Friday, May 3, 2024
Facebook Instagram RSS Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 13

Illegal Immigrants Should Thank Americans For Funding Their Education, Rather Than Suing Wells Fargo

By
Gustavo
-
0

Recently, a group of young illegal immigrants in California filed a lawsuit against Wells Fargo bank for denying their student loans applications on the basis of their immigration status. The Los Angeles Times profiled one of the plaintiffs, Mitzie Perez, who came to the U.S. illegally in 1997 from Guatemala. Five years old at the time, she is now 25 and a junior at the University of California-Riverside, focusing on gender and sexuality studies.

Perez and the rest of plaintiffs are beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The 2012 executive order, signed by President Barack Obama, gave temporary deportation relief to young adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children, who met certain criteria. That relief applies for a period of two years, subject to renewal.

About 750,000 immigrants have applied for DACA’s reprieve, which lets them work and study in the U.S. legally. Does that mean a bank like Wells Fargo must ignore these young people’s immigration status when making loan decisions? Absolutely not.

Banks Have to Act Prudently In Evaluating Loans

Other than the Federal Reserve, U.S. banks do not print money. For a commercial bank such as Wells Fargo, its largest funding source is depositors: people who entrust the bank with safekeeping their hard-earned dollars. When evaluating any loan application, it’s only prudent for a bank to evaluate a potential borrower’s ability and willingness to pay back the loan.

Loan officers usually look for the five Cs of an applicant: character (trustworthiness), capacity (debt to income ratio), capital (funds available), collateral (assets available in case of default), and conditions (outside circumstances that may affect the borrower’s financial situation and ability to repay).

A loan applicant’s immigration status is one of those “conditions” that a bank must take into consideration because it could seriously impact a borrower’s ability to repay the loan.

Why Wells Fargo Is Right To Be Careful

Wells Fargo should be concerned about lending to DACA beneficiaries because there’s a great deal of uncertainty about how long they can stay in the U.S.

First, DACA doesn’t grant these young illegal immigrants any permanent legal status. It only grants them a two-year deportation relief. Yes, a DACA beneficiary can request a renewal after the two-year period. But there’s no guarantee that renewal will be approved. An applicant could be denied if he or she no longer meet the criteria after two years.

Secondly, President Trump hasn’t made any official policy decision on DACA yet. There is overwhelming public sympathy towards DACA beneficiaries, and bi-partisan support to codify DACA into law. But until that legislation actually takes place, no one knows for sure how long DACA beneficiaries can legally stay in the U.S. Therefore, offering student loans to someone who may or may not remain in the U.S. legally after a two-year period is a risky business—especially considering the average student loan size is $25,000 with a 10-year repayment plan.

One of the many things that the 2008 economic meltdown taught us is that bad loans can have devastating effects on the overall economy. To protect its depositors—and ultimately U.S. taxpayers—banks are right not to make student loans to someone in the country illegally (even though it’s not their fault). What Wells Fargo did is not discrimination. It’s called prudence.

By suing Wells Fargo on the ground of discrimination, ignoring the uncertainty of their immigration status and the challenges it presents, Perez and other plaintiffs are not helping their cause. Instead, they are pushing people sympathetic to their situation away.

Prudence Does Not Equal Discrimination

As a nation, the United States has been the most welcoming and generous place on earth to young illegal immigrants. Putting aside various welfare benefits—including food, shelter, and healthcare that many states provide to illegal immigrants and their children—U.S. taxpayers have provided unmatched support to young illegal immigrants’ education. Ever since the landmark 1982 Plyler v. Doe U.S. Supreme Court decision, states are required to provide all students with free K-12 public education, regardless of students’ immigration status.

Since the ruling, American taxpayers have picked up the tab to provide funding for K-12 public education to all children in America, including those who were brought here illegally like Perez. Plaintiffs, including Perez, are the direct beneficiaries of this free education. They probably have no idea how much this free education actually cost. Data (with a delay of three years) from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) shows that as of 2012, taxpayers spent on average about $122,000 (adjusted for inflation) per child for public K-12 education in California alone.

The Supreme Court’s decision on education doesn’t apply to education beyond high school. But according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), many states extend generous higher education benefits to young illegal immigrants all the same. California is one of 18 states that allows young illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates. Perez attends UC Riverside (UCR), which charges an in-state tuition rate of $13,581 and $40,263 for out-of-state. This means a legal resident or a U.S. citizen from outside California has to pay more than three times more to attend UCR than Perez does.

Illegal Immigrants Greatly Benefit from U.S. Generosity

In addition, California is one of at least six states that allows young illegal immigrant students to receive taxpayer-funded state-level financial aid. UCR’s own website says “Over 85% of UCR undergraduate students receive financial aid, and 70% have their full fees covered by grants and scholarships.” Collegedata.com reports that average financial aid at UCR is about $21,638 per recipient. Again, Perez and many plaintiffs of the lawsuit are beneficiaries of this taxpayers-funded generosity.

The American people, bearing most of the financial burden, have gone above and beyond to ensure young illegal immigrants like Perez receive a quality education which is not available to them in their home countries. Such generosity, however, shouldn’t be taken as an entitlement. Higher education is not a right, and no one is entitled to coerce a private business into making unsound business decisions.

The majority of Americans, including liberals and conservatives, are sympathetic to DACA beneficiaries and are advocating for a permanent legal solution. Sadly, the lawsuit against Wells Fargo is a big turnoff for many DACA supporters, and it only makes it harder to forge a viable legal immigration solution for these young people.

If Perez and the rest of the plaintiffs truly want to become Americans, do it the American way. If you can’t afford something now, don’t get it. No one is obligated to provide it to you, and that has nothing to do with discrimination. Higher education is not the only path to a productive and rewarding life. There are many paths to learning. Be self-reliant. If you focus on what you can do to better your life and pay little attention to what others can or should do for you, you will be able to live kind of life you want.

Is Elon Musk A Space Troll? Why SpaceX Probably Won’t Send Anyone To The Moon

By
Gustavo
-
0

Earlier this week, SpaceX announced it plans to send two tourists to the moon next year, and I nearly spit my coffee all over the place before laughing for a solid three minutes.

It had to be a joke, right? SpaceX — the same company that’s repeatedly missed deadlines to send NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) and keeps blowing up rockets carrying expensive payloads — has the temerity to pretend they can send two humans to the moon by next year?

When will everyone realize that Elon Musk’s space company is just trolling us all? They like to talk a big game. (Does “We’re going to colonize Mars by 2024!” sound familiar?) The reality, however, paints a very different picture.

Eric Berger of Ars Technica put together this helpful timeline of SpaceX’s relationship with NASA, which I will condense here.

  • June 2015: SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket blows up two minutes into flight and NASA loses a bunch of very expensive equipment it was paying to carry to the ISS. In response, the government agency threw its full support behind the company.
  • September 2016: A Falcon 9 rocket exploded on the launch pad during a test designed to simulate the way a launch would work with a crew aboard, destroying the satellite payload. NASA realized the danger a crew would have faced had they been in the rocket. Since this accident, they’ve been increasingly skeptical of the company’s ability to safely ferry human passengers and have said they may end up buying tickets aboard Russian spacecraft due to safety concerns.
  • 2016: SpaceX announced plans to colonize Mars sometime in the next decade and need $10 billion to make it happen. The weird part is that NASA already made plans to get to the red planet.
  • December 2016: SpaceX tried to quietly push the 2017 deadline on finishing up its Crew Dragon to send astronauts to the ISS to 2018.
  • Early February 2017: NASA said the White House asked the agency to start looking into sending two astronauts to the moon in 2019.
  • February 27, 2017: SpaceX announces plans to send two tourists to the moon in 2018, essentially igniting a space race with the government agency that’s been propping up the private company all along.

So in between missing deadlines and blowing things up, SpaceX promises its investors things that are increasingly more far-fetched, like colonizing Mars by 2024 or sending tourists to the moon by 2018 who have pre-paid their passage. It’s enough to make one wonder what is really going on.

This kind of behavior is typical of companies run by Elon Musk. Tesla, his car company, likes to set ambitious goals and then not follow through, Kevin J Ryan of Inc.com writes.

Tesla has missed more than 20 production and financial targets in the past five years, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. The company missed 10 of those goals by an average of almost a year.

In May, Musk said he planned on delivering 17,000 cars to customers in the second quarter. In July, Tesla announced it had delivered 14,370, missing its target by 15 percent.

The much-hyped $35,000 Model 3 sedan, which is currently slated to launch next year, originally had a target rollout of 2014. And even 2017 might be ambitious: Musk recently said he doesn’t expect production to start by July 1 of next year.

Earlier this month, the billionaire entrepreneur announced another set of lofty goals. He said he wants to increase Tesla’s weekly output by 50 percent in the second half of 2016 compared to the first half. And he wants to produce one million cars per year by the end of 2020. In total, Tesla has sold about 140,000 cars since 2008.

 

But back to SpaceX. The company’s announcement to go full George Bailey on us all comes off the heels of several government audits detailing issues with SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and revealing that the California company was struggling to meet its deadline to send humans to the ISS. NASA announced if Musk’s company couldn’t make it happen it would be forced to rely on Russia for safe passage to the ISS come 2019.

“I find it extraordinary that these sorts of announcements are being made when SpaceX has yet to get a crew from the ground to low-Earth orbit,” Mary Lynne Dittmar, of the Coalition for Deep Space Exploration, told The New York Times. Preach, Mary Lynne!

What’s really infuriating about SpaceX’s recent announcement is that its bold lunar travel plan is only possible thanks to supporting from taxpayers (read: suckers) like me. Here’s The Economist’s take:

This is not, though, a simple story of private versus public. For one thing, SpaceX can offer such a trip only thanks to NASA’s previous largesse. The company’s Dragon space capsule, in which the moon tourists would fly, was developed to carry first cargo and, soon, people up to the International Space Station—services for which NASA pays generously. For another, NASA might end up deciding to pay SpaceX for its moon jollies, just as it pays for rides to the space station.

So not only did SpaceX gladly lap up $2.6 billion in federal funds to develop technology to send people to the ISS, which they’ve yet to actually deliver on, but they’ve also turned around and are using that technology to start a space race with NASA.

President Trump has recently hinted he might make NASA great again. If so, SpaceX knows they’ve gotta beat the federal agency to the punch in order to stay in business, as NASA is their most important customer and a potential competitor. Yet the question remains: can SpaceX pull it off? Can it get people to the moon by next year? Can it do just about anything it’s promised?

If their track record is any indication, we can expect lofty promises that gin up headlines and draw our collective attentions away from missed deadline after missed deadline. In other words, I’ll believe my tax dollars were well invested in SpaceX when they successfully bring humans to the places they’ve promised to take them.

Trump Will Be Tested By Terrorists And Tyrants Sooner Rather Than Later

By
Gustavo
-
0

Since the tragic attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, domestic acts of terrorism by foreign nationals, or on behalf of foreign terrorist organizations, have been relatively small in terms of casualties. That is unless you lost a loved one to the radical Islamist movement.

If history is prolog, the new president will be tested by “saber rattling” foreign powers, including terrorists, and typically sooner rather than later. It is all about re-evaluating their calculus with a new suit in the White House.

Meanwhile, angry Democrats in their soiled electoral diapers are doing everything they can to encumber a functional Trump government, including obstructing sound national security policy related to terrorism. That our politicians are so naive about the reality of terrorists being embedded in refugee groups strains credibility. The threat is real, and they know it.

Their actions are baffling if not ludicrous. Is it lost on the national press and public that the Democratic Party’s vetting of Trump’s cabinet is more stringent than vetting on alleged foreign refugees from a terrorist zone? When the domestic terrorism again raises its ugly head, as it most certainly will, Democrats will be the first to attribute it to Trump immigration policy.

In the meantime, Democratic Party financiers fund, exacerbate and encourage domestic turmoil inspired by race baiting, identity politics, and advancing the cause of Marxism. We are witnessing a feeding frenzy among disaffected and immature young people in search of a reason to act out their anger and ignorance. All of this domestic turmoil comes at a time China and Russia are posturing and flexing their military might. These are dangerous times and miscalculations can bring tragic consequences.

Despite Our Might, Weakness Emboldens Enemies

Bill Clinton’s weakness in the face of radical Islam eventually emboldened al-Qaeda to undertake the hideously inhumane event of 9/11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was attacked by radical Islamist Ramzi Yousef employing a 1,300-pound truck bomb in the parking structure. Miraculously, only six people died, although more than a thousand were injured. Clinton feigned outrage and promised the guilty would be brought to justice.

In1996, the Khobar Towers barracks were bombed in Saudi Arabia. The result was 19 dead soldiers and hundreds injured. In 1998, our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed and, two months later, the USS Cole was bombed. Each attack was followed by a serious-sounding Clinton pledging the attackers would be brought to justice.

In fact, he did little or nothing beyond posturing and authorizing the midnight launch of cruise missiles into an empty pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. Well, he actually did do something. He directed his aide, Dick Morris, to conduct polls on how best to respond to terrorism.

George W. Bush responded to 9/11 with an overwhelming military force that drove al-Qaeda into the mountains of Afghanistan and ultimately to a sanctuary in the northern territories of a supposed ally, Pakistan. Once in Pakistan, our resolve to seek and destroy al-Qaeda leadership withered. Rather than risk strained relations with Pakistan by pursuing Osama bin Laden with our military, we turned to a “denial of sanctuary” strategy in Afghanistan. The CIA and other intelligence arms continued the search for Bin Laden.

Next, the Bush administration became fully invested in the mythical belief that by nation-building we could reverse centuries of tribal mores, including a warrior mentality, and bring the ancient society into the modern world. By golly, with some new values, education, and a democratic form of government, the third world could become like us. We all know how nation-building turned out in both Afghanistan and Iraq after first invading their countries.

Next came the Obama administration with a pledge to get us out of Iraq, leaving a vacuum of leadership and spurring civil war and eventually the Islamic State from what remained of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Emboldened by Obama’s weakness, ISIS metastasized from a localized terror group in 2011 to proclaim a new caliphate. By 2016, it was an international terrorist organization in 18 countries. Its reach, through small cells and so-called lone wolves, has reached into Germany, France, Belgium, and the United States. According to the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism, ISIS was responsible for over 33,000 deaths through 2015. Clearly, that number has grown.

In 2014, President Obama referred to the group as inconsequential, a “junior varsity” terror group. However, history has demonstrated that the JV team was actually the Obama administration. Again, weakness breeds boldness in terrorists, and we have been demonstrably weak in our responses for decades.

America’s Five Deadly Shortcomings Terrorists Exploit

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles,” said Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese warrior. As it turns out, the Islamists have known our frailties far better than we have. They rightly concluded, and have demonstrated, that Americans have five deadly shortcomings, and they exploit them:

  • We are adverse to casualties, so be bold and inhumane.
  • We lack the stamina for a protracted conflict, we quit when quick victory eludes us, so make it long, painful, and tiring.
  • We steadfastly cling to “we all want the same thing,” when they despise us and tell the world we are “the great Satan,” and “death to America.” Iran was doing it before the ink was dry on the nuclear treaty fiasco.
  • Despite Islamists’ declaration of war with the West, we ignore them and act like we are dealing with a few malcontents bent on violence.
  • They actively pursue civilization jihad in America by claiming to be “just another religion” and we ignore the irrefutable fact that they are a theocracy.

Fifteen-plus years after 9/11, we continue to “dither about” in the absence of a comprehensive, lasting, and effective strategic terrorism policy. The resilience of the Taliban and emergence of ISIS is clear evidence of failed policy.

The Nexus Between Terrorism and Civil Disorder

On the home front, we have seen civil unrest, lawless looting, and destruction of innocent people’s properties by malcontents acting out in the spotlight of televised anarchy. We are led to believe these occurrences are spontaneous events brought about largely by a racist and phobic society. We are allegedly getting what we deserve. In fact, these demonstrations are increasingly being fueled, organized, and funded to advance the “progressive” agenda espoused by Democrats and their allied media.

True, there is an undercurrent of anger in America, as in most societies. However, the gutter politics of the Democrats have intentionally stoked the fires of hatred while putting blame on Christians, Jews, and others who hold to traditional moral values.

These political arsonists are lighting fires of hatred, fear, and violence with little regard for public safety, and condoning their actions as justified—in effect, breeding insurrectionists ripe for recruitment by terrorists. Jails, prisons, gangs, and militant groups are ideal recruiting opportunities for radical Islamists. When the seeds of anarchy being deliberately sown reach the tipping point, authorities will respond in ways that will exacerbate tension points.

Peaceful demonstrations to voice disagreement with government policy are as American as our flag. We have the right to gather and voice our opinions in public, albeit with consideration of laws and not to the detriment of innocents. The voice of reason is silenced when passions ignite the mob mentality. Since when are looting, physical assault, and destruction of others’ property a given right of society? When discontent turns to mindless and lawless rage, it becomes domestic terrorism. It cannot be tolerated by a civilized society.

Trump made two cabinet appointments that will prove to be exceptionally astute: James Mattis as secretary of Defense and John Kelly as director of Homeland Security. Both of these positions have historically been staffed by civilians with mixed results. We are facing a new conflict paradigm career politicians, military, and the law enforcement public is not accustomed to dealing with. The lines of responsibility are blurred like never before.

Facing warfare by determined traditional enemies like nation states (Russia, China, etc.) is pretty well understood after centuries of conflict. The advent of terrorism changed the battlefield landscape. Loosely networked terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and others who practice asymmetric warfare demanded new skill sets and strategies. Unfortunately, our response policy to such mixed threats has been wanting.

Is it a military or domestic insurrectionist policy that will drive strategy? Both. These two generals grasp the implications of both threats in a way that civilians do not. They share a common experience with both forms of antagonists as well as shared doctrine experiences that bode well for an integrated and effective response.

With the triad of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and these two former Marines, marshaling military and domestic resources has a much greater chance of being effective without treading on one another’s turf. The terrorism of 9/11 blurred the lines between war and law enforcement and exposed numerous cultural disconnects between law enforcement agencies themselves.

Mattis and Kelly are well suited to harnessing all of our security resources into a larger and better-integrated terrorism strategy that balances resources while leveraging strengths and bolstering our weaknesses.

The Citizen’s Role in an Age of Anarchy and Terrorism

There is little the average citizen can do for personal safety beyond recognizing the threat environment and staying clear of demonstrations. The anarchy will escalate until authorities enforce limits and the response becomes a further justification for the miscreants. You can rest assured that domestic terrorists will infiltrate the mobs and take the violence to new heights.

If domestic terrorism metastasizes, it is prudent to be aware of some common-sense guidelines I learned from Israeli terrorism officials and others:

  • Have enough food, fuel, water, and medications on hand for 7-10 days.
  • Have hand-held radios to communicate with family in case you get separated. In a significant national emergency, normal cell phone traffic will likely be disabled to facilitate emergency communications by authorities
  • Train yourself to be more alert about people and vehicles in your immediate area.
  • Learn to scan your area for objects out of the ordinary or people whose dress is unusual for the climate (a coat on a hot day—suicide bombers rarely wear their bomb vests outside).
  • Train yourself and your children not to approach abandoned packages, travel baggage, or anything else that is out of the ordinary. (Palestinians have planted bombs on bus benches, in toys, musical instruments and candy and food.)
  • Report people who make threats of violence, outwardly endorse terrorist acts or otherwise advocate civil violence.
  • Be aware of your neighbors and their normal routines. Strangers coming and going at odd hours or transporting packages, odd smells from kitchens or garages, etc., are worth passing on to authorities.
  • Leave the area ASAP if there has been a bombing. Terrorists often have a second bomb intended for first responders or gathering crowds.
  • Stay clear of abandoned cars and trucks in unusual places, especially if a terrorist incident has occurred.
  • Do not enter damaged structures that have been bombed. Leave it to first responders.
  • If a terrorist event has happened, listen to your radio for emergency instructions.

In short, be more security conscious. Intelligence is an inexact science, and the smaller the plot or targets the easier it is to stay under the radar.

Why Californians Should Vote To Secede From The Union

By
Gustavo
-
0

In the spring of 2019, Californians will go to the polls in a historic vote to decide by referendum if California should exit the United States. Yes, California #Calexit Campaign is leading this initiative. Given the current political culture of California, separating it from the rest of the United States would be in the best interests of both parties.

I am a fourth-generation Californian. My family settled there in the nineteenth century, and all of my relatives still reside in the state. For 32 years, I worked in the California State University system as a professor and administrator. In this capacity, I had to manage state budgets and enforce state rules and policies. I also managed a small family farm subjecting me to increasing agricultural quarantines, laws, and policies such as water restrictions. So I left for a better quality of life.

You Want Liberal Nirvana? Go For It

For many decades California has been a one-party state, run by the most liberal Democrats in the country. They are financially controlled by the public employee labor unions, including the powerful teacher’s unions.

In almost 40 percent of all state congressional elections there are only Democrat candidates, and in 12 congressional districts, the incumbent Democrat ran unopposed. In 2016, both candidates for U. S. Senate were Democrats. When schools or groups try to schedule moderate or conservative speakers, they are physically attacked, riots are choreographed, and they are chased out of the state.

An independent California could finally realize their politically liberal nirvana unhindered by federal laws and policies. Freed of the U.S. Constitution, they wouldn’t be constrained by the First or Second Amendments. So they could officially ban any speech, candidate, party, or group that mentions or questions the sacred myths of immigration, diversity, climate change, criminal justice, etc. California already has the most restrictive guns laws in the country, where now you must be fingerprinted to buy ammunition. Without the Second Amendment, they could now simply outlaw private gun ownership, and then there would be no crime!

The new country could establish its totally open immigration system. California already has more sanctuary cities than the rest of the United States does. They oppose all current national immigration policies. As an independent country, they could have completely open borders: no immigration police, no borders, no walls, and everyone from the world welcome. I could foresee maybe 50 million new immigrants from Asia, the Americas, Africa, the Middle East; and lots of progressive refugees from U.S. states.

Think of all the new social welfare entitlements an independent California could mandate for its residents. There would be free health care, free education including college, free child care, free family leave, unlimited welfare payments, and state-funded retirement for all. The already-existing racial quotas for hiring, promotions, college admissions, etc. could be codified into the new country’s constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union has forced a release of thousands of convicted felons, so the next logical step would be to close all state prisons and provide miscreants with therapy and understanding.

Trade Them Land for Paying Their Own Bills

Currently, the U.S. federal government owns almost 50 percent of the land in the state. These include super-valuable real estate and facilities such as Camp Pendleton, Yosemite Park, the San Diego Naval Station, extensive national forests, etc., probably worth trillions of dollars at current value. So in exchange for gaining all this valuable property, the new country of California could agree to assume all current federal obligations for Social Security, Veterans benefits, Medicare, and other federal costs. Of course, since California opposes U.S. military policies, as a new country they would not need any military or military expenses.

California has the highest income taxes, sales taxes, and gas taxes in the country. Unconstrained by federal laws, they could really jack these up to European heights. All the European countries impose national sales taxes, sometimes called value-added taxes, of up to 24 percent at every level of sales: production, wholesale, and retail. In some European countries, income taxes start above 40 percent and go even higher. And with California’s apocalyptic environmental policies, they could increase gasoline taxes up to $5 more per gallon, ban all oil and gas production, and eliminate livestock production, because animals produce methane.

Just like some countries, the new country of California could eliminate paper and coin money. Sweden is currently banning all physical money, so every transaction must be digital. India has withdrawn most larger-denomination bills. The intention in these cases is to eliminate black markets, drug deals, and unreported income. California could have new monetary denominations worth $3, $15, and $30 because everything would be more expensive. If they had to issue physical money, I suggest the denominations depict Harvey Milk, Rodney King, and Caitlyn Jenner.

The leadership of the new country of California would be no problem. As a one-party state, the Democratic Party simply dictates who the next leader will be. The state already knows that Gavin Newsom, the current lieutenant governor, will be the next governor. They don’t even need an election. The new country might opt for a new leader, more symbolic of their newfound progressive identity—maybe Bono, Lady Gaga, or Meryl Streep. The possibilities are intriguing.

The new country of California is a win-win, for the both sides. California can fully implement its new liberal idealism. And the other 49 states will be free from the incessant whining of the left coast.

Trump Didn’t Exploit Carryn Owens

By
Gustavo
-
0

Trump Didn’t Exploit Carryn Owens, He Honored Her Fallen Husband

During his congressional address Tuesday evening, President Trump honored Chief Petty Officer William Owens, a Navy SEAL who was killed in Yemen during a raid last month.

“We are blessed to be joined by Carryn Owens, widow of U.S. Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William ‘Ryan’ Owens,” Trump said while looking in the direction of Carryn Owens, who sat next to Ivanka Trump in the first lady’s box. “Ryan died as he lived,” he said. “A warrior and a hero, battling against terrorism and securing our nation.”

“Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity,” Trump said.

The chamber erupted into a prolonged applause that lasted for several minutes, during which Carryn stood and mouthed “I love you” repeatedly while looking upward.

“Ryan is looking down right now, you know that and he’s very happy because I think he just broke our record,” Trump said of the long applause.

In response, members of the media suggested the president was exploiting the family’s tragedy for political gain. Federalist senior writer Mary Katharine Ham disagrees.

Ham appeared on “CNN Newsroom” Wednesday afternoon to elaborate on her thoughts. “I didn’t like the idea that she is only fit to be a prop, that she can only be exploited by the President,” she said. “There are some moments that go beyond that, even when they are political moments.”

10 Reads That Will Help You Understand The Left’s Strategy Against Trump

By
Gustavo
-
0

We’re barely into the new Trump administration, yet have already seen what leading voices in journalism and elite culture are saying about him. You’ve seen coverage and commentary, either directly or by implication, imaging President Trump as incompetent, sinister, and dangerous, and a threat to democracy in the United States and peace and stability abroad.

So the real story of the Trump administration is, in addition to his policies and pronouncements, how our intelligence images him and his administration. Following is a list of reading suggestions that will help inform readers outside of the social consciousness of cognitive communications and its methods.

Cognitive communications is a communications style that intends to legitimize in audiences a respect for progressive policies and actors while delegitimizing opponents. Affecting the inner, unconscious mind of a person as opposed to his rational, deliberative mind, cognitive communications has served as the foundation for fake progressive journalism over the last 50 years.

As the weeks and months pass and the narrative-making about Trump and his administration deepens, you’ll find yourself needing to run to the library to check these sources out. Your satisfaction in these readings is guaranteed.

1. Rules for Radicals,’ by Saul Alinsky

This time-tested primer teaches leaders of progressive organizations working within “the system” the communications skills that lead to political power. Probably the book’s most famous lesson is that when engaging in discourse leaders should use polarized rhetoric: “Before men can act,” Alinsky famously writes, “an issue must be polarized. Men will act only when they are convinced that their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels and that the opposition is 100 percent on the side of the devil.” At the time of its 1971 publication, The New York Times gushed that “Rules For Radicals” attacked “the high and mighty” in support of the “Have Nots.”

2. ‘Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,’ by Media Matters

This 49-page confidential memo posits David Brock’s American Bridge as a vanguard in a four-year struggle against Trump. “We will fight,” it says, “every day.” “We will fight the normalization of Donald Trump.” It promises that “Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts.” It sees American Bridge as a “clearinghouse for information that drives the narrative on Republican officeholders and candidates” that is “at the epicenter of the Democrats’ work to regain power.”

3. ‘How We Think,’ by John Dewey

The founder of modern American education holds that men are social creatures, inferences relating to the community ideal can be automatically regarded as facts, and that no evaluation of them is necessary. The socially conscious advocate can take the social ideal as true on its face, and only need to be made into reality. If the cooperative ideal is deficient in some regard, this can be found out during a policy’s implementation stage, and the shortcoming set straight while still keeping the idea intact.

4. ‘Encounters With Unjust Authority,’ by William Gamson

Gamson, the co-director of the Media Research and Action Project at Boston College, describes how progressive-oriented authority, because it is “just,” need not be criticized, while not-cooperative authority is “unjust” and should be. He describes the “Injustice Frame,” or how an activist should contextualize an action by a not-cooperative authority as an injustice.

The purpose of the book is to advise organizations on how to mobilize and keep followers. He says that “Collective rebellion reflects or presages the emergence of some collective entity that can sustain a rebellious state beyond the immediate encounter.”

5. ‘Frame Analysis,’ by Erving Goffman

Goffman, a former president of the American Sociological Association, describes “Benign Fabrication.” It means a socially conscious actor can hoax an issue or event if the fabrication advances the progressive agenda. Goffman discusses “paternal constructions,” or hoaxing that “is felt to be in the dupe’s best interests, but which he might reject, at least at the beginning, were he to discover what was really happening.” An illustration of a paternal fabrication is Rolling Stone’s University of Virginia rape hoax, which was deemed acceptable because the hoax’s supposed result was women’s security.

6. ‘The Political Mind,’ by George Lakoff

Written by a key scholarly adviser to the Democrat Party, this book describes “framing,” or contextualizing issues in the unconscious mind, the mind that affects peoples’ perception and reasoning without them being aware of it.

“Framing” is a technique for bringing about a certain type of consciousness in a person, wherein he comes away from a discussion about an issue convinced that the progressive perspective is authoritative and the conservative take malicious. Howard Dean called Lakoff “one of the most influential political thinkers of the progressive movement.”

7. ‘Dangerous Donald Trump Narrative,’ Luis Miranda to DNC Senior Staff

In this email, the Democrat National Committee Communications Office outlines the “Dangerous Donald Trump” frame or the image the DNC and its supporting media should convey when talking about Trump. In this “narrative guide for how to talk about Trump,” Trump is to be portrayed as “dangerous” and lacking in “the judgment or temperament to be President.” The narrative to promote is that, among other things, Trump “exploit[s] racial anxieties,” “threaten[s] the First Amendment,” “denigrat[es] women,” and “has damaged America’s relationships across the globe.”

8. ‘Trump is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism,’ The New York Times

Trump is, among other things, “erratic,” “irrational,” “abnormal,” and “potentially dangerous.” Because of this, it is understandable that he receives more press scrutiny than other political personalities.

9. ‘The Art of the Controversy,’ by Arthur Schopenhauer

Describes how dialectical reasoning involving a myth can be used to discredit an opposing policy or authority. In response to a policy or actor, the activist puts forward a myth, and the resulting clash damages the legitimacy of the policy or actor. The activist needn’t care whether he is right or wrong. All he cares about is whether he is advancing the cooperative ideal and empowering its political friends and de-legitimizing their enemies.

The Washington Post’s 2016 “October Surprise,” in which an 11-year-old video alleging sexual vulgarity was suddenly introduced against Trump, and its contents described as being exclusive to Trump, Republicans, and Trump’s followers, illustrates how the “controversial dialectic” works.

10. ‘Donald Trump: The Candidate of the Apocalypse,’ Washington Post Editorial

This editorial calls Trump a “belligerent and erratic” man who seeks to enhance his political prospects “by inflaming public angst, so as to exploit it,” and believes “the way to overcome a difficulty is through force.” This piece foreshadowed the editors’ October 8, 2016 “October Surprise” plot and 1,600-word endorsement of Hillary Clinton on October 16.

The thing for readers to distil from these readings is this: Progressive reasoning is premise-based, or a type of logical process wherein the premise—in this case, that Trump and Republicans are to be de-legitimized—serves as its own conclusion. Facts and analyses that enhance the premise and conclusion are to be acknowledged and respected by the socially aware news source, while those that don’t aren’t.

It’s Time To Stop Talking About A Border Wall And Start Stabilizing Mexico

By
Gustavo
-
0

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Hernández v. Mesa, a case involving a U.S. Border Patrol agent who fatally shot a Mexican teenager on the El Paso-Juárez border in 2010. The case presents some complex legal issues like whether a foreign national shot on foreign soil is entitled to Fourth Amendment protections, or whether the family of the Mexican teenager even has the standing to sue in federal court.

But the facts of the case demonstrate just how complicated our problems have become along the U.S.-Mexico border, and how President Trump’s proposed solutions, like a border wall and mass deportations, won’t solve them.

First, some context. From 2008 to 2011, Juárez was embroiled in a horrifyingly violent drug war between law enforcement and rival drug cartels that claimed the lives of more than 10,000 people. In the summer of 2010, when killings in the city averaged about a dozen a day, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa was on patrol near a cement culvert that divides Juárez from El Paso, Texas. He saw Sergio Hernández Guereca and a few other teenagers running toward the American border fence and tried to apprehend them.

Hernández’s family claims he and his friends were just playing around, daring each other to run up and touch the American border fence. On the other hand, Justice Department records show that Hernández had twice been arrested for smuggling aliens across the border into the United States. It’s unclear what happened next, but it ended with Mesa shooting Hernández. He fired from the American side of the border, and Hernandez fell dead on the Mexican side.

A Single Metropolis, Divided By A Border

It’s a tragic story that underscores the seemingly impossible task facing the U.S. Border Patrol. El Paso-Juárez isn’t really two cities but a single integrated metropolis with an international border running through the middle.

A constant stream of traffic flows between the two cities, which have a combined population of more than 2.5 million—the largest metro region on the U.S.-Mexico border with the largest bilingual and binational work force in the Western Hemisphere. The economy is highly integrated, thanks in large part to NAFTA, with students and workers commuting between the two cities every day and tariff-free raw materials flowing to factories in Juárez (called maquiladoras) and assembled goods coming back to the United States.

But El Paso-Juárez is also a schizophrenic place. For years, Juárez has been among the most violent cities in the world, while El Paso has been one of the safest in America. After a recent lull in violence, Juárez appears to be poised on the brink of another gang war. In the first two weeks of February, there were at least 40 homicides in Juárez, most of them execution-style. Besides the endless fighting between law enforcement and rival drug cartels, as well as rampant corruption, the city is also a hub for the lucrative and burgeoning black-market industry of human trafficking.

So how do you solve security problems in a place like this, where crime and corruption rule one side of the border and strong incentives draw a host of people, good and bad, to the other side? Is there a way to fix the border without destroying its economy, spending billions of U.S. tax dollars, and tearing apart families in Texas and Mexico?

One thing is certain. A heavily militarized border—Trump’s wall and deportation scheme—might marginally stem the flow of criminals and drugs, but it would also halt the flow of workers and goods, impoverishing communities on both sides. Of course, the most motivated criminal cartels would also figure out a way to get across anyway.

Trump is correct in one sense, at least. This is indeed a national security problem. But if we’re going to think and speak of the U.S.-Mexico border in such terms, we need, to be honest about the root of the problem: the decay of civil society in Mexico and the virtual absence of the rule of law.

America Has a History Of Imposing Order on The Border

There’s a historical precedent for dealing with civil unrest and powerful criminal gangs in Mexico, but many Americans probably won’t like it. A hundred years ago, the Texas-Mexico border was a cauldron of violence and lawlessness. Beginning in 1910, the instability brought on by the Mexican Revolution metastasized into a series of clashes and cross-border raids that would become known as the Border War.

In 1916, the conflict escalated when Pancho Villa, the infamous Mexican Revolutionary general, launched a raid into Columbus, New Mexico. A garrison of U.S. infantry and cavalry repulsed Villa’s forces but the town of Columbus was heavily damaged in the fighting. In response, President Woodrow Wilson authorized the Pancho Villa Expedition.

Five thousand American troops led by General John J. Pershing entered Mexico with instructions to capture or kill Villa. Although they didn’t succeed in that effort, U.S. forces remained in Mexico until February 1917 to ensure the safety of American towns and settlements along the border and prevent future raids by Mexican Revolutionary forces.

The rationale behind the Pancho Villa Expedition, as well as earlier smaller-scale incursions by the U.S. military during the Border War, was rather straightforward: if civil unrest in Mexico is spilling across the border, then border security is a matter of national security. At the time, U.S. leaders concluded that if it takes unilateral military action to quell violence and restore the rule of law in Mexico, then so be it.

We Can’t Do This Without Mexico

At some point, we might have to have to revisit that rationale. Of course, this isn’t 1916 and the U.S. military certainly shouldn’t (and wouldn’t) unilaterally march into Mexico to impose law and order. But the Hernández v. Mesa case demonstrates just one of the problems with trying to police a highly porous border using conventional tactics. The ongoing drug wars, corruption, seemingly intractable human trafficking industry, and the growing number of families and unaccompanied minors fleeing Central America to enter at border checkpoints are all problems that Trump’s proposed solutions—a border wall and mass deportations—simply aren’t going to solve.

The cartels won’t be deterred by a wall, but they might be deterred by U.S. forces on their side of the border. Trump reportedly mentioned the possible deployment of American troops to Mexico in a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto earlier this month. But of course, troops alone wouldn’t be enough. The U.S. would have to get serious about investing in Mexico’s long-term stability. That means more trade, not less, and better coordination with Mexico’s military and law enforcement agencies. After all, a stable and secure Mexico is in America’s best interest.

But all of this will require better U.S.-Mexico relations, which at the moment appear to be tanking. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly arrived in Mexico Wednesday to meet with Peña Nieto in hopes of soothing tensions over Trump’s executive order on deportations. That’s a good first step, but it should never have been necessary—and Trump himself will need to do more to repair the damage he’s already done.

If Trump really wants to do something about the cartels that are undermining the rule of law in Mexico, he’ll need Peña Nieto’s cooperation, or at the very least his acquiescence. With Mexico vowing to resist Trump’s border policies, acquiescence—let alone cooperation—seems unlikely right now.

That means things in Mexico are going to get worse before they better, which is bad news for us all.

Everyone Is Wrong About Milo And CPAC

By
Gustavo
-
0

Everyone is wrong in this Milo Yiannopoulos story. Every last person and organization and company is wrong. You may be tangentially aware of this, or only paying attention to it to the degree it crowds your social feeds, but “Breitbart” was the number one trending topic yesterday so I take it most of you are aware of what’s gone on. To say everyone is wrong is the easiest way to summarize it, but it is the only way to convey the degree of wrongness going on right in front of all of us. It also has the benefit of being accurate.

Milo was wrong to say what he did. People say stupid things all the time. I personally interpreted what he was saying as descriptive – “this thing – young gay men exploring with older men – happens” – not prescriptive – “this thing ought to happen, is morally OK, and totally justified”. But only he knows what he meant, and he should never have dabbled in talking about this topic without in context issuing an obvious condemnation of the practice, which represents little more than preying on the underage.

But there is also the wrongness at every other stage of this. CPAC was wrong to invite Milo to give a prominent speech – he is not a conservative, even explicitly denies that he is, nor a libertarian.  He is a gay contrarian exhibitionist defined by his positions against the left rather than in favor of natural rights bequeathed by nature’s God, and he gives little purchase to the liberty of individuals defined by the limits of the non-aggression principle. There is no Burke or Locke in him, just the illiberal rage that seeks to end the somnolence of modern culture and address the enemies that are arrayed against them. This makes Milo useful to many endeavors, but it does not make him part of them.

CPAC was also wrong to disinvite him. These videos were not new. They were part of the public record. And for a venue that has featured Ann Coulter and David Horowitz and a number of prominent social conservatives who have said terrible and untrue things about American homosexuals, this was a statement that while toxic and stupid, should not have rendered Milo untouchable or too vile for a conference that, while once a font of conservative influence, now essentially exists as a place for interns to make poor decisions. Put him on at 10:30 in the morning on Saturday when everyone is hungover for 15 minutes and move on – featuring a speaker is not an endorsement, and just as Redstate was wrong to disinvite Donald Trump over his Megyn Kelly comments, so CPAC is wrong for featuring Donald Trump and refusing to include his biggest chortling gay fan. Congratulations, you have confirmed his anti-authority status even more.

Simon and Schuster were wrong to end Milo’s book deal. They were particularly wrong to end it in such a way that allows him to keep a quarter of a million dollars, turn around and sell his book again for additional money to some other outlet or publish it himself. The left which urged Milo’s ouster from any public venue is likely the impetus for this, given that New York publishing houses are overwhelmingly populated by leftists. Meanwhile, Bryan Singer gets his millions to make movies. Lena Dunham gets her endless profiles and plaudits. George Takei gets to rep respectable brands. But if they did the same things they have already done and were right of center, they’d be ostracized and ultimately fired from every gig they have. Yet they will never experience what it is like to be hounded out of speaking, out of a book deal, and ultimately out of a job, because their views are of the left and for the left.

But let us not leave out Breitbart employees who threatened to quit if Milo was not fired – they too were wrong. Seriously, this is the thing that would make you quit Breitbart, a site that has destroyed the legacy of its namesake with a gradually increasing embrace of alt-right sympathies? Did you not have a qualm about working for this website until this instant? Give me a break. And what of the crew of NeverTrumpers now claiming that they had a part in seizing this scalp? They are wrong to position themselves as Nazi-punching heroes – they are nothing of the kind and had nothing to do with this debacle. But keep at it, Evan McMullin.

And finally, but not due to lack of feeling, let us talk of Bill Maher, who is now taking credit for Milo Yiannopoulos’s fall, as if it was what he had planned all along when he booked him for an interview last week.  Maher, a classic dirty old man who will say more sexually deviant things in your presence after a drink or two than anything you heard from Milo in his interviews, would like you to think that this was what he had planned all along. He would like you to think that because he utterly bungled his interview with the provocateur, eating out of his hand at points and even showing the ankle of a fangirl. He didn’t know what to do with Milo because they agree on so many points. They agree on the politically incorrect truth about the dangers of radical Islam; they agree on their shared misogynistic view of sensitive actresses; they agree on the snowflake nature of a modern left that cannot take a joke. Maher is tied in knots by the mere existence of Milo in that instance, and cannot see a way out of it. Now Maher engages in revisionism to salvage himself from the criticism he has taken from the left – but no one really believes it.

This whole episode serves as a reminder of what Milo is and what he is not. He is not a conservative, a libertarian, or an ideologue. He is an attention seeker and a provocateur who in practice amounts to a blunt instrument to use on the left because he confounds them as something they argue cannot exist. He is impossible, so the fact that he exists is infuriating. And he is not going to go away.

Hey Kettle, Meet Pot! The Biased Media on Milo Yiannopoulos

By
Gustavo
-
0

A video clip of George Takei apparently joking about child molestation has gone viral on Twitter, with many asking why the liberal outrage hasn’t followed.

In the clip, Takei speaks about being at summer camp as a 13-year-old and having an 18-year-old camp counselor come into his cabin, kiss him and molest him.

The excerpt many seem to find most jarring is when Takei insists he wasn’t actually molested because he found the perpetrator “attractive.”

Hear the full clip that’s caught everyone’s attention below.

For skeptics, there is also a second video making the rounds in which George Takei can actually be seen making his comments on ‘Sway’s Universe,’ a SiriusXM Radio show.

@Workers4Trump isn’t the only Twitter user apparently concerned about liberals’ selective smearing.

 

WILL PIZZA HUT & TACO BELL DISAVOW?

Source:
The Fluest

The End Of Identity Politics 101

By
Gustavo
-
0

Who are we? Asked the liberal social scientist Samuel Huntington over a decade ago in a well-reasoned but controversial book. Huntington feared the institutionalization of what Theodore Roosevelt a century earlier had called “hyphenated Americans.” A “hyphenated American,” Roosevelt scoffed, “is not an American at all.” And 30 years ago, another progressive stalwart and American historian Arthur Schlesinger argued in his book The Disuniting of America that identity politics were tearing apart the cohesion of the United States.

What alarmed these liberals was the long and unhappy history of racial, religious, and ethnic chauvinism, and how such tribal ties could prove far stronger than shared class affinities. Most important, they were aware that identity politics had never proved to be a stabilizing influence on any past multiracial society. Indeed, most wars of the 20th century and associated genocides had originated over racial and ethnic triumphalism, often by breakaway movements that asserted tribal separateness. Examples include the Serbian and Slavic nationalist movements in 1914 against Austria-Hungary, Hitler’s rise to power on the promise of German ethnic-superiority, the tribal bloodletting in Rwanda, and the Shiite/Sunni/Kurdish conflicts in Iraq.

The United States could have gone the way of these other nations. Yet, it is one of the few successful multiracial societies in history. America has survived slavery, civil war, the Japanese-American internment, and Jim Crow—and largely because it has upheld three principles for unifying, rather than dividing, individuals.

The first concerns the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, which were unique documents for their time and proved transcendent across time and space. Both documents enshrined the idea that all people were created equal and were human first, with inalienable rights from God that were protected by the government. These founding principles would eventually trump innate tribal biases and prejudices to grant all citizens their basic rights.

Second, given America’s two-ocean buffer, the United States could control its own demographic destiny. Americans usually supported liberal immigration policies largely because of the country’s ability to monitor the numbers of new arrivals and the melting pot’s ability to assimilate, integrate, and intermarry, immigrants, who would soon relegate their racial, religious, and ethnic affinities to secondary importance.

Finally, the United States is the most individualistic and capitalistic of the Western democracies. The nation was blessed with robust economic growth, rich natural resources, and plenty of space. It assumed that its limited government and ethos of entrepreneurialism would create enough widespread prosperity and upward mobility that affluence—or at least the shared quest for it—would create a common bond superseding superficial Old World ties based on appearance or creed.

In the late 1960s, however, these three principles took a hit. The federal government lost confidence in the notion that civil rights legislation, the melting pot, and a growing economy could unite Americans and move society in the direction of Martin Luther King Jr.’s vision—“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

This shift from the ideal of the melting pot to the triumph of salad-bowl separatism occurred, in part, because the Democratic Party found electoral resonance in big government’s generous entitlements and social programs tailored to particular groups. By then, immigration into the United States had radically shifted and become less diverse. Rather than including states in Europe and the former British Commonwealth, most immigrants were poorer and almost exclusively hailed from the nations of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, resulting in poorer immigrants who, upon arrival, needed more government help. Another reason for the shift was the general protest culture of the Vietnam era, which led to radical changes in everything from environmental policy to sexual identity, and thus saw identity politics as another grievance against the status quo.

A half-century later, affirmative action and identity politics have created a huge diversity industry, in which millions in government, universities, and the private sector are entrusted with teaching the values of the Other and administering de facto quotas in hiring and admissions. In 2016, Hillary Clinton ran a campaign on identity politics, banking on the notion that she could reassemble various slices of the American electorate, in the fashion that Barack Obama had in 2008 and 2012, to win a majority of voters. She succeeded, as did Obama, in winning the popular vote by appealing directly to the unique identities of gays, Muslims, feminists, blacks, Latinos, and an array of other groups, but misjudged the Electoral College and so learned that a numerical majority of disparate groups does not always translate into winning key swing states.

At one point Clinton defined her notion of identity politics by describing Trump’s supporters: “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorable. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up… Now, some of those folks—they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

***

What is the future of diversity politics after the 2016 election? Uncertain at best—and for a variety of reasons.

One, intermarriage and integration are still common. Overall, about 15 percent of all marriages each year are interracial, and the rates are highest for Asians and Latinos. Forty percent of Asian women marry men of another race—one-quarter of African-American males do, as well—and over a quarter of all Latinos marry someone non-Latino.

Identity politics hinges on perceptible racial or ethnic solidarity, but citizens are increasingly a mixture of various races and do not always categorize themselves as “non-white.” Without DNA badges, it will be increasingly problematic to keep racial pedigrees straight. And sometimes the efforts to do so reach the point of caricature and inauthenticity, through exaggerated accent marks, verbal thrills, voice modulations, and nomenclature hyphenation. One reason why diversity activists sound shrill is their fear that homogenization is unrelenting.

Second, the notion of even an identifiable and politically monolithic group of non-white minorities is also increasingly suspect. Cubans do not have enough in common with Mexicans to advance a united Latino front. African-Americans are suspicious of open borders that undercut entry-level job wages. Asians recent university quotas that often discount superb grades and test scores to ensure racial diversity. It is not clear that Hmong-Americans have much in common with Japanese-Americans, or that Punjabi immigrants see themselves politically akin to Chinese newcomers as fellow Asians.

Third, ethnic solidarity can cut both ways. In the 2016 elections, Trump won an overwhelming and nearly unprecedented number of working class whites in critical swing states. Many either had not voted in prior elections or had voted Democratic. The culture’s obsession with tribalism and special ethnic interests—often couched in terms of opposing “white privilege”—had alienated millions of less well-off white voters. Quietly, many thought that if ethnic activists were right that the white majority was shrinking into irrelevance, and if it was acceptable for everyone to seek solidarity through their tribal affiliations, then poor whites could also rally under the banner of their own identity politics. If such trends were to continue in a nation that is still 70 percent white, it would prove disastrous for the Democratic Party in a way never envisioned during the era of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton discovered that Obama’s identity politics constituencies were not transferable to herself in the same exceptional numbers, and the effort to ensure that they were often created new tribal opponents.

Fourth, it is not certain that immigration, both legal and illegal, will continue at its current near-record rate, which has resulted in over 40 million immigrants now residing in America—constituting some 13 percent of the present population. Trump is likely not just to curtail illegal immigration, but also to return legal immigration to a more meritocratic, diverse, and individual basis. Were immigration to slow down and become more diverse, the formidable powers of integration and intermarriage would perhaps do to the La Raza community what it once did to the Italian-American minority after the cessation of mass immigration from Italy. There are currently no Italian-American quotas, no Italian university departments, and no predictable voting blocs.

Fifth, class is finally reemerging as a better barometer of privilege than is race—a point that Republican populists are starting to hammer home. The children of Barack Obama, for example, have far more privilege than do the sons of Appalachian coal miners—and many Asian groups already exceed American per capita income averages. When activist Michael Eric Dyson calls for blanket reparations for slavery, his argument does not resonate with an unemployed working-class youth from Kentucky, who was born more than 30 years after the emergence of affirmative action—and enjoys a fraction of Dyson’s own income, net worth, and cultural opportunities.

Finally, ideology is eroding the diversity industry. Conservative minorities and women are not considered genuine voices of the Other, given their incorrect politics. For all its emphasis on appearance, diversity is really an intolerant ideological movement that subordinates race and gender to progressive politics. It is not biology that gives authenticity to feminism, but leftwing assertions; African-American conservatives are often derided as inauthentic, not because of purported mixed racial pedigrees, but due to their unorthodox beliefs.

The 2016 election marked an earthquake in the diversity industry. It is increasingly difficult to judge who we are merely by our appearances, which means that identity politics may lose its influence. These fissures probably explain some of the ferocity of the protests we’ve seen in recent weeks. A dying lobby is fighting to hold on to its power.

1...12131415Page 13 of 15
- Advertisement -

RECENT POSTS

© Website Created by Gustavo Frias