Tag Archives: race relations

All Hail the Cult of Black Suffering, by David Cole

Everybody who is anybody, including President Trump, is taking the knee to black victimization and atonement for perpetual but unspecified racism. From David Cole at takimag.com:

As the grotesque spectacle that is Election 2020 drags its fetid carcass down the home stretch, leaving behind a snail trail of despair and humiliation, I’m plagued by one nagging question: Is anybody buying this? Has there ever been a less honest presidential election in this nation’s history? I know that’s saying a lot, because politics is by its nature dishonest. But 2020 dishonesty is of a special vintage. The main players in this year’s election are paying tribute to an ideology we all know they don’t actually embrace.

It’s as if the entire electoral system has been taken over by a cult, one that’s made the leap from standard cult dynamics (everyone in the compound is a believer) to the dynamics that occur when a cultish clique becomes the establishment (the true believers are a small minority who enforce mass compliance via control of the state apparatus). When a cult takes over, so does its language. So does its reality. There can be debate, sure, but only within the confines of the cult’s worldview. You can say “Reverend Moon is the Messiah, and I follow him,” or you can say “Reverend Moon is the Messiah, and I reject him.” But you cannot say “Reverend Moon is not the Messiah.” That’s a denial of the cult’s reality.

This election has been commandeered by the cult of black suffering. Blacks are oppressed at every turn by “white privilege.” Blacks are being machine-gunned in the streets by Nazi cops. Blacks are being lynched on every corner by “white supremacists.” The criminal justice system must be dismantled to end black suffering. White supremacy must be denounced wherever it lurks, which is everywhere whites exist. Whites must bow, scrape, and renounce all fellow whites who don’t follow suit. And if black criminality even exists, it’s only because whites “cause” it with their racism.

Continue reading→

Markets, Not Government, Improve Race Relations, by Richard Ebeling

How about that! Voluntary exchange in markets, not government coercion, improves race relations. Aside from war, SLL cannot name anything the systematic coercion known as government does better than free individuals acting voluntarily in their own perceived best interests. From Richard Ebeling at mises.org:

Politically we seem to be living in some trying times. The political polarization, as captured in the mainstream news media, appears to be intensifying with even acts of destructive violence on the streets and campuses of American cities. At the same time, pictures out of Houston during and following Hurricane Harvey show empathetic assistance and cooperation between people and groups that supposedly are in heated contention with each other. How do we reconcile this?

To begin with, I am persuaded that the supposedly racial and social “class” tensions that some assert is on the rise in America is not true. In fact, I would argue that in everyday interaction and association race relations are far, far better than they were, say, twenty-five years ago, and most certainly compared to fifty or seventy-five years ago.

Race Prejudices of a Few Decades Ago

When I was a young boy the evening news carried the imagery of violence on the streets of some Southern cities as people marched against segregation laws and faced sometimes brutal force by law enforcement agencies directed to put down the “uppitiness” of blacks and white civil rights workers insisting upon equal rights and equal treatment for all before the law.

Some white people, back then, had little reluctance or embarrassment in publicly and rudely using a variety of pejorative words and phrases when referring to Americans of African ancestry.  And what people did not say in public, they certainly freely said in their home to family members and friends.

I had a classmate in high school whose parents had persuaded him that blacks were inferior to whites. He was really uncomfortable when I made him go with me to see the movies, In the Heat of the Night and Guess Whose Coming to Dinner?, both released in the theaters in 1967, and both staring Sidney Poitier.  Here was a black detective, in the first movie, who solves a murder in a small Southern town that the white chief of police (Rod Steiger) can’t solve on his own; and in the second movie here is a successful black medical doctor planning to marry a white upper class young woman, while her “enlightened” liberal parents (Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn) have a hard time coming to terms with it all, in spite of their “progressive” views.

To continue reading: Markets, Not Government, Improve Race Relations

The Cult of Anti-Racism, by The Zman

The nice thing about being “anti-racist” is that you don’t have to do anything, all you have to do is proclaim yourself one. People are as likely to be against anti-racism as they are against Mom and Apple Pie. It’s a virtue that requires very little, but the officially “anti-racist” can smear anyone who disagrees with them with the racist tag. From the Zman on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

The ridiculous lecturing of Mike Pence, from the cast of Hamilton the other day, is a good reminder that religions are highly adaptive. The Progressive nutters quickly went from smug triumphalism the day of the election to declaring themselves the new Freedom Riders, fighting the segregationists. Within hours of the result, race hustling grifters like Jamelle Bouie were spinning fantasies where he and his hotep brothers were spontaneously organizing a black underground resistance movement.

The musical Hamilton is flypaper for moonbats, because it titillates their fantasies about race. Progressive don’t actually like real flesh and blood black people very much, which is why they avoid them. Take a look at the liberal bastions of America and you always find urban reservations for the folks who likes to keep it realz. It’s why big cities are using housing gimmicks to ship their blacks to the suburbs. Gentrification is just Progressive ethnic cleansing.

No, Progressives prefer their black people to be like the ones in their fantasy version of America. These are blacks like Obama. Black but, you know, not really black. As Steve Sailer put it, Obama is the nation’s first black wigger. It is one of life’s great ironies that the ideal black man on the Left is an exotic mulatto, who acts and sounds like an Oreo. Most people would have preferred President Camacho, but in the Progressive paradise, everything is drained of color, even the black guys.

To continue reading: The Cult of Anti-Racism

An American Rwanda, by TL Davis

What are the leftists after? From TL Davis at christianmerc.blogspot.com, via theburningplatform.com:

We are living on the edge of social destruction, a long-planned move of the leftists/Marxists, aided most deftly by the Obama Administration. The arrangements are unmistakable to the critical eye: the silence of the President during periods of race inspired riots as if to lend credibility to the cause; the open statements of the Attorney General supporting the prime actors in the riots; the invitation to the White House of those same actors.

The cause, by the way, is undefined and the actions taken irrational. Theoretically, the cause is the death of a black person, any black person, especially criminals, at the hands of police. So, is this meant to communicate to the rest of the nation that police should not shoot armed criminals based on race? If they should not shoot criminals, what need do they have of weapons? Are those weapons needed just for white people, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans?
The actions taken are to riot and destroy private property, not government property. The rioters, who are incensed by the actions of the police, do not march to the seat of the government; they do not descend on the police station, or the Mayor’s Office. These protests are not aimed at the government officials supposedly responsible for the policy of shooting armed criminals. Instead, the rioters loot local stores, destroy cars and attack white people on the streets.

In the light of all of this, Google decides unilaterally (as if they had the right) to declare that blacks cannot be racist against whites. So, some…no, not “some” only one race cannot be racist against a particular race. This is a statement so obviously meant to cover the aggressive and criminal actions of the Black Lives Matter group that one wonders if there has been some extortion worked against Google, or if they are willing to so openly embrace the language of genocide. Because that is what they have done.

Societies are built on a set of common rules that all may embrace. Of course, there are the outliers, the rebels, who challenge those rules and readily accept the social alienation caused by those opinions, but we are involved in something much darker, much more significant than that. These rebels, these neo-racists, have been embraced by every government agency, every media outlet, every corporation out of pure, bone-rattling fear. It is a sort of emotional extortion, they are left to feel good about themselves while they denigrate and destroy the very society they believe they are helping to evolve.

To continue reading: An American Rwanda

Tribes, by Robert Gore



Tribes are collectives. The collectivist foundation of tribal demarcations and conflicts is rarely recognized or understood. As opportunities, production, and wealth are allocated to those who objectively have not earned them—a cornerstone of collectivism—a potential recipient’s tribe often becomes the key distributive determinant. By definition, a process that is not objective will be subjective, governed by favoritism and prejudice. Resurgent tribalism represents a huge step backwards and comes at the expense of the smallest tribe: the individual.

Human history is almost entirely tribal, the actions—mostly war and conquest—of racial, ethnic, national, and smaller collectives. The intellectual seeds of universal individual rights didn’t germinate until the Renaissance, blossom until the Enlightenment, or bear fruit until the American Revolution. The notion of individual responsibility stems from prehistoric times, but it was the responsibility of an individual to the tribe and its sovereign. A manifestation of reciprocal individual responsibilities—mutually enforceable promises between equals—did not become the foundation of contract law until the nineteenth century.

One of today’s more inane intellectual exercises involves claiming credit for actions of forebears who share membership in the same tribe but who lived long before one was born, or apportioning blame to people in other tribes based on the reprehensible actions of that tribe’s long-dead forebears. Arguments are waged on who started the Crusades and who committed the most heinous atrocities, which supposedly justifies, depending on who “wins” the argument, either foreign interventionism or terrorist acts in the Middle East. Recompense is supposedly due from descendants of oppressive tribes to descendants of tribes they oppressed. Just this week the UN called on the US to pay reparations to descendants of slaves. The historical record is replete with injustice, so potential tribal claims and counterclaims are virtually infinite.

As a logical matter, we can neither take credit nor blame for the acts of people who died before we were born. Yet a band of intellectual hucksters peddles Original Sin and Original Victimhood based on the history of one’s tribe. What are they really peddling? Essentially the subjugation of one group to another based on history and tribal affiliations; Marxism in which “tribe” replaces “class.” If an identifiable group has sinned against an identifiable group of victims in the past, then the victims’ present descendants are owed continuing compensation.

Tribal ethics obliterate ethics based on individual responsibility and merit, the outcome reached in all collectivist systems. The amount of recompense can never be calculated, the debt never repaid. No offsets are allowed for any benefits the victims might have garnered from the guilty (the UN proposal has no offsets for benefits slave descendants might have accrued because their forebears lived in the US rather than Africa for the last century and a half); the guilty are simply expected to keep toiling for their historical victims.

Collectivist systems don’t work because they are incompatible with human nature and the requirements of survival. Tribes do not think, reason, or make choices, individuals do. A tribe’s leader or leaders may decide what they believe the tribe should do, but the tribe’s individuals decide whether to comply, often “influenced” by the leaders’ abilities to threaten and coerce. Indeed, the capacity to wage violence is the implicit foundation for tribes’ and their leaderships’ power.

The command and control exercised by a tribe’s leadership more often than not hinders or prevents the organic adaptation and effort necessary for individual members of the tribes to survive and progress. It’s almost a straight-line relationship: the greater the primacy of command and control, the less successful and the shorter the lifespan of the tribe. Conversely, when tribal command and control has been relatively restrained and individual thought and initiative have held sway, humanity has achieved most of its progress, although such periods have been comparatively brief.

The US legal regime enacted since the 1960s with either a primary or secondary goal of helping blacks belongs in the dustbin of failed collectivist schemes. By 1970, most, if not all, de jure discrimination based on race had been stricken from the books. That, of course, could not eliminate prejudice in the hearts and minds of some whites towards blacks, or some blacks towards whites. That will always be beyond the reach of the law, although the law can attempt to stifle their expression. In a legal system based on individual rights, equality before the law is as far as the system can go.

Unfortunately, the individual rights basis of US law has been eroding since the ink dried on the Constitution, replaced by the only alternative: collectivism. By the 1960s, the legal right of the unproductive to exact goods and services from the productive was well enshrined. However, the war on poverty has actually been a war on the impoverished, including a substantial portion of the black population. Handing people the coerced fruits of other people’s labor makes the recipients parties to theft, and it’s all downhill from there. Incentives for self-improvement are destroyed, dependency takes hold, self-respect vanishes, and social pathologies effloresce.

Legal mandates justified by Orwellian newspeak treat black and other minorities as “more equal” that the unfavored. Based on statistical disparities and as a compensatory measure for “historical injustice,” standards have been lowered and preferences instituted: present discrimination as the remedy for past discrimination. Blameless individuals are penalized and beneficiaries compensated for sins committed before they were born. Risibly, proponents of these measures decry resentment harbored by the former towards the latter.

Receiving the unearned and undeserved hinders rather than helps the recipients, and renders them beholden and subservient to their patrons. Blacks have been the most doggedly loyal supporters of the Democratic Party and its collectivist tenets since the 1960s. As a group their status relative to other groups has not improved; by many measures it has deteriorated. These trends continued during the tenure of the first black president, which should come as no surprise. President Obama is a committed collectivist. Everything he has done, particularly Obamacare, has been consistent with his core philosophy and has had its characteristically destructive impact.

Many commentators argue that blacks need to do this, that, or the other thing to advance. Not that the putative recipients of such advice pay any attention to them, but even if they did, the commentators, by implicitly embracing the collectivist tribal premise, render their own advice worthless. Tribes fill history books, but individuals pursuing individual goals and achievements propel themselves and take humanity with them. They’re invariably hindered by collectivism. If individual blacks become so disillusioned that they question Obama’s collectivism and realize that their advancement must stem from their own efforts, it will be the best thing the president has ever done for them.


fell into the wrong hands?







Is Charlotte Our Future? by Patrick J. Buchanan

A mob is a mob, regardless of what rationale it, or others, offer for its depredations. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

Celebrating the racial diversity of the Charlotte protesters last week, William Barber II, chairman of the North Carolina NAACP, proudly proclaimed, “This is what democracy looks like.”

Well, if Barber is right, so, too, was John Adams, who warned us that “democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Consider what the protesters, who, exults Barber, “show us a way forward to peace and justice,” accomplished.

In the first two nights of rioting, the mob injured a dozen cops, beat white people, smashed and looted stores, blocked traffic, shut down interstate highways, got one person shot and killed, and forced the call-up of state troopers and National Guard to rescue an embattled Charlotte police force.

This was mobocracy, a criminal takeover of Charlotte’s downtown by misfits hurling racist and obscene insults and epithets not only at the cops but also at bystanders and reporters sent to cover their antics.

We have seen Charlotte before. It was a rerun of Ferguson, Baltimore and Manhattan, after mobs in those cities concluded that innocent black men had been deliberately killed by “racist white cops.”

Yet, one week later, what do we know of the precipitating event in Charlotte?

Keith Scott, 43-year-old African-American father of seven, was shot and killed not by a white cop, but by a black cop who shouted to him, along with others, almost 10 times — “Drop the gun!”

An ex-con whose convictions included assault with a deadly weapon, Scott was wearing an ankle holster and carrying a handgun.

Charlotte Police Chief Kerr Putney, also black, after viewing video from a dash-cam and a body-cam of the officers involved, recommended against filing any charges.

The chief concedes that he cannot, from the video footage, see a gun in Scott’s hands at the time he was shot.

But how is the legitimate investigation of the death of Keith Scott advanced by a mob? And if mass civil disobedience is what “democracy looks like” in 2016, why are we surprised that other nations look less and less to American democracy as their model?

Moreover, if these repeated reversions of the enraged to street action become the new normal, what do they portend for the country?

Blanket cable news coverage of the Ferguson riots split us along racial lines. But what purpose did they serve? Even Eric Holder’s Justice Department concluded that officer Darren Wilson should not be charged in the shooting death of Michael Brown, who tried to grab his gun.

A year ago, Baltimore divided the nation.

Six Baltimore cops, three of them black, were charged in an alleged “rough ride” in a police van that killed 25-year-old Freddie Gray.

This year, a black judge acquitted three of the cops in three trials, and all charges against the rest were dropped.

No evidence was produced that the cops had intended to injure Gray.

To continue reading: Is Charlotte Our Future?

She Said That? 11/15/15

From Ali Michael, Ph.D., Director of P-12 Consulting and Professional Development at the Center for the Study of Race Equity in Education at the University of Pennsylvania, in an article on huffingtonpost.com, “I Sometimes Don’t Want to Be White Either”:

Rachel Dolezal is a fascinating case study in White racial identity development.* [Rachel Dolezal was the head of Spokane’s NAACP branch who was revealed to be a white woman who “identified” as black and had assimilated into black culture.] She is stuck in the immersion/emersion stage, in which White people, having learned extensively about the realities of racism, and the ugly history of White supremacy in the U.S., “immerse” themselves in trying to figure out how to be White in our society, and “emerge” with a new relationship to Whiteness. Only in the case of Dolezal, her way of dealing with the pain of the reality of racism, was to deny her own Whiteness and to become Black.

She is an extreme example of a common phenomenon. The “immersion” stage is typified by White people taking more responsibility for racism and privilege and often experiencing high levels of anger and embarrassment for racism and privilege, which they sometimes direct towards other Whites. They sometimes try to immerse themselves in communities of color, as Dolezal did. She’s not alone.

I definitely experienced this. There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors… and my descendants. I remember deciding that I couldn’t have biological children because I didn’t want to propagate my privilege biologically.


**White racial identity development was first theorized and written about by Dr. Janet Helms.


Thank you, Ali Michael, for not propagating your privilege biologically. We only wish that all people who feel the way you do would make the same decision. As Yale University and the University of Missouri have recently demonstrated, this country already has way too many screwed up kids.

“Payback’s a Bitch”: Rural Wisdom and the Gathering Storm, by Fred Reed

From Fred Reed, a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

The furor over the Confederate flag, think I, has little to do with the Confederate flag, which is a pretext, an uninvolved bystander. Rather it is about a seething anger in the United States that we must not mention. It is the anger of people who see everything they are and believe under attack by people they aren’t and do not want to be—their heritage, their religion, their values and way of life all mocked and even made criminal.

The talking heads inside Washington’s beltway, in editorial suites in New York, do not know of this anger. They do not talk to people in Joe’s Bar in Chicago or in barbecue joints in Wheeling. They are cloistered, smug, sure of themselves. And they are asking for it.

We are dealing with things visceral, not rational. Confusing the two is dangerous. Hatreds can boil over as syllogisms cannot. The banning of the flag infuriates, for example, me. Why? Although a Southerner by raising, I would far prefer to live in New York City than in Memphis. Yet I value my boyhood in Virginia and Alabama. My ancestors go back to the house of Burgesses, and I remember long slow summer days on the Rappahannock and in the limestone of Athens, Alabama.

When the federal government and the talking heads want to ban my past—here, permit me to exit momentarily the fraudulent objectivity of literature—I hate the sonsofbitches.

A lot of people quietly hate the sonsofbitches.

To them, to us, the Confederate flag stands for resistance to control from afar, to meddling and instruction from people we detest. It is the flag of “Leave me the hell alone.” And this Washington, Boston, and New York will…not…do.

A surprise may be coming.

What is the anger about? Most visibly, but far from uniquely, race: the illegals, the Knock-Out game, and Washington’s protection of both. The racial hostility that pervades the country today is largely the doing of the talking heads and its perverse social policies. The rancor is unlike anything I have seen.

Curious. When I was a lad ages ago, I thought well of Brown vs. the School board. Southerners said that integration would never work and they were right, but what came before was just wrong. I thought so then, and I think so now. I favored the civil-rights acts. I reluctantly favored affirmative action (I was very young) thinking it meant a hand up instead of an entitlement. I wrote hopefully of the prospect of educating blacks.

But look what happened. We now see forced hiring of the incompetent as a right, endless accounts of blacks destroying shopping malls, burning cities, brutally attacking whites in gangs, and the giving to blacks of anything they want because they are black. You don’t like the Confederate flag, Jesse? Why then, it must go. Whatever you say, Jesse.

It wasn’t this way, but it is now. It is getting worse. But there is far more than race. We now are compelled to live in a national sexual-freak show. Day after day after day the media are full of trans-this and trans-that, of homosexual marriages, all thrust in our faces, a parade of prancing peculiarities demanding and demanding and demanding. People who dare not say so are sick of it.

It isn’t viciousness. I don’t know anyone who wants to persecute the erotically baroque. Poofters in particular are usually bright, productive, decent people, and do not attack whites in wheel chairs with hammers. Yet I weary of their endless tedious concerns. I say, go. Go with God, but for God’s sake go. Or just shut up. That would do as well.

I, we, will be told, “But Fred, homosexuality is natural.” So is hemorrhagic tuberculosis. So is sadism. So is genocide.

Any sexual predilection can be called natural, and arguments can be made for all of them: Polygamy, or marriage with a sheep, or copulating on a public bus, or sex with girls of nine years. (How about, “Sex is natural. Children are erotic: Don’t they play doctor? Little girls are only afraid of it because of puritanical conditioning by society. Oral sex feels good, and adults do it, so why not…? Why shouldn’t her father gently teach her….” And so on.)

And crime is out of control, protected by a President and Attorney General with whom we, so many Americans, have nothing in common, who dislike us, and who want to disarm us and flood our country with illegal and incompatible aliens.

To continue reading: “Payback’s a Bitch,” Rural Wisdom and the Gathering Storm

Cruelly Unrequited Love, by Robert Gore

George loves Cruella, the bad girl who torments him, and spurns Constance, the good girl who loves him. Finally, Cruella goes too far; George sees her for what she is. He recognizes long-suffering Constance’s devotion and they live happily ever after. This trite story line, a romantic comedy staple, is also an apt description of the long-running, cruelly unrequited ideological love for government of much of the black establishment and its unfortunate followers, and their disdain for the ladder that has enabled so many to climb to success in America.

When Ferguson becomes a memory; after all the public figures and their media cronies have “felt their pain”—ritualistically denouncing violence and rioting, but excusing it as an understandable response to racism and oppression, then moving on to whatever grabs the headlines next—perhaps some blacks will see the charade for what it is. Individualism, entrepreneurialism, and capitalism are more demanding and less forgiving than Constance, but unlike Cruella government, they offer a real chance to climb the ladder, with rewards commensurate with effort and ability. The private economy has its imperfections, including racism, but it, not government, has been the American ticket out of poverty and powerlessness for over two centuries.

The federal government was responsible for ending slavery and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. These were steps towards legal equality for blacks, although racism still existed de jure, most notably with “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws and barriers to voting. That legal edifice began to crumble with the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 Supreme Court decision that had allowed state-sponsored segregation—“separate but equal”—in public education. It took time and force of arms before integrated education became a reality. It took marches, demonstrations, and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before integration became the legal requirement for the rest of government and in private workplaces and private facilities that served the general public. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and subsequent amendments went a long way towards ending the disenfranchisement of blacks and other minorities.

No law can end racism in people’s hearts and minds, just as no law can end stupidity. However, if you ask government for more than a fair shot—equality before the law—you’re bound to be disappointed. One of the most unlikely historical transformations is that of the party of the ”Solid South”—solid in its opposition to desegregation and civil rights legislation during the 1940s, 50s, and early 60s—to blacks’ new best friends. It began with Lyndon Johnson, who had been a Democratic stalwart in opposition to, but ultimately signed, the Civil Rights Act. As the old saying goes: “With friends like that, who needs enemies?”

Historically, one of the more racist private sector institutions has been labor unions, a bulwark of the Democratic party. Unions raison d’etre is to raise their members wages above what would prevail in a competitive market. Starting with Franklin Roosevelt, Democrats have endeavored to tilt the field towards unions, most notably with closed shop laws. Attracted by higher-than-market wages, more workers want to join unions than the unions can admit. Protected monopoly unions, like protected monopoly businesses, are freer to discriminate and engage in other irrational practices that would put them at a competitive disadvantage in an open and free market. Numerous studies have confirmed that is indeed what those monopolistic entities have done, admitting and hiring a disproportionately low number of blacks and other minorities.

Labor unions have long championed laws and regulations governing pay, hours, and working conditions, not just for union members, but for the entire workforce. Undoubtedly some of that has been motivated by a sincere desire to improve the lot of all workers. However, it also shifts the relative cost calculation between union members and cheaper nonmembers. If a union member costs $20 an hour and a non-member costs $10 before a regulation, the non-member wage is 50 percent of the union wage. If the government imposes regulations costing $5 an hour, the union wage to an employer becomes $25 an hour. The non-union wage becomes $15 an hour, or 60 percent of the union wage, reducing the relative disparity, favoring union workers at the expense of non-union workers.

You can’t climb the ladder of opportunity if the bottom rungs have been knocked out, and that’s what unions and labor legislation have done to blacks. Jobs and workplace experience, not fancy government training programs, are how workers with little or no skills become higher-skilled, more valuable employees. The unemployment rate for blacks from sixteen- to nineteen-years-old is 32.7 percent. Economist Thomas Sowell notes that the rate for sixteen- and seventeen-year-old black males was just under 10 percent in 1948, lower than for white males of the same age. The reason for the difference? Minimum wage laws: in 1948 the minimum wage was so low it was irrelevant; in 2014 it prices unskilled black youth out of the labor market. Sowell writes that the minimum wage has been “a major social disaster…for the young, the poor and especially young and poor blacks.” (Thomas Sowell, “A Defining Moment,” http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/02/07/a_defining_moment/page/full) Those groups are supposedly of special concern to Democrats, but a substantial majority of the party is currently pressing for a large, job-destroying increase in the minimum wage.

Education is the first rung on the opportunity ladder, but here Democrats are captive to their largest base of support, public education unions. For poor blacks, unable to afford alternatives, education is a government monopoly, and its quality is typical of most monopolies. Many blacks and other minorities have embraced charter schools and voucher plans, anything that represents a step up from dead-end public schools. However, every innovation that might compete with public schools has been fought by the education unions. When it comes to better education for poor blacks or the unions, guess who Democrats throw under the bus? President Obama, our first black president, successful in part because of his gold-plated education, runs true to form, kowtowing to the unions.

Perhaps out of guilty consciences, Democrats push hard for minority preferences in university admissions, government contracting, and private economic activity. Such preferences and largess unfortunately, but inevitably, fuel the belief (held by both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) that the beneficiaries advancement stems from the law, not competitive merit. They create a minority subset of the privileged class that owes its good fortune to the government, to the detriment of everyone trying to make it in the private sector who pay for that privilege with their taxes and diminished opportunities. And we all know the way Washington works: some of the largess is returned to the politicians and bureaucrats dispensing it, giving them a vested interest in perpetuating the cycle.

It remains as true today as when supposedly heartless cynics argued against New Deal relief measures: giving people money they haven’t earned creates dependency on the government and destroys work incentives. Stymied at every turn trying to improve their situation, for many blacks the welfare state administers the coup de grâce of perpetual poverty. Money without effort is for the asking. Only the stubbornly auto-blinkered believe that self-respect-destructive formula doesn’t have something to do with the social pathologies—crime, drugs, illegitimacy, and prostitution, et al.—rampant in the slums and ghettos.

While government falls all over itself “helping” blacks, many of them fervently wish that it would perform its first duty and protect them from violence and crime. This is the rage we didn’t hear much about during the Ferguson riots: the rage of those who do not rampage; who want to go to their jobs and live their lives peaceably; whose routines are upended, whose businesses and homes are vandalized and burned, who have friends or family wounded or killed in the mayhem, and who are stuck cleaning up the mess and picking up the pieces.

Take all the blacks unjustly killed by white policemen (even assuming it is all such blacks, which it is not) and it would amount to a tiny fraction of the blacks unjustly killed by other blacks in the pathological hell-holes for which government policies bear a large measure of responsibility for consigning them. The success of so many blacks in all fields of private endeavor; the analyses by black intellectuals like Thomas Sowell of governmental ineptitude and destructiveness, and the failure of government, now headed by a black president, to measurably improve the lives of most blacks, has many of the previously enamored casting a more skeptical eye on the insincere blandishments of the Cruella state. Someday, completely disillusioned, they may reject its phony promises altogether.


TGP_photo 2 FB