Social Socialism

“Good job, Charlie Brown.”

It used to be “You're a good man, Charlie Brown” but now everyone is complimented for doing a “good job.” It doesn't matter what the job is or how well it's been done, there is nothing more important than building up the self-esteem of whomever you're praising.ⁱ Everyone's a winner. And everyone will receive a certificate to prove it.

We're all equal. The Founding Fathers said we were so we have made it an article of faith.ⁱⁱ Whether or not we recognize it to be true – in terms of physical characteristics, intellect, social status, and the like – we pretend that it's the fact, and we take issue with those who may feel otherwise. Even if their evidence might be convincing.

We are so intent on making everyone equal, and making sure that we do not offend them with the implication that they are anything less, that we have invented a language inoffensive to anyone, and supportive of everyone. We're hoping that we can replace bias with respect by altering what we say to words that will instill within us a positive view of all around us. It's our wish that by eliminating unwanted words we can rid ourselves of unwanted thoughts.ⁱⁱⁱ The Constitution may delegitimize censorship by the government, but society has made us censor ourselves. And if we do not do so, those who hear our words will certainly make our error evident to us.

So to a degree, for example, we assuage our own guilt^iv and cater to the wishes of Blacks by calling them “African Americans,” even if that term is inaccurate.^v,vi And we guarantee minorities and other oppressed groups equality by providing them with perks denied to those not in “protected classes.” We have substituted equality of results for equality of opportunity,^vii and that has become the new American Way, whether or not it corresponds to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

But the decision to legislate protected classes means that those not so defined are unprotected. Me, for example. I'm Jewish, however past prejudice against the Jews which permeated American society for so long, and current (increasing) anti-Semitism, require no apology or preference.^viii So I don't look for them. I'm not in a protected class.

Surely there were problems with our founding documents – and, in terms of our legal system, I'm referring to the Constitution – their correction is supposed to be by amendment, not fiat. Thus slavery and the three-fifths of a person clause were eliminated by such action. But when a favored philosophy is not matched by amendment, it becomes the resolve and the responsibility of Congress or the courts to correct the situation.^ix

A good example of this approach is Affirmative Action. In 1961, President Kennedy, in Executive Order 10925, prohibited the use of federal funds for projects unless there were provisions to “take affirmative action” regarding the hiring and employment practices for the projects with an aim of ensuring that they are free of racial bias. Since that time, by the acts of Congress and the decisions of the courts, the thrust of the idea shifted from one of preventing racial bias, to the positive act of ensuring minimal quotas^x for members of particular protected classes. There has been no Constitutional Amendment dealing with this problem, but that has not stopped our judges, Congressmen, or the President. Not all have favored the conduct as practiced,^xi but the various departments of government have not been shy about weighing in on the matter, even while proclaiming that equality^xii and justice^xiii are American characteristics. An unfortunate (though unintended) result of the practice is that some students assume that any member of a protected class benefited from preference received due to membership in that class and would not have been admitted otherwise.^xiv The most gifted of minority students, therefore, is often viewed as having received a free pass. It's a less than ideal way of ending bias.

And, in a way, it's not in keeping with the Constitution, common law, or American ideals either. We value property and, Robin Hood notwithstanding, we don't endorse taking the property of one person and giving it to another. We call that theft. But that's what taking a college admission or any other award from one more deserving and giving it to one less so – in the interests of diversity, self-esteem or whatever – boils down to. “Theft” is a rather strong word, but this kind of redistribution so as to promote “equality” or some other social goal is the equivalent. It's taking from one and giving to another. It's socialism.

Whether that's good or bad is not the issue. But it is an example of the philosophy that the end justifies the means. It is proof that in front of every silver lining is a cloud. Charlie Brown may have done a good job, however it is not clear that we're following his example. Unless we've reached the point where we place too little value on merit, but too much on feelings.

Next episode:  "Day Of Unrest" -- The evil good does lives after it.

I        It's usually a child who is being praised – whose fragile self-image requires strengthening.

ii        Actually, that's a bad term. We don't want to violate the First Amendment by suggesting that we believe anything. Yet “equality” is difficult to prove, and scientific proof is acceptable while faith, which is, after all, a religious concept, is unconstitutional.

iii       It worked in Oceania.

iv        Over the slavery that ended a century-and-a-half ago, and over the prejudice that has persisted.

v        Someone who has moved from Capetown to Cape May is an African American, irrespective of his race. The definition both devalues the language and misleads. If our intent is to identify those who are descendents of African Blacks, we should say so. One of the reasons for such labeling is discussed below.

vi       In addition to the example used, we have also rendered our language genderless, corrected Columbus's error by correcting the term “Indian” and replacing it with “Native American,” and, in general, condemned the use of “hate speech.” That speech is usually considered anything that someone doesn't want to hear.

vii      It is not enough that everyone can participate in the race; everyone has to be a “winner,” whether last or first. The one who reaches the finish line first is no better than the one who is last, and can take no special pride in his accomplishment – an accomplishment which we have devalued. His self-esteem is less important than that of those who are less talented.

viii     I really should be protected however. If an individual who had one Black grandparent (or less) is considered an African American for the purpose of benefits, it is clear that membership in a protected group relates to the genes inherited from one's predecessors. For some purposes, women are protected and half my ancestors were women. And if that's not enough, I'm a descendent of “Lucy” (No, not Charlie Brown's friend) so (at least) one of my ancestors was African.

ix       At least in their view. The “Women's Rights” amendment may not have passed but we have already found ways to accomplish some of its goals.

x         In the past, quotas were used to exclude. Now the opposite is the case.

xi        See Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke, 438 US 265, which took issue with some of the methods used by the U of C in choosing among candidates. Nonetheless it upheld the principle of affirmative action.

xii       In this instance the equality is clearly of results, not opportunity. Bakke was rejected while minority candidates with lesser qualifications were accepted in the interests of “diversity.” The reason given was his age – Bakke was in his early thirties and age discrimination was acceptable at the time. The courts decided that in his particular case admission was warranted, although the concept of affirmative action was not overturned.

xiii      The form of justice that says that everyone should get more (of whatever) and the rich should pay for it. That's fair, isn't it?

xiv      And having been told all their lives that they have been doing a good job, and that they are winners, the idea that they might have less than a 4.0 GPA is unacceptable. It's the professor's fault, not theirs.