Friends, remember when the goal of the civil rights movement was to end discrimination and to create a society in which a person would be judged by his or her merits (we only had two genders in those innocent times), and not by the color of their skin? Well, the Left has long since moved on from "non-racialism." Now, race, gender, religion, sexuality, and other "identities" are supposedly integral to who we are, and people demand to be understood based on the groups to which they belong. Not uncommonly, they demand the "rights" and status to which those groups, specifically, are entitled. In the process, we are increasingly divided, and "one America" is turning into many Americas, often mutually hostile. The sad part is that, once people define themselves by their differences, these rifts become self-reinforcing. As the following article suggests, many people benefit from exploiting these fissures, which are thus likely to deepen and spread:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/16/identity-politics-plays-right-hands-big-business/
Also check out this superb take on climate change and energy policy. Senator DeMint is absolutely right: fossil fuels aren't going away, and they can be, if we let them be, part of the answer to our environmental challenges:
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/438754-green-new-deal-has-a-dirty-secret
Dr. Waddy: Haven't societies always directed motivations and sanctions in many forms and by many methods to the identification of people's wants and needs and to the directing of those to objects and ends preferred by the entity seeking to exercise such influence. Free enterprise seeks to do so in order to realize profit and has developed sophisticated methods for discovering preferences in the population and for emphasizing or creating perceptions of want or necessity. The Federalist article describes what I see as a technological advance in this long established reality.
ReplyDeleteRace: for the 60 years I have been paying attention to current events I seen such dynamism in this subject. It was laudable to advocate a color blind society but it cannot be. Race and ethnic identity does matter, sometimes very, very much and I think it a mostly healthy thing for people to enjoy the merits of the group to which they were born.
But the left, demonstrably and tragically devoted as it is to the destruction of Western civilization, sees in the unending exacerbation of racial resentment, a powerful means, among others, of advancing the extermination of our economies, our governments, our laws, our spiritual institutions, our families and all that separates us from the anarchic maelstrom the left seeks as the way to ultimate justice. Of course, under their administration, all human behavior would be strictly controlled by a centralized and totalitarian elite dreamed up in presumptuous settings divorced from the lessons of history. Perhaps in the new technology described in the Federalist article they see a powerful new weapon.
A stimulating analysis, Jack! I agree with you that race is a reality, not a fiction, and it is legitimate for people to identify as members of groups and to find fulfillment and solidarity in those groups. Fair enough. There is a valid concern about the "chicken or the egg" when it comes to racial identity, though. We might also ask: how much race consciousness is too much? As always, I'm a believer in freedom, so I would like people to decide for themselves how to frame their identities, and with whom they wish to associate. The problem is that we have a government, a bureaucracy, a court system, an education system, and -- all too often -- a corporate elite, which feel they should be making these decisions for us.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: DITTO! And my experience tells me that much of the totality of those oppressed and eventually perceived oppressed groups for which government has made so many remedial presumptions over the last 50 years harbor much disdain for these efforts. In part, because these measures are so very casually manipulated (eg. Native American Liz Warren)but also because they are seen by many in these groups as insincere and as efforts to ward off a true reckoning for wrongs done in past times. A free democracy, which as Churchill said is the worst form of government until you consider all the others, while much flawed, is still the best way to synthesize workable compromises for conflicting views on this. But the left holds out for dictatorial solution on their model and to hell with any doubt.
ReplyDeleteJack, "workable compromises" sound sensible, but as we both know the Left's "dialogue" on race is designed to be a monologue -- and to stifle all opposing views. We won't make much social progress with thinking like that.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy: What I meant by compromises was compromise in effect. I fully agree that the left will never agree to any accomodation of views other than theirs but they can be forced to through democratic processes like elections and their consequences. The left vs real America conflict leading to such decisions may involve some concession on our part - certainly nothing the left would willingly accept - but perhaps some seen as worth making in order to disarm the left politically. We successfully demanded unconditional surrender of Japan but yet some concession (eg. continuation of the Emperor) was made.
ReplyDelete