Boots & Badges
Letterwerks Sign City
"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Thursday, December 8th, 2016
Volume ∞ Issue ∞

A view of liberalism

By Col. Stan Gudmundson

Fri, Feb 7th, 2014
Posted in All Commentary

I do not care for liberalism. Not at all. Not because motives of liberals are bad, but because their premises for and “solutions” to supposed problems are repeatedly just wrong, and, far too often, result in absolute disasters. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society is a great example in not just one area but in many.

That effort, for instance, helped spawn a race-industry that has done little to solve the problems of minorities but has allowed race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to stay on center-stage and make a nice living. Moreover, our whole society is permeated with divisive initiatives, mal-employment and wasteful spending on multi-cultural programs, diversity plans, affirmative action efforts, fairness initiatives, and so on.

They rely on a premise that is factually incorrect and results in efforts that do more harm than good. That premise is that our society is permeated with racism. To liberals that requires all sorts of twisted efforts to compensate for that racism. Underlying all of this, is the notion that minorities don’t have the ability to succeed on their own and need outside help. In other words, minorities are victims and, worse, are probably intellectually inferior.

Hispanic and black Americans for example, have academic scores and achievement levels that are lower than they are for Caucasians or Asians. Is this caused by racism? And are minorities really less intelligent? If you are a liberal you probably conclude that that is absolutely true for the first question and very probable for the second.

Tom Sowell recently wrote a fascinating piece about recent research in England. Researchers there did a study of the academic achievement of children eligible for free lunch programs. 60 percent of one group met standards, less than 50 percent of another group did, and 30 percent of a third group met standards.

If you buy into liberal’s noxious racist society theory you would likely conclude that 60 percent of Caucasians met standards, 50 percent of immigrant Muslim children from Bangladesh and Pakistan met standards, and only 30 percent of the black immigrant children from Africa and the Caribbean did. And that is exactly what researchers found is it not?

Wrong. Immigrant children from Bangladesh and Pakistan and from black Africa were at the top. Next? Black children from the Caribbean. And at the bottom? White English children.

This severely undercuts the ridiculous notion that some races of people are intellectually superior to other races. And, ridiculous too, are the theories of the liberals and race-baiters in the US. Along with their “solutions.” As is the English approach as well.

Tom Sowell asks a fundamentally important question. What is the common thread between US and English concepts of disparate achievement? In America the purported cause of achievement differences is supposed to be race. In England, the supposed cause is, believe it or not, class.

On both sides of the Atlantic, liberal “intellectuals” push the victimhood ideology, the idea that it’s not their fault, they need help, our help. This excuse doesn’t work and it never will. As a matter of fact, convincing people they are victims just makes things worse. Far, far worse.

But we’ve come such a long, long way some might contend. In some areas, yes, but in others no. As Dr. Sowell writes, “Back in the 1940s, before the vast expansion of the welfare state and the ideology of victimhood used to justify it, there was no such gap on test scores between black schools in Harlem and white, working class schools on New York’s Lower East Side”.

His buddy Walter Williams, who also has a PhD in economics, says that he is glad he got his degrees before blacks became popular. He could use no excuses and wasn’t treated differently because the standards then were the same for everyone.

What to do? We should no longer document, judge, or provide so-called remedies for anyone irrespective of tint, hue, etc. other than pursuing what Martin Luther King hoped for. That people be judged solely on the content of their character. Everywhere and in everything.

Another goofy leftist notion contends that some people have won “life’s lottery.” This idea undercuts and diminishes achievement and the very, very hard work required to achieve success. I don’t buy it as the whole idea doesn’t adequately honor or acknowledge achievement especially where people overcome enormous odds.

Most of us know people who were cooler, handsomer, prettier, smarter, and more capable then any of us hoped to be yet, for some reason, never came close to living up to their potential. Are they “lottery’s losers?” I don’t buy that either.

The “life’s lottery winners” canard, to some degree, denigrates achievers while at same time providing excuses for not succeeding. Even for those who have been given special gifts but fail to use them.

What is most egregious about the concept however, is that it provides the perpetually outraged with “justification” to assert a specious “equality doctrine” and attempt to “level the playing field” in the futile pursuit of “fairness.”

No Comments Yet. Be the first to comment!

Your comment submission is also an acknowledgement that this information may be reprinted in other formats such as the newspaper.

Foods Weekly Ads
Studio A Photography