Do you mean diversity (def: variety; multiformity) or "diversity" (def: considering the skin color and/or ethnic background of individuals as a primary attribute in making decisions, and disregarding or downplaying other aspects of diversity, such as social class, political ideology, religion, etc.)? The latter is indeed antithetical to conservatism, as commonly understood.

DavidBernstein said:

Do you mean diversity (def: variety; multiformity) or "diversity" (def: considering the skin color and/or ethnic background of individuals as a primary attribute in making decisions, and disregarding or downplaying other aspects of diversity, such as social class, political ideology, religion, etc.)? The latter is indeed antithetical to conservatism, as commonly understood.

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.

Sorry, I should have said "the non-conservatism of law firms."

That's what I get for writing unwieldy sentences.

"Prevalent myth"? I don't know anyone who thinks that prestigious law firms are conservative. They are liberal and most people who know anything about the political tendencies of law firms are aware of this.

Quinn: The only thing really at stake here, i.e., the major difference between liberals and conservatives on race, is "should racial minorities get special preferences?" (If you look across the broad range of issues tangentially related to race--welfare, abortion, school vouchers, etc, it doesn't seem that liberals agree with "minorities" more than conservatives, overall).

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'm an associate at one of the most liberal of the "white shoe" firms. Some office conversations are quite hilarious when the other particants assume everyone in their company thinks like them. You get someone saying something to the effect of "I hate/can't stand conservatives" or "God, how could people be so stupid as to vote for George W." Sometimes I can't resist and return it with a wisecrack. When called out, they usually have the good sense to be embarressed about their remark.

anon252 said:

Quinn: The only thing really at stake here, i.e., the major difference between liberals and conservatives on race, is "should racial minorities get special preferences?" (If you look across the broad range of issues tangentially related to race--welfare, abortion, school vouchers, etc, it doesn't seem that liberals agree with "minorities" more than conservatives, overall).

Very few people turn down speical treatment when offered to them.

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?

Is the "PC-ness" of large law firms a result only of "leftist" proclivities? It seems to me that most large firms might institute affirmative action programs and "celebrations of diversity" to avoid lawsuits. If sued for discrimination, one of the large firm's defenses would be "we don't discriminate....look at how accepting we are of diversity." (I don't know if such a defense actually holds up in court, as I am not, never have been, and never will be a lawyer.)

I think there is no doubt that the elite element of the profession- represented by the big firms, the ABA leadership, and the academy- embrace a sort of NPR, wine-drinking liberalism.

I think this is all very true, but you might reflect on why this is.

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.

Hmm. The NPR liberals at law firms today and the patrician conservatives of yesteryear do have something in common--they reflect the views of the "establishment," which I suppose is exactly what you expect large law firms to do, given that large corporate clients are a very significant part of that establishment.

Matt_T said:

[MQuinn said:] 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?

All you're pointing out is that the majority rules in a democracytic republic. Why wouldn't the majority, however you slice it, retain power?

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?

I find this comment extremely immature

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 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?

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.

"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'???"

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).

By the way, the lawyers who represent the Klan, Nazis, Communists, terrorists, etc. in First Amendment cases may well be "heroes of the First Amendment" if they take unpopular clients to stand up for an important constitutional principle. For that matter, the lawyer who represents a criminal can also be a hero if he uncovers a pattern of misbehavior by the police. But I'm surely not going to call the murderer he represents, who beats the rap because of the misconduct of the police, a "hero of the Fourth Amendment."

I think most people who even know what the phrase "white shoe law firm" means realize that these firms, along with all the other big law firms, whatever their particular taste in footwear coloration, are not conservative in the modern American political sense. These firms are, however, quite naturally, fairly economically conservative in the style of most of the corporate world. And I think "corporate" is the word most people today associate with law firms, not "conservative." I don't have actual data on it, but I'm not sure the myth about conservative white-shoe firms is really alive anymore (maybe in Grisham novels or something? I don't read him so I couldn't say).

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.

Katherine, I'm obviously talking about political pro bono work, not "helping poor people." Most non-criminal ACLU cases, for example, are not about "helping poor people," but pushing a particular social agenda.

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?

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.

ACLU issues-based litigation strikes me as a very small % of law firm pro bono work. Probably a larger % than, oh, suits for the Alliance Defense Fund, but what's least common at all is for firms to take on a pro bono case that might anger a major client (e.g. suing a defense contractor). Opposing the gov't in liberal causes, maybe.

The AmLaw article linked by me states that C.C. will next year will "commit at least 4,000 hours, or about 20 percent of the pro bono hours performed by its U.S. lawyers, to civil rights and civil liberties cases in the United States." Civil rights and civil liberties can be approached from a range of political perspectives (e.g., Grutter can be seen as a "civil rights" case, and my old firm had, to much controversy, a case defending a church that Hawaii was trying to force to hire a gay organist), but the left perspective dominates.

Matt_T: It was your suggestion that the majority, "however you slice it," should rule, that I took issue with. The racial majority should not always rule. I cite as precedent Brown v. Bd. of Ed. In fact, the structure of our Constitution negates your suggestion that the majority always rules. I cite as precedent Art. III.

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.

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.

I think there is some cognitive dissonance that the left, which is supposed to be the home of the "workers" fighting the "capitalists" is in many ways dominated instead by the "new class" of well-educated, and generally well-off lawyers, professors, government workers, etc., who, not coincidentally, benefit from the growth of government.

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.

Here's a fine point of legal trivia: Is there anyone out there who knows what the surname of the plaintiff in Dale v. BSA was before he changed it?

Hint: It would have made for a case title that rivals Hardwick v. Georgia.

I found several sites that claim that James Dale's original name was James Dick. However, the only source, when cross-referenced, is a Time Magazine story. It may be true, it may not.

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.

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that American blacks have been reliable Democrats since Reconstruction? I think you need some remedial history lessons.

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.

This is completely wrong. In fact, as income increases, voters are more likely to be Republicans and less likely to be Democrats. See, e.g., the 2004 Presidential election results, where Bush beat Kerry 63-35 among the richest 3% of voters, 58-42 among the next 4%, and 57-42 among the 11% below that. (There is an effect that resembles the one you're talking about if you measure class status by educational attainment, but the idea that well-off people tend to be Democrats is complete nonsense.)

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?

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).

The term "left" as used in this thread, and most others, has no analytic meaning, but is rather used as a pejorative. It is mere name calling. You could all do better to define your terms.

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."

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.

If you look at how the Boy Scouts are, and how they learn to take care of themselves and look to almighty God as opposed to all-mighty government to take care of problems, it is no surprise why they get no respect from liberals.

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.)

what a pointless rant, Bernstein. even for Bernstein.

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.

Yawn. Regardless of the private preferences of individual attorneys, the work these firms do is to help corporations against those who feel wronged by their activities, whether it's their employees or those affected by their products. They reify the status quo; they do not seek to change it.

[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.]

Most pro bono work at large firms has no real political content. Civil rights litigation is frequently litigation aimed at obtaining compliance with existing law, not social transformation. Large law firms reflect their client bases -- commitment to affirmative action, etc., is driven more by concern for complying with express and implicit requests from clients and marketing than any political will. (Many Fortune 500 companies have explicit racial and gender targets for law firms.)

I work at a very liberal Northeast firm and was appalled recently when someone referred to the "idiots" who voted for Bush. That, in my mind, is the problem with modern political discourse. Am I happy with Bush? Of course not. But between Bush and Kerry, reasonable people could have and did disagree. This incessant effort to demonize and mock political opponents is really dividing the country, so that people tend to live in one cocoon (red states) or another (blue states). A little intellectual honesty would be refreshing (e.g., Republicans should acknowledge that Bush lacks managerial competence and that his foreign policy has been unnecessarily provocative; Democrats should acknowledge that some of their candidate's economic policies (anti-trade/pro-Union, and resistance to indexing capital gains taxes) are incredibly short-sighted in a global marketplace). I don't expect that sort of intellectual honesty from politicians; I would expect it from otherwise talented lawyers at good firms. But that's what happens when you're in a cocoon — you forget that there are other reasonable viewpoints.

Some office conversations are quite hilarious when the other particants assume everyone in their company thinks like them. You get someone saying something to the effect of "I hate/can't stand conservatives" or "God, how could people be so stupid as to vote for George W." Sometimes I can't resist and return it with a wisecrack. When called out, they usually have the good sense to be embarressed about their remark.

Sounds like faculty gatherings at my college -- only they don't have enough conscience to be embarrassed.

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?

Do you think Bernstein is going to honor Hustler Magazine publisher Larry Flynt as a "hero of the First Amendment?"

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

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.

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?)

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?

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'.

What Adam B. and Xrayspec said. If you take big firm or big corporation money and live like an upper middle class or wealthy person, you aren't a leftist. Symbolic acts and sentiment don't matter in the least. A real leftist would be on the side of labor.

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.

Professor Bernstein --

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.

Having just read the AmLaw article linked, I agree with pireader. The post seriously misrepresents the event in question.

I observe many people adopt the politics of the group that does the most for their personal welfare. Liberals are for far more government regulation of society than are conservatives. Lawyers make their living dealing with laws and regulations. The more laws and regulatione there are, the more money lawyers make. Hence, lawyers tend to support the agenda that promises to do the most for their personal welfare.

Does it make much sense for lawyers to be campaigning for fewer laws, less government, and less regulation?

"Liberals are for far more government regulation of society than are conservatives."

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.

"...used to foment inter-racial resentment...

Obama's "baby mama"!

Terrorist fist jab!!

Damn you, liberals!!!

Come on, David, get serious. The honorees were Janet Nocek, Hany Kiareldeen, and Ray Rogers.

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.

ABASRP--I see someone is bitter about not making partner.

ABASRP--I see someone is bitter about not making partner.

I'm actually several years away from making partner. I'm a mid-to-senior level associate.

Big law firms suck. I am so glad to be working in a government law office where I basically work a 40 hour week, get to do work that I find interesting, I don't have to worry about bringing in clients (and keeping a bunch of asshole clients who I wouldn't associate with at all if I had the choice), and I know the management isn't going to raise the number of billable hours. Again.

Oh, and about the money. Where I live, I am able to survive quite nicely on a federal salary.

Lol, I just checked out my law firm on opensecrets. My firm has given Obama hundreds of thousands of dollars the past year. No big suprise I guess.

Since when did opensecrets start charging for detailed information? I tried to see how much it has given to Republicans, but I can't figure out a way without the charge page coming up.

But you were able to get the information for Obama for free? I smell a conspiracy theory being born.

Anecdote does not equal data, Prof. Bernstein.

ABASRP

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?

Toby said:

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?

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.

"African-Americans tend to vote Democratic because, rightly or wrongly, many perceive the Republican Party as the party of white racists"

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:

[a] study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did ... "George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

Asylee applicants are not illegal immigrants; presumably your impression comes from the ill-informed opinion that all non-citizen immigrants are necessarily illegal.

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.

"seems as if the educated classes are rejecting conservatism all across the spectrum"


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.

I can say that in my law firm, a well respected mid-sized firm, not a week goes by without some diversity event mailing, some hailing of a pro bono client that inevitably strikes me as barely fit for polite society, and the constant mailings of ethnic- or gender-based events, which are never, ever male or of European heritage. When I scanned the opensecrets.org site I saw that the partners that do contribute to political campaigns overwhelmingly contribute to democrat candidates. It's a lonely frustrating life being a conservative in any law firm of a decent size these days.

seems as if the educated classes are rejecting conservatism all across the spectrum, doesn't it? Obviously a vast left-wing conspiracy is a more plausible explanation than the alternative, that conservatism simply isn't a very intellectually meritorious philosophy.

The bulk of the great political philosophers from Socrates to Nietzsche rejected political equality. Ergo, political equality has little intellectual merit. QED.

Thanks UG, you've put me on the path to discovering my problem with DB's argument. The metrics (the political content of their pro bono work, the voting and contribution patterns of their partners, or their willingness to embrace politically correct agendas) of liberalness are more likely to be metrics of other things, like pragmatism. It seems likely that pro-bono work for a "leftist" cause will generate more favorable reactions than similar work for a "rightist" cause, the Boy Scouts aren't honored as 1st amendment heros while Janet Nocek who courageously chose to obey what she felt was an unjust law is so honored. Given that white shoe firms are concentrated in urban areas, more Democratic than Republican, voting for a Democrat may be the only viable choice (Chicago **cough, cough**), and even when there is a viable Republican choice it is often still a liberal (Bloomberg **cough, cough**). A willingness to embrace PC agendas is obvious, it merely indicates a pragmatic desire to avoid the endless lawsuits that stem from anything which can be construed as being non-PC.

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.

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.

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.

Regarding the PLO "propagandists" -- you're assuming that these top flight Jewish attorneys are pro-Likud.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt you'd find 1% of the Jewish population of the U.S. that was sympathetic to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine circa 1987, or today, for that matter.

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.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure how the description applies to journalism either, since, with the exception public broadcasting, journalism outlets are also not subsidized by the state. For that matter, neither are private universities. I suppose the argument could be made that well-endowed liberal bastions like Harvard are so rich that for all practical purposes they don't need to worry about fiscal policy, that argument surely doesn't apply to other equally liberal but less rich private universities.

"Bragging about helping an openly anti-gay group like the Boy Scouts would not be good for business."

What about honoring an attorney who disagrees with the Boy Scouts' policy, but defends them on First Amendment principle? Is that somehow worse than honoring lawyers who represent Guantanomo detainees, PLO shills, Communists, etc., much less honoring the clients themselves?
I'd be very interested to know which subjects of the book are actually honored in C.C.'s lobby. Maybe only the uncontroversial ones, like Fred Korematsu?

Guest101,

Let me use simple words. Maybe then you can understand my point (though I suspect you do not want to). If you work for a large organization where you, as an employee, do not have to worry about payroll, you can become part of the "group" and fit in. Bureaucracies are not unique to government--and neither is groupthink.

Moreover, while I can see some argument for why business owners' views regarding fiscal and economic issues might be granted some special degree of authority given that they are on the front lines, so to speak, where policy meets the real world, I fail to see how one's competence to assess social issues (on which all of the above groups are also notably liberal) is at all affected by one's entreprenurial status. If it makes you happy to believe that everyone whose views are to the left of your own are simply zombies brainwashed by the ruling elite and striving to fit in to the left-wing culture established at elite institutions by leftover Communist sleeper agents or whoever the ultimate villains may be, go right ahead and think that; I suspect there's nothing I could say to rebut that view. But it's pretty damn condescending and, it seems to me, a lot less plausible than the alternative I noted above.

Dave N,

I fail to see how anything I have said is either 1) a "rant"; 2) "invective"; or 3) in any way an unfair characterization of your position. Your argument, in your own words, is that the institutions that I noted in my initial post are left-leaning not because they tend to attract highly educated individuals, but because they are "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." I then queried how it could be the case that any of the organizations we're discussing, with the possible exception of state-funded public universities, met the criteria you described (i.e., lack a need to worry about making payroll or taking entreprenurial risks), to which you responded "[l]et me use simple words [hardly consistent with the high-mindedness you now profess]... [i]f you work for a large organization where you, as an employee, do not have to worry about payroll, you can become part of the 'group' and fit in."

On the basis of your own words, it seems pretty apparent to me that the only people, in your view, who are competent hold political opinions are those who "need to worry about making payroll" and "take entreprenurial risks"-- if that class is not more or less synonymous with business owners, I'd like for you to explain to me (in small words, obviously), how that's the case. Moreover, if you're using the term "groupthink" in some sense that does not mean "lacking capacity to think for oneself," or at least not exercising that capacity in reaching political judgments, please explain it. In short, it seems to me that my understanding of your argument is perfectly consistent with your own words, and nothing you said in your last post even addressed those points, much less rebutted them.

I (along with several others) responded by noting that journalism, academia, and biglaw are not synonymous with "the educated classes."

Fair enough. Most scientists I know are pretty liberal, too.

Or that they have accepted without question the dominant anti-individualist, anti-capitalist ideas being taught by their professors.

Yes, that's a possibility as well. Either the majority of leaders in the intellecually demanding fields of law, academia, journalism, and science are in fact incapable of exercising basic critical thinking skills, or people who hold political beleifs different from your own might actually have good reasons for doing so. I think the more plausible answer is obvious, but I suspect we'll disagree as to which that is.

"...even if that lawyer or his firm devotes his or their free time to springing terrorists from Gitmo so they can return to the battlefield...

They may also be devoting their time to freeing innocent persons. I direct your attention to this detailed analysis of some 66 former inmates of Gitmo and other US military prisons:

America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men

Akhtiar was among the more than 770 terrorism suspects imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are the men the Bush administration described as "the worst of the worst."

But Akhtiar was no terrorist. American troops had dragged him out of his Afghanistan home in 2003 and held him in Guantanamo for three years in the belief that he was an insurgent involved in rocket attacks on U.S. forces. The Islamic radicals in Guantanamo's Camp Four who hissed "infidel" and spat at Akhtiar, however, knew something his captors didn't: The U.S. government had the wrong guy.

"He was not an enemy of the government, he was a friend of the government," a senior Afghan intelligence officer told McClatchy. Akhtiar was imprisoned at Guantanamo on the basis of false information that local anti-government insurgents fed to U.S. troops, he said.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

Guest101,

I have reached the conclusion that you do not want a discussion. You want to condescend and then create straw arguments that I never made.

I have better uses of my time than to engage in discussion with someone obviously acting in bad faith.

"detailed analysis of some 66 former inmates of Gitmo and other US military prisons"

A similar detailed analysis can be found if you click through here.

"You want to condescend and then create straw arguments that I never made."

He used your words to show that you did indeed make the arguments that you deny making.

"I have better uses of my time than to engage in discussion with someone obviously acting in bad faith."

English translation: 'please don't expect me to take responsibility for the words I actually said.'

Funny...I didn't say a word about being opposed to granting asylum. Why would you assume that I was opposed (or conservative for that matter)? In fact I have represented clients who have illegally entered the United States that are seeking asylum. Last one waded across the Rio Grande. As illegal as can be. That doesn't mean he wasn't a refugee entitled to asylum.

You may be picking at nits a bit...I suppose it is possible that a person could come here on vacation or to study legally and then seek permission to say as refugee....but if someone came here with the intent to stay (to immigrate), they are not legal (therfore "illegal"?) immigrants until their status is converted to legal permanent resident. This from the US Govt. website...

Asylum is a form of protection that allows individuals who are in the United States to remain here, provided that they meet the definition of a refugee and are not barred from either applying for or being granted asylum, and eventually to adjust their status to lawful permanent resident.

Every year, thousands of people come to the United States in need of protection because they have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Those found eligible for asylum are permitted to remain in the United States.

Maybe you would prefer that I use the term "not yet legal immigrant"? But in any event, if someone is a legal immigrant, there is no reason or need for them to seek asylum.

javert: "Or that they have accepted without question the dominant anti-individualist, anti-capitalist ideas being taught by their professors."

Above Elliot Reed helpfully cited these election statistics, which show clearly that rich people voted for Bush. I think no one has mentioned what these statistics show with regard to education: people with graduate degrees voted for Kerry.

This is consistent with a statement made earlier: "the educated classes are rejecting conservatism," because "conservatism simply isn't a very intellectually meritorious philosophy." The alternate interpretation (as implied by javert) is that high educational achievement is a sign of being inclined to accept ideas "without question." I don't believe that. On the contrary. But I do believe that Republicanism is a sign of being inclined to have a bad attitude about education. That attitude is reflected in javert's comment. It's also reflected in this comment, from another poster:

There's a difference between being educated and having been given credentials in exchange for tuition.

It's also reflected in a comment above about "Harvard types."

One of the many remarkable things about the modern GOP is its naked contempt for education. Bush is always delighted to put his rampant anti-intellectualism on display, like when he announced that bad grades lead to success (text, video). The anti-education rhetoric in this thread is in the same mold. And is also moldy.

ken: "Could it be that elite law firms tend to the left because left-leaning politics is a ticket to admission to the circle of the elite?"

Rich people voted for Bush. So I think you have to explain your novel theory, that rich is not a reasonable synonym for 'elite.'

A prominent partner in my white shoe firm has publicly stated that, at a bare minimum, anyone who works for him must believe in both global warming and evolution. If you don't, not only shouldn't you work for him, but you don't even belong as part of polite society. You should be locked up in a padded room.

M.
righto, I forgot to mention it was a application for refugee status made outside the US followed by an application for asylum on entering the US. my bad, especially light of the fact that I also seem to have been wrong about it being a confusion of asylum and amnesty, it seems to be confusion about the nature of what is a legal immigrant and what a legal immigrant is subject to. I cannot go into more detail without dripping sarcasm so the short form is: legal immigrants may be sent to other countries for a variety of reasons and asylum is a way of letting them stay in the US because human decency prevents of us from sending someone who forgot to tell UCIS they moved down the block to a country where they will be mutilated for the crime of being a woman.

Jukeboxgrad,

Your argument about voting for Bush making people not conservative is brilliant given that he ran a race against another candidate whose platform was clearly for small government.

This is consistent with a statement made earlier: "the educated classes are rejecting conservatism," because "conservatism simply isn't a very intellectually meritorious philosophy." The alternate interpretation (as implied by javert) is that high educational achievement is a sign of being inclined to accept ideas "without question." I don't believe that. On the contrary. But I do believe that Republicanism is a sign of being inclined to have a bad attitude about education.

Actually, I'm pretty sure going to graduate school (which is where you really see education correlate with voting patterns in a big way) is mostly a sign of wanting admission to, or advancement in, a profession like teaching, social work, engineering, business, law, medicine, nursing, or ministry.

elliot: "a sign of wanting admission to, or advancement in, a profession like teaching, social work, engineering, business, law, medicine, nursing, or ministry."

Right. But the question remains: why do those groups vote D? Two competing theories have been advanced.

Jukebox grad says:

Rich people voted for Bush. So I think you have to explain your novel theory, that rich is not a reasonable synonym for 'elite.'

I have no statistics readily at hand; neither did I notice you quote any. But what do you mean by "rich"? If you mean reasonably well to do, perhaps you are correct. On the otther hand, I once heard true wealth humorously defined as being in the situation that having more money would not change the car you drove, the house you lived in, what you did with your time during the day, or who you slept with. Again, I suspect most people in that situation are Democrats.

Lawyers as a group are notably left-wing. Why is that? I'd like to see the contributors here explore that question further.

"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."

You claim that lawyers work against their own economic best interests because they are cultural snobs who despise large sections of America.

I'm not disagreeing, just clarifying the point. What's the matter with New York?

That said, I don't claim to be a leftist myself. Not even an NPR liberal. I like capitalism. However, I do think the rewards of capitalism should be distributed more equitably than they are at the moment. We seem to have gotten rather top heavy in this country, with executive and top professional compensation way out line with what ordinary people make. I'd like to see this change, but I want the change to be cultural (remember the concepts of obligation and shame?) rather than imposed by the government. Don't know what that makes me -- perhaps someone who would like to see the return of a certain kind of patrician conservative.

That's an interesting position and not too far from my own view, but I think everyone, libertarians included, would agree that left to its own devices, the free market can't and won't correct the inegalitarian distribution of wealth. The point of disagreement is whether that's a problem. It seems to me you're fooling yourself a bit, recognizing the existence of the problem while insisting that the unregulated market will correct it, while all of our historical experience with unregulated markets says that the notions of obligation and shame that you mention don't carry much motivational force against more concrete market incentives. So which do you choose in the end: assuring an equitable distribution of goods through government-mandated redistribution, or accepting the growing gap in wealth as an inevitable cost of maintaining laissez-faire doctrinal purity? There are pros and cons to both, but your suggestion that you can have both egalitarian distribution and an entirely unregulated market is a pipe dream.

"So which do you choose in the end: assuring an equitable distribution of goods through government-mandated redistribution, or accepting the growing gap in wealth as an inevitable cost of maintaining laissez-faire doctrinal purity?"

It's not an either/or question. Both egalitarian distribution and laissez-faire doctrinal purity are impossible, as a practical matter. Both are silly ideologies. Both owe more to Marx than to anyone else. You don't find a lot of interest in laissez-faire doctrinal purity in the works of Adam Smith or of Hayek.

ken: "I have no statistics readily at hand; neither did I notice you quote any."

The statistics have already been cited in this thread, twice (once directly and once indirectly). And now for the third time.

"what do you mean by 'rich' ?"

Bush won every group making over $50k, and lost every group making less. But it's especially striking to notice that he won the over-$200k group by an especially large margin (63/35%).

"I suspect most people in that situation are Democrats."

I think your description of a certain "situation" is quite vague. But no matter what interpretation I apply, it seems to me that the data proves your claim is wrong. (I think we are both making the reasonable simplification that Democrat=Kerry voter.)

sig: "You seem to be under the impression that conservatives had a choice between Bush and some small government candidate."

Someone else already made that comment. And I already responded, here.

There seems to be a sudden outbreak of posting-without-reading-prior-comments.

"The words 'liberal' and 'left' nowdays denote a devotion to a specific sort of hierarchy, to centralised power, and to rule by an elite."

Since Bush's background is nothing if not "elite," and given that he and the GOP have gone to great lengths to centralize power, your comment is howlingly humorous.

Since Bush's background is nothing if not "elite," and given that he and the GOP have gone to great lengths to centralize power, your comment is howlingly humorous.


A quick google on your name suggests that you are hardly in a position to call other peoples remarks "howlingly humorous". As for the "substance" of your comment - that would be a devastating come-back, if I had ever said that Bush was not a member of the "elite". Or a conservative. But don't let me interfere with your molestation of strawmen.


OK, I think I get it. A conservative is someone who is so committed to the idea of small government that he would prefer to vote for the candidate with a proven track record of greatly expanding executive power, bureaucracy and spending, as compared with the candidate who is merely being accused (by his hypocritical opponent) of having that potential.

Talk about "howlingly humorous"! I don't know which is funnier. The idea that you give a rats patootie about the size of government, or the idea that John Kerry was an unknown quantity on this issue.

Based on the comments you're making here, it's clear that you'll be supporting John McCain over Obama. Smaller government being such a passion of yours and all.

As for pro bono work, pushing a "left" agenda is hard to square with what firms do on the litigation defense and corporate transactional side

I'n not sure why you think so. You seem to regard the words "corporate" and "left" as being antithetical. But corporations and the left don't seem to agree.


By contrast, what corporate client really cares whether Guantanamo detainees get habeas corpus rights or not? (A deeper question is, why is the position that they should not considered "conservative"?)

I don't think that's that deep a question. It's a conservative position because until the USSC made up that right a few days ago (ignoring their own precedent in the process) no such right ever existed.

"I don't think that's that deep a question. It's a conservative position because until the USSC made up that right a few days ago (ignoring their own precedent in the process) no such right ever existed."

Unless the precedent (Eisentrager) itself was not on point factually, and unless the Court reconsidered/considered for the first time the precise contours of constitutional (i.e. pre-dating Eisentrager) habeas corpus v. statutory habeas corpus when applied to persons of unknown citizenship and unknown status (i.e., they might be "enemy combatants," they might not be), who are claiming the right to challenge the legality of their detention and the procedural adequacy of combatant status review tribunals before being tried for alleged offenses by military commissions. Many would say that a vigorous defense of the Great Writ is the most conservative (in the sense of ancient and legally hallowed) position on this issue, and that it is the Addington/Yoo/DOJ theory that is radical and "made up."

I think most people who even know what the phrase "white shoe law firm"...

How remarkable that in the course of 180+ reactions to this DB post about the culture of "white shoe" law firms today, no one has commented on a great irony here. Many of the old, "white shoe" firms so keen on "diversity" now, started out and continued for many years to be decidedly anti-diversity. While "white shoe" may have been an allusion to footwear, either the white spats that gentlemen wore so long ago or preppy white bucksin shoes with red crepe soles, the term was generally understood to mean "WASPs only," and it was practically synonymous with "No Jews." Catholics were somewhat less disfavored; women, blacks, and other ethnic minorities weren't even in contention.

I'm not a fan of many expressions of "diversity," "multiculturalism," and the like, but I prefer them to the overt, malignant bigotry that the law profession took for granted in the not so distant past.

Professor Bernstein, would you really prefer a return to that genteel (gentile) "patrician conservatism" of yesteryear with all that it entailed over the much more egalitarian/meritocratic present in law schools and law firms?

I'm not taking sides here, but as a student at NYU law, I received this invitation email today:

"Annual Pride Art Exhibition &Reception at Clifford Chance

In celebration of Gay Pride,

Clifford Chance is holding a simultaneous exhibition in its London and New York offices of artwork by openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender artists."

etc. etc.