If We’re All Racists, It’s a Useless Term

A recent article in The Atlantic Monthly argued that American whites are all racists.  (As a mark of consistency, the author, a white law school professor from California, included herself.)  The article cited a poll which found that a significant portion of white Americans admitted to having used the “N” word recently.  [Why is it that the PC code requires that the derisive term for blacks be unwritten while highly offensive (to many) vulgarities, obscenities and sacrilegious expressions are tolerated and approved of?]

As far as those who didn’t utter “nigger”, they qualified as racists since polling showed they were more likely to favor one person over another if the latter was using a “black-sounding” first name.

Many years ago, bias against blacks was known as racial prejudice.  That was, and is, I suggest a far more useful term to describe a person’s attitude toward a group.

To presume anything about an individual because of his membership or association with a group is a pre-judgment which may or may not be accurate.  They are generalities and as such are prejudices which influence one’s judgments and actions.

Some years ago, Jesse Jackson received considerable publicity when he acknowledged that he crossed a street in Washington, D.C., to avoid crossing paths, at night, with a group of young blacks coming from the opposite direction.

Was he displaying prejudice – a pre-judgment – concerning the potential risk by the possible encounter?  Of course.  Was it racist?

Sounds like a silly question, doesn’t it?  How could a famous civil rights leader be such?

So why would similar conduct by a white person be labeled racist by so many?

To “automatically” accuse that person of racial hostility is, in itself, a sign of anti-white racism.  Some of the perpetrators undoubtedly are sincere in their prejudices others, when the accused is a political foe, are malicious.

Back to the Jesse Jackson episode.  It is a fact that young blacks did – and do -  commit a disproportionate  number of assaults when compared to young white men in the nation’s capital.  Jesse Jackson knew that.  Others of different races have the same knowledge.  Factually-based prejudice dictated the response. The group of young blacks was understandably perceived as a threat.

Thus, prejudice is not necessarily a negative.  (Racism, properly defined, in contrast, equates to hostility towards, hatred of, members of a racial group.)

Consider the case of a white recruiter for a software company who is looking for a mathematically-inclined new employee and has only the names of candidates, Nguyen and John.  From his experiences and knowledge, would he likely be prejudiced in favor of the Asian?  Probably, since people from that group generally outperform whites in mathematics. 

Would that be a wise decision to select an individual only because of generalizations about the group to which he belongs?  No.  But would you label the white recruiter a racist for doing so? 

Lumping all whites into the racist category is ridiculous and gives a pass to those people truly hostile to members of different races.  “We’re all racists, after all.”

Conservatives are true allies of all who strive to be judged on individual merit, not group affiliation.  Thus, it’s sad indeed to note that the Left, in practice, has rejected the hope long ago (or so it seems) expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

                                                 

“Medicare for All” is a Fraud

 

The view on the left – and heralded by most of the 2020 Democratic  Presidential candidates – is that since Medicare is such a great program, it should be extended to all.

That view, unsurprisingly, is myopic.  Consider:

*Medicare is a program which provides basically government health insurance for those over 65 who paid payroll taxes for such coverage over their work lives.  It was not intended as a welfare program.                       

*Medicare is today in serious financial trouble.  The payroll taxes designed to pay for the Medicare benefits for qualified beneficiaries (i.e. retired workers) are now exceeded by the program’s expenses.  Simply put, the number of workers paying into Medicare (“pay as you go”) has shrunk considerably over the past fifty years in relation to the increase of retirees taking benefits. 

*Expanding Medicare “to all” would turn an earned entitlement into what can only be called socialized medicine.  Some will be called upon to fund the medical demands of all.

So socialism in healthcare would become a reality in America.  Leave aside, if you will, the philosophical problems that would pose.  Individual freedom would of course be compromised.  But liberty is of less concern to most Americans that the availability of affordable and high-quality healthcare.

“Medicare for all” is for many a more agreeable expression than “single-payer” or “government run”.  Regardless of the appellation applied, socialized medicine is the result.

Is it reasonable to assume that the government can run a health care system that is either cost efficient or productive of quality results?

Americans know from lengthy experience that it is foolish to expect efficiency from any government–run enterprise… do recent experiences with your state’s motor vehicle arm come to mind?

So proponents herald the expected cost  savings which will ensue for most. TSC will admit to  a decided cynicism when assessing this promise.  Obamacare didn’t exactly result in lower insurance premiums for participants – quite the opposite.

Interestingly, health policy experts on both the Left and Right estimate that Medicare for All – along the lines proposed by Bernie Sanders, et al., would cost three trillion a year.  To put that cost in perspective, the IRS takes in half that amount in personal income taxes.  Who, outside of the Left in la-la-land, believes that the 50% of the American population who pay income taxes now will be able to tolerate a doubling of what they already pay?

“Medicare for All” will not provide better care nor be affordable.  It is a FRAUD!

The World Turned Upside Down

Americans today can sympathize with the British surrender at Yorktown whose exasperation and incredulity was expressed when the band played “The World Turned Upside Down”.  (Some historians claim this is apocryphal.) 

As examples:

          * A 29 year old whose last job before being elected to Congress was bartending is the beneficiary of swooning treatment from the media.  Many of her fellow Democrats, including Presidential candidates, feel compelled or emboldened – to endorse her harebrained Green New Deal scheme.

          * A young, defeated senatorial candidate with essentially no credentials (other than a few terms as a congressman from Texas) announces he is running for President to uncritical acclaim by the CNN/MSNBC cheerleaders.

          * The President, the last in line of chief executives who’ve included notables such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, apparently doesn’t comprehend the difference between dignified behavior and that, traditionally, which is not.  And his indiscreet conduct and language is applauded by adoring fans.

What happened to the America which some Americans (such as TSC) thought they knew?

Of course, it’s a mistake to extrapolate the approval exhibited by some Americans as being embraced by most.  But it is obviously Pollyannaish to term these episodes as mere aberations.

Two explanations come to mind.

First, Americans, in general, no longer have a predisposition to view with high regard credentials such as training, education and experience as a prerequisite for assuming leadership roles.

That altered respect for what used to be considered necessary qualifications and at the heart of populist movement that cuts across political lines.

And there is ample justification for the populist reactions.  America’s credentialed leadership has been disappointing.  Ten years ago, the economy was in the tank, largely the result of irresponsible and/or greedy conduct by our nation’s leaders including Congress and financial institutions.

And from a conservative perspective, there was a sense of incompetence, even betrayal, permeating Republican Party ranks.  Promises were made – and not kept – that if voters gave the GOP control of Congress and the White House – good things would happen, like the repeal of Obamacare…  Disillusionment set in.

Secondly, Americans are increasingly tolerant people.  That is distinctly positive when it comes to accepting people from different backgrounds and racial groups.  But it also extends, usually negatively, to what used to be considered deviant or unacceptable behavior .  Tolerance in that respect usually means an abandonment of standards (as the notorious – to TSC – Nike commercial used to preach, “just do it”!)  Much of society seems to have abdicated its traditional role of setting – and enforcing – standards with the inevitable result that they vanish.   

[The seeming exception to this condition is that “toleration” excludes conduct or speech which might hurt someone’s feelings… unless, as conservatives will note, their feelings might be offended.]

Social Media with its anonymity has greatly exacerbated this harmful coarsening of standard-less tolerance.  So the lowest common denominator of human nature is celebrated.

   Religious leaders, the very people one would expect to promulgate social and ethical standards, are largely silent.  Is it fear of being ignored, deemed irrelevant by the broader community?  How sad!

Maybe in these times, institutions such as churches, schools and community organizations have become largely impotent.  They no longer have the ability or desire to set – enforce – moral standards.  To do so would be, after all, intolerant!  Rather, increasingly, people feel isolated and alone:  “Guidance” from social media has filled the void.

Is it still possible to turn the world “right side up”?