This linked article from the Federalist got me thinking this morning…well, that and a cup of bullet-proof coffee.
Pretty much every leftist attack on the right can be understood when viewed from the perspective of outcome versus opportunity…and that is why, when reduced to the least common denominator, the bias of the left is always toward totalitarian communism. No matter what it is – racism, sexism, any “ism”, when it is viewed through the lens of making outcomes equal rather than protecting an environment where opportunities are there for individuals to capture, the end result is always totalitarian communism.
Take racism for example – while the left believes that people can’t be racist if they don’t have “power” (i.e. blacks in America can never be racist toward whites), the right believes that racism is a matter of bias totally unconnected to power, that literally anyone can be a racist.
The left’s belief that only the powerful can be racist is rooted in the unequal outcomes they perceive exist between whites and blacks. To the left, these inequalities are simply a function skin color – of “white privilege” – and not related at all to the cultural differences between white and black societies. In short, white people succeed simply because they are white and black people fail simply because they are black. Skin color explains the different outcomes.
But does skin color really explain the different outcomes?
Generally, household income is a measure of prosperity. US Census Department data for median household income reveals:
- Asian median household income: $78,000
- White median household income: $62,000
- Hispanic median household income: $46,000
- Black median household income: $37,000.
So, how is it logical to say that outcomes for black Americans are a function of racism (discrimination by skin color) when there are THREE racial groups that have higher household incomes than do black households and whites, the largest racial group in America, are in second place by a significant amount?
If whites are truly the benefactors of a supposed institutional racism, would that not mean the opportunities for Asians to outpace white households in income would not exist?
The real differences in these racial groups are opportunity based – if these groups are ranked from top to bottom, we find several things – in general, the more prosperous groups 1) place a high value on education, 2) they tend to save more of what they earn, 3) tend to be more cohesive households (fewer “broken” or single parent homes) and 4) more household members work and contribute.
One might consider these four characteristics to be oversimplified generalizations but that doesn’t mean they are wrong. The fact is that they are readily observed – and none of these are bounded by racial parameters and none guarantee any particular outcome (just because you are Asian doesn’t guarantee success any more than being black guarantees failure). These characteristics are cultural in nature and reflect not only traditional modes of behavior but how each culture views opportunity and how to take advantage of it when it is presented.
The data indicates that how each racial group approaches opportunity determines upon what rung of the economic ladder they rest.
To ignore these factors of opportunity and simply focus on equalizing outcomes requires forcing each racial group to adopt the same culture as some arbitrary authority decides how much each household should receive in income. It also requires that no group be more ambitious or successful than another. That is when accusations of racism become support for the coercive force of totalitarianism and the false, enforced “equality” of communism.