Victor Davis Hanson : Two Californias

Atlas has shrugged in California Central Valley.

The last three weeks I have traveled about, taking the pulse of the more forgotten areas of central California. I wanted to witness, even if superficially, what is happening to a state that has the highest sales and income taxes, the most lavish entitlements, the near-worst public schools (based on federal test scores), and the largest number of illegal aliens in the nation, along with an overregulated private sector, a stagnant and shrinking manufacturing base, and an elite environmental ethos that restricts commerce and productivity without curbing consumption. [...]

Some descriptions are almost Starnesville-like.

Post 1

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 2:15pm

That's an excellent article. Mr. Hansen's farm house is in Selma - right in the middle of this disaster. The court decision that made the 3-inch fish more important than hundreds of thousands of humans took place in 2008. Governor Schwarzenegger had a way to turn the water back on and chose not to take it.

Many conservatives and some celebrities traveled to the area to hold a rally to raise attention and money to help the locals. This was put on Obama's plate early on - but he is choosing to ignore it.

It was an amazingly productive farm area and produced a significant portion of America's fruits and vegetables. Here is 2009 Wall Street Journal article about it. Everyone in the world is paying more for their produce now and Americans are paying more for the entitlements flowing to the unemployed... all because of that insane court ruling and the criminal political inaction that followed.

Mr. Hansen's observations are striking. The regulations are always framed for altruistic ends and nearly always they fail, disaster results, harm is done and it is ignored by the regulators, the legislators and the media.

Post 2

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 4:44pm

Sounds to me like the man is more concerned with the race of the people there, and what language they speak than anything else. If California isn't enforcing whatever good law may remain in the valley, that isn't the population's fault. Why he decided to drag these poor people into his argument, and not at all in a sympathetic light, is beyond me.

As if Mexicans are responsible for the water getting turned off. What is his point?

His concern with non-integration is very strange. So what? Nothing new about that. Italians moved into neighborhoods with other Italians. Russian Jews moved into areas with other Russian Jews. Mexicans do the same thing. Geeze, Detroit is 98% black, as are many urban cities. What's wrong with that?

African flags and brightly painted tribal shields are EVERYWHERE in Detroit, but I'm willing to bet only a scant few, if any, of the flag flyers have ever been to that continent. Many Detroit students struggle with English diction, but their families and ancestors have lived in the United States for hundreds of years! Test scores in Detroit are positively dismal. Should I conclude that there's something wrong with failing students who are black, as the author is implying there is something wrong failing students who are Hispanic?

Perhaps something is wrong with pubic education? Just perhaps? The author doesn't dare go that far.

Not impressed with the article at all. Only with OC's willingness to post a link to it.

Post 3

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 5:45pm

Teresa,

You missed the point. America is being impoverished by the government (our primary eco-terrorist). And all of the concerns that our nanny state has are being ignored if the problem was caused by turning the water off. He makes his case by pointing out what has happened in this part of California.

And he did mention the public schools: "... the near-worst public schools (based on federal test scores)..." and he combines the change in the percent of illegal immigrants to the decrease in test scores. He is saying that the place where he has grown up has changed enormously and he is describing the changes.

Here are the changes he chronicles:

the rural roads of California are fast turning into rubble
ground zero, so to speak, of 20 years of illegal immigration
tens of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land idled, leaving thousands unemployed
rigid zoning laws, strict building codes, constant inspections - all ignored in this area
the loss of thousands of small farming families.
epidemic dumping of trash, furniture, and often toxic substances throughout California�s rural hinterland
In two different supermarkets he was the only person not using 'food stamps' to make his purchase

This was his point regarding Hispanics: "I note these vast transformations over the last 20 years that are the paradoxical wages of unchecked illegal immigration from Mexico, a vast expansion of California�s entitlements and taxes, the flight of the upper middle class out of state, the deliberate effort not to tap natural resources, the downsizing in manufacturing and agriculture, and the departure of whites, blacks, and Asians from many of these small towns to more racially diverse and upscale areas of California."

He is showing what the effects of government policies are. He says, "Hundreds of thousands [or people] sense all that and vote accordingly with their feet, both into and out of California � and the result is a sort of social, cultural, economic, and political time-bomb, whose ticks are getting louder."

Hansen is not a racist. He didn't say that Mexicans are responsible for any laws or blame them or imply the these issues arise out of skin color. He is showing what happens when government screws up - and he isn't in favor of nanny-state laws, but pointing out that the state of California doesn't give a damn about them either - not in this part of the state.

Post 4

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 6:12pm

the rural roads of California are fast turning into rubble

As well as being polluted by Spanish speaking brown people of dubious legal status. He was quite clear, yes. Mercy! The lunch truck doesn't have a wash room! Good heavens! They're practically savages!

ground zero, so to speak, of 20 years of illegal immigration

That point was clear. Its all their fault. What should I make of Detroit, then?

tens of thousands of acres of prime agricultural land idled, leaving thousands unemployed

Now inhabited by goats, chickens, and shacks full of people of dubious legal status.

rigid zoning laws, strict building codes, constant inspections - all ignored in this area

I see that as a positive, not a negative.

the loss of thousands of small farming families.

And he makes clear that those farms are now inhabited by people of dubious legal status.

epidemic dumping of trash, furniture, and often toxic substances throughout California�s rural hinterland

No mention why, just the assertion that brown people of dubious legal status have done this. If garbage pickup was on strike here, I'd be dumping my trash at city hall. No city hall down in the Valley, I guess.

In two different supermarkets he was the only person not using 'food stamps' to make his purchase

I note he was extremely careful not to mention the race of the people using them, but considering his focus on brown people of dubious legal status throughout the writing, it isn't too hard to connect the dots.

If his point was that so called illegal immigrants are the cause of these problems, then he was indeed quite clear.

There must be some point in mentioning "20 years of illegal immigration." What was it, exactly?

Post 5

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 6:54pm

I agree with Teresa that the article would be better without the racial stuff. First-generation immigrants from non-English-speaking countries have always struggled with the language, pretty much by definition, and they've typically been poor. If they remain poor it's because of government, not because they're immigrants.

Several years ago I lived in a middle-income, overwhelmingly white neighborhood in west LA. Across the street was a patch of empty freeway land that people used regularly to dump dead furniture and appliances, as this was cheaper than paying someone to haul them away. I used to see these people if I drove by at night, and they weren't immigrants from anywhere.

Post 6

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 7:56pm

It's not racial - it's cultural.

Post 7

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 8:26pm

It may not seem like it, given the political environment we live in today, but racism is still a serious accusation that shouldn't be thrown around carelessly. Given the damage even the accusation can make to a person's life, I think a high standard of evidence and reasoning is necessary. These accusations that VDH is a racist is just appalling. They're no better than Obama's supporters claiming that anyone who disagrees with their leftist views is motivated by racism. Simply because racism could account for someone's position is not nearly enough to claim that it is the reason....especially when they give other plausible reasons.

Take this article. Yes, it makes statements critical of illegal immigration. But you don't have to be a racist to recognize that illegal immigration causes real problems. Without the legal system, property rights cannot be protected. Neither can contracts. What you get is an area where individuals cannot save, cannot invest, cannot run businesses and have their rights protected by the law. While governments can cause lots of problems, a complete lack legal protections of rights causes lots of other problems. A comparison to the third world isn't too much of a stretch when you understand the legal conditions are similar. And with it, you have pollution and the tragedy of the commons.

You don't have to be against immigration to think that illegal immigration is a serious problem. Just as you don't have to be for gang violence to believe the war on drugs is a problem.

What he described was two completely different ways that California operates. In wealthier areas, everything is highly regulated and taxed. They're always looking for ways to control people a little more. But in these other areas, lawlessness abounds. The point about the restaurant trucks was that they appear to be completely unregulated. Same with the various trailer-house compounds, and the peddlers selling various goods. The rules don't seem to apply, and nobody is enforcing them. Things you couldn't possibly get away with further north or south are the norm. What's this have to do with illegal immigration? It seemed to be only one of the many points that make up the pattern of lawlessness.

But the wider point is the apparent double standard that runs through all of these observations. The law is religiously enforced and control is asserted to the highest degree in some parts of the state, while in others people are allowed to openly pollute and dispose of their waste on the streets without consequence. It also explains the double standard of "diversity" that claims it is such a huge benefit for some mix of people, but is entirely ignored and discounted in areas with a different mix. Or the double standard of using one criteria to condemn the US and praise Mexico and a different standard in choosing which country to live in. VDH said:

It is almost as if the more California regulates, the more it does not regulate. Its public employees prefer to go after misdemeanors in the upscale areas to justify our expensive oversight industry, while ignoring the felonies in the downtrodden areas, which are becoming feral and beyond the ability of any inspector to do anything but feel irrelevant.

That sounds like a fair point, and has nothing to do with racism.

You'll notice that he didn't talk about "brown" people. Implying that's what he meant is just putting words in his mouth. It only shows that the case for calling him a racist is so weak that you have to make stuff up.

Even if you wanted to make a case that someone was racist, attacking someone for accurately representing how an area of people actually operations is not proof. If people are polluting there as he says, it's a fact. If people are generally using food-stamps there, it's a fact. If we get into the habit of saying that certain facts are racist, or that pointing out the facts is racist, the word stops being useful. That's the leftist view of racism as anything that could be construed as critical of members of a race. It confuses culture with race, actions with race, individuals with race, and behaviors with race.

It's like calling a genuine concern about radical Islam a form of racism. It's like calling people who point out the cultural problems in various black communities racist. Yes, it is possible that someone only discusses these issues because they are racist. But when you make that the default assumption, you create a world where people are afraid to acknowledge the truth and are unwilling to look for answers since the problems must be ignored.

Post 8

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 8:37pm

That's very well explained, Joe. To be honest, it is what I wanted to say but didn't have the ability to get into words.

Post 9

Thursday, December 16, 2010 - 8:40pm

Thanks Steve. Your post 6 was short but to the point.

Post 10

Friday, December 17, 2010 - 3:10am

Accept the writer doesn't attempt to make this argument, with which I certainly don't disagree:

Take this article. Yes, it makes statements critical of illegal immigration. But you don't have to be a racist to recognize that illegal immigration causes real problems. Without the legal system, property rights cannot be protected. Neither can contracts. What you get is an area where individuals cannot save, cannot invest, cannot run businesses and have their rights protected by the law. While governments can cause lots of problems, a complete lack legal protections of rights causes lots of other problems. A comparison to the third world isn't too much of a stretch when you understand the legal conditions are similar. And with it, you have pollution and the tragedy of the commons.

I'll have to read it again, but I don't remember property rights, or any rights at all, being mentioned.

Post 11

Friday, December 17, 2010 - 6:01pm

No...he didn't make that argument. Maybe he wasn't even thinking it. My point is that it's unfair to leap to accusations of racism when there are more reasonable possibilities. The fact that he discussed illegal immigration does not make him a racist. There are plenty of legitimate, non-racist arguments against illegal immigration.

I mentioned the problem of creating a pocket of society that is outside of the domain of the law. Clearly that's bad for them since they can't have demand their rights be protected. But it also favors criminals, removing much of the disincentives for criminal behavior since the victims can't object. It wouldn't be surprising to find increased levels of crime. It may also be legitimate to think that a large group of people who are breaking the law (immigrations laws) might also be more likely to disregard the law in other cases. And there are many other objections, from welfare programs, to punishing those who do follow the law.

And these are legitimate concerns. Those of us who favor a freer immigration system can agree with these points, although we'd point out that much of this is caused by the immigration system itself just as drug violence is caused by the war on drugs.

I don't know what VDH's full position is. It could be almost anything. In this article, he kept trying to steer clear of making moral arguments, and instead tried to stick with observations. So it's impossible to tell what he thinks, except that the current system is broken (something which almost everyone agrees with), and that double standards permeate through the entire state.

But it's not up to me or him to prove that he isn't a racist. It's unfair for you to leap to that conclusion in the first place. It's a horrible smear, even in today's political environment where it gets used so often to silence arguments. If you're going to make that kind of extreme accusation, it's up to you to prove it. The smear of racism is thrown around without any evidence, and the burden is placed on the victim of the smear to try to prove somehow that he isn't racist (by saying things like "Some of my best friends are...."). But that's completely wrong. It's an impossible burden to prove that secretly, despite all evidence to the contrary, you aren't harboring some kind of racists feelings or thoughts. And if it's impossible for even the most non-racist person to prove he isn't, what about people who argue about controversial topics like illegal immigration or black culture? No, the burden must be placed on the one making the accusation, and he has to show that the person's words or deeds can only be explained by racism. Any claim that it could be explained by racism is simply a smear and an attempt to create an impossible burden to prove otherwise.

Post 12

Saturday, December 18, 2010 - 6:24pm

Threadjack:

Christmas Letter 2010

It has been a good year. Janae earned her driver�s license and Jim was relieved of (some of) his driving duties into town. Zachary had the epiphany that he is smart and, rather than settling for a career in preparing fast food, he ought to actually turn in his homework so he can get better grades. Alyssa is tapering off of video games and tapering on to reading books and riding horses (aka �goin� worshy-back ridin�.�)

Linda�s was named Hawaii Physician of the Year. Jim continues to be free of that nasty cancer and is working out to be in top shape, or �tic� (aka �thick� for those not familiar with pidgin) as �da boyz� would say. �Tic� can mean lots of other things � it can be a euphemism for a fat woman, it can refer to cognitive deficits relative to one�s peers (and if any of that causes you to scramble for your dictionary, well, you might be �tic�) � about the only thing it doesn�t refer to it what it sounds like, �tick�, which if those were in Hawaii would be called �ukus�, and, if jumping, �uku leles� (aka �banjos�).

Our lives continue to be blessed with MJ or Masefau, our Samoan boy whose hip Linda replaced (Jim silently dissents with the use of the word �blessed� here, and invokes his Fifth Amendment rights to not specify the relevant word from his POV, aka �to STFU.�) He (Masefau) has been with us for a year. Jim has been here longer. Much longer. Much, much, much longer. Make of that what you will.

Linda: �The other Samoan boys are here many evenings to fill our home with laughter.�

Jim: Still invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.

Janae is playing basketball. Zachary is wrestling. Alyssa�s main sporting activity seems to be pushing. Too much brevity? OK, �pushing her luck.� Happy now?

We did spend a few weeks on the farm this summer, except for Jim, who had 2 weeks of quiet and solitude with the dorg in Hawaii, feeding meat scraps to gain improved loyalty. (Since, presumably, none of you who have made it this far are tic, we will leave unresolved the ambiguity about who was the feeder and who was the feedee.) Janae and Linda visited colleges in Oregon.

Jim turned 50 this year, without the big party. It was a quiet event. Linda, however, turns 50 next November and there will be a week long party in Las Vegas that will be anything but quiet. Dancing all night, shows, tips for the male strippers, etc��

Zachary�s football team won the JV championship for JV. Janae is at a small charter school (56 students/class) and her basketball varsity team just beat the number one team in their division, so there should be some playoff action in January. And Alyssa�s soccer team � well, still invoking those Fifth Amendment rights.

***

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Jim

Post 13

Saturday, December 18, 2010 - 6:42pm

This is what your RoR blog privilege is for, Jim. Dude, please.

Post 14

Saturday, December 18, 2010 - 7:06pm