New Conservatism

To the Editors of the Crimson:

In the April 20th issue of The Crimson, Bentley Boyd in one of his "Boyd's Eye View" cartoons depicts "new conservativism" as a young man casting a demonic shadow of "new collegiate racism." This cartoon is not only wrong, it is offensive.

The equation of conservatives with racists is a form of blanket stereotyping that is nearly as disgusting as racism itself. To label a person with a term as ugly as "racist" is a step that should not be taken lightly. Unfortunately, Boyd seems to have no qualms in doing so. I like to think that people form their political beliefs after careful thought about issues and policies that are important to them. Such choices should be respected. This respect for others' political beliefs lies at the very core of a functioning pluralistic political system. It is ludicrous to imply that every person who happens to favor smaller government, stronger national defense, or a less regulated economy is also a racist. At best, Boyd is thumbing his nose at those who disagree with him; at worst, he seriously means what he says.

In terms of classifying 'new' conservatism as racist in nature, the cartoon is simply incorrect. It is unclear what Boyd means by "new." If he is referring to the neo-conservative movement, he is obviously not familiar with the nature of this type of conservatism. Neo-conservatives are acutely aware of such social problems and seek to solve them through a pragmatic balance of government action and private initiatives.

If, on the other hand, Boyd is referring to the conservative students gaining numbers on college campuses around the nation, he again evaluates the nature of this trend poorly. While most "conservative" students favor stronger national defense and less government interference in the economy, the overwhelming majority fit the label of "liberal" on social issues such as racial injustice.

Boyd's cartoon becomes even more ridiculous when the growing number of Black conservatives is considered. People like William Lucas (former candidate for Governor in Michigan) and Glenn Loury (Assistant Secretary of Education) can hardly be labeled a racist. The desire of many Blacks for a level playing field rather than free points at the end of the game is simply a different approach to the same problem of racial biases. It is no less a quest for Black rights.

In conclusion, we should consider what Boyd's cartoon does to the term "racism." It only dilutes further a word that has already lost most of its meaning. By calling all conservatives racist, he robs the charge of its impact when it is leveled against people who really are racist. Political cartoons should elucidate an issue, not cloud it. Boyd's "Eye Vision" seems to be quite near-sighted. Kris W. Kobach '88   President, Harvard Republican Club