A Tale of Two Cities

“When I said we would take dead aim at the Tale of Two Cities, I meant it. And we will do it. I will honor the faith and trust you have placed in me. And we will give life to the hope of so many in our city. We will succeed as One City.”  -- New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio Inaugural Address, January 1, 2014

“What parents have done for decades who have children of color, especially young men of color, is train them to be very careful when they have ...an encounter with a police officer.” -- New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to ABC News, December 7, 2014 following the Eric Garner Grand Jury Decision

Old Gadfly:  Mayor de Blasio spoke of two cities in New York, presumably speaking about the income equality gap.  Following the Eric Garner Grand Jury decision he claimed another example of two cities based on race.  What do you make of this?

IM:  Ironically, last night I watched the movie, Red Tails.

AM:  It’s an excellent movie, but more so, an important story.

Old Gadfly:  The story portrays heroism among a group of African-Americans from Tuskegee, Alabama, who fought for America even though they were treated as second-class citizens.  The obvious bigotry, even among fellow military men, did not deter these men from being free to fight for their country.  Sixty-six of these Tuskegee airmen died for America and in the process became one of the highest decorated units during World War II.  While these airmen have a legendary reputation, there were other African-American units in other branches of the military who also fought with heroic distinction.

AM:  Don’t forget the 54^th Regiment Massachusetts Voluntary Infantry, the first black unit formed by freed slaves during the Civil War.  The movie, Glory, does an excellent job of capturing the bravery these men demonstrated in fighting to preserve the American ideal:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all men and women.

IM:  Yet, even leading up to the American Revolution, black men freely fought alongside white men on the side of liberty.  Crispus Attucks was one such man, who was perhaps the first American killed in the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770.  The Irish poet, John Boyle O'Reilly, created a poem in honor of a monument to Attucks.  Here is an excerpt:

And honor to Crispus Attucks, who was leader and voice that day;
The first to defy, and the first to die, . . . .
Call it riot or revolution, his hand first clenched at the crown;
His feet were the first in perilous place to pull the king’s flag down;
His breast was the first one rent apart that liberty’s stream might flow;
For our freedom now and forever, his head was the first bid low.

Old Gadfly:  Think about two lines in the poem.  The first line, “His breast was the first one rent apart that liberty’s stream might flow” certainly speaks to not only the moral courage of Crispus Attucks, but also to the moral courage of the 54^th Regiment and the Tuskegee airmen.  Then there is this line: “Call it riot or revolution, his hand first clenched at the crown.”  Might this line speak to what motivates behavior in another city:  Ferguson?

IM:  The question recognizes a conundrum in our current culture.  We have no crown, unless our current President establishes one by diminishing the checks and balances in Congress or the Supreme Court. 

Old Gadfly:  So, against what do these people riot?

AM:  The system.

Old Gadfly:  What is the system?

AM:  Inherited customs, traditions, and institutions.

Old Gadfly:  What specifically is wrong with these elements of our culture?

IM:  I believe the flaws are manufactured to agitate the masses in order to organize them for revolution.  This is why poet O’Reilly’s line is relevant to what is happening today.  The crown is the American ideal—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, individual liberty, and a constitutional republic.

Old Gadfly:  What is the logic for a revolution?

AM:  The logic is ideology, rooted in Marxism.

Old Gadfly:  Do you have any evidence to support the assertion?

AM:  Yes:  Eldridge Cleaver.  Cleaver was a radical Marxist and founding member of the Black Panthers in the 1960s.  He, like Bill Ayers, was never repentant for the harm he caused.  (I can’t help but to point out the hypocrisy of scandalizing a speech the new Republican whip gave to a supremacist group 12 years ago.  Today, we have a president that freely associated with Bill Ayers, a radical terrorist in the 1960s.)  While in prison, Cleaver authored a series of essays that became Soul on Fire.  In his book, Cleaver admitted that he was a serial rapist, initially “rehearsing” on black girls and women before getting more serious and aggressive with white women.  He was exiled for seven years in three different communist countries, Cuba being one of them.  When he returned to America, he admitted to a total misunderstanding of the dangers of communism, finally realizing the tremendous opportunities, freedoms, and equality that were so abundant in America.  He even converted from atheism to Christianity, and from Democrat to Republican.

IM:  The notable economist, social theorist, and political philosopher Thomas Sowell also spent the 60s as a Marxist.  While Sowell did not commit any crimes or promote violence, he quickly realized how dangerous the Marxist revolutionary ideology was and still is.  His writing is powerful—it reinforces the customs, traditions, and institutions that are what make American great.

Old Gadfly:  Dickens opened A Tale of Two Cities with the famous line, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”  It was a sobering observation of the French Revolution. 

Old Gadfly:  Does the Ferguson, Missouri mob behavior represent a mere riot or a symptom of a more sinister revolution?

IM:  I hope just a riot.  When I watched Red Tails, I had tears in my eyes as I realized how proud and brave the Tuskegee airmen were to fight for America and its potential to transcend current circumstances.

AM:  We have politicians calling for the transformation of America, not transcendence.  Perhaps France’s Jacobins and Robespierre are America’s progressives and Obama.

          Old Gadfly:   Excellent observation.  It is worth the time to evaluate history.  It can reveal how myopic and self-centered many of today’s Americans are.  

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.