There is a prevalent myth that large law firms, especially old, "white shoe" firms, are bastions of patrician conservatism. This may have been true forty years ago, but the evidence suggests that the vast majority of big law firms are firmly, institutionally, on the Left, whether judged by the political content of their pro bono work, the voting and contribution patterns of their partners, or their willingness to embrace politically correct agendas, such as racial preferences in hiring. Walter Olson offers a case in point: Clifford, Chance honoring heroes of the radical left. AmLaw Daily reports that "Clifford Chance sponsored the book party on the advice of a consultant who advises the firm on art and diversity," the very existence of which should tell you something.
As an aside, given that several of the honorees were PLO propagandists, back in the days when the PLO didn't even pretend to want a peaceful settlement with Israel, I wonder whether the diversity consultants considered the sentiments of Jewish partners and associates. (The PLO folks may or may not have been treated unfairly, I'm not familiar with the relevant story, but merely fighting a First Amendment battle successfully does not make you a "hero" worthy of having your picture in the lobby of Clifford, Chance. Or should I be sending the firm photos of the Nazis who won the Skokie case, for proud display?)
UPDATE: As a further aside, do you think any major law firm is going to honor the Boy Scouts of America as heroes of the First Amendment for winning what I think is one of the most important First Amendment cases of the last two decades, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale? No? Actually, it's almost unthinkable, despite the BSA's overall "mainstreamity". That, combined with Clifford Chance's honoring "heroes of the radical left" for their First Amendment battles, should give readers an idea of how "conservative" big law firms are.
Much of big business also plays the same game. Companies like Google and Sun also buy into multi-culturalism, affirmative action etc.
I would not and do not suggest that conservatives are racist or biased. However, many of us moderates or slightly-left-of-moderates find it curious that on every issue pertaining to race, conservatives side with the preferred viewpoint of the racial majority over the preferred viewpoint of the racial minority. Of course it could be a coincidence--and for most conservatives I believe it is--but it is nonetheless remarkable.
That's what I get for writing unwieldy sentences.
What does that mean? What is the preferred viewpoint of the racial majority? Do you mean the typical viewpoint towards affirmative action, hate crimes that only apply one way etc?
I, too, am not familiar with "the relevant story," but anecdotally speaking, I find it very hard to express any criticism of Israel's policies without facing charges of antisemitism or being a "PLO propagandist." I'm willing to assume that most defenders of Israel's policies are not so quick at the name calling, but a few of the extremists are.
Very few people turn down speical treatment when offered to them. I don't think farmers should get special preferences, as they do in various farm bills. Farmers generally do. That doesn't make me anti-farmer. I don't think sports teams should get special tax breaks from cities. Sports teams generally do. That doesn't make me anti-sports. The fact that many members of racial minorities would like to get preferences doesn't make those who think that they shouldn't get them anti-minority.
I think that you make a great point, but you are wrong. Many examples spring to my mind that are not related to what you call "special preferences" laws. For instance, Hispanics are generally (though not exclusively) opposed to the GOP's stance on immigration. African Americans are generally (though not exclusively) opposed to the GOP's stance on abortion. Other examples are plentiful.
I want to clarify my point a little bit. The majority of conservatives are honest, kind individuals. However, it is curious that on almost every political issue related to race their view can be used to keep the racial majority in power. Is that really very controversial to suggest?
My wife works for a black man who hates all the multi-cultural crap her company does to appear more "accepting" of various races. Her boss refused to attend a "southern" lunch with fried chicken and home fires, etc. as part of this effort. I am from the South and I can tell you I was personally offended by this white guilt display. Liberals at times can be well meaning, and maybe even harmless materially, but their decisions usually inflect some type of harm even when they try to do good.
Last time I checked the polls, African Americans were much more likely to support limits on abortions than were whites. And I suspect, though I can't recall poll data, that African Americans are more opposed to immigration than are whites.
which, I believe, has the "patrician conservatism" as one of its ancestors
I believe that when conservatives allied themselves with the religious right and its causes, including ant-gay and anti-Darwinist positions, they turned what might seem a natural constituency (well-paid corporate lawyers and related types). That and the approach of prominent and popular conservatives, such as Rush and Ann Coulter. These law firm folks felt more distant from those groups than from economic liberals who were contrary to their own economic self-interest.
The Republicans coopted the old Democrat constituency of relatively poor working class whites, but I think this cost them richer urban white constituencies.
All you're pointing out is that the majority rules in a democra
cytic republic. Why wouldn't the majority, however you slice it, retain power?I find this comment extremely immature
Notice I said the "racial majority." I find it scary that you believe that "the majority, however you slice it, [should] retain power." Do you intend to suggest that the racial majority should always rule?
Overall, the Republican Party is a middle-class party. That is not to say there are not rich Republicans (or poor ones, for that matter). The Democratic Party, by contrast, attracts the upper-income and the lower class. That is not to say that there not middle-class Democrats.
By the way, although there are plenty of Democrats, one area of law where you will find as many Republicans if not more Republicans than Democrats are in the District Attorney offices around the country. Prosecuting crime takes a certain mindset, usually more conservative than liberal.
I found it funny. Were we voting?
Would've been funnier without "wine-drinking." As someone who listens to NPR about 4-5 hours a day, I think there's definitely a type of semi-thoughtless moderate liberalism-that doesn't-know-it's-liberalism which NPR typifies. It's fun.
As to the conservatives allying themselves with the religious right, the problem for the legal profession appears to be more the fact that any religious folk ally themselves to the group than any of their other beliefs. Religion appears to be anathema to the legal profession.
The conservatives try to say that all should be judged on their abilities and the trial lawyers see this as a big income cut for their earnings and run screaming. Look at what MLK sought in his speeches and it is very reflective of the conservative position and yet the people who try to claim him reject this totally. Instead they make saints of RFK who sicced the wiretappers and the FBI on these same people. Seems perverse to me.
So, if the Ku Klux Klan were to win a major First Amendment case, David Bernstein would "honor" the Klan as "heroes of the First Amendment"???
Permit me to doubt.
Anderson, of course I wouldn't. But neither would I honor, as Clifford Chance did, "Margaret Randall, ordered deported in 1984 on the basis of her past communist writings; [and] seven Palestinians arrested in Los Angeles in 1987 for distributing literature for the PLO." It's especially ironic to honor as heroes in of the First Amendment people who use the Amendment for their own ends, but don't believe in freedom of speech (see also Ten, Hollywood).
Which GOP stance on immigration are you referring to, there are 3 major ones (open borders/closed borders to illegal immigration and more although not unlimited legal immigration/closed borders to illegal immigration and no increase in legal immigration)? I should note that the last is the closest to the immigration policy of the Democrats, (such as a consensus exists, Democrats are also fragmented on immigration although less so than Republicans) as well as being the least popular of the big three in the GOP.
As for African-American opinion on abortion, yes there is some disagreement with the GOP stance on abortion, most of them are in favor of more regulation than the GOP is comfortable with. A significant number of African-Americans (a higher percentage than Republicans) even go beyond the GOP stance and believe abortion should be illegal.
Equating the GOP's stances with conservativeness is a poor choice usually, the GOP (like the Democratic party, only moreso) is a coalition of interests and when it comes to actual positions there is usually a balancing of those diverse interests. Reading a Republican Party Platform will give you an idea of different the "GOP's stance" is from what you appear to think it is.
Proportionally, sure. One person as one vote. Why are you surprised that a majority white country has mostly white politicians and power brokers? Then again, a large number of people think more along ideological lines than racial ones, so whites in the US aren't anywhere close to a voting bloc. Either I'm misreading you or you're making a mountain out of a molehill based on a view of conservatives' colorblind policies as somehow being a illegitimate mechanism of preserving the white majority's power.
For what its worth, many law firms have distinct cultures, more by office than by firm. There are some big firms that are more conserative dominated in their DC offices for instance. But it seems to be a minority.
And while most big firms lean heavily left, including their pro bono, for instance, as noted above, their business interests do trump. You don't really see, for instance, many firms doing pro bono environmental or labor work that is likely to put them on the other side of their corporate clients' positions (even when there are no genuine conflict of interests present). Instead they gravitate toward landlord-tenant, asylum, prisoner appeals, etc.
"Equating the GOP's stances with conservativeness is a poor choice usually." This falls into the "you know what I mean" category. But thank you for your critique. We have all benefited from your pickiness.
As to your statement on immigration, I have several critiques. First, you are wrong for pigeon-holding the conservatives and the liberals into a mere three positions. Second, surely we can all admit that as a general (though not exclusive) rule the GOP base is more likely to put forth views on immigration that are unfavorable to those Hispanics entering the country.
As to the abortion paragraph, you're right. What can I say? I looked at bad information before I posted, got blasted for it, did further research, and realized I was wrong. Wow, that really, really hurts to admit to an army-sized group of staunch conservatives.
Actually, I find that attitude deeply pernicious. I decided to post my extended rant on the topic on my own bandwidth instead of using the VC's, however.
Continuing my endeavor at concision, I'll just say: +1.
Um, I don't think so; I don't have any handy statistics, but I'll note the current Republican apparent presidential candidate is not known for his exclusionary views, while many democrats have been. The usual polling data seems to suggest much more than 50 percent of the population holding exclusionary views; this argues against the correlation being very strong unless "conservatives" are a dramatic majority.
Hint: It would have made for a case title that rivals Hardwick v. Georgia.
Charlie (Colorado): your very post runs against itself. McCain is a "maverick" with his stance on immigration because he supported a bill that ran against the GOP position on immigration -- i.e., McCain sought to give "amnesty" to a very narrow class of immigrants and the GOP chastised him for it. I dare say that his immigration bill was received more kindly by the Democrats.
Perhaps, but you don't offer any evidence of it but your own prejudices. Given that my recollection is correct that 70+ percent of the population would prefer a crackdown on illegal immigration leading to illegal immigrants leaving the country --- it seems supported by the polls I find in a few seconds of googling --- it's pretty much impossible that people opposed to some kind of legalization are just Republicans. There just aren't enough Republicans.
And his position happened to correspond to the position of the Republican President...and contrasts with many freshman Democrats in Congress.
This is a rather insightful remark. All the more so once one understands that Democratic lower-class voters tend to be minorities whose association with the party is arguably a historical accident of having large African-American populations in the South and the utter crippling of the Republican party therein following the end of reconstruction.
It's pickiness to ask that when you use a precise term with a specific meaning for something other than that meaning you clarify you are using a subculture variant? This isn't Daily Kos and we don't all know what you mean, I certainly thought you actually were arguing that the Republican party held those positions, not that a subset of conservatives some of whom are Republicans held those positions. Indeed you should clarify, as is needed for your later posts, that when you use "GOP" you are not necessarily referring to the Republican Party.
I spent an hour finding this out and my final conclusion was, "So what?"
By the way, the Supreme Court case was Bowers v. Hardwick not Hardwick v. Georgia.
You have a curious sense of history. To the extent they could, African-Americans tended to associate with the Republican Party until around the time of the New Deal. They became more strongly associated with the Democrats with the advent of the civil rights movement (which itself eventually sent most Southern Democrats into the Republican Party). African-Americans tend to vote Democratic because, rightly or wrongly, many perceive the Republican Party as the party of white racists, not because of a "historical accident."
That's not a historical accident?
Speaking specifically about affirmative action in higher education, I'd simply like to point out that eliminating affirmative action tends to benefit Asians as much as (if not more than) whites. For instance, Asians now constitute a plurality of students (ahead of whites) at several University of California campuses following the adoption of Prop. 209 (which prohibited racial preferences).
You are right, I should have been clearer--education is a better indication than income. But I do stand by my assertion that the Republican Party is a "middle class" party--bourgeoisie actually, in the Marxist sense.
Likewise, the congressional district with the highest median income (CA 14, $77,985) is solidly Democrat.
Lets go over this. I grant you that Blacks voted Republican after the civil war until the New Deal Wave--when they were permitted to vote. Regardless the Republican party was eviscerated in the South by Jim Crow. As Blacks began to regain voting rights in the South, they became associated with the Democratic party which was a result of the Democratic primary being the only political contest that mattered. By this way, the party slowly became the vehicle for Black representation.
In mid-20th century, it was the Democratic party which was strongly regarded as Racist (e.g., Strom Thurmond). Meanwhile Republicans introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (in '56). The actual bill passed was gutted by LBJ who was hewing to racist elements embedded within his party. Kennedy meanwhile came into office a part of the new Democratic party and seized civil rights as his issue. But both the civil rights act of '64 and the voting rights act of '65 passed with significantly more Republican than Democratic support (as measured by the fraction of the caucus in favor).
I otherwise agree that African-American affiliation with the Democratic Party today is the result of a perception that Republicans are racist. This explanation is ahistoric though if applied to the 50s or 60s where the affiliation arose from the dominance of the democratic party after the New Deal, and the particular evisceration of the Republican party in the South after the end of reconstruction.
Gee, how about judging them by who pays their invoices? Too often it seems that pro bono work is the only chance these lawyers have to show off their "progressive" bona fides. The rest of the week, they're happy to bill $625/hr to work on virtuous projects like helping chemical companies give children cancer.
These partners can dedicate their careers to whatever clients they like, but political contributions and diversity hiring do not redeem those choices. It's like Arnold Schwarzengger's vegetable oil-powered Hummer --- a nice gesture that sort of misses the bigger picture.
Oddly enough, the Boy Scouts organization feels free to feed at the government trough, to encourage funding of units by government agencies, and so on, even as they preach acts of intolerance and exclusion that government agencies are forbidden from engaging in.
(I'm not talking about exclusion of gays, since federal law does not ban discrimination against gays. But the Constitution does forbid the government from favoring monotheism over polytheism, pantheism, or atheism -- and the BSA explicitly preaches monotheism and explicitly excludes atheists.)
School choice?
1971. My left-wing prof and our college group is meeting in DC with Patsy Mink (D) HI in the House of Reps. Busing comes up. Patsy is all for it. My Prof points out that a majority of all racial groups opposes "busing to achieve racial balance". Patsy fluffs the comment off.
compare "white shoe" with "magic circle," attempt a synthesis of these 15-20 firms, and then give us something more than a rant against Clifford Chance topped off with a paeon to the politics of homophobic campers.
I am not a lawyer, but my sense is that the vast majority of lawyers today are moderatley to hard-left politically. Like the professions of social work, journalism and most academics, lawyers (at least the ones I have met and gotten to know) seem to be highly idealistic and view their profession as a way to "change the world". Granted, I am not saying that there are no conservatives or libertarians in law (this web site proves that there are), just that a significant majority are liberal.
[Which is not to say that every defendant doesn't deserve counsel, etc., but the idea that these minor symbolic acts outweigh what's going on during the billable days is ridiculous.]
The fastest way to become a Republican is to run a business, the smaller the better. So, not surprisingly, small firm and and solo attorneys are more likely to be Republicans. But in the big firms, you are isolated from that. All of the overhead associated with the nanny state is absorbed into those high billing rates. So, you have to worry about insider trading laws? Just set up an office and hire some people to do your checks for you and have everyone run their stock trades through it. You ultimately end up having specialists hired to solve or address all those governmental regulations and programs. All it takes is money, that comes from bumping your billing rates, and that in turn is doable since your competition is bumping theirs at the same time for the same reasons.
So, the average big firm lawyer does not have an incentive to be conservative, since he is immunized and isolated from all of the overhead and BS involved in running a business. The average small firm or solo attorney is not.
I note this because I moved from a solo practice, to a small firm, to a much larger firm this last year. One of the big differences is that now there are firm specialists available for pretty much anything, ranging from fixing my computer, through insider trading. Plus, of course, committees for professionalism, diversity, women, pro bono work, etc.
Sounds like faculty gatherings at my college -- only they don't have enough conscience to be embarrassed.
I'd happily acknowledge both of those things, but then I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.
Do you think Bernstein is going to honor Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt as a "hero of the First Amendment?"
Also, I agree with those who think it's odd to look only at the 2% of big-firm work that's done pro bono.
The "evidence" in this case, consisting of one anecdote from a British firm.
The "patrician conservatives" are still at the white shoe firms. But to paraphrase Reagan, they didn't leave the category of "conservative," the category left them. Now they're sneered at as "liberal elites" for their inability to recognize that abortion and gay people are the two most pressing issues facing our country.
Stunningly clueless, as already noted above, but too clueless to leave rebuked by only one comment.
I suppose that if the Scouts excluded Jews from leadership roles, instead of "just" gays, then DB might not consider them quite so heroic. But who knows.
Dale never much impressed me, since the "expressive association" holding seemed quite forced, and the "intimate association" rule much more applicable (parents deciding who should educate their kids), but of course anathema to most of the justices in the majority.
So if you think the Boy Scouts are "heroes of the First Amendment" because of Boy Scouts of America v Dale, why don't you think the neo-Nazis in Skokie are also "heroes of the First Amendment" for their First Amendment case?
He doesn't. Which is precisely the point.
BSA was just an example used to illustrate the curious 'selectivity' of their choice of "heroes."
Why do you misread Bernstein even after he corrected Anderson - who was guilty of the same misreading - at 6.14.2008 10:21pm?
In fact, it's ludicrous misreading of Bernstein's post, possible only if you've read him uncharitably in your eagerness to catch him in a non-existent 'contradiction'.
Now, a lot of the establishment in this country fancies itself to be leftist. We talked about this recently in connection with Brandeis university. But this has no practical significance. The position of ordinary working people keeps declining in this country, which would not be the case if the people with all the power were really on the left.
I therefore suspect that our cultural and economic elites are trying to have things both ways. One way they seem to square the circle is to try to push things off on the government. God forbid the private economy should pay the workers enough to live on. Far better (in their mind) to let the private economy be as cutthroat as possible and make up the difference with government programs. Not everyone agrees with this.
Obviously, you know very little about the Scouts. For example, it is they alone that have paid for their spaces in San Diego for decades, the government there wanted them out because of the hurt feelings of a few homosexuals. Like it or not, there are many of us who prefer their children to be heterosexual and aren't interested in glorifying the homosexual lifestyle.
One more thing: Name me on ACLU member who went on to do something important because of what they learned from the ACLU. That list would be quite short, as in none. On the other hand, you could write an almanac on how many great Americans started as Scouts.
Your summary of the original AmLAw article seems a bit confused. It says that:
(1) Clifford Chance sponsored a party for an oral-history book on "the struggle for constitutional rights past and present." Which sounds pretty good, for a law firm or for a libertarian law professor.
(2) Three of the book's subjects attended the party: Janet Nocek, Hany Kiareldeen, and Ray Rogers. From the hyperlinks provided, they sound rather harmless, even laudable, people. Maybe they're somehow "hard left", although there's no evidence provided; but it sounds a bit unlikely, at least about the surburban librarian (Nocek).
(3) Clifford Chance has photos of 19 of the book's subjects posted in its lobby. Whose photos are displayed is not specified in the article, but they range in time from 1920 forward.
(4) The book also discusses/interviews some contemporary people that you find objectionable.
So your indictment of "white shoe" law firms as a class comes down to this -- one firm, Clifford Chance, had a party for an interesting-sounding book that (also) discusses some people you disapprove of.
Pretty weak stuff.
So in your mind, liberal = communist/Marxist.
This is a ridiculous caricature, of course. The vast majority of liberals believe in capitalism, but that modest safeguards are necessary.
Does it make much sense for lawyers to be campaigning for fewer laws, less government, and less regulation?
The example of Republican government between 1994 and 2006 makes me doubt the Republicans as a whole have any interest in reducing the size of government.
Actually, I think liberals are for a different kind of government regulation.
Republicans can hardly assert that they are for "less government regulation" when they have presided over the Executive Branch's biggest power grab in decades. Department of Homeland Security anyone? Massive increase in regulation and bureaucracy. Patriot Act? Ditto. Unprecedented increases in government spending? That too.
Are you guys going to claim you're for "fiscal conservatism" too? Oh yeah, there's that minor expense of god-knows-how-many hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq...
Less government indeed.
The majority of democrats (as a Lockean, I can't abide the current misuse of the word liberal) are honest, kind individuals. However, it is curious that on almost every political issue related to race their view can be used to foment inter-racial resentment and to encourage people to see themselves primarily as members of a class or ethnic group and only secondarily as individuals Is that really very controversial to suggest?
Obama's "baby mama"!
Terrorist fist jab!!
Damn you, liberals!!!
Did you check their stories?
Nocek is one of a group of librarians who challenged Patriot Act gag provisons in court.
Kiaraldeen is a Palestinian who was detained for 19 months based on secret evidence, which turned out to be an allegation by his ex-wife that he once made a threatening remark about Janet Reno.
Rogers is a successful union organizer.
You may not like these people. Despite claiming to be a staunch libertarian you may think challenging a gag order is a terrible thing to do, and that it's OK to imprison people based on classified evidence. You no doubt hate the idea of unions, and think it's just fine to deport people, like Margaret Randall, who hand out political literature the government disapproves of.
All the more evidence of what a limited conception of "liberty" libertarians have.
S&S was notoriously hard left, although each individual partner varies. However, as an institution, S&S was very hard left. The indoctrination of their diversity program was beyond parody. Their pro bono consists almost exclusively of asylum cases for illegal immigrants. They're also, as widely known, in bed with the Gitmo terrorists.
You'd be surprised how much the Biglaw firms pander to the diversity racket. Being a white male in this profession is really a mark against you. It seriously limits your chances at making partner. The firms go crazy competing for minority candidates or women. They're much more likely to make a woman or a minority a partner (non-equity, of course) than to make a similarly qualified white man a partner. Their brochures and intra-firm reports are full of the typical diversity group in almost all of their pictures: a black man or woman, a hispanic woman, an asian man, and standing in the back, a white man (who is obviously gay).
One other thing: if you're a practicing Christian, DO NOT TELL ANYONE. It will destroy your career. Orthodox Jewish? Fine. Atheist? Fine. Lapsed Catholic? Even better, since you can bash the Church with your experience. Evangelical? You'd better shut up. Catholic who likes Ratzinger? Unless you're willing to be fed to the lions, keep quiet.
It would really be a much nicer working environment if the firms just treated people as people. Instead, they are so mad into this collectivism and racial consciousness that it's seriously a distraction sometimes. And of course, most are democrats. Just do an opensecrets search on some of the firms for verification of that. Yes, you'll find a partner or two that donates to Republicans (Guliani, mostly). But it's really outside the norm, and of course doesn't mean that the culture isn't institutionally liberal.
Pro bono work is simply more fun in the majority of cases than our day - and if you believe in the rule of law, you probably feel that everyone is entitled to good representation. I have always thought that the essence of being a lawyer is being able to take your own views out of the equation and using your intellectual capabilities on your client's behalf. That's also what frustrates the general population about lawyers - until they need someone to take their side.
I'm actually several years away from making partner. I'm a mid-to-senior level associate.
Regarding the PLO "propagandists" -- you're assuming that these top flight Jewish attorneys are pro-Likud. Please keep in mind that the majority of Americans Jews aren't as "proud" of Israel's behavior as you and Eugene might be. This one isn't. A PLO propagandist may frustrate "Zionists" (who are overwhelmingly Christian), but "Jews" (as a group) are far more inclined to be sympathetic to some of the goals of the PLO.
Oh, and about the money. Where I live, I am able to survive quite nicely on a federal salary.
I'm not willing to entirely disagree with false dichotomy (I think there may be one) but CC was not honoring lawyers for their commitment to clients the lawyers might find offensive, but was honoring the clients. It is one thing to honor Goldberger (the Nazi march through Skokie Il.) as a hero of free speech rights, but honoring his client (The Nationalist Socialist Party) as a hero of free speech is a different thing entirely.
But you were able to get the information for Obama for free? I smell a conspiracy theory being born.
Great quote there.
As a criminal defense attorney, I suppose I'm "in bed with the criminals".
Many of the original union organizers were communist or socialist. It both fueled their own drive to protect workers and gave their opponents a convenient hook to villanize them. I personally am more willing to honor those who stood up to the Pinkertons and other strike-breakers (they weren't being euphamistic back in the beginning). But there are many who do not view the original union organizers as heroes.
Back to the original question - in my own experience, I do not feel that the big law firms are particularly liberal as a class. Even those who are considered liberal, are still part of the "establishment" as they used to put it. For every example of the Wilmer Hales and the Fried Franks (both considered "liberal"), there is a Kirkland &Ellis or a Gibson Dunn. And to my original point, recently Ken Starr argued a pro bono death penalty case before the Court - is he liberal?
I just glanced at the S&S website. At their DC office 12 of 15 partners were men and there wasn't a non-white face of either sex. Am I missing something?
I assume you are referring to affirmative action? In which case, your argument mischaracterizes reality. It is the social systems that create the "inter-racial resentment and ... encourage people to see themselves primarily as members of a class or ethnic group" that affirmative action seeks to combat. The former existed long before the latter. Thus, you have mistakenly suggested that the principal cause of this resentment is the very programs that are designed to defeat it.
Now, it is possible that affirmative action programs perpetuate this resentment, but your solution -- forever maintaining the status quo -- assuredly will bring about no progress at all.
Excellent, careful lawyering there. Asylee applicants are not illegal immigrants; presumably your impression comes from the ill-informed opinion that all non-citizen immigrants are necessarily illegal. I find your political views to be carefully considered and would like to subscribe to your crazy white man rant newsletter.
I think it would be wrong to claim that most Republicans are racists, but I think there's some basis to claim that most racists are Republicans:
Who assigns these "racial majority" and "racial minority" preferred viewpoints, and where do I go to found out what particular positions I'm supposed to hold?
Actually, they are. If they had legally immigrated to the US, there would be no need for them to seek asylum. The asylum process it there to convert their status from illegal to legal.
There's a difference between being educated and having been given credentials in exchange for tuition.
There's also a difference between being educated and having spent a lot of time in classrooms and/or courtrooms.
Actually, it seems to me that the larger, older, more entrenched, corrupt, and more dependent upon bureaucracy that an institution becomes, the more likely it is to lean Liberal. There is nothing intellectual about it. Classical Conservatism celebrates and empowers the Individual while Classical Liberalism celebrates and empowers the Organization.
And if there is one thing that big law firms and big academia cannot tolerate, it is an individual who thinks and acts for himself and on his own.
Or is it that, as one commenter above noted, the common denominator in journalism, academia, and big law is that they are all large, bureaucratic organizations that engage in groupthink and where those who are part of it do not have to actually worry about meeting a payroll or taking entrepeneurial risks?
And I would NOT equate "the educated classes" with journalism, academia, or the elite law firms. For one thing, "the educated classes" as a group are not nearly as arrogant as those three.
The bulk of the great political philosophers from Socrates to Nietzsche rejected political equality. Ergo, political equality has little intellectual merit. QED.
The catlyst for racial realignment of our major political parties was President Johnson's persuading Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and open housing legislation in 1968. Governor Wallace's independent candidacy for president in 1968 gave Southern whites and urban whites in the rest of the nation, who were ancestral Democrats, a way station to vote their fears and resentments without actually voting Republican. The Nixon "Southern Strategy" was designed to convert the Wallace voters to the Republican Party.
The late Lee Atwater, former Republican National Committee chairman (and mentor to Karl Rove), explained in 1980:
Southern Politics in the 1990's, by Alexander P. Lamis
What with this kind of racial pandering, combined with the influence in the current day Republican Party of buffoons like Rush Limbaugh and the late Jerry Falwell and charlatans like Ralph Reed and Ted Haggard, the Twenty-First Century Republican Party is simply not a respectable association for well-bred people to embrace. To paraphrase John Stuart Mill, Republicans are not necessarily race-bating fundies, but most race-bating fundies are Republicans.
The strongest metric proposed is political contributions but that still doesn't necessarily mean much. To use contributions as an accurate measure you'd have to control for perceived viability of each party (the British press already considers Obama the presumptive next president with an occasional nod to the fact McCain has the poor grace not to have conceded yet) and whether the contributions are meant to support or to buy influence (tough call, but bundlers probably have an interest in influencing) among other things.
I'm not willing to go so far as to say that big law isn't liberal, just that while the metrics are indicative of such a trend they don't constitute irrefutable proof. As a note about the honoring of these "heroes" of the left despite any negative attention it will still be a net a PR gain for CC, and BigLaw firms could have hosted 50 similar events for left heroes without one being by chance receiving any negative attention while an event honoring right "heroes" like the BSA would result in a net less to the public image of any BigLaw firm (Headline: "Gay rights advocates protest Covington event honoring the Boy Scouts of America, an organization noted for it's anti-sexual policies"). Simple pragmatism not to honor the BSA and to honor left heroes.
According to the anecdote, Moynihan told Russert, "Don't let them intimidate you. You have something they can't learn."
That something is a humility and willingness to listen that made Russert so respected--and the lack of which makes some people (including certain commenters on this site) fatuous jerks.
Erg, I think you are confusing asylum with amnesty. Some who come to the US (legally and illegally) are doing so for asylum and once in the US apply for asylum, but the "regular" procedure is to apply for asylum before entering the US. Regular is in scare quotes to denote that while the irregular procedure is more common, it is done as an exception to the "regular" procedure.
Bragging about helping an openly anti-gay group like the Boy Scouts would not be good for business. The Boy Scouts used to be in the "mainstreamity," but they decided that discriminating against gay people was critical to their mission. Now, the mainstream, especially the young mainstream, is strongly pro-gay, and becoming more so.
As for those of you who read my post as advocating that law firms honor the Boy Scouts as heroes of the First Amendment, or as defending the substantive positions of the Boy Scouts that led to the Dale litigation, you need some serious work on your reading comprehension skills.
Can you please explain to me how that description is remotely applicable to a law firm, which is surely an entreprenurial enterprise which, last I checked, does in fact have a payroll to meet?