Woah
Headline: "Pentagon may upgrade hundreds of troops to possible Medals of Honor."
Lower standards across the board.
Lower standards across the board.
'A Depressing Election We Need'
The Washington Examiner hosts a comment on the current election:
For instance, the candidates leading the polls in either party — Hillary Clinton for the Democrats, Donald Trump for the Republicans — are not just viewed unfavorably by voters overall; they are the most unfavorably viewed by Americans out of all of the candidates running.What's the cure, then? An election between Clinton and Trump would suggest what therapy? I think I know, but it isn't one any candidate is proposing.
To put this in context, during the entire slog of the 2012 election, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney sustained a brand as unfavorable as Clinton or Trump. John McCain, John Kerry and George W. Bush all enjoyed "favorables" of over 50 percent during their presidential campaigns, even though two out of the three were ultimately never elected president. Today, only one out of four Americans think the country is on the right track. Americans continue to express deep economic anxiety, and the president's job approval remains low, with particular disapproval for handling of foreign policy....
The depression of voters seems like nothing to celebrate, and a Clinton vs. Trump election is not one I'd savor. Disgust and disdain at Washington may manifest itself in a whole host of ways, for good or for ill. But like many illnesses, those unpleasant symptoms are often part and parcel of the process of being cured.
What a depressing campaign this has been. But it also just may lead to the election we need.
Heavy Metal
A fellow I know is behind this campaign. He's not the one named in the article, but the one who suggested it to him.
A Liverpool professor has backed a campaign to rename a “super-heavy” periodic element in memory of Motorhead frontman Lemmy.You can sign the petition here.
A petition is calling for one of four newly-discovered elements to be named “Lemmium” in tribute to the rock superstar, who died earlier this month.
More than 28,000 people have backed the campaign since it started two days ago.
When good sons go . . . military
Bookworm Room, who lives in Marin County surrounded by progressives, reports an odd development: some of her hyper-progressive neighbors have sons who are choosing to join the military. The parents are starting to change their attitudes.
The End of Christmas
The Last Day of Christmas is upon us. January 6th ordinarily is taken to mark the day that the Wise Men located Jesus, which is thus the point in the Christmas story that the world abroad first celebrated the lordship of the king of kings. This year today is officially 'the Wednesday after Epiphany Sunday,' but the date of 6 January remains an important anchor for that feast.
There are of course some differences among the several Christian traditions. It is not my wish to dwell upon those, but to wish everyone a Merry Christmas one last time. Until next year, I hope you have had a joyous feast and a moment for faith.
There are of course some differences among the several Christian traditions. It is not my wish to dwell upon those, but to wish everyone a Merry Christmas one last time. Until next year, I hope you have had a joyous feast and a moment for faith.
"What’s the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat"?
Chris Matthews asks Hillary Clinton, who can't answer. Apparently Matthews had already asked her puppet, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and received the same non-answer.
The question isn't hard to answer, so it's interesting that these figures are dancing around the answer.
A Socialist believes that, to the greatest possible degree, the means of economic production should be owned by the Public and not by individuals or corporations. Practically this means that the government should own the means of production as much as is practicable.
A Democrat believes that, to the greatest possible degree, power should be invested in the citizenry broadly considered, rather than in some elite. It is opposed to monarchy, aristocracy, but also technocratic systems in which judicial or lawyerly or scientific elites rule over us as our betters.
There is thus no necessary connection between the ideologies. One can be a non-democratic Socialist, as the Communists often were. One can be a Democratic Socialist, as European parties sometimes claim to be. And one can be a non-socialist Democrat, as in fact most American Democrats have historically been.
The connection between the two is nevertheless not accidental, even if it is not necessary. Aristotle explains in the Politics that democracy is government by the many (rather than the few or the one), and that the poor are always more numerous than the rich. One of the thing the poor tend to want from government, even in ancient Greece, is for it to redistribute wealth to them from those who have it currently.
Aristotle warns against this tendency strongly. It will destabilize the state, he says, for the rich to be deprived of both power and their property. They will respond by hiring mercenaries to overthrow the democracy, which will lead to the harms of political instability or war. On the other hand, in a system that is governed by an elite (an aristocracy, for example), redistribution of wealth is an important point of public policy. The poor must be made physically secure from starvation and the harms of poverty in order to support a state that denies them political power. They can cause an insurrection too if their interests are completely ignored by the powerful.
Thus, Socialism should be regarded as the sickness of Democrats. It is an illness to which they are particularly prone. That does not mean that Democrats are wrong to favor government by the many. It just means that the position entails certain risks which have to be guarded against faithfully. Other positions entail other risks, so it is not a unique failing of Democrats that such a risk exists. This one just happens to be the one to which they are especially likely to fall prey.
As, apparently, they are currently doing.
The question isn't hard to answer, so it's interesting that these figures are dancing around the answer.
A Socialist believes that, to the greatest possible degree, the means of economic production should be owned by the Public and not by individuals or corporations. Practically this means that the government should own the means of production as much as is practicable.
A Democrat believes that, to the greatest possible degree, power should be invested in the citizenry broadly considered, rather than in some elite. It is opposed to monarchy, aristocracy, but also technocratic systems in which judicial or lawyerly or scientific elites rule over us as our betters.
There is thus no necessary connection between the ideologies. One can be a non-democratic Socialist, as the Communists often were. One can be a Democratic Socialist, as European parties sometimes claim to be. And one can be a non-socialist Democrat, as in fact most American Democrats have historically been.
The connection between the two is nevertheless not accidental, even if it is not necessary. Aristotle explains in the Politics that democracy is government by the many (rather than the few or the one), and that the poor are always more numerous than the rich. One of the thing the poor tend to want from government, even in ancient Greece, is for it to redistribute wealth to them from those who have it currently.
Aristotle warns against this tendency strongly. It will destabilize the state, he says, for the rich to be deprived of both power and their property. They will respond by hiring mercenaries to overthrow the democracy, which will lead to the harms of political instability or war. On the other hand, in a system that is governed by an elite (an aristocracy, for example), redistribution of wealth is an important point of public policy. The poor must be made physically secure from starvation and the harms of poverty in order to support a state that denies them political power. They can cause an insurrection too if their interests are completely ignored by the powerful.
Thus, Socialism should be regarded as the sickness of Democrats. It is an illness to which they are particularly prone. That does not mean that Democrats are wrong to favor government by the many. It just means that the position entails certain risks which have to be guarded against faithfully. Other positions entail other risks, so it is not a unique failing of Democrats that such a risk exists. This one just happens to be the one to which they are especially likely to fall prey.
As, apparently, they are currently doing.
Stand Down Orders in Benghazi
Was there an order to 'stand down' in Benghazi? As we all know, it has been repeatedly denied by the government, which claims that no forces were available to respond and there were no stand down orders given.
The guys who were actually on the ground say it absolutely happened. (Advance to 7:10.)
Their opinion is that 13 Hours is unusually accurate for a war film. It certainly has the potential to be explosive. American Sniper proved to me that there's an appetite for this kind of movie. Let's hope it does well.
The guys who were actually on the ground say it absolutely happened. (Advance to 7:10.)
Their opinion is that 13 Hours is unusually accurate for a war film. It certainly has the potential to be explosive. American Sniper proved to me that there's an appetite for this kind of movie. Let's hope it does well.
Marjah
More than a dozen U.S. Army special operations soldiers are trapped in Marjah, Afghanistan, taking cover in a compound surrounded by enemy fire and hostile Taliban fighters after a U.S. special operations solider was killed earlier in the day, senior U.S. defense officials told the media late Tuesday....I trust you know what to do.
The joint U.S. and Afghan special operations team was sent to Marjah to clear the area of Taliban fighters, who have retaken most of the town since November.
There were nine airstrikes on Tuesday in support of a clearing operation.
"Scores of Women" Attacked in Germany
Just one of those things you have to accept in order to ensure the benefits of increasing diversity, I suppose.
UPDATE: In Missouri, a woman has a different experience.
UPDATE: Germany will have much to reflect on this week.
UPDATE: So far, reflection is going predictably wrong.
“The government’s loss of control is not only taking place on the borders,” wrote Alexander Marguier, deputy editor in chief of the monthly political magazine Cicero, in its digital edition. “For whoever gives up control of who enters the country no longer has control over the consequences of this action.”Indeed.
UPDATE: In Missouri, a woman has a different experience.
UPDATE: Germany will have much to reflect on this week.
UPDATE: So far, reflection is going predictably wrong.
On The Underlying Tensions in Oregon
A good piece on how Federal environmental policies are destroying traditional Western ways of life, such as ranching and mining. That's true in West Virginia, too, but out West the Federal government actually owns most of the land -- and it would like to own more.
To me this is a story much like the Yazoo land scandal, except that instead of selling the land to a corporation the government is refusing to sell to anyone. That policy ends up making citizens less free than they would be if they could own their own means of production, including the land on which they graze. While some national parks and refuges are a great idea, the West is vast -- vast enough that the government could do everything we'd want them to do without owning half or more of the land in these states.
The effect of government ownership of most of the land in your state is to reduce a large part of the citizenry from free landholders to tenet farmers subject to the whim of their landlords. It is to reduce the scope of human liberty substantially. Property ownership is one of the rights the Revolution was fought to protect -- indeed, for the many Founders who were politically aligned with John Locke, it was first among those rights. These policies put the liberty that comes with ownership out of reach, and along the way are crushing out of existence a traditional American culture of great nobility.
The federal government owns more than half the land in the state, as it does across much of the West. It used to be routine for ranchers to get permits to graze cattle or cut timber or work mines — a way to make a living from the land.We all agree that natural beauty is important, and the environment represents a kind of national treasure. But the culture of the West is also a kind of national treasure. The people might be self-sufficient, as once they were when they could own the land they worked.
Then came increasing environmental regulations, and the federal land became more for owls and sage grouse than for local people trying to feed their families, said Soper, 39, who lives 100 miles up the road in Bend.
To me this is a story much like the Yazoo land scandal, except that instead of selling the land to a corporation the government is refusing to sell to anyone. That policy ends up making citizens less free than they would be if they could own their own means of production, including the land on which they graze. While some national parks and refuges are a great idea, the West is vast -- vast enough that the government could do everything we'd want them to do without owning half or more of the land in these states.
The effect of government ownership of most of the land in your state is to reduce a large part of the citizenry from free landholders to tenet farmers subject to the whim of their landlords. It is to reduce the scope of human liberty substantially. Property ownership is one of the rights the Revolution was fought to protect -- indeed, for the many Founders who were politically aligned with John Locke, it was first among those rights. These policies put the liberty that comes with ownership out of reach, and along the way are crushing out of existence a traditional American culture of great nobility.
Should Conservatives Support "Industrial Scale" Clemency?
The American Conservative suggests that it would be both moral and practical to release many, many more prisoners than we do.
Why is it moral? For one reason, because we put too much faith in the law qua law.
What's being asked for here is not pardons by and large, but clemency. They would remain under the disabilities associated with being a convicted felon. We just wouldn't be responsible for them.
Good idea?
Why is it moral? For one reason, because we put too much faith in the law qua law.
In the United States, our civic religion is the Rule of Law—we have no monarchy, and we are less tribalist than more ethnically and religiously homogeneous nation-states. Instead the highest symbol of our nation is a legal document, with its own legalistic cult and rituals. To be sure, the rule of law is in many ways an ideal of rational order and equality without favoritism. But a spillover effect is the tendency to treat all legal codes as if they were handed down from Mount Sinai, no matter how unreasonable or cruel they may be.Why is it practical? I'll cite just one argument here, though you can read the rest if you like:
Devotion to the Rule of Law has an ugly side in resentment of executive acts of mercy, at the level of practice and high theory. Immanuel Kant, often thought of as a Birkenstock-wearing human-rights guy, was one of the most vicious retributivists in the history of moral philosophy, an implacable opponent of royal clemency. In 1764, Milanese philosophe Cesare Beccaria argued that the same crimes must carry the same punishment regardless of the perpetrator’s rank or station, no exceptions—a radical proposition for its time. This sounds unobjectionable, but this Enlightenment universalism has had harsh ramifications in the American context where, combined with Puritan moral panics and the authoritarian heritage of slavery and Jim Crow, it has frequently made for a justice system with a tendency to degrade and “level down” to an egalitarian level of misery....
At the founding of the country, executive power was seen not as a violation of our self-image as a “nation of laws not men” but as a necessary and healthily legitimate part of any popular government. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 74: “the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered.” Without pardon power, “justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel.” Justice John Marshall also upheld clemency as “an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws.”
Our incarcerated population is also aging rapidly, and though older prisoners have far lower recidivism rates, few states are availing themselves of geriatric release. For instance, Virginia in 2012 granted geriatric release to less than 1 percent of about 800 prisoners eligible, according to the state parole board. Meanwhile, as the Virginian Pilot reported, “during the same period, 84 inmates died in state prisons.” Running high-security nursing homes is neither compassionate nor fiscally sound—another reason to restore and expand clemency.That seems like a reasonable case to me. Some prisoners ought to die in prison simply because of the magnitude of their crimes -- Charles Manson, perhaps. Others really shouldn't be in prison, even if they were pretty hard-core thugs as young men, because they pose no threat that would justify paying for both guarding them and caring for them in their age.
What's being asked for here is not pardons by and large, but clemency. They would remain under the disabilities associated with being a convicted felon. We just wouldn't be responsible for them.
Good idea?
Joining the NRA
A couple of essays broke today on joining the NRA in spite of reservations, one featured at InstaPundit and the other at Hot Air. The upshot of both are that the NRA is not really the premiere gun rights organization in America today. It has in the past endorsed gun control laws in order to appear reasonable, and it has in the past accepted compromise positions that furthered some of our interests at the expense of others. That may be a virtue or a vice depending on how you see American politics, both in general and at this specific moment.
What actually annoys me more than the compromises is the propaganda they run in their magazines. Even on years when it is clear that there are no dangers to gun rights, the NRA's magazines always read like the next Great War is on the horizon. This is for fundraising purposes. I generally maintain membership with them only in years when there really is a danger because it is difficult for me to respect an organization that is not completely honest with its membership.
In terms of better organizations, the Second Amendment Foundation is mentioned prominently for its role in Heller and other court cases that have advanced the ball on forcing the government to recognize the Second Amendment. I wish fervently we could do as much for the Tenth Amendment -- it would be a great start if the government at least admitted it was really in the Constitution and really ought to be binding in some way or other.
Another organization I like is the Gun Owners of America, which insists on a no-compromise position.
All the same, the NRA is about to take it on the chin in the next election cycle. The Obama administration has pledged to make gun control a top issue in his final(!) year in office. Hillary Clinton -- and other Democrats on stage at the first debate -- named the NRA as an "enemy." Whether or not they're the best, it's going to make a huge difference whether or not they can show increasing support as a consequence of this push.
So, today, I signed back up with the National Rifle Association. I want them to be able to point to big increases in membership as the main consequence of the Democratic Party's return to gun control as an issue. We need to keep teaching this lesson until they give up on it. Gun rights are not going anywhere. We will not surrender our liberty for the false promises of government-granted security. The government couldn't keep those promises even if it were wholly serious about them. To be able to do much more than it does it would have to override our rights to privacy and independence.
Even then, it simply can't keep you safe. Just because criminals and terrorists choose their victims carefully, the police will not be there when you need them. Not because they don't want to be -- I think mostly they fervently wish they could be. It's probably why they joined the force. But they can't be. They can only come when they're called, and then it will take as long as it takes.
Finally, a government that truly obtains a monopoly on arms has subjugated its population. No free nation can accept that status. We must never put ourselves in the position in which the government can do whatever it wants to us, and only refrains if it wants to refrain. One person or a small group cannot defend themselves against the government, which is good because it enables the government to keep the peace. Nevertheless, it is in the interest of justice that any government should have to fear mistreating a plurality or majority of its citizens. It is the best thing for everyone if those elected to office know that they will be held responsible for their actions by a people that is ultimately stronger than they are.
It is time to teach that lesson again. They think they want to pick this argument up again. Let's remind them why they'd rather not.
What actually annoys me more than the compromises is the propaganda they run in their magazines. Even on years when it is clear that there are no dangers to gun rights, the NRA's magazines always read like the next Great War is on the horizon. This is for fundraising purposes. I generally maintain membership with them only in years when there really is a danger because it is difficult for me to respect an organization that is not completely honest with its membership.
In terms of better organizations, the Second Amendment Foundation is mentioned prominently for its role in Heller and other court cases that have advanced the ball on forcing the government to recognize the Second Amendment. I wish fervently we could do as much for the Tenth Amendment -- it would be a great start if the government at least admitted it was really in the Constitution and really ought to be binding in some way or other.
Another organization I like is the Gun Owners of America, which insists on a no-compromise position.
All the same, the NRA is about to take it on the chin in the next election cycle. The Obama administration has pledged to make gun control a top issue in his final(!) year in office. Hillary Clinton -- and other Democrats on stage at the first debate -- named the NRA as an "enemy." Whether or not they're the best, it's going to make a huge difference whether or not they can show increasing support as a consequence of this push.
So, today, I signed back up with the National Rifle Association. I want them to be able to point to big increases in membership as the main consequence of the Democratic Party's return to gun control as an issue. We need to keep teaching this lesson until they give up on it. Gun rights are not going anywhere. We will not surrender our liberty for the false promises of government-granted security. The government couldn't keep those promises even if it were wholly serious about them. To be able to do much more than it does it would have to override our rights to privacy and independence.
Even then, it simply can't keep you safe. Just because criminals and terrorists choose their victims carefully, the police will not be there when you need them. Not because they don't want to be -- I think mostly they fervently wish they could be. It's probably why they joined the force. But they can't be. They can only come when they're called, and then it will take as long as it takes.
Finally, a government that truly obtains a monopoly on arms has subjugated its population. No free nation can accept that status. We must never put ourselves in the position in which the government can do whatever it wants to us, and only refrains if it wants to refrain. One person or a small group cannot defend themselves against the government, which is good because it enables the government to keep the peace. Nevertheless, it is in the interest of justice that any government should have to fear mistreating a plurality or majority of its citizens. It is the best thing for everyone if those elected to office know that they will be held responsible for their actions by a people that is ultimately stronger than they are.
It is time to teach that lesson again. They think they want to pick this argument up again. Let's remind them why they'd rather not.
Pilgrimage Update: Success!
I thought it was a dodgy choice to do this in December instead of April as Chaucer recommended, but he claims to have had a Medieval antecedent who left 'on the same day' in 1365. Of course, that was in the Medieval Warm Period! But perhaps God favored his endeavor. Certainly here it's been the mildest winter in a long time.
A former physics teacher has completed a 700-year-old pilgrim's journey using only medieval clothing and equipment. Steven Payne began walking from Southampton's Mayflower Park to Canterbury on 16 December, carrying a goodwill message from the Pope. The 52-year-old slept in his cloak, sometimes in fields and hedgerows or in structures built in medieval times. He was greeted by the mayor of Canterbury and canon of the cathedral when he arrived on Tuesday afternoon.
Armed Protests & Attorneys General
It seems there is widespread agreement even among III Percenters that this Oregon situation is neither the time nor the place for an armed protest. An interesting tidbit uncovered in the readings, though...
As college student, Eric Holder participated in ‘armed’ takeover of former Columbia University ROTC officeThat protest was different in a key respect: people needed access to the Columbia ROTC office. This thing was shut down for the winter anyway. Nobody was going to need to use it until sometime in the Spring. It's the sort of place you could stage a protest like this without actually inconveniencing anyone else for at least a few months.
As a freshman at Columbia University in 1970, future Attorney General Eric Holder participated in a five-day occupation of an abandoned Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) headquarters with a group of black students later described by the university’s Black Students’ Organization as “armed,” The Daily Caller has learned.
Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler has not responded to questions from The Daily Caller about whether Holder himself was armed — and if so, with what sort of weapon.
Holder was then among the leaders of the Student Afro-American Society (SAAS), which demanded that the former ROTC office be renamed the “Malcolm X Lounge.” The change, the group insisted, was to be made “in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood.”
What's Going On In Oregon?
Wretchard of the Belmont Club passed this link recently, which I take for an endorsement of it. If, like me, you hadn't heard of this conflict until last night -- well, there turns out to be a lot behind it that you haven't heard yet.
UPDATE: D29 suggests some further reading inside the comments. Here also is Reason on the absurdly harsh sentences, which the 9th Circuit Court upheld on the grounds that they've seen worse. The Constitutional protection withers because the government has gotten by with worse abuses in the past?
UPDATE: D29 suggests some further reading inside the comments. Here also is Reason on the absurdly harsh sentences, which the 9th Circuit Court upheld on the grounds that they've seen worse. The Constitutional protection withers because the government has gotten by with worse abuses in the past?
The Last Segment Is Really Worth Watching
You can skip the rest if you like, but the space exploration bit should be seen.
Reaping the Whirlwind
Fareed Zakaria's notice of the increased death rate in blue-collar white Americans, from suicide and drugs, draws this comment from Glenn Reynolds:
It was the election of two different two-term Democratic presidents who did not enforce immigration laws, and one two-term Republican who was not especially exercised about it, that led to the massive demographic shift over the last three decades. If you elect a President for whom they are a priority, that massive wave of immigrants are still first-generation. They could be expelled, if enough anger is focused upon the matter.
Even without the increased anger, last year more natives of Mexico left the United States than came here. Why not? People have a natural preference for home. If Mexico and other Latin American states improve, many of these people would go home just because they'd rather be there than here. If increasing anger drives a nativism that becomes harsh and unwelcoming, even more people will feel inclined to depart. They'll take their families with them willingly. The demographic 'destiny' would then change, and what Zakaria thinks impossible would become real.
It would, however, be a very ugly time. The expressions of such anger and nativism are not beautiful.
What is driving all this anger? Perhaps it is the fact that the government, under the current administration, is actively taking sides against these workers. It's also the triumphalism of the cultural left, which is openly salivating about being able to put the older, whiter America in the grave. These are choices too, choices with consequences. These people are not fools just because they don't have a college degree. Having less education may make their response more visceral, but it won't keep them from noticing what is being done and who is doing it. They can hear the voices that hate them. They can hear how happy those voices sound when they posit a world in which these American workers and their families are no longer important.
In fact, even if we avoid the period of anger it would be completely unsurprising if America became less 'ethnically diverse' again -- not by changing actual demographics, but by absorbing later-generation immigrants into a new definition of 'the majority.' That has happened to the Irish, to the Germans, to the Italians, to many Jews, and could very easily happen to Latinos as well. There is no reason for us to insist on going through the ugliness that is likely to follow.
Still, avoiding the anger will be hard to do because the anger is not unjustified. It is clear that a generation of policies have been in place to effect this reduction, that new policies are being put in place to further it and cement it, and that the fall of these people and their families is deeply and earnestly desired by the cultural allies of the politicians effecting the policies.
What happens if the anger turns outward? That is indeed the question, and people should give it some thought. It would be wiser and better for those driving the underlying causes of this anger to stop and consider the effects of their actions.
Psychologists say that depression is anger turned inward. What happens if it turns outward?That's the right question. Zakaria misses it completely, being so invested in the narrative that America is becoming more ethnically diverse that he fails to notice that it was an artificial process that could be fairly easily reversed. Nothing can be done but to accept their miserable fate, he suggests:
Working-class whites don’t think of themselves as an elite group. But, in a sense, they have been, certainly compared with blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans and most immigrants. They were central to America’s economy, its society, indeed its very identity. They are not anymore. Donald Trump has promised that he will change this and make them win again. But he can’t. No one can. And deep down, they know it.In fact, it was an immigration reform act in 1965 that altered America's immigration policies to favor the Third World instead of the First as they had traditionally. Laws that can change one way can change another.
It was the election of two different two-term Democratic presidents who did not enforce immigration laws, and one two-term Republican who was not especially exercised about it, that led to the massive demographic shift over the last three decades. If you elect a President for whom they are a priority, that massive wave of immigrants are still first-generation. They could be expelled, if enough anger is focused upon the matter.
Even without the increased anger, last year more natives of Mexico left the United States than came here. Why not? People have a natural preference for home. If Mexico and other Latin American states improve, many of these people would go home just because they'd rather be there than here. If increasing anger drives a nativism that becomes harsh and unwelcoming, even more people will feel inclined to depart. They'll take their families with them willingly. The demographic 'destiny' would then change, and what Zakaria thinks impossible would become real.
It would, however, be a very ugly time. The expressions of such anger and nativism are not beautiful.
What is driving all this anger? Perhaps it is the fact that the government, under the current administration, is actively taking sides against these workers. It's also the triumphalism of the cultural left, which is openly salivating about being able to put the older, whiter America in the grave. These are choices too, choices with consequences. These people are not fools just because they don't have a college degree. Having less education may make their response more visceral, but it won't keep them from noticing what is being done and who is doing it. They can hear the voices that hate them. They can hear how happy those voices sound when they posit a world in which these American workers and their families are no longer important.
In fact, even if we avoid the period of anger it would be completely unsurprising if America became less 'ethnically diverse' again -- not by changing actual demographics, but by absorbing later-generation immigrants into a new definition of 'the majority.' That has happened to the Irish, to the Germans, to the Italians, to many Jews, and could very easily happen to Latinos as well. There is no reason for us to insist on going through the ugliness that is likely to follow.
Still, avoiding the anger will be hard to do because the anger is not unjustified. It is clear that a generation of policies have been in place to effect this reduction, that new policies are being put in place to further it and cement it, and that the fall of these people and their families is deeply and earnestly desired by the cultural allies of the politicians effecting the policies.
What happens if the anger turns outward? That is indeed the question, and people should give it some thought. It would be wiser and better for those driving the underlying causes of this anger to stop and consider the effects of their actions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)