Robert Weissberg

Since the 1970s government has obsessively imposed "diversity" on a reluctant public. Unfortunately, the political equivalent of a "it's good for you" liver-and-cauliflower diet has not ushered in an Egalitarian Paradise, despite promises that a jumble of races, ethnic groups and sexes enriches everyone. As matters now stand, the unpopular mania rests entirely on admonitions -- eat it because it's good for you, backed up by government power ("if you don't eat it, Daddy will jam it down your throat!").

The "everybody benefits" argument is exceedingly difficult to prove. Testimonials, even from distinguished college presidents, typically lack hard evidence outside of tortured statistics, and the counter-arguments, notably, the inferior past performance of favored beneficiaries, certainly seem just as persuasive. After all, if it is so worthwhile, why must government jam it down our throats? Diversity defenders stress vague hopes to be delivered tomorrow while opponents cry shameless political pandering to secure votes from those otherwise unable find lucrative jobs or gain admission to top schools. It is no wonder, then, that acrimonious litigation continues to clog the legal system.

Solutions to the Israel-Arab conflict have proven illusive. Even formal peace accords, complete with formal ceremonies and treaties, whether the Camp David Accord or the September of 1995 agreement, are generally understood as gestures of hope. At best, progress is painfully slow and fragile; optimism is a government prescribed policy, not a genuinely felt emotion. Every president since Harry Truman has had a plan, offered his good offices, even held out various bribes; each met with limited success, at best. Nor have four major wars, over a dozen changes of leadership and endless diplomatic negotiations created the permanent dull normal state of peace. Liberal solutions, conservative solutions, hard-line solutions, and pie-in-the-sky solutions have only served as palliative resolutions. Far too much depends on shaky coalitions, unstable personalities and unpredictable events such as terrorist attacks. Perhaps only fools or well-meaning academics believe that a lasting peace and normalcy can be secured with yet one more conference, concession or proclamation.

The situation is not, however, hopeless. Indeed, when examined from a wholly different perspective, the problem is quite solvable without a decisive war, bitter enemies learning to love one another, billions in bribes, or Messianic intervention. It is even a solution that has been tried and perfected within the United States on occasions too numerous to count. There is no new technology needed, no disputes over who really represents whom and, most important, it is a solution with no economic or political losers.  Everybody from the Party of God to followers of Our Lady of Perpetual Dialoguing will be pleased.

The solution begins by recognizing the essential character of the Israel-Arab dispute. Reduced to its core, it is the familiar one of demand for land outstripping the available supply. Israel, Syria, Jordan Lebanon, and, of course, the Palestinians all want the same land and are not willing to renounce their claims. In a rational capitalistic system, this problem is solved by the market: one party outbids all the others, and this is accepted by the losers as legitimate. Disappointed bidders do not take up arms; their reaction is the familiar, "if those idiots want to pay over a $1000 a foot, let them have it." Unfortunately for the cause of peace, this rational bidding process does not work when sovereign nations contest land rich in historical and religious significance. It is difficult to imagine any Israeli government even contemplating auctioning off East Jerusalem or Jordan putting the West Bank on multiple-listing.

I grew up in Manhattan in the 1940s and early 1950s, and save a scattering of Puerto Ricans, few Hispanics were to be found. Then, after almost four decades of being a Midwesterner, I returned to Manhattan in 2004. I immediately saw Mexicans, El Salvadorians, and similar Spanish-speaking immigrant workers everywhere. Spanish was the lingua franca in restaurants, nursing homes, building maintenance, and construction, among others. Employed blacks were visible, too, but as far as I could tell, nearly all were recent immigrants from the Caribbean. Outside of occasional retail clerks (almost entirely female) and messengers, the native black working population had, despite contrary census data, seemingly vanished, at least as far as I could observe first hand. Even once historic “black jobs” like cleaning lady and nanny seemingly now lacked a substantial native-born black presence.

What explains this employment transformation and, critically, where have all these blacks gone?