Tag: identity politics

Four Years, Five Fiascos: The Toll of Government Overreach

Many Americans believe the Biden administration brought four of the worst years we have encountered in the past half century, if not longer, for the nation and the American spirit. The purpose of presenting here the most damaging actions of those four years is to recall how we allowed ourselves to go off the rails for that time, and the effects wrought, so as to not repeat them or anything similar in our future.

These five failings are presented in the order of significance regarding harm to America: financial, psychological, and social effects.

1. COVID Mandates. Many books will be written to document all the mistakes made in addressing COVID, but the focus here is on specific government mandates and actions to support their positions, at the overt cost of freedom. Here we must trust in your memory all the events the government created to lead to virtual panic in the citizenry and shutdown of the economy in overreaction to a virus that primarily threatened the elderly and those with multiple co-morbidities — an estimated 1% of the population.

Some of us were stunned at the startling overreach of government mandates, mask wearing, social distancing, vaccination, and enforcing compliance potentially with termination of employment or even arrest. Tens of millions of Americans were displaced by government shutdown orders, including massive job losses due to shuttering, relocations, and school closures.

Yet the resulting economic devastation is routinely blamed on the virus itself, instead of the government’s heavy-handed response. Hopefully, we, the citizenry, learned a number of lessons from this nightmarish experience.

2. Mass Unvetted Migration. We do not know the exact numbers, a reflection of how chaotic the inflow from an estimated one hundred countries was. Eight million migrants, according to CBP data and independent estimates, entered illegally during 2021–2024, unfettered, virtually welcomed, during the Biden administration. No country in modern history has allowed that level of mass migration.

It is interesting that questions regarding the reason behind the Biden administration’s policy seem never to be asked. The disruption is massive, broaching all social spheres from education to public welfare, healthcare, and crime. But beyond those quantifiable impacts lies the problem that these illegal immigrants demonstrate no evident desire to adopt American civic values, language, or have any intention to assimilate or to have pride in becoming an American. Instead, we compound our multicultural divisiveness issues in a now overflowing “salad bowel” approach instead of the historically effective “melting pot.

3. Multiple Trillion Dollar Government Spending Programs. When Democratic leaders pretended they wanted to put Biden on their imaginary Democratic Mount Rushmore, the reason was all the additional government spending he got the Democrat Congress to pass.  As Ted Kennedy said, “The answer is more money. Now, what is the question?”

  • Between Trump’s COVID relief and Biden’s “American Rescue Plan” programs, intended to clumsily correct the government shutdown of the economy, the givebacks cost $4.1 trillion dollars. This, like the other programs, was effectively a wealth transfer from taxpayers along with a permanent increase to the national debt.
  • Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act claimed $1.2 trillion in funding, including $550 billion in new spending. Have there been any notable actual infrastructure programs?  Biden’s plan to pay for it was 87,000 new IRS agents to enforce compliance with the vast tax code, mostly directed at small businesses.
  • Biden’s “American Families Plan” cost $1.8 trillion. This is also almost entirely new welfare programs and again, a wealth transfer from taxpayers to non-taxpayers in the administration’s move toward “crib to grave” socialism.
  • The ironically named “Inflation Reduction Act,” called for $891 billion in total spending — including $783 billion on green energy, and three more years of Affordable Care Act subsidies, that is, more welfare.

Together, these come to about $8 trillion dollars of new government expenditures in its endless quest to expand its reach at the expense of those 50% of families that pay taxes.

If even one of these programs had resulted in tangible benefits to the public good — like real infrastructure — we might forgive the cost. But instead, all we have is debt.

4. The New Treatment of Crime and Justice.  This is a manifestation of the “social justice” movement, precipitated from the George Floyd death in Minneapolis in 2020. In the ensuing riots and “mostly peaceful” protests in 140 cities, there was an excess of unpunished crimes. These riots resulted in at least 25–30 deaths, caused over $2 billion in property damage, and were followed by widespread prosecutorial leniency in the name of “social justice.” They also triggered the “defund the police” movement and in some jurisdictions the apparent end of prosecuting many crimes, such as shoplifting.

Another turn involved lawfare against political opponents originating with district attorneys aided by the Department of Justice. Efforts in particular were focused on preventing a Trump second term by means of the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago, unconstitutional exorbitant fines for fabricated offenses, and the effort in numerous states to take him off ballot for the next Presidency.

Now we have a dilemma the Supreme Court must address: setting a boundary on the jurisdiction of any single district court judge, of which there are 677. Can one halt the efforts of the Executive branch in executing Executive branch functions? SCOTUS must quickly fix this.

5. The Biden Administration Executive Order to Focus on DEI. It was with immense pride that Biden announced that a newly invented diversity, equity, and inclusion policy would be the central effort of all his 440-plus executive agencies.

This policy embraced fringe social fads, centered on identity politics as some sort of moral high ground, and was favored over meritocracy. To enforce the policy, many agencies adopted de facto standards that discriminated against white men, prompting numerous lawsuits, including one filed by air traffic controller applicants overtly rejected due to their race and gender.

This policy, and the focus on pronouns, identity language, and fringe gender ideologies, became a cultural flashpoint, alienating the broader public from a government meant to serve all.

source

DEI In Med Schools = Failure For The Patients

I recently had some surgery. The first doctor I went to gave me the talk about it being no problem and easy. I wanted a second opinion and it turned out that the actual diagnosis and surgery were completely different than what doctor one diagnosed. Doctor two was the head surgeon at the State University, teaches and has many published papers.

I and everyone else I imagine want competency, in fact excellence in care. I want meritocracy in selection, not equality. It’s like the pilot on my plane. I want the best, not the most diverse. I want my ass to get there safely.

If you are going to put your life in someone else’s hands while you are under anesthesia, it damn well better be the best trained one there is.

Now this:

DEI is a hyperaggressive and politicized quota system, a radicalized version of affirmative action for certain so-called “marginalized” people. It divides society into “groups” based on race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, and so on. It gives preference to certain favored groups, which include, in descending order: Muslims, transgenders, gays, blacks, Hispanics, and women. It discriminates against other groups currently out of favor, chiefly whites, males, heterosexuals, and Christians. Alas, of late, another group has joined the list of the despised, and is now, perhaps, the chief target of DEI hatred: The Jews.

Rejecting the individual, DEI reduces American society into a collection of groups or tribes, hence the “tribalization“ of society. This tribalization (racialization) is based on certain immutable, physical traits such as skin color and sex. This, by the way, has been the norm for all of human history and throughout the world. America was unique in that it rejected tribalization, group characteristics, and superficial appearance, and elevated the individual, which accounted for its historic success, and the reason so many sought to live here.

DEI, furthermore, has no place in any institution that values standards and color-blind meritocracy. If diversity becomes the driving force behind hiring and promotion, or even a small part of it, rather than skill, accomplishment, and merit, then it necessarily compromises standards.

If the goal is diversity, and to have proportional representation in Memorial Hospital’s work force, based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and other such trivialities, even in part, and the hospital does not contemplate the individual and his unique abilities and contributions over all else, then the system collapses and becomes simply one of groups or tribes competing with one another. Meritocracy necessarily dies in such a system. You can have DEI or meritocracy, but not both.

Read the whole thing

What Is the Hierarchy of Identity Politics?

The 2008 and 2012 election showed that a coalition of minorities was the winning formula.  As for 2016, not so much.

With all the minority identity groups out there vying for political power, social media control, fund raising and media presence; how do they stack up when they compete for hierarchy?  At some point, when the power and money is being doled out, the queue is determined by some order.  Who are these groups and how do they vie for power?

Author disclaimer: I have no dog in this hunt.  I am a pattern watcher and try to learn from them.  Human nature is hard to understand and explain due to it’s ever changing allies and favored group status depending on circumstances.  I was watching the groups at the last election and wondered how you coalesce a group of disparate people with conflicting causes as a voter block.

Who are they?

While this isn’t a comprehensive list and I am not discriminating as I just Googled it, the last election revealed the groups of Black Lives Matter (BLM), LGBTQ (apologies if I omitted a letter), Islam (including ISIS), socialists, Antifa, environmentalists and feminists.  They each compete for their cause and have usually selected an enemy with whom they are opposed to, but are now conflicting with each other in the power grab.  They for the most part have an ideological position (some more than others) and garner the lion’s share of media attention.

What happens when the identity groups who desire to command the headlines conflict for attention and finances?

 

Before the haters come out, I write this post because of my position that one of the characteristics of a higher IQ is the ability to argue from multiple positions on a subject. I will proceed with this post from that premise.

I also am merely an observer of trends. The consolidating power of the above listed groups is becoming a relevant discussion regardless of where you source your information. I’ve excluded the typical mainstream media as sources of information on both sides as their coverage is either too conservative or liberal.  Their inherent bias excludes them from this conversation.  I also excluded Hollywood and celebrities since they have a limited integration with the real world and often spout declarations for others which they do not adhere to.  When you get to the heart of their talent, they pretend to be others and to take their opinions seriously is difficult at best.

Here are non-comprehensive, yet representative examples of identity group disagreements.

BLM vs. LGBTQ

I first noticed this when BLM shut down a gay pride parade.

These are two significant voter populations when added together.

What surprised me that it was during the last election cycle and both groups made up a voting block for the same candidate.  From said article:

BLM held Toronto Pride hostage, unless their demands, which included excluding police from the parade, were immediately met.

(Pride parades typically have contingents of LGBT cops and firefighters, and booths set up by the local LGBT officers’ group at the accompanying street festival.)

Judging by their success in forcing Toronto Pride to capitulate, I suspect we’ll see Black Lives Matter groups protesting more Pride parades in the future. And as a longtime national and international LGBT rights activist, I have a problem with that.

In my internet search for protests, it seems that BLM also protested and shut down Bernie Sanders and Hillary whom they supported.  It goes without saying that they all protested Trump, but that is not the point of my curiosity as I assumed this was a given.  This alone is surprising since both are a part of the coalition of voters candidates need to be elected per the aforementioned 2008/2012/2016 campaigns.

ISLAM vs. Feminists and LGBTQ

I later observed the Muslim and ISIS positions that women are treated poorly and that homosexuals were declared wrong and being executed. On a side point, they also considered most pets as unclean and black dogs should be killed (animal cruelty), which brings in the animal rights group, but they don’t be as significant as the other groups currently.  Apparently, women don’t have the same rights as men and must be subservient.

Then there is the recent Linda Sansour dust up revealing this dichotomy:

  • What the West needs to know is that in the Muslim world, jihad is considered more important than women, family happiness and life itself. If we are told, as Linda Sarsour said, that Islam stands for peace and justice, what we are not told is that “peace” in Islam will come only after the whole world has converted to Islam, and that “justice” means law under Sharia: whatever is inside Sharia is “justice;” whatever is not in Sharia is not “justice.”
  • Rebelling against Sharia is, sadly, for the Muslim woman, unthinkable. How can a healthy and normal feminist movement develop under an Islamic legal system that can flog, stone and behead women? That is why Sarsour’s jihadist kind of feminism is no heroic kind of feminism but the only feminism a Muslim woman can practice that will give her a degree of respect, acceptance, and even preferential treatment over other women. In Islam, that is the only kind of feminism allowed to develop.

It further goes on to say:

Sarsour apparently identifies as a feminist. Sarsour’s kind of feminism, however, embraces the most oppressive legal system, especially for women: Islamic religious law, Sharia. Sarsour’s feminism is supposedly for empowering women, but it twists logic in a way similar to how Muslim preachers do when they claim that beating one’s wife is a husband’s way of honoring her.

Here is the dichotomy:

Pro-Sharia feminism is a perverted kind of feminism that could not care less about the well-being of oppressed Muslim women. Sarsour’s logic concerning women does not differ much from that of Suad Saleh, an Egyptian female Islamic cleric, who recently justified on Egyptian TV the doctrine of intentional humiliation and rape of captured women in Islam. Saleh said, “One of the purposes of raping captured enemy women and young girls was to humiliate and disgrace them and that is permissible under Islamic law.” There was not even a peep in Egypt’s civil society about such a statement.

On 7/25/17 a direct conflict happened when this occurred: An Oakland Muslim plotted to attack a gay club in San Francisco and talked about killing thousands of innocents on behalf of ISIS.

Finally, there is this non-sequitur that I can’t fathom:

“Feminist” Muslim women calling beatings by their husbands a “blessing from Allah”!

Who wants a beating?

ISLAM (ISIS) vs. Antifa

I don’t fully understand this one.  It has the trappings of a sibling quarrel at best.  ISIS is claiming that Antifa has culturally appropriated their uniforms, that being their black flag and terrorist tactics. 

Here are some details:

Based on this proof, we hereby request that the UNHRC’s CESCR begin an immediate investigation into this matter, and, if you concur that ANTIFA is culturally appropriating ISIS, that you use all means at your disposal to put a stop to it. You could start by visiting this ANTIFA website, which contains links to many of its affiliates throughout the world.

Sincerely,

ISIS High Command

PS: You might mention to the ANTIFA punks that in quite a few aspects, we are at war with the very same people, organizations and ideas, and, in fact, Western civilization itself. So, if you could arrange a sit-down over tea with us, and them, it might serve all of our interests, and provide a holistic, inclusive resolution to our complaint.

Islam appears to have support from the media and the left side of the political sphere as does the other listed minorities claiming status.  One can see the obvious conflicts.

Socialists

It appeared that quite a bit of traction was gained by the Bernie Sanders crowd.  It seemed to have enough momentum to be a winning group within its’ primary. Somehow, it was defeated by a political machine by what is being revealed as suspicious activities.

Nevertheless, a discussion of the socialism movement by Ross Wolf summarizes some of my points:

Ross Wolfe argues in The Charnel House, the identity politics that arose in the 1960s, ‘70s and ’80s developed in reaction to the identity politics of actually-existing socialism itself:

The various forms of identity politics associated with the “new social movements” coming out of the New Left during the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s (feminism, black nationalism, gay pride) were themselves a reaction, perhaps understandable, to the miserable failure of working-class identity politics associated with Stalinism coming out of the Old Left during the ’30s, ’40s, and ’50s (socialist and mainstream labor movements). Working-class identity politics — admittedly avant la lettre — was based on a crude, reductionist understanding of politics that urged socialists and union organizers to stay vigilant and keep on the lookout for “alien class elements.” Any and every form of ideological deviation was thought to be traceable to a bourgeois or petit-bourgeois upbringing. One’s political position was thought to flow automatically and mechanically from one’s social position, i.e. from one’s background as a member of a given class within capitalist society.

Questions I Have

If you are courting one group, how do you avoid alienating another group if there is acrimony?  At some point you step on the wrong toes.

If there is limited money, how does the donor decide who gets it without upsetting other groups?

How do you herd this group of cats to vote together when trying to win an election?  It worked twice, but failed recently and there is finger pointing as to why.

What is Racist?

In Seattle, they can’t clean the sidewalks with pressure washers because it could be racist.

Council member Larry Gossett said he didn’t like the idea of power-washing the sidewalks because it brought back images of the use of hoses against civil-rights activists.

It seems that non-black people using gifs are being racist also.  I don’t understand this one though.

Finally, who wins this victim’s game?

I found this, which is someone else’s answer and not necessarily my view, but it seems to apply here:

The criteria used to judge that is two-fold: the perceived grievance and victimhood status of the group (more = better), and the amount of room within it for ideological and political pluralism (more = worse).

So I guess you have out victim everyone else.  By doing so, it disrupts the coalition of identities required by one of the political parties to win elections.  I suppose it is a popularity contest to win the money and the status.

My final observation is that human nature is the constant here.  People are selfish enough to grab power and money when possible.  Most do not have the ability to argue from multiple positions on the same subject and are ideologues for their cause.

This alone is going to make a coalition such as the one that voted in the president in 2008 difficult.  Being a female wasn’t enough of a victim status in the 2016 election.

These are things I ponder as we wind our way down the path of being a country.