Why the Left is left behind!
Leftist democrats in the states have been wondering why they are losing election after election and why more and more mainstream people feel alienated by them and by their policies then those of the right. This article by Keith Thompson might shed some light for them on this strange illogical phenomenon: These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic. I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left. This reminds me of the first time i heard of affirmative action; the concept totaly baffeld me. It basically stated that just because a person is non-white, it means that they can get into colleges easier, even if they come from the same background as their white counterparts. Somehow that was empowering them, you know, telling them that they are not held to the same high standard of college admission as white kids because they are not white, thus they can't be expected to do as well in schools. I personally found that idea to be highly insulting and racially condescending. "Poor retarded colored folks can't be expected to do as well as their white superiors, so we will give them a chance to get into colleges we know they are not qualified to get in so that they can fail and drop out later." Yeah, cause that's helping them. My friend Kerry, who has the pastiest-whitest-can't-get-a-tan-to-save-her-life skin i have ever seen, has actually found a way to use affirmative action to her advantage, and not just for the gender equality clauses in them: She applied to Yale and checked the "Black" Box at the ethnicity question, and she got in without anyone realising that she is not Black. Sure, she gets the "African American institute" invites every now and then, but she never goes. She graduated Yale last year and the school never found out, because they never botherd to check. They were just happy to fill their colored quota. In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...). Inappropriatley directed laughter? Subconscious harassment? IS ANYBODY HOME? Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that." Is it just me, or did Jesse Jackson, the great black leader, just call black people "drunk" and "illiterate"?Hmm, despite what you may believe, that's not a racist generalization at all. After all, Jesse can call black people what he wants because, you see, he himself is black. I wonder if a white person had made that statement what would Jesse's reaction be? Oh, like you wouldn't know! When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided." So Susan, does that mean that even a girl saying "Yes" isn't a sign of sexual consent because she is "powerless" compared to men? So are you actualy saying that women are powerless? How very empowering of you. Look, people move away from the left because of their constant victimization of everybody, and for choosing sides on issues that don't make sense. Somehow the Black Entertainment Television is acceptable, but if a white person tries to create a White Entertainment Television, it's not. Somehow it's empowering to have the Vagina monologues and take over Valentine's day and replace it with Vagina Day or V-Day on college campuses , but if they try to have a Penis Monologues, it's sexist. Somehow it is acceptable for a hispanic girl that comes from a well-off family to get into NYU Business School with a less SAT score then the one held by my poor white friend Katie, who was informed that despite having higher grades and SAT's then her hispanic classmate, they can only accept her in the School of General Studies, because she is white. And now the democrats are wondering why they are losing the white voters and the well off segments of society to republicans and libertarians. Somehow they don't grasp that when victimization holds precedent over qualification, everyone loses. Somehow they don't get that you can not victimize and empower people at the same time. I am sorry, but that just doesn't work and it will only make you lose voters. As Keith puts it so elequontly: "A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years." Amen!