On: Mitt Romney -- Some advice

by: Joshua Howell

There is a wall which keeps Republicans and African Americans separated, incapable of engaging in healthy and meaningful dialogue.

Consider the three attempts of this campaign season alone.

First came Donald Trump: wealthy, tanned, caught in what was apparently the 1950s. This marvelously detached billionaire thought it good politics to boast of his “great relationship with ‘the Blacks.’” (For humor’s sake, imagine President Obama attempting to assuage racial divides by speaking of his superb relationship with “the Whites.”)

Then followed Ron Paul. He, with surprising ingenuousness, thought African Americans would overlook his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the racist passages of his newsletter. They didn't, nor should Mr. Paul have expected them to. 

Last was Mitt Romney, whose needless ejaculations of “who let the dogs out?” and “bling bling” (on, no kidding, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day) had all the trappings of an overseas tourist who doesn’t speak the language -- well intentioned, naive and a tad insulting.

Mr. Romney's "quiet push" for African American voters.

And yet despite these foibles (or, perhaps, because of them), one should be heartened to learn of Mr. Romney’s “quiet push” for African American voters.

Make no mistake: this attempt is destined for failure. Many he visited were “personally offended” and chanted persecutions of “Get out, Romney, get out!”

But conversation must commence somewhere, even this one. The problem with Mr. Romney's “push” has little to do with his tawdry slip of the tongue, nor the fact that he is white and the president is black.

For most African Americans, voting Democrat is akin to church on Sunday and soul food with family -- it is a cultural norm, this informed by history, political philosophy and economics. It is a norm not merely inflected by remembrances of the Civil Rights Act, the necessity of welfare, nor black-Democrat politicians. To the contrary, preferences for big government long predate them.

This left-leaning loyalty harkens back to Reconstruction, when the country, tired and wan, its back broken after four years of civil war, offered newly manumitted slaves work at the Postal Service -- otherwise known as a facet of that pernicious federal government which had recently trampled states’ rights.

The relationship progressed into the Jim Crow Era, when “the Blacks”, unable to find private sector work, flooded into public sector jobs to make do and feed their families.

And who could forget Ronald Reagan, who slowed the rate of government growth and cut spending on social programs as part of what was deemed “trickle-down economics?”

(Alas, none of that wealth managed to “trickle down” to African Americans, leaving many to understand J.K. Galbraith’s criticism when he said, with marvelous imagery: “If you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows.”)

But regarding today: Nearly 20 percent of gainfully employed African Americans work for some form of government (the largest percentage of any racial group) and these make 25 percent more than their counterparts in the private sector.

Simply put: For African Americans, big government has yielded big results, and they intend to keep it that way into the foreseeable future.

Time and time again, lurches in equality have come with the enlargement of DC at the expense of states’ rights. In between, the slow yet substantial rise of the black-middle class has come with jobs in the public sphere. That’s good ol’ fashioned tax-and-spend economics, directly antithetical to Republican orthodoxy.

Did Mr. Romney deserve the welcome he received? Certainly not. It was mean-spirited and distasteful. But his difficulties arise because few (if any) of his policies speak to the aforementioned. Yes, there has been a precipitous drop in the availability of government jobs (not to mention the current fiasco of a postal service). But cutbacks would surely have been worse under a Republican Administration.

If Mr. Romney is earnest in his quest for African American votes, it is imperative he understand that the black community’s support for the left is like a boulder, dense and large -- one election won’t change a thing. It can't be destroyed with dynamite, it must be eroded as with a patient stream over decades.

It will take shifts in policies and changing norms for this to occur, yet it’s worth doing. Such a transition would not only benefit Republicans, but -- now having two parties vying for their attention -- “the Blacks” as well.

On: George Will - What Benefit is Trump to Romney?

This news site, though devoted to all things left, nevertheless admires George Will and his erudite commentary from the right. This past Sunday, Mr. Will dubbed Donald Trump a "bloviating ignoramus" and proclaimed he was "redundant evidence that if your net worth is high enough, your IQ can be very low and you can intrude on American politics."

My my.

Read more from Politico.

This Memorial Day, the Best Stories on How We Treat Our Troops

by Blair Hickman ProPublica, May 25, 2012, 11:53 a.m.

We rounded up some of the best accountability journalism for U.S. soldiers in our recent wars. Check them out while you're basking on a boat this weekend, and remember the reason for this federal holiday.

Armored Humvees are in Short Supply, October 2003, News Observer When the insurgency in Iraq started, the U.S. Army didn't have enough armored Humvees to protect its troops. As soldiers died in vehicles not built to withstand combat, the Army boosted their orders. But that takes time. While waiting for requests to be filled, soldiers rigged their own with sandbags.

Barrage of Bullets Drowned Out Cries of Comrades, The Washington Post, 2004 Part 1 and Part 2 After NFL-star-turned-soldier Pat Tillman died in Afghanistan, the Army took weeks to admit friendly fire had killed him. Over a year later, records emerged indicating they'd also withheld details of his death by fratricide, and the case spun into a saga of an investigation. When we asked national security expert Andrew Exum for a seminal piece on the case, he replied:

@ProPublica Pretty sure that article is still waiting to be written. I would start research with the 2007 IG report: 1.usa.gov/h8EaXM

2014 Andrew Exum (@abumuqawama) May 24, 2012

Contributed by @BradsNews

Behind The Walls of Ward 54, Salon, February 2005 Soldiers at Walter Reed said that the facility's psychiatric care was outdated and inadequate -- heavily medicating soldiers in "lockdown wards," offering group therapy that often didn't address wartime experiences, and in some cases, hesitating to diagnose PTSD at all.

Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration, at Army's Top Medical Facility, The Washington Post, February, 2007 The first article in a Pulitzer-Prize-winning investigation of neglect and bureaucratic failures at Walter Reed. While the surgical hospital was held up as a paragon of care, hundreds of soldiers went unnoticed in decrepit outpatient wards with few services or oversight. Soldiers described the experience as living in a chapter from Catch-22.

Arlington National Cemetery, Salon, 2009 Mismarked graves. Botched documentation. Unknown remains. Trashed personal mementos. In a yearlong investigation, Salon discovered grave errors at Arlington National Cemetery that pushed some families to extremes to make sure their loved ones were buried correctly -- and that it was really them.

The Battle of Wanat, The Washington Post, October 2009 On July 13, 2008, nine U.S. soldiers were killed and 27 wounded in one of the bloodiest battles of the Afghan war. The attack provided a window into what went wrong in Afghanistan and prompted the Army to reassess its strategy. (Be sure to check out the on-the-ground videos in the timeline; they provide a very real peek into what it was like at this base.)

Restrepo, 2010 This Oscar-nominated documentary chronicles the year journalists Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington (who was killed last year in Libya) spent embedded with a U.S. Army platoon in Afghanistan, from deployment to battle and back home.

How Pricey For-Profit Colleges Target Vets' GI Bill Money, Mother Jones, October 2011 As for-profit colleges swooped in to take advantage of the GI Bill's generous education benefits, they often employed deceptive marketing techniques -- in this case, websites that looked like official guides on how vets could maximize their education funds but were actually run by marketing firms for the schools.

Aftershock: The Blast That Shook Psycho Platoon, ProPublica and NPR March 2012 More than 115,000 soldiers have suffered mild traumatic brain injuries since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began. But our investigation with NPR found the military has failed to provide its returning soldiers with the care they need.

John Huston Film About WWII Soldiers that Army Suppressed Is Restored, The Washington Post, May 2012 A post-WWII documentary on the psychological effects of war has been hiding for nearly 60 years. The Army says it was because they wanted to protect the privacy of the soldiers; others say they wanted to preserve soldiers' "warrior" image. Either way, the film has been restored, and as the Post notes, is "striking for its potential relevance for a new generation of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan."

Black Hawk Down, Philadelphia Inquirer, November 1997 This brutal, 15-hour battle in Somalia killed 18 elite U.S. soldiers, wounded 73, and changed the way America approached foreign intervention. Before it was a movie, or a book, Mark Bowden chronicled the soldiers' ordeal in this brilliant account in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

On: The VAWA and Title IX

Said The Washington Post in a recent editorial on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Congress must “get off their soap boxes” and “reauthorize a law that everyone agrees must continue.” When Congress does return to sense and sensibility, it should abort the current debacle and discuss a new element of the VAWA actually worth the controversy. Herewith, a cautionary tale of how, in our haste to do better, we sometimes make matters worse.

* * *

In addition to a deluge of summer heat, June also brings the 40^th anniversary of Title IX, an exemplary piece of legislation which ensures that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance…”

But under the Senate’s version of the VAWA, Title IX, that pillar of equality, becomes troublesome. In dealing with the exceedingly complex problem of sexual assault on college campuses, a new interpretation of Title IX – originating from within the Obama administration and reinforced under the VAWA – seeks to take a shortcut: School’s will no longer be required to find “clear and convincing” evidence before assigning blame and punishment in matters of sexual assault, they need only discover a “preponderance” of it.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum. This reinterpretation of Title IX will unleash a host of unintended consequences, none of which are certain to protect coeds.

Mandating schools punish students based on a “preponderance” of evidence conflicts with the judicial philosophy of “innocent until proven guilty,” the idea that, until such time as judge and jury have tried a case, colleges are handling alleged victims accusing alleged assailants of alleged crimes. Yes, these institutions do have a responsibility to discipline and protect students before the courts or police become involved, but guilt should not be assessed on a likelihood, it should still be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."

While such philosophy does make sexual assault inherently difficult to prosecute (cases often become mired in he said/she said accusations), America gains immensely from this bias.

It ensures, to a considerable degree, that those punished are, in fact, guilty and guards the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of “cruel and unusual punishment”: A student found culpable with “clear and convincing” evidence is likely to be chastised in a manner proportional to their crime because the nature of their transgression is well understood.

Worse, it isn't clear that abdicating the more stringent burden of proof will meaningfully impact women. A small minority of men are responsible for the majority of sexual assaults. When we lower the standards by which the accused can be found guilty, we not only raise the probability that the innocent will be caught in a wider net, but we lessen the certainty that we’ve punished actual criminals. Meanwhile, perpetrators would slip through ever widening holes in that net, and continue their lives uninhibited.

All this must be pondered under the harsh light of ambiguity – by and large we have yet to determine the prevalence of sexual assault on campuses. It is a fact which, if ascertained, would strongly color our opinions regarding just how far we’re willing to go to protect college women.

A December 2005 DoJ study

Take, as a fragment of evidence for a swath of contradictory findings, this December 2005 study by the U.S. Department of Justice. Having no apparent senses for irony or vagaries, it claims (on the same page, no less!) that  “one in five young women experiences rape during college” and  “half of all student victims don’t label the incident as ‘rape’.”

This seeming paradox broaches several pertinent questions: Is it justifiable to classify students as victims if they themselves don't claim victimhood? Is it the place of government to override the opinions of the women it tries to protect in the name of their “best interest”? Should government policy be based upon conflicting evidence? 

Worringly, in our justifiable urge to do something, anything to protect college women, we are attempting to solve a problem yet to be fully understood. As such, this new interpretation  is amenable to the plurality of missteps and errors which occur when policy is founded on poor information.

Congress should add the protections for Native American, immigrant and LGBT women, but leave out the reinterpretation of Title IX.

Let’s first diagnose the sickness, its causes and symptoms, before we discuss remedies.

Note from the editor: A subsequent column will suggest a better approach.

On: De facto families – Romney’s poor position on same-sex marriage

“Guess what [James] Coleman’s found? Schools make no difference; families make the difference.” – S. M. Lipset

James Coleman

As Einstein fundamentally redirected our understanding of the universe, Coleman fundamentally redirected America’s understanding of education. Until the 1966 publishing of his transformative report, Equality of Educational Opportunity (EEO), America’s philosophy on education was over-intuitive and lacked the hard facts which make or break policy. Priorly, the assumption was that pupil success was tied, as with bands of steel, to school funding and classroom size. Coleman’s findings changed that. Yes, these factors were important, he realized, but even more so was the socio-economic backgrounds of the families.

Mr. Coleman’s suggestions for an approach more sensitive to socio-economic status eventually worked their way into America’s public school system. The result: achievement gaps between whites and blacks began a slow yet evident decline, an unqualified victory given the report was published merely two years after the passage of the original Civil Rights Act.

Yet the EEO report maintains relevance today: better education for children entails more collegiate success, more collegiate success leads to a better first job, and a person’s first job is strongly tied to their advantages later in life.

Indeed, if families are this important, it is perfectly reasonable that governments should endeavor to lighten their burdens. Hence, they get tax breaks, subsidies, and a host of other government preferences.

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. A portion of Monday’s editorial was devoted to the benefits of Mr. Obama’s position on same-sex marriage; here’s the greatest: It has forced Mr. Romney to take an untenable position.

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney

When asked in an interview, “What is your position on gay marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples?” Mr. Romney responded, “Marriage is a relationship between a man and a women.” When queried, “You support domestic partnerships, why not civil unions?” He stated, “If a civil union is identical to marriage other than with the name, why, I don’t support that. But I certainly recognize that hospital visitation rights and benefits of that nature may well be appropriate. And states are able to make provisions for the determination of those kind of rights as well as, if you will, benefits that might accrue to state workers.”

Two days later he said in a Fox News interview, “If two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship and even want to adopt a child … [i]n my view that's something which people have the right to do…”

Oy vey. If President Obama can (justly) be accused of flip-flopping, Mr. Romney can (justly) be accused of political equivocation. To streamline: Mr. Romney doesn’t support gay marriage or civil unions, but believes that hospital visitation rights and nebulous other “benefits of that nature” are well in order.

There are two points of interest here. First, a celebration: That draconian idea most often pronounced by the right (that homosexuals should not have the ability to adopt children) is officially off the table. It’s a dead argument. We’ve moved on.

Aren't these families?

Second, a question: If two people of the same gender can be allowed to live together in “a loving relationship” and raise a child, if they are entitled to “hospital visitation” rights and other “benefits of that nature” such as those which would “accrue to state workers,” isn’t this, ultimately, a de facto family?

No less than the President of the United States has taken the opposite view on same-sex marriage – the first to do so in our history. This ensures the subject will never completely leave the news cycle, nor will it be absent in the debates before the election. When the time comes, lest he be seen as taking the politically expedient route once more, Mr. Romney should expound upon the differences between families with heterosexual parents and families with homosexual parents. He should articulate why the latter aren’t entitled to the same benefits if for nothing more than the children Mr. Romney believes they have the right to rear.

It is a position Mr. Romney and other Republicans have boxed themselves into defending: They have long bemoaned the forces they considered antithetical to family values.  But it goes without saying that different families have different values. It doesn’t go without saying why those families don’t retain rights and deserve support – even the de facto ones.

For the ramifications of this inconsistency, see above.


A previous editorial dealt with the negatives of President Obama's position. That editorial is available here.


Those who enjoyed this editorial might also enjoy: Presidential authority - Obama, Romney and bin Laden

On: Obama and gay marriage – Too soon?

LGBT activists, who for decades have been building support for gay marriage, must surely know what social theorist Max Weber meant when he wrote that “[p]olitics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards…” (i.e., it is difficult, frustrating and thankless work). Likewise, President Obama, who is on record as supporting same-sex marriage as recently as 1996, but only advocated civil unions in 2008, must understand Mr. Weber’s conclusion to that sentence: “… [and] anyone who seeks to do it must risk his own soul.”

Consider Mr. Obama’s crisis of soul averted. Last Wednesday, the president made clear what many knew to be true: Our Commander-in-Chief supports the rights of same-sex couples to marry. It is the most provocative old news fit to print.

President Obama endorses same-sex marriage.

In one sense, Mr. Obama’s “shift” is the beginnings of yet another vindication of James Madison, who wrote that “[j]ustice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.” While Mr. Obama’s endorsement does not entail the legalization of same-sex marriage in a possible second term, there seems little doubt that justice is, in fact, coming. Even though the president (wrongly) believes that this is an issue best handled by the states, it paves the way for same-sex marriage to be adopted into the Democratic platform, and lends the issue legitimacy in media and over-the-coffee table discussions.

In another sense, it is the alleviation of a political paradox ossified by the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: How can a country simultaneously affirm the strength, faithfulness, courage and dignity of homosexuals in the military (whose sole aim is to protect the shores, and, subsequently, American families) and disallow these men and women recognized families of their own? President Obama – and, perhaps, Democrats to follow – say “no more!”

Still, cynics have proffered, as cynics do, that this is pure political pandering – a way of assuring reelection for the president. It is a view not entirely borne out by evidence: Dig into the polls and one realizes that being pro-same-sex marriage is more burden than benefit.

States colored dark brown have banned same-sex marriage in their constitutions

First, popular support in national elections takes a backseat to electoral votes. If, as is likely, the vast majority of supporters are in liberal safe havens like New York and California (states President Obama will no doubt win) it gives the man no benefit come November. States up for grabs this election – and whose turn of red or blue are the focus of candidates and media alike – include Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, who together will contribute 62 electoral votes to the race. President Obama faces struggles in these states not merely because of the economy, but because all three have inculcated bans on gay marriage into their constitutions.

Second, the upswing in popularity is intrinsically tied to the rise of the Millennial generation. While this suggests (if not proves) that same-sex couples will be able to marry within the next 30 or so years, the young are notoriously fickle when it comes to voting. President Obama’s "change of heart" might energize the young, but as any parent or teacher will note: Apathy is a safer bet

Third, there is the strong potential for political backlash. America has seen a precipitous rise in the percentage of those who support same-sex marriage, but the energy remains on the Christian right. Though many Evangelicals were wary of Mr. Romney because of his Mormon faith, this distinction between policies may spur them to the voting booths regardless.

Meanwhile, the president faces a problem sans a clear remedy: Black and Latino voters – who predominately vote to ban same-sex marriage – certainly won’t stay home solely because of this issue. But if any were wary of voting for the president twice, this may be too much.

Games of chess
All this leads back to political analogies. If politics is to be considered a “slow boring of hard boards,” it is also a game of chess – a glacial test of skill which necessitates calculated moves and, ultimately, patience.

One-in-six of the president’s campaign bundlers is openly gay, a fact which no doubt had an impact on the White House’s change of tone. But come the election, they might find themselves overextended, and having wished they hadn’t pulled the trigger just yet.

Much like in chess, one can’t take back moves.

Note from the editor: A subsequent editorial (available here) expatiated on the benefits of Mr. Obama’s position, a subject only briefly mentioned here.


Those who enjoyed this editorial might also enjoy: Presidential authority - Obama, Romney and bin Laden

On: Presidential authority – Obama, Romney and bin Laden

Conservatives have created more than a few paradoxes in their haphazard effort to blame President Obama for the state of the country. As evidence, consider his odd presence in two political portmanteaus: Obamacare and the Obama-Economy.

Expunge from your mind, reader, that the Affordable Health Care Act was introduced by Rep. John Dingle (D-MI), shepherded through the House by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and caressed through the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Erase from your thoughts that, since 1921 and the passage of the Budget and Accounting Act, while the President is required to submit a budget, the proverbial “power of the purse” remains almost exclusively with Congress. (The Constitution gives the President no authority to appropriate funds.)

In making their case for election to Washington, conservatives seem unbothered that their cries for strict constitutionalism is inconsistent with the notion that government policy is traceable to one man. Nor do they seem cross that their insistence on strong American federalism does not allow for overlooking the responsibilities of a 535-member legislative body and 50 state electorates – the latter having much more say on the state of the economy than the President.

And yet conservatives only seem eager to stomach more contradictions. Their most recent is President Obama’s supposed “inappropriate politicization” of the demise of Osama bin Laden. In a sobering campaign video released last week, President Clinton made the case that President Obama “took the harder and more honorable path” in the pursuit of bin Laden. The inevitable question which followed: “Would Mitt Romney have done the same?”

Mr. Romney was quick to affirm (what else?) that he would, a comment hastily adjoined by (what else?) the complaint that “politicizing it was... an inappropriate use” of bin Laden’s death.

Well. Mr. Romney has, on numerous occasions, exhibited a near admirable ability to shift political views and maintain elected office. But here, historical headwinds come not merely from his own comments, but from his party’s as well.

Consider: From Vietnam onward, Republicans have, with great success, brandished their chops as the country’s defenders. President Reagan added billions of dollars to a declining defense budget during the Cold War, while George H.W. Bush ultimately saw that war’s “thaw.”

Indeed, Republicans are the “guns” in America’s never ending “guns and butter” debate. Still, the right’s past campaigns - which continually brought attention to these successes - leave Mr. Romney’s charge more than a little empty.

"... the direction of war..."

If conservatives wish to find fault with anyone, they might commence with Alexander Hamilton. It was he who, in Federalist 74, “in relation to the command of the national forces”, wrote:

“Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority."

In essence, what the President lacks in domestic governance he gains in foreign preeminence. While at home he maintains some de jure authority (the veto being the most prominent, yet even this can be overturned), the vast majority of his power is de facto – i.e. he has claim to both prestige and the bully pulpit. 

Meanwhile, across sovereign borders, the President is the nation’s chief diplomat, having the ability to both negotiate treaties and command the military. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for presidential candidates to brandish their qualifications and beliefs on the matter. 

This isn’t to say President Obama is faultless. Critics have labeled him hypocritical for criticizing Hillary Clinton’s 3 AM phone call advertisement during the 2008 Democratic primary. It smacks, they say, of political opportunism.

This is unquestionably true. However, the fault lies with the Senator of 2008, not the President of 2012. Just as then-Senator Clinton’s advertisement was fair game – and just as Republican campaigning has rarely come into question –  President Obama’s (arguably more substantive) bin Laden video should be granted legitimacy.

Republicans, it's still your move.

On: Interracial marriage in America

by: Joshua Howell

Loving v. Virginia
They had gone to bed together, as those who are married tend to do. But when Mr. and Mrs. Loving awoke in the twilight of the following morning, the couple found themselves surrounded by the local sheriff, deputy and jailer.

“Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?” demanded the sheriff, pointing a flashlight toward their eyes.

“I’m his wife,” responded the no doubt indignant spouse.

Realizing what was wrong, the husband immediately pointed to their marriage certificate on the wall, which had been issued to them in Washington, DC.

“That’s no good here,” stated the officer.

Mr. and Mrs. Loving

And it wasn’t. Mrs. Loving was black, Mr. Loving was white, and this was Virginia 1958, where Statute 4546 had banned interracial marriage since 1662. Never mind that Mildred Loving was more Native American than African-American (the “one drop rule” was still in effect). Never mind that the county in which they lived had liberal views on race. The Lovings’ marriage was a felony (a violation of the “peace and dignity of the Commonwealth”) and the two were promptly arrested.

What ensued would go unresolved until three years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

After spending several nights in jail, the Lovings accepted a plea bargain, and were immediately exiled from their home state. According to the deal, the two could never return simultaneously, lest they be arrested for the same crime.

In their time away, the couple would raise three children, and etch out something of a living in Washington State. But in 1963, with the civil rights movement waxing, the Lovings yearned to return home, and made their minds to mount a legal attempt to do so. They first contacted then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and queried whether the Civil Rights Act would grant them the ability.  It wouldn’t, Mr. Kennedy responded, but he did put them in contact with the sympathetic American Civil Liberties Union. The group was happy to oblige, and together, they initiated Loving v. Virginia, a challenge which would eventually work its way to The Supreme Court.

Then-Chief Justice Warren authored the majority opinion, saying: Laws like Virginia’s were unconstitutional because they “cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment” for reasons which “reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands.” “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry,” the court ruled, were “odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”

Thus, 16 states with anti-miscegenation laws saw their books overturned.

45 years on
Since Loving v. Virginia, interracial marriage has steadily increased; it is now six times that of the 1960s. But couples like the Lovings remain a rarity due to the slow rate of black and white intermarriage.

In the Lovings time, a mere one in one thousand new marriages was between a black person and white person. Now that number rests at a higher, but still low, one-in-sixty. As a share of 2008 interracial marriages, those between blacks and whites account for only 11 percent (compared to the 41 percent which were White and Hispanic, and the 15 percent which were white and Asian).

This dearth is caused by a plethora of factors, which require a marked degree of interpretation.

First, whites and blacks are not prone to intermarrying in the first place. Less than ten percent of whites do, and only 16 percent of blacks. (In the meantime, 26 percent of Hispanics and 31 percent of Asians married someone of a different race or ethnicity in 2008.)

Second is extant taboos, which harken back generations, and won’t be resolved for many more. This generation of black parents (whose children are now in college) were old enough in the 60s to be cognizant of America’s rampant racism.

Third, even among those blacks and whites who do intermarry, the race of the sexes goes in the opposite direction: black men are more than twice as likely to “marry out” than black women.

Is this what we’d like to see? Yes and no. It’s good that the two races in America with the most bad blood are slowly reconciling their differences. But it would be heartening to see a more precipitous increase, implying much more social dynamism than the current evidence suggests.

Still, it’s worth acknowledging that in six months, voters will either remove or reseat America’s first interracial President.

Were they alive, the Lovings might be proud.

Readers who enjoyed this editorial might also enjoy: Obama and gay marriage - Too soon?