Rays of Hope

I’ve spent the last week analyzing the electoral analysis offered by more perspicacious folks than me, and came away with the conclusion that, like most American elections, the lessons from the results of this latest tilt depend upon the perspective of the observer.

Clearly, Iraq played a significant part. But, unlike foreign contests, Americans decide each local election locally. Consider: the balance of power in the Senate probably turned upon the hysterical media reaction to the word "Macaca". Or consider scandals, like that in Montana, which sent a Democrat with an A+ rating from the NRA to the Senate. Or consider further that an almost-as-blue-as-New-Jersey state, Pennsylvania, sent an unapologetic right to lifer to the Senate, but as a Democrat.

Indeed, many Democratic victors represent the absolute reciprocal of the It’s-My-Party-Too types: social conservatives, but economic populists.

Lost among the hullabaloo of the Democratic victory were numerous examples that this remains a very socially conservative country. Anti-gay marriage initiatives – the people apparently lacking the wisdom of the New Jersey Supreme Court – passed overwhelmingly in every state but one in which they appeared. And, in perhaps the most important but the least reported ballot initiative to pass overwhelmingly, the people of Michigan endorsed an anti-affirmative action mandate, which prohibits government from categorizing people by race.

Ward Connerly – perhaps the last of the old-style civil rights activists, who believes that character content, not skin color, matters – in yet another demonstration of the merits of Initiative and Referendum, secured sufficient signatures to place a race neutral question on the ballot. Despite the overwhelming opposition of the elites – who actually believe that we cannot be equal unless were treated differently, based upon our ethnic heritage – the people – who don’t hold much sympathy for race mongers and believe that equal opportunity means just that – passed the measure easily. Now, Michigan will be out of the business of according benefits and burdens based upon skin color and ethnicity.

Unsurprisingly, the people’s support for equality ruffled quite a few academic feathers. One post on a commentary list to which I subscribe, wrote:

"We need a multi-cultural work force for a multicultural society; that means that some skills – speaking another language; knowing another American sub-culture – may be as important as a few points on a standardized test."

Waaallll, now. First, we are NOT a multi-cultural society; muti-ethnic, yes, but multi-cultural, no. Too, it’s simply impossible to assign "culture" based upon skin color or ethnicity, and it’s insulting to try. (I despise corned beef and cabbage, for instance) A family friend married a man from Spain, so their kid is entitled to all manner of Hispanic preferences; why? And, incidentally, is Barak Obama black? Why? He’s the offspring of a white mother. Ditto Halle Berry. Would they be entitled to only half as many preferences as the offspring of two blacks?

The man who wrote the language quoted above is (unsurprisingly) a law professor. Query whether he would accord a preference if the "other language" the candidate spoke was German. Or if the "sub-culture" were Mennonite.

The assertion that only a member of a particular group can serve the members of that group is pernicious and anti-American. And potentially deadly.

Perhaps the reason Northern Ireland proved ungovernable for so many years is that the residents did not see themselves, first and foremost, as Irish with differing backgrounds, but as people with differing backgrounds who happened to live in Ireland. Or consider Iraq. There appears to be no such thing as an Iraqi nation but, rather, Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias, all thrown together in an artificially created "country" without national identity. Their allegiance lies with their group, not with their nation. And the result is civil war.

The "multi-cultural society" the elites propse represents a somewhat more peaceable civil war, with differing factions demanding benefits based upon group identity rather than upon merit.

Instead of celebrating diversity, Americans must celebrate unity. Our strength lies in our shared devotion to common ideals, not in our differing ethnic backgrounds. It’s certainly fine to be interested in from whence your ancestors came, but their point of origin pales to insignificance against the importance of their destination. The emphasis needs to be placed on the word with comes after the hyphen.

Interestingly, the GOP seems to fear this subject, despite the fact that it consistently polls exceptionally well. They fear, perhaps, the wrath of The New York Times. Hence, the silliness of Whitman’s "Many Faces, One Family" programs, which uniformly emphasized the "many faces" while understating the "one family".

The New Jersey Constitution puts in bluntly:

"No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin."

Would that the New Jersey Supreme Court paid as much attention to the language respecting ethnicity, with actually appears in the Constitution, as it does to inventing language respecting gay marriage, which does not.