities between the races is that they are now the fault of cultural deficiencies among blacks who don't take advantage of the opportunities afforded them, and not a matter of national concern?
As far as I can tell, what happened on the House floor was that representatives on both sides of the aisle witnessed an intense cofrontation between a Republican representative (Cubin) and a Democratic one (Mel Watt). In the midst of such confrontations, congressmen tend to close ranks and support their own regardless of the merit of the issue.

In this case, however, such partisanship is unacceptable. Thus, I hope that the GOP will quickly recognize its mistake and condemn Cubin. If it does not, then one might have to answer JC's questions in the affirmative.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion

Comments: Post a Comment


Home