The essence of the left: equality of misery
[Hat tip: commenter “AesopFan.”]
Jonathan Turley wrote, speaking of the remarks by Minneapolis city council president Lisa Bender that calling the police when your home is invaded “comes from a place of privilege”:
What I find odd is that the fear of being without police is a form of privilege but it is still viewed by Bender as somehow beneficial because it makes non-African Americans experience fear. Wouldn’t it be better (indeed a form of leadership) to seek to remove the fear from the African-American community rather than making the fear universal? It is likely (sic) solving the greater threat of fire in one community by telling another community to go without fire protection. You achieve equity but hardly the equity that you would want.
Yes, it would be better. But Turley doesn’t seem to have absorbed the fact that this is standard on the left – in fact you might say it’s a guiding principle of the left. The effect of their methods to achieve the equality of outcome they so desire is that everyone would be equally miserable (except for the leftist leaders, of course, who have special privileges). Did Turley never read Animal Farm?
Or did he never listen to Margaret Thatcher, who grasped the leftist principle quite well and articulated this critique three decades ago:
Or, if he pleases, Turley can study the words of Winston Churchill, whose statue was defaced in London the other day by rioters, because he’s considered a racist:
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Yes indeed: failure, ignorance, envy, and the equal sharing of misery. We’re seeing quite a bit of those things these days, aren’t we?
LBJ (certainly the worst president of the last century) demanded “equality as a fact and as a result.” This desire for a completely unrealizable equality of outcome was enshrined in the “War on Poverty”, which, according to the best estimates, has squandered almost thirty trillion dollars in two generations on what is, for any rational person, nothing but a chimera.
I was on a Washington, DC grand jury for five weeks about two years ago, on a sex crimes and murder panel. I learned many interesting things, but one of the refrains when witnesses were testifying was “And I was on the phone to 911 when he….” I’m sure the perps weren’t delighted to see the cops show up, but that African Americans in general don’t call the cops is, in my experience, a lie.
The Turley excerpt was exactly my thought: if it’s a “privilege” (rather than a service, paid for by taxes and part of the right and proper role of government, to which all are entitled, which is my own view…) to expect the police to respond when you call, then why on God’s green earth would anyone who cares about black lives want the owners of those lives not to have it?! Shouldn’t her emphasis be on ensuring that that universal government service be available (as it already is) and taken advantage of (as perhaps it isn’t in every case, for various reasons) universally?
Of course, it’s easier just to take something away.
Turkey is a mystery to me. He has moments of lucidity, but runs with the dog(mas) of the left. Too much higher education, not enough feet on the ground common sense. Does he even understand who produces the food he eats, who produces the energy he consumes, and who mans the gates against those who would gladly destroy America? I think not. Elitists are wilfully ignorant of reality.
Turkey is a mystery to me. He has moments of lucidity, but runs with the dog(mas) of the left.
Disagree. Turley is an academic establishmentarian. His critique of higher education is always going to be restricted to tiles in the mosaic, not the picture they make. He will pretend his colleagues are true to their vocation and merit unfailing deference. His sensibilities were frozen in amber during his years in law school and his years as an untenured faculty member, and he simply pretends the residue of courtesies public figures offered each other ca. 1990 are still common practice.
Turley may have views on public policy generally, but that’s not what visibly interests him. He takes an interest in the sort of legal questions he’s worked on, in his personal hobbies, and in a few other shticks (such as a hostility to Saudi Arabia).
Art Deco,
You typically disagree with my comments. That’s okay because you are obviously more intelligent than me. 😉
“What I find odd is that the fear of being without police is a form of privilege but it is still viewed by Bender as somehow beneficial because it makes non-African Americans experience fear.” AesopFan
That’s not my interpretation of what Bender is saying and implying. My understanding is that she’s saying that should the interviewer call the police, they will respond appropriately because she’s white.
Whereas, when a black person calls and the police show up, they may help or they may be antagonistic, simply because the caller is black. And that it’s the interviewer’s being white that makes the difference, i.e. “white privilege”.
Bender is a typical liberal-leftist who has swallowed the lie that poverty and white racism is responsible for black crime rates and poverty. Since racism is an equal opportunity oppressor, she refuses to consider that for that to be true, Asian crime and arrest rates would have to be high as well.
When called to a black neighborhood, look what cops face; not only is crime much, much higher among blacks but that getting cooperation from blacks in pursuit of the perpetrator is rare.
So, why should the cops care… given that very few blacks are willing to face the truth and that the vast majority of blacks are willfully blind to the position in which the black community has placed the police?
Can’t find the link, but the Bender response reminds me of a horribly white-guilted father who feared he was perpetuating racism because he read stories to his children at bedtime and thus was giving his kids an educational leg-up that a ghetto black child might not have.
I can follow the logic on paper, but I find it colossally perverse a father might withhold such natural caring from his children because of abstract social justice concerns.
That alone ought to be a clue of a worm in the SJW apple.
“the “War on Poverty”, which, according to the best estimates, has squandered almost thirty trillion dollars in two generations on what is, for any rational person, nothing but a chimera.” j.e.
Not a chimera but reparations.
“why on God’s green earth would anyone who cares about black lives want the owners of those lives not to have it?!” Jamie
You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
“For the left, the issue is never the issue, the (real) issue is always the revolution” David Horowitz
“Elitists are wilfully ignorant of reality.” parker
No sir, it’s not ignorance to which they are prey to for if it were, then when we on the right counter with facts, logic and reason… they would be forced to give our positions due consideration. So it’s something deeper than mere ignorance. Elites of the left, indeed everyone on the left is, to one degree or another… in revolt against reality. The left’s premises reject basic aspects of human nature AND certain key principles that govern the external reality within which we all exist.
They know right from wrong, so they’re not insane but they are unsane. The immaturity of arrested development and cognitive dysfunction come to mind… the ‘inmates’ are out of the asylum and in their delusions they think it we who are unsane. So “deplorables and irredeemables” are not fit to have a say in a ‘sane’ world.
huxley,
Have not many on the left repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice their children to a “greater cause”?
After all, the end justifying the means is a fundamental dogma on the left.
Unlike that crucifixion 2000+ years ago, they know what they do and simply rationalize it.
Geoffrey Britain: While I wrote my comment, a more apt and earlier Bible story occurred to me:
______________________________________________
Oh, God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe said, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God said, “No” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want, Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’, you better run”
Well, Abe said, “Where d’you want this killin’ done?”
God said, “Out on Highway 61”
–Bob Dylan, “Highway 61 Revisited”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hr3Stnk8_k
______________________________________________
Love the toy whistle sound effect! That story stumped me as a kid. I’m not sure I’m much better with it as an adult.
As a quite old person, all this ‘equality of outcome’ palaver reminds me that in death we all have equality of outcome. And plenty of suffering to go round on the way. These deplorers of privilege remind me of the story about the peasant who discovered a Genie who said he could grant any wish with the caveat that whatever the peasant got for himself his neighbour would get twice as much. The peasant thought about it and asked the Genie to put out one of his eyes.
“failure, ignorance, envy, and the equal sharing of misery” – Neo
I used to feel that it was a mistake of Jefferson to write “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” because the last goal was so nebulous and personal.
The more I see of the left, and how miserable they are, the more I see his point: the people who are slaves to leftist ideologies (from the French Revolution through today’s Antifa) are not happy, have no idea how to pursue happiness, and apparently believe that happiness is something that is somehow rationed, and they can only have it if they take it from someone else.
Geoffrey Britain on June 9, 2020 at 8:19 pm said:
“What I find odd is that the fear of being without police is a form of privilege but it is still viewed by Bender as somehow beneficial because it makes non-African Americans experience fear.” AesopFan
* * *
I think you did a good job of getting into Bender’s POV, but the quote is from Turley, not me.
…apparently believe that happiness is something that is somehow rationed, and they can only have it if they take it from someone else.
AesopFan: Yes, the core problem with the Left is the general belief that everything is a zero-sum game. So if the US is prosperous, that means it must be at the expense of other nations. Etc.
That was true historically, when the pie was only so big, so to get more, one had to take from others. However, around 1800 the game began to change with capitalism, (classic) liberalism and technology. The pie began to grow exponentially, lifting millions, then billions out of poverty. It’s not done yet.
So, the Left has switched its complaints to economic inequality and identity politics, which may feel right emotionally, but distracts from the real engine which is making life steadily better overall.
Did you SEE THAT?
The “Own” [TM] TV network did a “special”, one time show, called- “Where Do we go from here?”
The show has “good old, unbiased Oprah”, and a panel of people, discussing the current- protests, riots, and racial problems, in the US.
At midnight, tonight, on June 9th-
Oprah, or others- ran the show ON AT LEAST 6 Channels at the same time!
Now, I bet, if Fox News ran a show like that, on 6 channels,-
Fox News would be accused of doing “evil propaganda” and “trying to force their VIEWS on others”.
How misguided can her actions be?
Also, on that show’s panel- there didn’t appear to be a single Caucasian person, on that panel.
If another channel did the same show, with just white people, + people-who-have-some-white-ancestors, on the panel, that channel would be accused of “being racially unfair”.
Time to get off the political-bandwagon, Madam Oprah. You’re getting the bandwagon stuck in the weeds.
From Wed. night, June 10, 2020
huxley on June 9, 2020 at 11:31 pm said:
…While I wrote my comment, a more apt and earlier Bible story occurred to me:
* * *
The story of Abraham and Isaac is definitely a stumper, and the only explanation I have found that I can comprehend is along these lines:
Abraham had been following God’s commands for some time, and found them beneficial to his life, family, and prosperity; God knew that there were going to be even more difficult times ahead, including being the progenitor of a very particular lineage with a sacred mission, and needed to know that Abraham would not funk under the pressure; so, he set up a trial where Abraham (and also Isaac) would either agree (through their obedience) that the voice they had been listening to was indeed that of the Supreme Omnipotent God with the attendant authority to command life and death, or not.
A similar trial came to the Three Hebrews in Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who were willing to die in the furnace for their faith, asserting that they knew God could save them but, even if he didn’t, he was still God.
Now, we know that there are religious (and ideological) fanatics who believe they are being directed by god (or History), and have the same willingness to sacrifice other people in their cause (and even accept death themselves), so the kicker is:
God did save Isaac and the Three, but only after the test of their obedience.
God does a lot of that Tough Love stuff.
AesopFan: So how fast can you repeat, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego”? That was a humorous game played at one church I attended.
More seriously, I do understand the story as a test of faith, but well, it can be hard to tell just Who might be the voice whispering in your ear…
Leonard Cohen (of course) has his sublime poetic take, which is, it’s God, that’s why, then pivots to an anti-war song:
_____________________________________________
You who build these altars now
To sacrifice these children,
You must not do it anymore.
A scheme is not a vision
And you never have been tempted
By a demon or a god.
You who stand above them now,
Your hatchets blunt and bloody,
You were not there before,
When I lay upon a mountain
And my father’s hand was trembling
With the beauty of the word.
–Leonard Cohen, “The Story of Isaac”
https://www.jweekly.com/2018/10/25/leonard-cohens-take-on-abraham-and-isaac-hits-the-right-note/
“…a mistake of Jefferson…”
Actually, I believe that the original version was “life, liberty and the pursuit of property”. (Though before one jumps to conclusions, keep in mind that it was the late 18th C., and IIRC, only landowners were deemed worthy of voting….)
This was changed ultimately, not sure at whose instigation. Jefferson himself? Franklin? Other?
I have had a very good friend I’ve known for over twenty years; he knew me well when I was on the left, during my slow move rightward and ever since then. It took him some time to accept my political change (for quite a while, he thought I was playing an elaborate practical joke) but accept it he did. He’s pretty far left, but not an ideologue or overly dogmatic. He is one of my few lefty friends (which are most of my friends) I’m comfortable arguing politics with. No matter how heated the argument gets (and it can get rather heated at times…of late in regard to the riots and Antifa), we are both close enough, and reasonable enough, not to ever let it affect our friendship.
Years ago (probably during the Occupy Wall Street phenomena), I asked him bluntly about the ‘equality’ issue. Hypothetically, let’s say we could know, for certain, all of the beloved welfare and redistribution policies progressives love and crave (think: Sweden in the 1970s brought to America) could be shown, conclusively, to make everyone worse off: the poorest to the richest. In other words, the very people such policies are intended to help, would be harmed. But the richest, most privileged (that devilish “1%) would be harmed even more. Thus, society would be overall more equal, with everyone worse off. Would implementing these policies still be right and just?
His answer was an unequivocal ‘yes’. The wealthy took a bigger hit and inequality has been reduced. That’s what matters most.
Again, he’s a reasonable, intelligent, compassionate guy. He is also very middle class…neither poor enough to have bitter class envy nor rich enough to feel any serious guilt.
That conversation was one of many serious eye openers for me.
“Minneapolis city council president Lisa Bender”
I’m certain neither Bender nor any of the city council were elected as “Leftists”.
They’re Democrats … or possibly Independents or Greens.
The power of the riots come from elected Democrats supporting the goals, and often excusing the illegal means used.
Everybody can have a “burnt house” or “burnt business” – equality of misery.
The genie who can take out one eye of a peasant, with the promise of taking two from the neighbor, is very relevant.
Envy is the desire to destroy the good results of the neighbor. Envy is one of the drivers of the violence.
“Revolt against reality” is why it will fail (GB). And always fail. It’s a big reason commies fail – the Chinese Communist Party has become far more a “clientelism” Party of billionaires.
But one thing commies got somewhat right is to give everybody a job. It was illegal to be unemployed … even political prisoners who were freed were given jobs, see Dubcek working in a forest after his ’68 Prague Spring reforms were suppressed.
What Republicans should be offering is a new, often Dem supported, Federal Job Guarantee program that offers everybody a voluntary job.
Geoffrey offers a good explanation of what (Dem) Bender was maybe meaning. ArtD seems correct about Turley – an Academic Establishment guy.
(Makes me an anti-academic establishmentarism guy). PC is the Establishment neo-religion, believed in with religious fervor, conviction, and total emotional identity. Those with such beliefs did not get them through rationality, and are unlikely to change them due to rational arguments.
They are unsane – irrational – unrealistic – emotional. Their feelings are more important than logic.
Perhaps in talking with such Dem friends, laughing at the irrationality of some Dem belief can reduce the arguments.
huxley on June 9, 2020 at 8:37 pm said:
Can’t find the link, but the Bender response reminds me of a horribly white-guilted father who feared he was perpetuating racism because he read stories to his children at bedtime and thus was giving his kids an educational leg-up that a ghetto black child might not have.
—————–
I suppose that particular strain of liberal probably exists but is not pervasive, at least among the influential ranks. Elite white liberal parents strive to give their kids every leg-up they can, because their kids’ true competition is other white (and asian) kids. They strenuously support affirmative action, assured that their children will not be affected by it, and not because it will help disadvantaged black kids, but because it will further cull would-be white (and asian) competitors of their children from elite corridors. The unspoken racism of white elites is that black kids that matriculate at top schools beside their children will be no match for them intellectually and thus they don’t even consider them competition, just a weapon to be used against the real competition.
Anonymously: I am sure the father I mentioned is rare and thank God for that! I brought him up as a reductio ad absurdum of Woke thinking.
It’s true that parents, including liberal parents, often work ferociously hard to advantage their children in society’s footrace. I doubt they consciously think through affirmative action as you describe.
“His answer was an unequivocal ‘yes’. The wealthy took a bigger hit and inequality has been reduced. That’s what matters most.”
Life is interesting. I have life tales that I can’t tell online because of TMI and safety. But let’s say vaguely that when I was about 5, I was handed over to the care of someone my mother knew at a time when she was living in a car. Obviously, every kid on that middle-class street where I was staying had more stuff than me. And when, one day, I complained to my mom about not having as much stuff as some other kid on that street, she had the grace to teach me that someone else having more toys did not stop me from enjoying the toy that I had. Once people have what they need, greed drives them to be miserable no matter what they have because someone, somewhere has more.
I have the feeling that I am about the only person who was a child in the United States in the last 50 years was taught that.
“Thou shalt not covet.”
Pretty clear why that one made the Top Ten.