James Q. Wilson at the Manhattan Institute

I attended a luncheon sponsored by the Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based institute, and James Q. Wilson was the speaker. The luncheon was at the New York Yacht Club on 44th Street between 5th and 6th Avenues. Professor Wilson described research that attributes political ideology to genetic differences. The research is based on identical twin studies. I am sure that this line of research is rigorously documented but I am not convinced of its importance. I raised this question at the end of the meeting: Did the shift from the Federalist-Democratic/Republican to a single party system in the "era of good feelings" (1800-1830) reflect a genetic shift? Did the introduction of new gene pools in the late nineteenth century cause a shift in the party system or party ideologies? Can't the near 50% votes for Democratic and Republican presidential candidates be explained by rational vote-seeking by two competitive, economically motivated parties? I would add--did the shift in Republican Party ideology from that of laissez-faire in the late nineteenth century to Progressivism in the early twentieth century reflect gene therapy on Theodore Roosevelt? In the end, I do not doubt that, as Jefferson points out somewhere in his letters, ideology is linked to temperament, and temperament is likely genetic, I am not at all convinced that ideology is important to American politics or that any genetic link has any practical importance.

Party Affiliation and the Media's Lying Quality

In the nineteenth century news sources openly identified their party affiliations. That practice gradually eroded in the twentieth. The New York Times claimed that objective journalism was their goal. They made a good stab at it, but by now they are a Democratic (and social democratic) newspaper. Most other newspapers followed their lead because journalists believed that the Times was the best paper, the newspaper of record. As a result, the newspapers have tended to follow a Democratic Party line.

The television networks were established during a period when the Democratic Party was dominant. Although they do not express a party affiliation, they are mostly supportive of the Democratic Party. This is inequitable because the air waves are public property and should not all be allocated to one party. There needs to be open discussion of partisan dominance of the television networks.

It is time for consumers of news to demand that news sources openly affiliate with one party or another. It is pointless to claim, as do many conservatives, that a Democratic Party newspaper like the Times is biased toward the Democrats. Of course it is. Rather, readers should demand integrity from media. Integrity means that media ought to state the party or ideology with which it is affiliated. It is the false claim to objectivity that irritates conservatives, not the fact that media is biased. Objecting to bias is like objecting to the grim reaper. You can complain all you want, but you're going to be reaped anyway. The fact that social democrats do not make bias complaints about the media is significant evidence that the conservatives' complaint is true.

Many in the media vapidly claim that they are not biased. But it does not occur to them that conservatives frequently complain that they are biased and social democrats defend them. This alone closes the case. There is no reasonable doubt if all on one side complain and all on the other defend them. That is what bias means.

I agree with conservative attacks on the Times just as I agree with reasoned attacks on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But isn't it time to call a social democrat a social democrat and start confronting real issues? These would include abolition of the Department of Education; abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank; privatization of the Post Office; privatization of social security, educational vouchers........