Diversity Is the New Racism

I was going to write a letter on this topic until I saw that someone else had pretty much said all I had to say on the subject..  Thought I was an original thinker---but that old objectivist and standard bearer for the individual, Ayn Rand, apparently inspired some other individuals who, on this subject, think exactly like I do (how conformist).

The only Ayn Rand novel I've read, a long time ago, is Fountainhead.  I loved it, as a self-righteous young landscape architect expecting to take the world by storm--always staying true to my singular creative vision, of course.  Since then, the "world" and I have become much less sanguine about my exceptionalism, and I've lost much of my admiration for the sanctity of talent over wise and observant experience. (Too bad the 2008 electorate didn't share this insight.) 

But have I gone full circle philosophically and returned to my youthful fling with objectivism just because I agree with Ayn Rand adherents on the issue of multiculturism? I shy away from objectivism now, unwilling to invest time in a re-examination of that philosophy, perhaps for some of the same reasons otherwise intelligent liberal Democrats refuse to honestly engage Republican ideas of self-reliance and limited government intervention as superior to the (ineffective, but emotionally satsifying) "compassion" agenda of the Welfare State. These Democrats instinctively and permanently attach the stigma of greed and self-interest to Republicans, much as I cannot align myself wholeheartedly with libertarianism (which I--mistakenly or not-- identify as part and parcel with objectivism) due to its proponents' rabid isolationism (international and domestic).  And since I've found a moral and intellectual home in neoconservatism, I've no need to try to squeeze into the libertarian/objectivist box.  I would hazard an unresearched guess that many neocons agree with Ayn Rand and me about the virutes of Diversity Programs anyway.

The dream of a post-racial America, seemingly within our grasp with the election of a purportedly moderate African-American President, is still far from realization.  In my mind, every new diversity "training" workshop and affirmative action program  pushes that goal further away.

In response to legislation that would provide dollars and power to "ethnic" Hawaiians by virtue of their race, Ray Parker, of Annapolis, expresses my sentiments exactly:
                    
          Letter To The Editor, Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2010

        "The current congressional effort to grant ethnic Hawaiians the powers and privileges of self-government--including authority to tax and of eminent domain--is the latest example of the Democratic Party's schizophrenia when it comes to race relations. On the one hand, the Party encourages and exploits ethnic identities and grievances to build its big-tent coalition, while on the other hand it preaches an idealistic "we are one" sermon to anyone who's not in the tent. Those who are not supportive of ethnic-based privileges are labeled racists and bigots; to avoid those labels, one must be colorblind but in favor of racial preferences."

Yep.

 

Democrats, Remember JFK? Part Two

Democrats seem to think that by repeating the words “small business” they demonstrate sufficient economic knowledge to fix the currently bleak employment situation. If today’s Democrats would emulate JFK’s rather than FDR’s economic policies, not only would the national economy improve, so would Democrats’ political fortunes.

A tax credit to hire new employees is useless to small businesses until customers are knocking on doors to spend their money. Since most of these potential customers are corporations or individuals whose taxable income exceeds $250,000, the Obama administration could do far more to help generate jobs and growth if they would extend the Bush tax cuts for “the rich”, cut the corporate tax rate (second highest in the world), cut the dividend rate, and keep the capital gains tax rate at 15%. Even better, Congress should adopt the Ryan Road Map tax reforms!!!

The rich are the customers of and investors in small businesses---they are the de-facto “job creators” without whom small businesses fail. You can’t on the one hand laud small businesses for creating two-thirds of the nation’s jobs and on the other hand force their customers to spend more of their disposable income on taxes instead of purchases and investments.

Remember the ill-fated “luxury tax” on new yachts (and other items deemed extravagant by the egalitarian elitists) in 1990? Enacted as a “tax on the wealthy”, it was repealed three years later due to the depressing economic effect it had on the boat-building industry and its blue collar employees. Obama’s War on the Wealthy/Banks/Business will have the same effect on industries and employees if he continues on his ill-conceived crusade.

If Obama were as diligent a student of the Bush administration’s successes as he is of its failures, he might have discovered the truth of the 2003 Bush tax cuts---they created record tax revenues in 2005-2007---because the cuts spurred investment and growth. Unemployment was half of what it is today—because the economy was booming, not because Bush raised taxes on the wealthy.

Promoting class warfare and spouting faux-populist demagoguery will not restore the nation’s economy. It will take leadership that is serious about cutting spending and taxes—leadership I’ve only seen coming from the likes of Congressman Paul Ryan. I’ve read his GOP Road Map; I’m 55 and I’d volunteer for reduced benefits, vouchers, or personal Social Security savings accounts even if my age would exempt me. Our experience with H.S.A. s (my husband and I have had one for the past three years) and 529 plans (all three of our children have or will soon graduate from college debt-free) has shown me the value of placing personal financial decisions in the hands of the taxpayers who actually earn the money, not the legislators who would like to spend it.

The Gettysburg Address Redux: Obama-Style

Two score and seven years ago, my father brought forth, on this country’s far flung island state, the handsome man who is now your President. I was conceived out of wedlock and soon abandoned by my father, dedicated as he was to the proposition that his happiness superseded that of his family’s.

Now I am engaged in a four-to-eight-year speaking tour, testing whether this nation, or any other nation so conceived, can long endure the constant repetition of my inspirational and multicultural biography.

We are met on a great ideological battlefield, the final resting place for those hapless conservatives crushed by the Big Government Steamroller that I have won the right to drive.

It is altogether fitting and proper that I continue to whine and blame my predecessor for his failures of leadership, without yet exhibiting any sign of becoming a great national leader myself.

But, in a larger sense, as a wise African-American (but totally post-racial) male, I cannot consecrate our national struggle for unity and prosperity by championing our virtues and achievements, or by vigorously and instinctively defending America against her jealous detractors, at home or abroad.

The world will little note that my every speech rarely advances any new ideas, but merely describes (eloquently though not always accurately) two opposing viewpoints or historical positions, as though I am sort of “Great Interpreter”, clarifying the issue at hand for a confused and illiterate citizen-jury.

It is for the living journalists among you to continue the unfinished work of allowing no criticism or advancement of better ideas from the political opposition to take hold in the court of public opinion, and I humbly thank you for your noble service in this cause to date.

We must dedicate ourselves to the great task remaining before us, namely to avoid making any difficult or unpopular decisions which might tarnish my future post-presidential memoir (to be ghostwritten by a guy in my neighborhood), or God forbid, return the opposition party to power.

From the ranks of the honored dead---Susan Sontag, Saul Alinsky, Edward Said, George Tiller and others---we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that they shall not have died in vain.

We here highly resolve that this oppressive, racist, capitalist nation, under an unfair and antiquated God, shall have a new, un-aborted(!) birth, into the family of the One World EU/UN politburo, in which our democratic republic--the government of the people, by the people, for the people--shall be irrevocably changed to make everyone’s income and accomplishments equal. Thus individual liberty and innovation shall perish from the earth.

Moral Relativism Run Amok

The intellectual shortcomings of the Obama administration these days remind me of the “War Is Not Pro-Life” bumper sticker. How narrow-minded and ordinary to express moral outrage at the waterboarding of three murderous and unrepentant jihadists, all the while blithely absolving thousands of U.S. physicians annually performing over a million abortions of any complicity in an immoral act.

The CIA officers who carried out “enhanced interrogation techniques”, and who sought legal cover from Bush White House lawyers are apparently safe, even though they were the ones who invented the techniques, not the lawyers. The lawyers merely provided the legal support for procedures whose aim was to prevent another attack on Americans. The Obama administration abstained from including CIA agents in the indictment “trial balloon” only to avoid political fallout from attacking those who put their lives on the line for the country, not because of any close parsing of culpability. The Bush guys are just far safer political targets.

And, just like the afore-mentioned physicians, the CIA guys were operating within a legal system, under procedures sanctioned by lawyers. The CIA officers are sworn to protect this country, while the physicians take an oath: “First, do no harm” (and then proceed to do just that). The CIA “tortures” adults who’ve directed and celebrated the killing of Americans; the doctors end the lives of babies whose only crime was to be conceived.

I must be so stupid not to see the clear intellectual and moral superiority of the current administration to the previous—if only a single Democrat could explain this puzzling conundrum.

By all means, let’s “restore science to its rightful place” and help our President figure out when life begins.

Democrats Need A New Frederick Douglass

Even before reading The Radical and the Republican by James Oakes, I mentally connected the issues of abortion and slavery as twin evils, pathological blots on our national self-image as a free and just country. During the course of reading the book (which doesn’t mention abortion at all), I found myself wondering if Barack Obama, wont as he is to draw comparisons between Lincoln and himself, might need only a modern day Frederick Douglass to prod him into working to overturn Roe v. Wade--just as Lincoln nullified Dred Scott. Granted, Lincoln was of the same general opinion as Douglass--that slavery was wrong, wrong in every case for moral reasons--whereas Obama has no such common conviction with pro-life supporters. Yet perhaps the argument could be made in such a way as to stroke the ego of our new President to picture himself Lincoln-like for having engineered such a coup, and he would abandon prior “principle” for future historical acclaim.

Were I to obtain the necessary influence to even offer such an argument, it would go something like this:

President Obama, you have much in common, at least in temperament and political philosophy, with former President Lincoln. Certainly, you both seem to have read and heeded Benjamin Franklin, who strongly advised against letting others know what “you really think”, in wise subjugation of ego to potential accomplishment. You also share with Lincoln a justifiably proud sense of your ability to inspire and communicate with your fellow citizens. This gift, combined with your innate ability to constantly redefine and shift the debate (about any subject) and the eager backing of a fawning press, may be all you need to lead the populace where they’re not sure they want to go---without having to overreach your executive powers in time of war as Lincoln did.

Frederick Douglass was a reformer, only gradually converted to the value of politics as an agent of change, while Abraham Lincoln believed that true reform could only occur when the majority of the citizenry was ready for it—even if it must be coaxed and beguiled at every possible opportunity by gifted orators the likes of him. Frederick Douglass made no excuses for the slaveholder; Lincoln made many. Lincoln treated slavery the way the Catholic church today addresses homosexuality—as a sin, but with compassion and accommodation for the sinner (the slaveholder, in Lincoln’s case).

Lincoln had the exigencies of war to help convince the nation of the need to abolish slavery. You have no such platform to abolish abortion, but you do have tremendous political support for whatever agenda you choose to promote. If you really want to distinguish yourself as a new kind of politician, start to slip subtle references to the shadow injustice of abortion into your speeches. Change, almost imperceptibly, your position as an abortion “rights” supporter to a defender of the real rights of unborn children. You and Lincoln, both lawyers and pretty fair writers, share the ability to never pin yourself down to an undeniable, prosecutable position—there is always a possible nuanced interpretation of prior statements that can transmogrify your “beliefs” to match prevailing public sentiment—which you yourself help, in no small measure, to modify.

Democrats in Lincoln’s time were the strongest political supporters of slavery, just as they are now the party that supports abortion. You can change the history of not only the country, but of your party! Relieve yourself and your fellow Democrats of the need to shamefully and awkwardly defend this national blight.

These are the similarities I see between slavery and abortion as political issues:

1. Advocates of slaveholding and abortion “rights” dehumanize the slave and the fetus as not fully human and therefore not deserving of full human rights. Pro-slavery Constitutional authors inserted the provision for slaves to count as only least 3/5ths of a human being, while abortion supporters argue that surely 3/9ths of a human is unworthy of personhood.

Slaveholders said that their slaves couldn’t fend for themselves without the “protection” of the plantation, while abortion rights advocates talk about unwanted children as though they’d be better dead than alive with a mother or a world that doesn’t want them. Both seem to argue that a life controlled (or aborted) by human masters is better than a life “outside” (the plantation or the womb).

2. Politicians of both eras are loath to discuss such a divisive, emotional issue: contemporary Democrats and Republicans both bemoan “one-issue” voters (the distasteful issue being abortion), while pre-Civil War political parties avoided the issue of slavery whenever possible for fear of having to pin themselves down on one side or the other of an issue which might lose them whole blocs of voters. Lincoln himself called the slavery issue a “distracting question” (where have we heard that lately?) in 1847, but by 1859, acutely sensitive to changing public opinion, he sagely noted, "An evil can't stand discussion. What kills the skunk is the publicity it gives itself". (Oakes, page 83)

3. The religious and moral high ground naturally claimed by opponents of both slavery and abortion is taunted by the proponents as being sanctimonious and doctrinaire, and (albeit clumsy) attempts are made to reclaim at least part of that perch for their cause. Justifications of Biblical support for slavery were put forth by nineteenth century pastors who noted that the two thousand year old document fails to condemn slavery and in fact occasionally advises readers on the “proper treatment of slaves". According to Southern pro-slavery advocates, Northern sympathizers of abolition were "hypocrites" who offered only a life of discrimination and misery to Negro "wage slaves" if universal emancipation became law.

4. Hardliners like Douglass (and those to the left of him like William Lloyd Garrison) hated compromise; nothing short of complete abolition and equality would do. Moderates like Lincoln (and perhaps, we’ll see--Obama), as lawyers and politicians, seek just that whenever possible. Pre-war Northern Whigs and Republicans hoped to contain, not eliminate slavery, or at least keep the balance of slave and free states equal. They weren’t, at that point advocating eliminating slavery in the same way that the Northern abolitionists like Douglas would have preferred them to do. Moderates hoped that slavery, deprived of slaveholding soil to expand and flourish, would eventually wither on the vine. Lincoln, before and during the War, hoped to hasten that process by offering to compensate slaveholders for the loss of their “property” should their state self-elect free statehood.

Similarly, the Democrats and Obama’s current narrative on abortion is that, surely we all want to “reduce the number of abortions” (a modest containment, not an radical abolitionist approach) until such time as economic circumstances improve to the point that women can afford to have children as often as they have unprotected sex. As with slavery, sympathy for the economic plight of abortion seekers justifies, in the minds of its supporters, absolution of their actions.

5. Lastly, legal support for both abortion and slavery was obtained at the hands of activist judges, operating with the weakest of legal foundation for their decisions, but with the strongest of biases and personal agendas. “‘Dred Scottism’, said Lincoln, was ‘a burlesque upon judicial decisions’—it covered over slavery with the ‘deceitful cloak’ of self-government in an effort to conceal the ‘hateful carcass’ beneath” (Oakes, p.74). Substitute the word 'abortion' for slavery, and the word 'privacy' for self-government, and how different is ‘Roeism’ from ‘Dred Scottism’? The 1857 Dred Scott decision, with its overreaching defense of slaveholding, so deeply offended many Northerners like Lincoln that it may have helped awaken in them the realization that slavery was not going to just “die a natural death” without more of a fight. It’s been 36 years since Roe vs. Wade, with no Civil War to overturn it (and none desired by any but the modern-day abortion-clinic-bombing John Browns) but perhaps all we need is our version of Frederick Douglass to shame our budding “Lincoln” into action.

How about this for a legacy, Mr. President---“Obama abolishes abortion in his first term”? Now, that would be audacious!

Defeat with Honor

To my surprise, my tears started flowing during John McCain’s concession speech on election night, as I realized the emotional attachment I unknowingly had for the man and his record. Time will tell if Obama’s contributions to this country will match McCain’s, but for now, all I see is a man who has devoted his life to serving this country, and serving it well---a man of flesh and blood and “authenticity”---defeated by a life-sized cardboard cut-out symbol.

All I've asked of my Democratic friends is that they admit their vote for symbolism, or defend Obama’s record, character and positions on issues as reasonable support for expectations of good governance. So far, in this long campaign, I've heard one or two grudging acknowledgements of the first stance, and only feeble attempts at the second.

I saw an Italian headline—“Today, the world changed”. Yes, I know Barack will soon begin to “cool the earth, and heal the sick”, but here’s what hasn’t changed—human nature. The last big change in the world, in my opinion, was on September 17, 1787—when the members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, PA adopted the US Constitution---a document that I believe changed the course of human history in a far more dramatic way than any single person has, save Moses, Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed. The authors of the Constitution crafted a document that ingeniously addressed both the strengths and weaknesses of the human character, and yet Obama, in his wisdom, thinks the Constitution has “a blind spot” because it doesn’t address income equality. Karl Marx’s document, The Communist Manifesto, had no such shortcoming---which document has proved more enduring?

In eighth grade I was the sole voice in my Social Studies classroom in Maryland arguing for the passage of the Civil Rights Act, defending my ideas against classmates who slyly snickered the “N” word---only to be corrected by the teacher that the proper word was “colored”. (My Republican parents taught me that the proper term was Negro, and supported the NAACP with their pocketbooks, and passage of the Act in their dinner table conversations.) In class, I repeated what I had heard at home---that people, as MLK said, should be judged on the basis of their character, their behavior, and their intellect, not on the color of their skin. I’m still arguing that philosophy today, but I’m betting at least some of my old Maryland classmates voted for Obama, and did so based on the color of his skin (for what other reason is this election "historic" if not for race?), not on the content of his character. Maybe, at last, they’ve atoned for their earlier shameful views. Me, I haven't changed my positions on race much--except to deplore the politics of victimization adopted by contemporary black "leaders", but I still don't agree with the majority of Maryland voters, at least not in this election.

If Obama had defeated anyone other than McCain, this would not be nearly as painful. I might worry just as much about our country sliding towards the European style of governance and defense, but it would be from a more emotionally detached perspective.

Democrats, Remember JFK?

Since most of what I get in the way of rhetorical response these days are the Democratic talking points, spun back to me unhampered by any enlightening facts or even reasoned argument, I'm going to revive some old JFK quotations to remind Democrats how far they've strayed ideologically from their old favorite son, the engineer of the first "Camelot" (second coming soon to follow, if the media is right--and of course they always are, except--oops, Harry Truman). In other words, lets just drop the pretense of thoughtful discourse and retreat to slogans.

The only time I've heard Obama quote Kennedy is from his inaugural address, because Obama thought this quote provided defense for his desire to sit down and talk with leaders of terrorist-sponsoring states without precondition. Only problem is, Kennedy's inaugural address preceded his disastrous meeting with Kruschev, which brought us to the brink of nuclear war---"Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate". Words do matter, but they must be supported by contemporary or historical fact in order to be instructive, right?

Decide for yourself which current presidential candidate best expresses the Kennedy doctrine:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Most of old Europe may be praying for (strike that, substitute "channeling") an Obama victory, but you can bet that Georgia and the Ukraine are lighting little candles for McCain. Without (much) additional comment, here are some more Kennedy quotes to compare to those of the current aspirants to his old office:

"It was involuntary. They sank my boat." ---Remark when asked how he became a hero.

"And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

"In the long history of the world only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom at its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility, I welcome it."

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

"Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate."

"A rising tide lifts all boats."

"There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded, and some men never leave the country....Life is unfair."

When was the last (or only) time you heard Barack Obama defend freedom as more important (and more achievable) than ensuring, through government action, "fairness for all"?

According to our Constitution, we are endowed by our Creator with certain liberties, and it is the purpose of this nation to protect them. The Constitution does not grant freedoms, it merely enumerates them, recognizing them as God-given (as opposed to government-given) rights.

Fairness, having never been dispensed to men by God or life, can only be mandated by men and their governments. Freedom is only the guarantee of opportunity, while Fairness is the implied guarantee of success, and, as far as I know, is not listed as a protected "right" in the American Constitution. In the archival cases in the halls of the European capitals, maybe, and it seems that most modern-day Democrats are quite comfortable with this bedrock of socialist philosophy, "fairness for all".

I wonder if JFK would be...