Transformation, Reality, and Dreams.

Joe Biden tweeted Sunday that if he gets elected, his administration “won’t just rebuild this nation — we’ll transform it,”

Seems like I’ve heard this nebulous sort of promise before.  Candidate Obama promised us “hope and change.”  The problem with such a chameleon-like phrase is that it leaves each of us to decide for ourselves what it means. 

Obama’s “hope and change” slogan sounded great.  Was it?  For some perhaps.  For others it meant the rise of identity politics that create more and more discord in our country.  To some it meant continuing to be left jobless and hopeless in the inner cities of America.  For some it meant the rise of the deep state and the ability to weaponize our federal agencies against political opponents.

And who was a part of that “hope and change” administration?  The man who now claims he will transform our country.  The man who spent his life as a political leader apparently making a country that he now suddenly decides must be “transformed.”

Transform it to what?  He says he will not just rebuild.  To rebuild presumes that something was unbuilt that needs to be rebuilt.  In this instance it means that he is with those protestors, progressives, and socialists who would unbuild – destroy – America as we know it so that it can then be rebuilt.  And, in the words of Joe (or his handlers), not just rebuilt, but transformed.  So, it will not be America as we know it.

What will it be?  A dictatorship commanded by those elites or intelligentsia who think they know better than we do what is good for us?  A socialist state which begins with a Utopian sort of dream where everyone will be happy but quickly devolves into horror for all but those in power who, by the way, are rarely the ones who were used to bring the destruction of the old regime about. 

Is this the transformation we are to look forward to with a Biden presidency?  Will he tell us?  Or will he, like Candidate Obama, use some words that have the potential of conjuring up positive visions in the mind of the hearer but which may not be the actual intent of those words at all?

Wake up.  Everyone who fell for the unsubstantiated and dreamlike promise of the Obama-Biden candidacy should see the truth underlying Biden’s campaign promise of “transformation.”  Repeat the words:  fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Do not vote for the unstated destruction, then the rebuilding with transformation unless and until you are absolutely sure what those words mean.  Demand specifics.  What will be destroyed?  What will be rebuilt?  What will be transformed?  And how?

Do not assume you know what those words mean.  And do not assume that even if they do mean what you want them to that the promise is possible:  consider what must be given up to make it possible.  For example, let’s say you believe that transformation means a perfect world in which we all are happy and healthy and have all that we need and want.  The socialist or Utopian dream.  But what would you give up to have that dream?

In Episode 24 of the original Star Trek’s first season, the crew of the Enterprise end up on a planet where everything is perfect – health, happiness, love abound – it seems a true Utopia.  Seems, but is not.  Captain Kirk realizes that things are not as they seem, the crew is under the spell of some strange spores, and that strong emotions will counteract the effect of the spores.  Once everyone is freed from the spores and have left the planet, the following conversation ensues:

Dr. McCoy: Well, that's the second time man's been thrown out of paradise.

Captain Kirk: No, no, Bones, this time we walked out on our own. Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through, struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

In many ways this exemplifies the American spirit, something which needs America in its present (though always improving) form.  The American spirit is not a pretty Utopian creature.  It is the spirit of someone who is not dealt a perfect hand, who has missteps and misfortunes and is sometimes stepped upon, but gets up and moves forward. It is the spirit of someone who dreams beyond what is, who fights and struggles to make things better, always moving up, always improving, never perfect.   It is the spirit of someone who believes that he can, of someone who works hard for what he wants and needs and takes individual responsibility for his successes and his failures.  It is the spirit of someone who is real in a real world, someone who is not content to live statically strolling to the lute.

I can easily equate the spores in this Star Trek episode with the unrealistic dreams purveyed by those who would turn this country to socialism.  Socialism is nothing more than a dream of a perfect world.   Sometimes it is presented with specific images, sometimes with ambiguous words like “hope and change” or “transformation” that suggest your own dreams.  But those dreams are not real.  They are sold by those whose own dreams, not yours, are the goal.

These dreams require that one must give up the American spirit that allows one to be their own individual.  That Utopian dream has only the “music of the lute.”  It denies to us the other passions and emotions that make us human.  It requires us to suppress all that makes us each the individual that we are and instead bow to the behavior, thought, speech, and very being that the Utopian leaders, the spores, mandate.  No drums, just the lute – their lute.  No real emotion, just that which is approved.

Utopia is not freedom.  It is a cage.  And to achieve the socialist dream, to “transform” our current America to something different, relinquishment of individual control is necessary.  The leader of the Utopia will decide what thoughts, words, and, behavior is allowed.  There will be no dissent.  No contrary emotions allowed. 

And, be very clear, the class or identity group that is used to fight for socialism will not be the ruling class of the socialist state.  The workers may have been used by Lenin to destroy the old order and bring his Marxist socialism to power, but the new state was then "rebuilt" from the top down; the workers were not the ones who ruled its brutal Communist state for 75 years.  The workers in Venezuela similarly bought a Utopian dream, but that dream become a nightmare for them once their usefulness to those in power ended.  And, after Obama’s election, the voters who had bought his promise of “hope and change” and given him victory, languished in the same inner cities of crime, unemployment and hopelessness.

The American spirit is sometimes rough and hard and not pretty.  Its music is seldom that of the lute, but more often loud and sometimes discordant.  But it is also full of energy and hope and, perhaps more importantly, it is never static but always growing.   Think hard about whether that is really something that you want to destroy (unbuild), rebuild, and then transform.

We are not just pretty lute players.  We are also drummers and dancers and shouters and singers and inventors.  We don’t all have one idea, but we create new ideas and inspire new and diverse thoughts with our ability to speak and think and behave as the individuals that we are.

The current demonstrations are of course a product of this freedom.  And if they were simply about creating an even better place in which the American spirit can thrive, I would likely support them.  But, they are not; they are about destroying and then rebuilding America into something else, something that it is not.

And I am offended that a presidential candidate would use the already fomented discontent to essentially further urge a destruction of America to be replaced with some sort of unattainable Utopian dream.  A dream that by necessity must destroy the American spirit because individual thought does not work when your goal is to make everyone move in unison to the sound of your lute.  Perfection does not allow for dissent because any dissent is seen as an imperfection.

I am delighted to accept an imperfect world if it means I can be who I am, think what I think, experience all my emotions, and walk in unity with people who are not all like me but are each and everyone their own unique and diverse being.  I do not want that world “transformed.” 

The imperfect democratic republic in which we live is the best place for our full humanity to thrive.  The American spirit and the America in which it lives can and will always find ways to improve itself.  And anyone who believes that it should be destroyed and “transformed” either does not understand who and what this country and its people are or is willing to sacrifice them to achieve their own (not America’s) dream.  Like the crew of Star Trek, we need to banish the effect of the false dream and walk away, “on our own” from Biden and the Left’s “transformation.”

Different Agendas

These are photos of two very different sets of protestors confronting police.  The first is from a 1967 anti-war demonstration at the Pentagon, the second is from a BLM demonstration in NY in the past month.

Someone asked me why today’s protestors seem so “mean and angry.”

The woman in the lower photo certainly looks angrier than the young man in the top photo placing flowers in the guns of the police.  But is she?  Or is it a different kind of anger stemming from very different underlying motivations?

I am a “veteran” of anti-war protests of the 60s.  While my experience was mostly one of loud, rowdy, but mostly peaceful protests, that does not mean that there was not also some violence at some protests.   There were organizations that sometimes seemed more interested in creating violent situations than in having their voices heard in protest.  I can recall attending a couple meetings of the radical SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and learning “guerrilla warfare” tactics that could be used for violence within a crowd.  (I did not participate in those protests). 

SDS was a Leftist or perhaps Socialist organization; its militant faction the Weathermen were inspired by other revolutionaries and believed that by creating or inflaming violent confrontations they could “bring the war home” meaning force the U.S. out of Vietnam in order to deal with a violent domestic revolution.  Whether their hopes for their revolution went beyond that or not, I don’t know.

Protesters of the 60s talked about peace and love, but they were also angry.  The anti-war protests channeled the anger that many had toward what they saw as a conflict that the U.S. should never have become involved in and should get out of as soon as possible.  The anger was at what the protesters saw as a misguided policy giving way to incorrect if not immoral actions of our government.  The hope was that the government would change course.  The protesters were passionate about their cause. 

Today’s protesters are also passionate.  Many of the protesters are peaceful and, not unlike SDS of the 60s, there are also more militant and violent groups.   But their focus is broader than one defined misstep and mistaken policy of their government.  The protests look, feel, and indeed are very different.

I suggest that the difference is the underlying agendas.  The vast majority of the anti-war protesters of the 60s wanted to end the war.  They may have had different reasons (pacifist; saw this war as unjust; didn’t think US role included this war; didn’t want to be drafted; pro-communist; just want to be with the cool kids; and many more) but the underlying agenda was to stop the war.  Not the government, but the government’s participation in this unjust war.  That was the underlying clear focus and the belief was that if that participation ended the country and the government would be better.

I would note that there were other protests during the 60s – civil rights, women’s rights are two that I was also acquainted with.  Like the anti-war protests of the time, these protests also had a very focused target with the underlying agenda of causing the government to correct that targeted wrong and hence move forward to be better for its correction.

At times the 60s protests might very well have sounded like and looked like an expression of hatred for the government generally, but in reality it was for most of the protestors a hatred for a particular policy or action of the government.  Stopping that action, not the entire government, was the agenda.  The anger was a constructive and positive movement forward. 

Not so the current protests.  Today’s protests, whether peaceful, or attempts to incite violence, or actually violent are not directed at one act of our government but at the entire government (the “system”).  While today’s protesters may speak of justice and a better America, their agenda in achieving that is not to correct misguided actions but to actually dismantle the entire structure of America and rebuild it as something else. 

This is classic Marxism. Any good Marxist or Socialist understands that a revolution which seeks to restructure a governmental system must involve violence.  And, like any good Marxist leader, the leaders of this revolution have created a coalition of victim groups and pitted them against the “system.”    Lenin, in engineering the Russian revolution, used the workers as the ones to press that revolution and destroy the existing system.  (Once it was destroyed, however, power was once again taken from the workers and returned to a new power group to build a new system from the top down.)

Today we do not have a worker class revolting against czars, but we do have identity groups fomented to “hate the system” and hence to tear it down.  While the protestors of the 60s still, for the most part, respected the “system,” today's protestors do not.  They don’t want to fix it, they want to destroy it.  Why?

When they were children, the 60s protestors were taught that America is a great country.  They were told of America’s strengths and weaknesses, of her achievements and her sins.  But, most importantly, they were taught that the American “system” provided a voice and a means of making corrections and improvements that would move America forward and to even more positive achievements.  They learned that this voice (and its accompanying responsibilities) belongs to them and that while our government through our Constitution protects and preserves that right, it does not own it.

Today’s protestors have not been taught how the “system” works for our and the country’s good.  Rather, they have been told that America is generally bad and its “system” is not good.  Rather than being taught that the Constitution protects rights that belong to each individual, they are taught that rights are something the government creates and then gives these rights to (or takes them away from) the individual.  The government, not the individual, owns the rights.   From there it is an easy step to convince those who do not have all that they want or that others have acquired or achieved that they are victims of the “system.”

So, while the 60s protestors respected the system because it protected their individual rights (including their right to protest), today’s protestors rebel against a system that they see as not providing what it should.  This is a big difference.  And the anger that is generated is also very different. 

If the perceived or desired “system” is one of large government that, rather than protecting individual rights, doles them out as it sees fit and thus, takes from the people their right to guide themselves, then it makes sense that one who feels that he or others are unfairly dealt with might want to overturn that “system.”  And, so, today’s protestors work not to correct a misstep of our current system, but to overturn it entirely.

The 60s protestors, and many similar protests from our history (women’s vote, civil rights, union and labor laws, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, etc. ) have all had an agenda directed at correcting what was viewed by the protestors as a wrong action of government.  Working with the system and the right it gives people to conduct such protests, these groups worked and channeled their anger to better the existing system.

Today’s protestors do not have a similar narrowly focused agenda.  Theirs is not to correct a specific wrong, but to dismantle an entire system.  This is a revolution going on.  The anger it generates is destructive. 

The language and demands and future visions of the movement sound a lot like the pretty promises of Socialism.  The tactics are the same – create a victim group or groups and pit them against other groups that are labeled to signify the victimizers and the current system.  Step one – destroy the system.  Step 2- rebuild to the design of a new ruling class.  That is the agenda and it is very different from simply wanting to fix something within an otherwise functioning and good system.

So, the soldiers in the protests may have the same passion, but the anger is very different and is the product of a very different sort of war.  While the 60s protestors for the most part had a general respect for and wanted to correct and improve the “system”, today’s protestors have little respect for the “system” or any of its institutions.  Their anger is different, and their agenda is destructive. 

Today’s protestors are not interested in improvement of what exists.  They want to tear down America.   Their anger is that of a manipulated socialist revolutionary.  It is not directed at anything other than destruction.  And that is why today’s protests look and feel very different.

What Matters?

Here is a thought for the day:

Lives Matter.

If you need to put a color in front of that statement, then you are the racist.

Why do I say that?  Here is the definition of racism: “the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.”

That is, identifying by race just plays into the identity politics that are by their very nature racist.  This is true whether we are identifying particular races whose lives do or do not matter, particular races whose businesses we should or should not patronize, particular races who should or should not receive taxpayer money, particular races who should or should not receive special benefits, or any other type of categorization by racial identity.

Identity politics and its accompanying racism is a tool in a game played by ideologues who are seeking nothing more than their own power.  Racial identity as well as other identity groups are nothing more than pawns in their game. 

Watch this game play out in the proposed police reform bills.  The Democrats quashed the Republican bill that had a good chance of bipartisan support and thus a chance to pass into law. Democrats aren’t even interested in debate on the bill.   Instead the Democrats with the support of their usual propaganda machine (mainstream media and entertainment industry) put forward a bill that has little chance of passage. 

Why, you may wonder, would they not want to debate a bill that might pass?  Why propose something that likely will not pass?  The answer is simple.  They care more about keeping the issue alive for their own election purposes than actually enacting the reforms.  The languishing bill allows them to continue to use racial identity politics against their Republican rivals.

Identity politics is strong and getting stronger.  People are fired, ridiculed, attacked for simply questioning its premises, for wanting to treat all citizens equally rather than singling out one group or another for special treatment or for their “collective guilt.”  I’m sure the statement that opens this post (“Lives Matter”) qualifies me for attack by those invested in the identity politics game.

Historically, the Democrat party was once the anti-Black party.  It now claims the title of the pro-Black party, the party that will be the Savior for Blacks in America.  What cloak will they next put on?  The answer is the one that serves them best in their quest for absolute power over all of our lives.

So, I will stand against their attempts to turn me into a racist by buying into their identity games.  I will not prefer one race over another.   I will not make decisions about individuals based upon the color of their skin, whether it is what life I think matters or what business to patronize or to whom I might feel guilty.

As I stated in a recent post (LINK):  

Unless and until we stand up to the game being played out in our capital and on our streets, the war of identity politics can and will only increase, and only to the benefit of those who are using it for their own gain.

Here are two essays worth reading:

Commentary from Harlan Hill in Real Clear Politics, Think the ‘Cancel’ Mobs Can’t Get Any Worse? Think Again  (LINK)

Opinion by Megan McArdle in The Washington Post, Where do we draw the line in tearing down statues?  (LINK)

Identity Politics and Victimhood vs. Liberation and Sovereignty

Black Lives Matter leader and Greater NY BLM Chapter President Hawk Newsome stated, “if this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.” (Video Interview on The Story, June 24, 2020).  And what is it that Mr. Newsome and his BLM want?  At the end of the interview he stated, “I just want Black liberation and Black sovereignty, by any means necessary.”

Let’s think about that.  Liberation is the act of setting someone free.  I think that was celebrated just a few days ago on Juneteenth, the celebration also known as Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Liberation Day, and Emancipation Day.  Juneteenth celebrates and commemorates African American freedom.

So, to what liberation does he refer?  Perhaps he has liberation confused with some idyllic Utopia where everyone has everything they want, perhaps even without having to work for it, where no one is biased, where everyone has everything that everyone else has, where no one ever has to compete for and sometimes not get the job, or house, or friends, or family, or whatever else that he wants.  Perhaps he refers to that Utopia that we all know can never really exist.

We will come back to these thoughts in a moment, but first let’s look at the definition of his other key word:  sovereignty.  Usually used in referring to a state, country, or similar entity, the word sovereignty means supreme power or authority; the right to be self-governing.  No, the identity group Black is not a self-governing state and if he seeks it to become so then that idea is quite radical and will indeed require burning down our system as well as our country. 

But, perhaps by sovereignty he intends to mean the right of Black individuals to be responsible for themselves, to make their own decisions and chart their own individual courses in life.   That of course requires choices and decisions and in the real world everyone makes some very good decisions but also some very bad ones.  In either case, when an individual governs oneself that individual must be prepared to take the consequences, both good and bad, of those decisions.

And, if that is the sovereignty to which Newsome refers, then Black individuals received that sovereignty along with their emancipation.  If that is BLM’s demand, then BLM already has what it wants.  So, let’s explore why they feel so oppressed that they must protest and riot for “liberation and sovereignty.”

The key here is identity politics.  It does its best to deny Black individuals the freedom to be individuals.  That is its point and how it serves as a tool for those who seek power via division and, in classic socialist tradition, pitting one group against another.  As the Left has fueled the flames of identity politics for the last many years, Blacks have been pushed and cajoled to see themselves not as individuals but as members of a victim group. 

With Blacks as the oppressed, and Whites or the System as the oppressor, the oppressed Blacks are urged to blame the oppressing Whites for everything within their lives that is less than the Utopia of perfection that we all dream of.  Anything less than perfection is not the fault of the oppressed, but of their oppressors.  The Utopian dream would be possible if the oppressed were liberated from their oppressors.  This is the fairy tale of identity politics.

“Systemic Racism” is nothing more than a false narrative that is used to solidify victimhood of all who are deemed members of that identity group known as Black.  It is a byproduct of identity politics – a means of dividing us to further a progressive quest for power.  To proclaim that some sort of systemic racism is the force that keeps Blacks from being liberated and sovereign is simply another way of claiming, underscoring, and maintaining victim status for an identity group.  

Identity politics, not plantation owners, is what now keeps Blacks enslaved.  Group victimhood diminishes self-worth and destroys individuality; with that comes a lack of motivation and a dependence on those who have convinced these “victims” that they cannot live without the assistance of their victim-makers. 

If liberation is necessary, it is not from the “system”, not from “institutionalized racism” but from politicians who push a victim narrative promising to save those victims, while at the same time turn those “victims” into an underclass of dependent voters who will keep their victim-makers in power. 

Yet no one forces Blacks to be identified by a group narrative.  They, like any other individual in this country, have the freedom to create their own narrative, one in which they are free to see themselves not as victims but as individuals who can take responsibility for their own lives and in so doing enjoy the fruits thereof.  They can do this without envy of or hate for or dependence on some other group.  But this requires accepting the fact that the life they create will in all likelihood not be perfect – there is no Utopia.

Truly accepting one’s own liberation and personal sovereignty requires no small amount of courage.  It is easy to sit back, take no risks, and let others create things that you would like, whether that is a physical creation or the fruits of one’s labor, or a state of mind.  It is easy to accept the narrative that you can do no more than be dependent on others for your well-being.  And, when your life is not what you would choose, it is easy to be prompted into a mindset of victimhood. To break free of that mindset takes courage and independence.

This is not to imply that no people have biases or do not act in a way that is or can be perceived as racist.  That, however, does not prove systemic or institutional bias.  There are hundreds if not thousands of anecdotes about a Black person being somehow slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is due to racism, sometimes it is not.  There are just as many anecdotes of non-Black and indeed White people being slighted or treated badly.  Sometimes that is because of their color, sometimes it is not.  Some people will choose to see these as the individual occurrences they are; others will choose to see everything through the glasses of racism.

George Floyd’s murder was horrendous.  But what proof do we have that it was racially motivated, that it occurred because he was Black?  How do we know that his accused murderer was not just a cop who was drunk on his own power?  He had, with police union help, been allowed at least 17 prior times to abuse his power; those abuses were not labeled racist.  Perhaps this was just a bad man who felt like killing that day; do we have any proof that the blackness of Floyd’s skin was the reason?  And if we do, how does this horrible murder in any way prove the existence of systemic racism?

Far more realistic than systemic racism is the existence of identity politics and its use by the Left to turn Blacks and others into a dependent sub-class.  Repeated assertions that some specter known as “systemic racism” is to blame are useful to solidify the identity group and hence keep them as a class dependent on those who proclaim with both words and actions that only with their help can the group break free of its dependent status.  Yet, such promises and their accompanying handouts do nothing more than to keep that class dependent. 

It is this political and progressive if not socialist game that threatens the liberty and sovereignty of every individual who accepts as their own the uni-dimensional identity of a group.   The “victims” are nothing more than pawns in that power game.  Their only use to the victim-makers is the color of their skin; their human individuality has no merit and is of little concern to those who are using them as pawns

The system has already worked to grant to those who choose to take it the freedom and the sovereignty Mr. Newsome and BLM demand.  It is identity politics and its accompanying demeaning of the individual that are the threat.  This key tool of the socialist warrior is being wielded well by the Progressive Left who would indeed tear down the system – the very system that has already given BLM what they seek.

So, I would encourage Mr. Newsome and BLM to reevaluate things.  If liberation and sovereignty are what you want, then I suggest that you already have it.  Victimhood and its oppression are just one of many choices available to you.  Do not take the coward’s way forward, blaming others for the imperfections in your lives and life in general.  Within you is what you need -  the courage that it takes to stand up and be responsible for your own lives, to throw off the dependent victimhood identity and choose instead your own individual, multi-dimensional,  and independent narrative.

Different Strokes for Different Folks

Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision of DHS to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act.  Basically, the majority opinion finds that the DHS reason given for recission was not sufficient.  That reason was that, based upon opinions of the 5^th Circuit and the Attorney General, DACA implemented by the prior administration’s DHS was unlawful.  Those opinions explain that Obama’s DHS overstepped its authority by conferring benefits that were in excess and violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.  

There are essentially 2 parts to DACA – the authorization of benefits to illegals covered under DACA and the Obama DHS decision to at least temporarily not enforce immigration laws as to this group of illegal aliens.  Apparently because the Trump DHS does not address these two parts separately, but instead conflates them together in the reasoning for rescission, the majority finds the decision to rescind the original illegal DACA to be arbitrary and capricious and hence insufficient.  It is, then, insufficient to justify the rescinding of a law on the fact that the law is an illegal exercise by the Obama DHS.

So, as Justice Thomas notes in his dissent, under this decision future administrations can bind their successors “by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda.” The agency, in this case DHS, must continue to administer an unlawful program from a previous administration.  One administration gets to exceed the law, the second is not allowed to correct that excess.

Two DHS memos.  One creates DACA, essentially amending and altering current law and in contravention of INA and beyond any powers granted to DHS, and thereby provides benefits and stops deportations of a group of illegal aliens.  The second DHS memo rescinds the first based on the fact that the first unlawfully creates benefits and contradicts existing law.  Two memos, both by DHS, one from the Obama administration, the other from the Trump administration.  The first which has been found to be illegal stands, the second is found unlawful. 

It feels like we have entered Alice’s rabbit hole, or perhaps more accurately are living out Orwell’s 1984 – up is down, right is wrong, and 2 + 2 = 5. 

Chief Justice Roberts, in writing the majority opinion, also expresses his concern for the “reliance rights” of DACA individuals.  It seems that in his view the Trump DHS should have considered these reliance interests and held off or delayed the recission or at least instructed immigration agents to “give salient weight to any reliance interest engendered by DACA when exercising individualized enforcement discretion.”  Well, that is simply another way of saying keep the illegal law in place. 

The majority opinion states that “The dissent is correct that DACA was rescinded because of the Attorney General’s illegality determination.”  But, while that determination did not address the option of retaining forbearance or accommodating other reliance interests, the DHS “should have considered those matters but did not.  That failure was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the ADA.”

Justice Thomas, in his dissent, states “Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision.”  Exactly!  Chief Justice Roberts and the majority are allowing their own emotions and the emotions of the vocal pro-DACA demonstrators to color their thinking. 

It is easy to have sympathy if not empathy for children taken at a young age to another country who then discover they are there illegally and essentially have no country to call their home, face the possibility of deportation to a land they don’t even know.  That is a problem.  And that problem is addressed (or not) by our legislative branch. 

The Obama DHS did not have the authority to essentially create new rules to address that problem.  Obama himself admitted that the action was done through DHS because he knew that Congress would not enact it as law.  DACA is illegal.  Its recission will cause heartache.  But its rescission is legally the right thing to do.

In this opinion the Court is essentially making law or perhaps even endorsing illegal law when it is emotionally compelling.   That is not the Court’s role.  That role also does not belong to DHS.  It belongs to the Legislature. 

We expect the Court to be dispassionate and logically look at the law.  But here we have a decision that seems in large part to be based on emotion, on what the court thinks is the right thing to do or what it would do if it had the authority to make law.   When the court so clearly and openly loses its way, America as we know it is in big trouble.

There are many court decisions as well as many laws with which I do not agree.  I used to say “be patient, the system will work” meaning that if the Court went beyond its authority the legislature would hold it in check by amending or writing legislation.  And if the legislature or administrative agencies exceeded their power, the court would hold them in check. 

But, if the Supreme Court cannot follow the rules, if it puts emotion, popular sentiment (mob rule), and politics in the place of dispassionate deliberation, then we no longer have a system to follow or to trust. 

I want to note here that this opinion, with majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, is 79 pages long.  I obviously cannot do it full justice in this short blog, and I would encourage everyone to read it in its entirety and form their own opinions about it.  But that reading should be done objectively and dispassionately. 

Even if you agree with the outcome, if your heart is with the DACA group, that outcome can and should be achieved through the appropriate processes and not by playing legal mumbo-jumbo games to enforce what should be an illegal action by a government agency.  Allow that once, and you are justifying it again when you may not be so happy with the result.

Peace Requires a New Identity – are we courageous enough to go there?

We cannot have peace until we first dismantle the identity groups that are preventing it.

In the context of a different discussion, Jonathan Sacks writes, “When, though, enemies shake hands, who is now the ‘us’ and who the ‘them’?  Peace involves a profound crisis of identity.  The boundaries of self and other, friend and foe, must be redrawn.”  (Jonathan Sacks, The Dignity of Difference, 2002).

If one’s identity is to be the victim of another group, then if the causes of the victimhood are resolved, if one is no longer a victim they have then lost their identity.  The same, in reverse, is true for those holding the victimizer identity.   It logically follows that there must be a “crisis of identity” as the uncertainty of “who am I” unfolds. 

If victimhood via group definition is the only identity that one knows, then how will they reformulate a new identity?  Perhaps the idea that one who identified as the victim of real or perceived white supremacy will now assert their supremacy over that previously victimizing group is not as far fetched as those attacking Terry Crew’s comments would have us believe.  If one’s only identity is the label given them by their group, then how will they know any other sort of identity or behavior?

Here is a personal example.  About 10 years ago the institution at which I taught installed its first female dean.  My feminist colleagues who saw women as victims of male supremacy decided to have a gathering to which no men would be invited.  Rather than simply saying I couldn’t make it, I (perhaps foolishly) chose to stand up and say I believed the whole idea was wrong, that I did not want to do what we women for years had complained about men doing – excluding those of the opposite sex.  The gathering went forward, and from that point on I became somewhat of an outcast by those colleagues:  I did not have the right mindset for redefining the feminist group identity.  I was demanding individual identity and accountability rather than simply assumption of a new group mantle.

The point is that when the end of an identity group conflict makes us ask "who am I?",  we must be brave enough to find our unique and individual identities rather than just redefine our groups and their labels without addressing the hopes, hate, and fears that belong to each group.  If we do not, then the hate and fear is just perpetuated, though redistributed, and the discord continues.

Peace.  If we really want it we must have the courage to break the cycle of identity groups.  The mere existence of one group implies the existence of another - and thus the existence of an "us" and a "them."  

We must have the courage to stand up and say that the only group with which we each will fully identify is the one called humanity.  Beyond that we must be brave enough to say we do not need a group to give us an identity, that we will work against the existence of sub-groups that take away both our humanity and our individuality.  

We must be brave enough to say that we each must and will be defined by our unique individuality.  That individuality is a multifaceted thing that includes aspects of many groups, but in the end is defined by none.

As long as we let groups define and label us we will always have an “us” and a “them.”  When we resolve an issue between identity groups, we must not simply draw new group identity lines.  Rather, we must face the identity crisis that the dismantling of group identities will cause.  We must each be brave enough to accept ourselves and others as the individuals that we and they are.   Only then can we move forward as one united mass of humanity.

“I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one” and other short thoughts on current events

Yesterday I read the story of a police officer comforting a Black 5-year-old who asked if he were going to shoot her.  This anecdote was being used to demonstrate the horror of “institutionalized racism.”  I was horrified – horrified that this child had learned this fear at such a young age.  And who, I ask, likely instilled that fear in her – her parents or other caregivers?

So, I must wonder, can all the blame for hatred go to those whom the victims claim hate them, or might some of it fall on the victims themselves?  For if a child at the tender age of 5 has been taught that police are likely to shoot her, what else has she been taught about those who are not members of her racial victim class?  How much of that is actually true or justifies a fear against a whole group?  With that fear the seeds of hate are also planted. 

And, how can we ever come together and be one nation if one group of us (whether that group is Black, White, or other) is teaching fear and hate rather than love and reconciliation against another group.  No wonder BLM and its partner M4BL (Movement for Black Lives) make demands on those whom they perceive as victimizers rather that reaching out to work with those others together to make a better world.

**

People say they want conversations, but it seems that what that really involves is dueling studies.  That is, each side will have their studies and statistics that “prove” their points and with those in hand seem to close their mind to any real dialog about those studies or diverse views supported by alternate studies. 

One can always find a study or data point to support their position.  Using them as a sort of “in your face” to those with opposing or differing views does nothing to resolve divisions.  What actually might resolve hatred and division is urging others and opening one’s own mind to understand that we are all part of one humanity that can work together to make a better world.  But we will never do that if we focus on our divisions and feel some need to prove that our position is always absolutely right and all others are absolutely wrong.

**

There is a difference between peaceful, lawful protests intended to make a point relevant to policy and urge changes in policies that the demonstrators are against, as opposed to riots, or revolts, or revolutions that simply focus on destruction.  Those who say that all are the same are actually siding with those who favor complete destruction.  

Those who would take away all police power, all lawful authority are in the process of destroying our democracy.  We do not have a first amendment right to riot and destroy other people or their property; it is the duty of our law enforcement and our leaders to protect the citizenry from unlawful acts.  

If we cease to have a safe democratic state that can only lead to having instead a safe authoritarian state.  Such a state would not even allow the peaceful protests that are not only a part of but a necessary piece of our democracy.

**

Let’s say that we: clear the nation of all confederate statues; put a large chunk of money for “reparations” in every Black person’s pocket; make it illegal to use any terms, phrases, or express any feelings or beliefs that the Black protests/demands deem to be racist; defund and dismantle law enforcement; send millions of dollars to Black communities.  Will the rioters be happy then or will they continue to: teach their children to hate, especially those who look different or think differently than do they; blame anything that is not perfect in their lives on a problem with the “system”? 

Racism will only really be resolved when each and every one of us is willing and able to take individual responsibility for our lives and when we hold individuals rather than identity groups accountable for their bad acts.  Only when we are all equally outraged at the unjust treatment or murder of any person of any color will we actually have moved forward. 

**

Identity politics is in large part responsible for bringing us to this point.  For the past 50 years mostly Democrat leaders of areas with large Black populations (especially large cities) have, despite their promises, done little to help raise Black people to a better existence, but have instead used identity politics to convince the Black population of their victim status.  This was useful for those politicians who could then claim that this underclass needed them and hence would demand their votes to keep them in power. 

Their power required this underclass and, in the name of helping our neighbors, they encouraged all of us to help to create it.  We reinforced mantras such as “you are not good enough on your own”; “you can only go so far”; the Whites/rich/republican/[fill in the blank] are out to get you and you must fear them”; and of course “you need the state, things like welfare, to survive because you cannot do it on your own.” 

Messages such as that are far more racist than demanding that Blacks simply be accountable.  Those who listen to those messages will always be victims full of hate at their perceived oppressors and ready to serve as tools for anyone who wants to “revolt” against the “system” usually for their own power, not to help those whom they see as their tools.

**

Gratitude is a key to joy.  Being filled with envy and hate destroys joy.  It also destroys one’s self.  It destroys one’s ability for self-motivation – why be motivated if others are all against you and likely will not let you succeed?  Instead of being the one in charge of one’s own life, falling victim to identity politics allows others to control your life and indeed your very identity. 

**

I am being urged to buy from Black retailers and Black business owners in order to show my solidarity with the “fight against racism.”  Well, to seek out or award someone simply because of their color seems pretty racist to me.  I tend to think the best individual should always win based on skills necessary to the contest, not simply because of a color of skin.  When I want to buy something, I will purchase from the retailer that best suits my needs be that price, quality or variety of products offered, convenience and quality of service, etc.  That retailer may be Black, White, or purple.  I will not become a racist to prove that I am not one.