2021 and beyond

Each year for more than a decade I’ve written a New Year’s letter, sharing some of the highlights of the previous year and projecting the future for my family and myself. We don’t, however, need to be reminded of the “highlights” of 2020, nor do we need platitudinous projections about 2021. Instead a wider view might serve as we sit on the verge of another year.

Having just finished reading “You Can’t Go Home Again” by Thomas Wolfe, I am struck by Wolfe’s optimism about the human race. In breaking with the editor who helped him launch his career, Wolfe identified the editor’s fatalism as the factor that necessitated their severance. Is that what it comes down to––are there two kinds of people: those who are optimistic and those who are pessimistic?

Wolfe’s novel covers the late 1920s and 1930s. He spent some time in Germany––a country whose culture he loved from afar only to discover in person the dark underbelly of hatred and evil that infected so many. That did not, however, discourage him in viewing America as a place of hope and inspiration.

Let’s examine the past century. Each of you can decide where you stand: optimist or pessimist.

The First World War is not a happy place to begin our journey. Millions of lives were lost unnecessarily as a result of rulers’ (misplaced) priorities and generals’ limited visions. The war was followed, we have recently been reminded, by a plague that added a toll of millions to the war’s devastation.

Then came a brief respite in the 1920s. Things were looking up. People put the war and pandemic behind them rejoicing in peace, with song and dance. Germany was unable to participate in the economic revival, however, as its economy had been saddled with enormous debt, although few saw the inevitable negative consequences of the terms of the peace settlement.

The end of the 1920s brought a new tragedy––a stock market crash followed by a long depression. Dire economic conditions worldwide did not come to an end until after another world war taxed humanity’s capacity for sacrifice.

It wasn’t until the end of the Second World War that the West discovered the depths of Hitler’s war on the Jewish people, in part because warnings and reports out of Europe had been ignored.

At the end of that war we again sought a lifestyle of hope. The economy grew allowing people to buy homes and cars. Colleges expanded admissions and optimism reigned as health care discoveries promised an end of long-feared diseases. The Korean conflict was a slight blemish on this period of hopefulness.

The 1960s reminded us of how far we had to go to live up to our ideals. The decade began with Blacks in the South seeking a redress of grievances and resulted in legislative civil rights victories although at the cost of sacrificed lives––Dr. King’s and both Kennedy’s.

Did we foresee how divided our society would become coming into the 1970s? We protested America’s role in Vietnam––some people not wanting to get involved in overseas struggles; others siding with Vietnam as one of the world’s poorest nations, ignoring the Soviet Union’s plan to convert poor nations to its ideology.

That was the beginning of a division that besets our country today.

Instead of progress, half of our country views the past half-century as a set-back, as a time when demands for equality were ignored or given lip-service. They believe their opponents (“White people!”) cheat at the game of life and that the disadvantaged need more breaks than the ones they’re already given. They also view the United States’ as a negative force on the world’s economic, environmental and cultural stages.

Those who identify as optimists see two hundred twenty-five years of progress towards the ideals of the American Revolution. They deny human perfectibility is achievable and reject government-imposed controls over thought and private life. They are opposed by those who are impatient for our society to achieve ideals that echo those of the Socialists and Communists––human perfection; an end to differences between men and women, rewarding of past victims of discrimination, and a government more involved in the outcomes of each individual’s fortune, rewarding those who don’t succeed on their own with services and wealth they feel they deserve simply by existing. They believe the rich can be taxed out of existence with no consequences. They believe that resources are limitless and therefore can be given away to anyone who arrives on our shores with open arms.

The electoral platform of the Democrat Party echoes the agendas of the Soviet Union of the 20th century and today’s Communist China. Communists in those countries applaud for it helps them advance their agenda. The Left blames the West for the disparities between peoples and promises that socialist policies can fix those disparities. Americans who endorse that scenario ignore the Socialist/Communist track record––the necessity of government top-down control, punishing individuals who fail to go along with the program by confiscating their property and imprisoning those who speak out too vociferously.

Conservatives rely on the inherent goodness of most people who they believe if left to their own devices will act fairly and honestly. They know laws and rules are necessary but seek to minimize restrictions in the belief that the outcomes are better when not imposed.

The liberal media tells the stories of people who have been harmed by capitalism and racial discrimination while the conservative media tells the stories of those who overcame disadvantages to make something of their lives and enrich the country. Both narratives have merit. Telling only one side does a disservice to the nation.

Americans will have to decide during the next several years which political philosophy they want to adopt. Some will blame the inevitable failure of the Biden/Harris Democrats’ agenda on Republicans and will seek stricter measures to prevent them from interfering, including packing the Supreme Court and revising the Constitution. Others will recognize that Democrat Party’s version of Socialism/Communism––enforced government equality––is worse than a dead end. It’s the precursor of running the economy into the ground and turning opponents into political prisoners. I hope I’ll be around to see which side will win out.

How White Guilt Replaced White Supremacy to America’s Detriment

Shelby Steele, White Guilt, Harper Perennial (2006)

Millions of white Americans are befuddled by the Black Lives Matter movement. Racial equality was achieved in the 1960s they remind us and haven’t such programs as affirmative action on college campuses and diversity hiring at corporations brought Blacks to economic and social equality with Whites? Yes, there have been too many incidents of police brutality in confrontations with Blacks, but those incidents have been in decline. So, what gives?

One answer can be found by reading the writings of the leaders of the BLM movement. They rant and rave about America being a racist society that has changed little from the days of slavery. Another answer can be found in the writing, websites and talks of Black conservatives like Shelby Steele, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, and Michelle Malkin.

Steele’s thesis is that White racism was replaced by White Guilt––an attempt by Whites to disassociate themselves with the past by endorsing policies and programs based on guilt rather than necessity or logic. The downside of this practice is that it harmed the institutions––schools, colleges and even businesses. Instead of imparting the need to succeed based on merit and individual responsibility, Blacks are told they are entitled to success for White’s past racism simply because they are Black.

Steele’s spare writing style is filled with incidents that illustrate his arguments, incidents such as a confrontation he had with an architect of the Great Society Program and Maureen Dowd’s “vile” response to Clarence Thomas’ dissent in the University of Michigan affirmative action case. In each instance, the political posture of White Guilt takes precedence over seeing the other person as an individual apart from his/her race or judging the individual on community standards.

For those who are under the impression that the conflict between the races is artificial and can be ignored, Steele’s analysis exposes how Whites are also damaged by White Guilt often without seeing the damage they’re doing to Blacks. Racial conflict is one of the central issues of American society. Steele’s writings should be read widely.

The subtitle of White Guilt is “How Blacks and Whites together destroyed the promise of the Civil Rights Era.” His insights are needed in 2020 more than ever.

Blackout: A Book Review of Candace Owens’ indictment of the Democrat Party’s control of Black America

Candace Owens, Blackout. How Black America Can Make Its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation. (Threshold Editions, 2020)

Candace Owens is an intelligent, brave, young, black woman who in recent years has challenged the assumption that African Americans should support the Democrat Party and its liberal platform for black America.

As a result of her outlook, she’s had to put up with personal attacks for displaying her independence. Undeterred, she has continued to appeal to Black Americans to open their minds to a different point of view on the history of race relations from slavery to the present.

Blackout is her latest effort to explain her outlook. Relying on history lessons, the writings of famous authors, and her own experience, Owens demonstrates how the liberal left takes Black votes for granted and fails to reward Black support with policies that aid the Black community with better schools, good jobs or strong community institutions.

In a dozen clearly written chapters, Owens exposes the duplicity of the Democrat Party over the years from LBJ’s “great society” to Barack Obama’s paltry record in aiding the African-American community. Along the way she questions feminism’s commitment to Black women, exposes identity politics’ dead-end, and uncovers the negative results of affirmative action and government handouts.

The chapter I found most edifying is entitled “On Culture,” in which Owens contrasts the music created by Black musicians not that long ago with today’s music that exposes “the slow decay of morality; less clothing, more profanity, less education.” (223) She reveals Hillary Clinton’s pretending to be cool in an interview with a Black d.j. And, she repeats Joe Biden’s telling Charlamagne the God “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you aint black.” (225) That despite Biden’s role in passing a notorious crime bill in 1994 that increased the percentage of blacks serving time.

Blackout is meant primarily for a black audience, but anyone interested in learning how the Democrats have exploited the black community over the decades and how one courageous young woman sees things will find her arguments detailed, clear and instructive.

I recommend it highly.

Appeasement: Our Western Illness

I suspect when asked if they know what the word appeasement means most educated people will say, “Yes. It has to do with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain giving part of Czechoslovakia to Adolph Hitler in 1938, claiming he had achieved “peace in our time.”

In fact, however, the lesson of appeasement was not learned. It is alive and well, causing myriad problems in our Western political universe. I’ll relate examples offered by Natan Sharansky in his extended essay “Defending Identity” and then point out how the appeasement disease still survives in the West in the 21st century.

Natan Sharansky is one of the most well-known of a group that came to be known as the “refuseniks.” He was exiled to Siberia by the Soviet Union because of his refusal to confess his crimes and name his co-conspirators. His crimes were these: He was active in publicizing human rights violations by the Soviet Union and he sought to move to Israel.

Eventually, Sharansky and the other refuseniks won. They delivered a deathblow to the Soviet Union as a result of their courageous refusal to cooperate even when faced with death. His case gained widespread support from ordinary citizens throughout the West. Ronald Reagan helped push the Soviet regime into the dust bin of history, but his voice alone without Sharansky’s moral stand, would have run up against a brick wall.

After moving to Israel, Sharansky was invited to serve as a minister in two administrations. He very publicly resigned from both because the prime ministers were engaged in appeasing Israel’s enemies in ways Sharansky believed would be devastating for the young nation.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak entered into negotiations at Camp David with Yasser Arafat. Sharansky objected when Barak offered Arafat more than any other Israeli leader had offered the Palestinians, including a pledge to divide Jerusalem. Why? He believed Barak was foolishly appeasing Arafat who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis. In return for peace, Barak was willing to give up important locations essential to the Jewish people’s historical identity­­.

The second time Sharansky resigned from an Israeli government was in 2005 when Ariel Sharon decided to evacuate Gaza––a strip of land along the Mediterranean that was home to twenty-one Jewish communities. He argued that doing so unilaterally would not bring peace to Israel, nor would it improve life for the Palestinians. Unfortunately, his prediction came true. Gaza has turned out to be an open sore on Israel’s southern flank with no clear resolution in sight.

The common thread of the two situations was the leaders were willing to appease their enemies––giving up a lot in return for little or nothing. Despite the common narrative that Israel is responsible for the lack of peace in the Middle East, the truth, the reality of the situation is that Israel has consistently offered concessions while consistently losing opportunities to stand firm on principle.

Another example cited by Sharansky is Oslo––the 1993 Agreement that was supposed to bring about a resolution of the conflict that began with the formation of a Jewish state in 1948. Sharansky argues Oslo was flawed for two reasons. First, it failed to deal with the fact that Yasser Arafat was a dictator. Strengthening him was the worst thing that could have happened to the Palestinian people as can be seen today given that nothing close to democratic rights exists in the PLO-dominated territory. If we in the West believe our rhetoric––that all human beings are entitled to certain basic rights, why do we keep ignoring the fact that the Palestinians lack the right of free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion and the right to choose their own leaders?

The second evil perpetuated by Oslo was Israel’s failure to insist that the PLO recognize the Jewish people’s right to a Jewish state in its current location. Failing to demand that concession has meant the PLO could continue to foster hatred of Jews, pay the families of deceased or imprisoned terrorists, and claim their right to the entire region. The consequence was that Israel has had to devote a major portion of its population and resources on security.

Western International Appeasement

America and Europe have consistently tried appeasement in dealing with China and Iran resulting in greater problems amplified today by the economic and military agreement between the two nations. The entire world is endangered by the aggressive policies these nations display today in large part because they do not believe the West will go beyond rhetoric to stop them.

The case of Iran is the clearer of the two. Iran’s aggression in its region has led to wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, with resulting tens of thousands killed and hundreds of thousands of refugees. How has the West responded? President Obama tried to buy off Iran with a foolish deal that asked them to postpone becoming a nuclear power in return for a huge financial payment. Fortunately, President Trump revoked America’s part of the agreement, but Europe has demurred, emboldening Iran to continue to be aggressive on several fronts.

Many advanced the theory that by playing nice with China they would reform their totalitarian practices. Instead China today is an aggressive dictatorship, repressing ethnic minorities, attempting to take over Taiwan and Hong Kong and dominate the South China Sea region, while pushing on its border with India. China’s economy has grown thanks to the West’s willingness to ignore China’s predatory policies in return for access to its market. In response, China engaged in the theft of Western technology and limited its market in multiple ways while undercutting Western economies with its state-owned enterprises.

The West’s failure to demand Iran and China conform to Western human rights practices in order to receive the benefits of our technology was and remains a huge mistake. President Trump is correct in placing demands on both countries, although I worry that U.S. pressure can only achieve limited results without Europe’s support.

Domestic Appeasement

Appeasement is a popular ploy in the U.S. to tamper down demands by domestic populations. I’m not arguing that minority communities don’t deserve a share of our nation’s riches, but instead of policies that expand equal opportunity, our political class has favored hand-outs to selected representatives, enriching a few at the expense of the many.

The failures of hand-out programs such as welfare, public housing and affirmative action is evidenced by the fact that 60 years after this policy was started as Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, the same groups are legitimately pointing out that they have greater poverty, greater unemployment and greater numbers in prison that the majority population.

The Great Society created a political class that each year comes to Washington claiming to represent their people while asking for more money and more programs. Sadly, the poverty program cheerleaders refuse to recognize that enormous progress has been made outside these poverty programs simply by people taking advantage of opportunities to get an education and obtain skills that could be translated into economic advanced.

The Trump presidency demonstrated that more could be accomplished for minorities by means of an expanding economy than all the handout programs combined.

The Alternative to Appeasement

Appeasement is the tendency to believe giving in to the demands of others can put an end to the problem. Even when the demands are legitimate, there has to be a price paid before an exchange can be effective. As Natan Sharansky demonstrated giving in to Israel’s enemies without getting sufficient concessions in return was disastrous.

We have learned that in the case of demands made in foreign relations, the dominant side has to view those making the demand as enemies with regard to that specific negotiation. Mexico and Canada were America’s enemies when trying to replace NAFTA. Thinking in that mode resulted in an one hundred percent better agreement. Iran and China are our enemies, not our friends. As a result, a quid pro quo should be required of any agreement.

In domestic conflicts, financial aid should only be given when the receiving community has agreed to honest and thorough record-keeping demonstrating that the aid went to the intended audience. If that had been done in the past, the record of fraud and abuse in these programs would have been cut in half and needy people would have gotten help. But even beyond accounting, receiving communities must agree to engage in additional steps on their own behalf, such as requiring recipients to participate in programs designed to elevate them out of poverty. An example would be schooling for those who are not proficient in English; another would be schooling for adults who dropped out of school without completing high school.

Appeasement is giving in to demands without asking anything in return. It is often agreed to out of guilt. Its time to recognize appeasement didn’t end with Nevile Chamberlain. Its continuing record of failure in international and domestic relations should teach us a lesson. Leaders must display backbone. Giving in may gain short-term peace, but rarely solves the problem and typically results in worse problems down the road.

Antifa Coops Black Lives Matter

What are the goals of Black Lives Matter? Justice? Equality? An end to police violence against Blacks? Destroying America? Up until now, the latter has not been a goal, but that may change if Antifa militants get their way.

Antifa’s tactics during the George Floyd demonstrations are designed to bring police violence down on Black Lives Matter adherents. Here’s how they do that. BLM leaders are always at the front of any crowd facing the police. They exercise their verbal rights to protest and demand changes, but are not trying to provoke violence. Antifa people stand behind the BLM crowd where they are less visible to the cameras, armed with bricks and bottles, some loaded with accelerants, which they throw over the heads of the BLM people at the police. Their goal is to provoke the police to charge into the crowd, which if it occurs can then be used by Antifa to convince BLM they will never get justice in America. It has to be torn down.

Who is Antifa? Antifa is an ideology more than an organization. The name, which derives from “anti-fascist,” is a misnomer since their tactics are those of fascists, anarchists and communists. Their goal is undermining law and order, pushing the most vulnerable in society to give up their hopes for equality and justice through democracratic institutions, to convince people that violence is justified.

Antifa takes advantage of the rage felt by young Blacks, providing them with the tools to loot and burn along with fictional arguments. They don’t point out that fewer unarmed Blacks were killed by police confrontations in 2019––nine––than whites––19. They don’t point out the rising standard of living Blacks have achieved the past three years, the lowest unemployment rate, the criminal justice reforms––all produced by the current administration. Facts would upset their lies, would defeat their aims.

Antifa is a terrorist organization. It’s social media netwrok needs to be shut down and any of its members engaging in violent activity during the protests need to be arrested and charged with terrorist activity. And BLM leaders need to explain to their followers that engaging in looting and the like is doing a disservice to George Floyd and to their movement.

Is the problem white supremacy?

If you ask protesters what justifies their anger, most will tell you what happened to George Floyd is not unique––meaning a black man being killed by a white police officer, and that if the person being arrested was white, the officer would have acted differently.

That response is both right and wrong. It’s wrong in that Officer Chauvin has an extensive record of involvement in incidents that had to be investigated for behavior outside what is required of a member of the Minnesota Police Department, some of them involving whites. So in one sense the problem was this one officer and a system that failed to remove him from the force years ago.

Yet, it’s also true that there have been too many instances of white police officers engaging in behavior that caused serious injury or death to blacks without sufficient justification. Although the number of such incidents has declined precipitously in the past four decades, any such action that cannot be justified by circumstances, such as strong belief the person being arrested has a weapon and intends to use it, is unacceptable. The question is how we deal with those incidents. Is rioting––violence against police officers, theft and property destruction appropriate or justified? I think not.

Yet some will suggest the problem is not a few “bad” cops or improper or insufficient training; rather they claim American society is structurally organized to the disadvantage of black people––that whites enjoy racial privilege and therefore America is a white supremacist society.

This accusation cannot be backed by the numbers. Any attempt to do so must run up against data that shows that status of black Americans has risen from the lows of the first half of the 20th century under the separate and unequal Jim Crow system to to full legal equality with whites. Compare the number of black doctors, lawyers, police chiefs, school superintendents and principals, college presidents, corporation executives, and media personalities, etc. with any point in the past to 2020. Compare the status of black women in America in 1965 or 1995 to the present and you’ll see extraordinary progress. Compare the number of blacks enrolled in America’s colleges to any point in the past. Are there still blacks living in poverty? Yes, but that’s true for whites and Hispanics as well. Poverty is primary a class, not a racial, problem.

So why do some people think white supremacy is a dominant characteristic of American society? The source of the accusation is a Left professorate that has fostered this notion which has been picked up by the mainstream media and the Democrat Party. Faculty at elite colleges have for the past forty years marshaled selective incidents and partial data to justify this thesis which elevates them at the expense of their students. To be a militant on campus is the highest status a black or minority professor can achieve. In fact, if one is not militant, one is suspect and in danger of not getting tenure or promoted.

Why, you may ask, has the mainstream media bought into this thesis? The media plays to a left-leaning audience as a reflection of the composition of the reporting and editing staff. To be sympathetic to the poor, discriminated against and disadvantaged, makes these people feel good about themselves. It helps them ignore the hypocrisy of their privilege as members of a part of society that holds itself above criticism. While not condoning violence, the media’s desire to blame Donald Trump for everything they perceive to be wrong with America shows they will not condemn those protesters who go too far.

And what about the Democrat Party: why have they bought into the white supremacy argument? The answer is obvious. To be the champion today of the victims of white America enables Democrat candidates to gloss over the fact that their Party has been in control of our major cities as well as the states with the highest black population for the past 70-80 years. It is their party that ought to be held responsible for any lack of progress in those communities. So if police departments aren’t getting rid of people like George Floyd’s murderer, black people ought to look to the elected officials in those cities and hold them responsible.

There are a tiny number of whites who believe they belong to a superior race––a concept that is so vapid and without merit that any thinking American should know it could only be held by a few deranged individuals. The vast majority of white Americans seek justice and equality for all Americans. To suggest otherwise requires the accuser to identify laws and/or policies that advantage one race over another.

Americans must continue to work to live up to the ideals of the founding fathers who believed all men (and women) are equal and deserved to be treated that way. We’ve come a long way, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t more to that needs our attention. Let the discussion continue so that we can all share our views and identify problems that need to be addressed, but let’s also take a moment to glory in the progress. For without recognizing success, future progress will never be enough.

 

Media Negativity Leads to Despair, Violence

The Biden (formerly Washington; formerly Amazon) Post featured recently a story about teenage girls who have become global warming warriors. Motivated to save the planet, they dress in black (for mourning), take off school to demonstrate at the Capitol, and should be put on suicide watch if Donald Trump wins re-election.

This is an example of the news media’s chickens coming home to lay fool’s gold eggs. The girls are parroting what the media has been selling for years––not just that we’re facing an uninhabitable planet in ten or twelve years, but also that corporations, Republicans and white males are responsible for the impending catastrophe.

The Post clues us in: Maddie “can’t remember a time when the news wasn’t full of burning forests, melting glaciers and hurricane-lashed cities.” The Post even connects the coronavirus to Maddie’s angst: “The pandemic has shut down Maddie’s life and offered a taste of the global turmoil that scientists say climate change will bring.” Attributing wild claims to science is the kind of unfounded, politically-motivated indoctrination that leads young people like Maddie to think they personally have to save the world.

Girls like Maddie take their lead from a 17-year old Swedish media star and a first-term congresswoman graduate of a university that gives out M.A.’s in economics like McDonalds gives out big macs––to any and all takers.

A consequence of the media’s symphony of negativity is that millions believe African-Americans, Hispanics and women have it worse off today than fifty years ago, and that socialism is a viable economic model. It is also responsible for the rising suicide rate among young people––especially young white males. The media also deserves some responsibility for acts of personal violence, such as the shooting of Congressman Scalise and mugging of U.S. Senator Rand Paul.

While threats to infect the president with the coronavirus by elected officials are taken down quickly, the poster is not punished and the media forwards the message suggesting a ticket to fame awaits she who would undertake that mission.

The Biden Post and New York We Fit the News to Our Narrative Times may argue they only report the news and hide behind claims of objectivity, but those bromides have been shown to hold less water than a social distancing face mask. The location of stories in each edition, the wording of the headlines, and the perspective taken all color a story’s impact. Further, the impact of coverage of a topic cannot be judged on one story. Rather it is the cacophony of stories on a topic that infiltrate a reader’s consciousness leading her to decide, as in the case of the Post’s subject, that she has no choice but to give up planning for the future in order to save the world today.

When her parents try to reason with Maddie, she replies “But it’s zero hour. Two minutes to midnight.”

I doubt that the media that now promotes these teenager warriors will be around when they discover planet Earth is doing fine without them, but meanwhile Maddie expresses fear and others no doubt feel anger and consider violence. But that too will be reported as if someone else is responsible.

Elizabeth Warren wants to know where the family lore blank is on the presidential application form?

Writing in the May 17 Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan defended Elizabeth Warren against Donald Trump’s calling her Pocahontas by arguing that Warren was “merely repeating family lore.”

That is b.s. to put it mildly. You can’t tell me that Warren didn’t know that attaching “Native American” to her applications for graduate school, professorships and grant applications didn’t give her a step up over other candidates. “Female and Native American. Wow. We want one of those,” said the law school dean who hired her at Harvard.

She can’t say she didn’t know she was benefitting from that claim without appearing out of it. Identity has become a primary qualifier for academic positions for decades. She had to know that, which is why she referred to herself as Native American.

And for Sullivan to accept Warren’s excuse as legitimate and also to say “She does have some such ancestry, but not very much” is also disingenuous. The results of the DNA test she took “cannot show that she or any other person is ‘NativeAmerican’” according to Jennifer Raff writing in Forbes Magazine.

In other words, Trump is entirely justified for his calling Warren Pocahontas because that’s what you do to people who cheat. You call them out. Thank goodness that name is sticking because it reminds people that when she had an opportunity to cheat to advance her career Warren didn’t hesitate. Is that the kind of person we want as president?

Identity Politics Gone Insane: The Case of Elizabeth Warren

More evidence of Elizabeth Warren’s fraudulent claim that she is Native American has come to the fore in recent days. She self-identified as Native American thirty years ago on her Texas Bar Association application and also later on her official listings at the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. Some accept her excuse that she thought she was Native American, but why didn’t she attempt to verify whether she was or wasn’t? The fact is she would continue to be getting away with a lie today had not others challenged her.

It appears that Warren sought to use this myth to enhance her status and advance her career. She wanted to be seen not just as a woman, but as a Native American woman. There is an academic construct called ‘intersectionality’ that increases a person’s status if she is a member of more than one oppressed minority. It appears that Warren’s use of her fake identity, rather than the merit of her academic accomplishments, earned her prestigious jobs and high salaries. She then built on that resume to gain the nomination of the Democrat Party for U.S. Senator from Massachusetts––a position she holds today, a position some might argue she does not deserve. She further has the gall to think she should be the Democrat Party candidate for President in 2020!

Focus on the distinction between identity and merit as the basis for hiring and promotion. While minorities and women were discriminated against in the past, that doesn’t justify giving them a free pass today. When equal opportunity is no longer the standard for advancement in a society, the door is wide open to new forms of discrimination. There is strong evidence that has been the case in academia for decades. People who hold conservative views have an inordinate hard time getting jobs in the social sciences. Some people have admitted they had to hide their beliefs until they had tenure track jobs because they knew prejudice, not merit, determines hiring in academia.

Identity Discrimination Now Found in the Business World

Favoritism based on identity has now been extended to the business world as well as in the news media where to be charged of an act of malfeasance by a minority is tantamount to guilt, especially if the person is a white male.

To be very clear, I also would challenge the notion that a non-minority—i.e., a male Caucasian––cannot be objective, impartial and fair in the fulfillment of his duties whether as a policeman, school and college instructor, or as president of the United States.

Democrats who wish to preserve the notion of equal rights for all citizens—something embodied in our Constitution––ought to make it clear that they do not support Warren’s candidacy for president or that of any other candidate who feels qualified because they are a member of a minority group or because they believe minorities deserve special treatment apart from merit.