Is Social Justice Just?

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, as I observed the reaction to the Ferguson grand jury’s decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson, I could not help but wonder if our society has lost a reasonable grasp of what exactly justice is.  Many experienced prosecutors claimed that there was insufficient evidence to even take the case to a grand jury, while others completely disagreed with and were outraged by the grand jury’s decision.  Many of those in the latter group have no interest in reviewing transcripts of the proceeding.  They know what they believe—that a white cop killed a black teenager--and they have no desire to consider facts to the contrary.  Our system of justice did not lead to an indictment because the facts and circumstances clearly indicated Officer Wilson killed Michael Brown in self-defense.  Yet, people still believe Wilson should be punished for killing Michael Brown.  President Obama even chose to make a statement (another teaching moment opportunity) following the grand jury decision.  Despite the enduring American standard that an individual is presumed innocent till proven guilty, not one word was uttered by Obama to defend Officer Wilson or to offer any compassion for being a lynch victim in the court of public opinion.  Obama’s omission spoke volumes of implied judgment from the highest ranking American charged with the moral and legal obligation of executing the laws of our Nation.  What, then, is justice and how is it different from injustice?

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  You hit on the key distinction—a white cop killed a black teenager.  This is an undeniable fact—a white man killed a black teenager.  This was the case in the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Recall that George Zimmerman, who was acquitted because the jury ruled that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense, was also treated in the public narrative as a white man (even though he was Hispanic).  The jury’s verdict in both cases violated the concept of social justice, which is a remedy for sins of the past, such as the institution of slavery, and modern day sins, such as income inequality.  Factions in our society do not want to transcend the slavery ghost—it’s a convenient excuse for any perception of oppression (such as making a minimum wage at a fast food restaurant).  Other factions of our society, especially political progressives, amplify claims of social injustice to obscure their failed welfare state policies.

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  IM, your comments are bold, and they challenge American political correctness.  Let me respond to the slavery ghost.  Following Lincoln’s assassination, Democrats obstructed efforts to implement freedom for blacks and to integrate them into our broader society.  Later, President Eisenhower advocated a Civil Rights Act only to have it blocked by a Democrat-controlled Senate, whose majority leader was Lyndon Baines Johnson.  By the way, does this sound like Harry Reid blocking 300 or so bills passed in a Republican House of representatives?  Then, President Johnson pushed for a Civil Rights Act as an element of his Great Society initiatives.  Ever since, Democrats have been successful in convincing the black population that Democrats are their true champions for the oppressed—not in the form of liberty but as social justice.  Unfortunately the word is slowly getting out that the Great Society vision created entitlement incentives that destroyed the black family, ultimately suffering a brutal price today (hint:  look at Michael Brown’s family situation).  Despite glib progressive narratives, there is an “arithmetic-version” of a grand jury verdict on the American welfare state, check out the graph below.

Old Gadfly:  Certainly any argument that suggests insufficient government resources accounts for the doubling of poor female householders is an insult to the “arithmetic-version” grand jury.  As the graph below indicates, the cost of the federal government today is 64 times the cost per person in constant 2014 dollars (i.e., adjusted for inflation). 

 

Old Gadfly:  For the skeptics who would blame the increase in the cost of government on defense spending, the following chart compares the annual ratio of budget outlays for defense and health and human services (HHS; i.e., entitlement programs) in relation to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

IM:  Progressives reject these facts because they do not fit “the frame” (see Old Gadfly’s monologue in August 2013:  Cogito Ergo Sum).  The frame is that progressives (mostly Democrats) are the champions for the oppressed.  The near-monolithic black vote  was still deemed to be insufficient to guarantee future elections, so other “classes” (e.g., helpless women, immigrants, gays, laborers, etc.) have been brought into the “indentured” camp to generate enough votes for future elections.

Old Gadfly:  Gentlemen, your analysis implies a more sinister element at play in America.  Did either of you gentlemen watch Meet the Press this past Sunday?

IM:  Yes, there was a rather heated exchange between former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Professor Michael Dyson.

AM: I did not watch Meet the Press.  However, I can only imagine that the discussion pitted street-smart reality against ivory tower idealism.

Old Gadfly:  Amazing, AM.  That’s exactly how the conversation played out. However, that was not the sinister part of the program I want to bring to your attention.  Former Governor Bill Richardson made some comments that went by so quickly that I suspect the vast majority of viewers missed what he was saying.  Host Chuck Todd noted that Richardson was with the President the Friday before, implying he may have received inside information on the immigration strategy.  When discussing the executive action on immigration, Richardson bemoaned that had this action taken place before the midterm elections it would have increased turnout in Colorado (which has a new Democrat-devised, easily manipulated voting system now in place), suggesting a different outcome.  This comment was just a warm-up comment.  He went on to say that the executive action was a political action--and in my opinion, anything but a just action-- along with the Affordable Care Act, potentially affecting 10 million people.  Richardson then admitted the key reason for the action:  “they will remember” and “they will be loyal.”  Since I have seen the Internet scrubbed of similar evidence, here is an excerpt from the transcript:      

CHUCK TODD:  Go ahead, you were with the president I know on Friday. But should he have given Congress five more months? He essentially said, "I'm going to sign this order on June 1st if you don't act."

BILL RICHARDSON:  Oh, I think the president didn't take this action before the election, respecting the will of--

CHUCK TODD:  Do you think that was the right call?

BILL RICHARDSON:  No. I think he should've done it.

CHUCK TODD:  Okay.

BILL RICHARDSON:  Because I think it would have increased turnout in Colorado. But look, I was around. I voted for this, I'm that old. I voted for the--

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:  Yeah, '86, yeah.

BILL RICHARDSON:  And then George Bush, President George Herbert Walker Bush signed an executive order exactly like this, 1.4 million, 40% like President Obama did, and there was no uproar, because they did the right thing.

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  But that was--

(OVERTALK)

BILL RICHARDSON:  Ronald--

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  --to a specific bill though. That's what the president will order today--

BILL RICHARDSON:  But it was families.

(OVERTALK)

BILL RICHARDSON:  No, it was families.

(OVERTALK)

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  This was such a critical point.

CHUCK TODD:  Well, and if it's--

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  That was pertaining to a 1986 bill passed by Congress, it was clean up operations. This was the--

(OVERTALK)

CHUCK TODD:  It was cleaning up a bill. It is different.

JOE SCARBOROUGH:  Right. The president here is making new policy because he doesn't like what Congress has not done. That makes all the difference. . . .  

BILL RICHARDSON:  Let me--the politics, ten million families are now affected by this act and by the Affordable Care Act.

CHUCK TODD:  And they're going to be loyal.

BILL RICHARDSON:  And they're going to be loyal. They're going to remember.

Old Gadfly:  Even though other panel members kept talking over him, Scarborough attempted to correct the existing folklore that Obama is merely repeating what others have done.  Scarborough explained that Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush signed executive orders to “clean-up” unclear provisions of bills that had already been passed by Congress.  Obama’s executive action is not tied to specific legislation; it is legal overreach and abuse of executive power.

AM:  When I see what is being done in the name of politics, it is so sad that in America today we are witnessing obvious corruption in the name of political conquest—Benghazi and Fast & Furious deception, IRS targeting of conservative groups, journalist investigations/prosecutions, the Justice Department lowering the prosecutorial discretion bar to prosecute Dinesh D’Souza for a $30,000 campaign finance violation, crony capitalism with Wall Street and the health insurance industry, and so forth; yet, Al Sharpton gets away with $4.5 million in income tax evasion—he’s too busy visiting the White House to pay his taxes. 

Old Gadfly:  Social justice appears to be a system where the political elite in power get to pick winners and losers.  This is not justice.  Justice is justice.  Any variation in the form of an adjective (social justice, economic justice, political justice, etc.) is injustice.  The conundrum here is that justice involves a clear sense of morality, but that clear sense has become situationally relative and blurred.  For an excellent commentary on this issue see Dennis Praeger’s excellent article on today’s moral divide.  Since the 30s in Europe and the 60s in America, morality, like truth, is now in the eye of the beholder—progressives create their own truth and morality.  That is, “progressives in power” create truth and morality.  Once created, they are imposed on the masses.  This is why a Colorado baker can be punished for not catering a same-sex wedding ceremony and forced to attend mandatory sensitivity  training (similar to the reeducation camps that still exist in such liberal paradises as North Korea and China) by an administrative judge, without the benefit of due process.  Due process represents the notion of rule through law, a key moral element of justice.  In the baker’s case, social justice was needed to demonstrate that while all men are created equal, some are more equal than others.  Sound familiar?  Racism is a problem in America.  But the bigoted contempt and hatred are focused upon the progressive’s convenient scape goat:  the white man and his equivalents, such as black conservatives, female conservatives of any ethnic group, a white cop who shoots a black teenage bully in self defense, and any person who actually wants to think and fend for oneself as a law-abiding citizen.

          AM:  Sad.  So very sad.