We Want Equality

by C Douglas Love Love

  All of these potential issues are meaningless, as the manufacturers will be out of business in months if held liable for gun crimes. No insurance company would touch them (the leftist business leaders we discussed earlier are already trying to find ways to decline credit card purchases to gun dealers). With the number of shootings in the country, they wouldn’t have to be found guilty. The legal fees from hundreds of wrongful death lawsuits would bankrupt them.

  Don’t worry, the Left has a plan for the existing stockpile of guns too. They usually start with a voluntary gun buyback program. Ask if they would make it compulsory if most don’t volunteer. If they say yes, ask them to explain how the police will take 300 million guns by force. Who will be addressing crime while they are focused on this task?

  The argument for illegal immigration baffles those who operate within the parameters of logic. Conservatives may disagree with gun control advocates on effective ways to reduce gun crimes, but we don’t think their reason for wanting gun control is illogical. They may downplay the benefits of gun ownership, but we all see the issues faced by criminals with guns. The same doesn’t apply to immigration.

  There is no benefit to illegal immigration; period. Many of the people who come here illegally are nice and hard-working. This means nothing in respect to the issue. No one has an inherent right to migrate to any country. There is a process in place for those who want to come here, and everyone seeking to enter should follow it. If that process needs to be adjusted, that is for the citizens and their representatives to decide.

  Some say illegals do the work Americans don’t want to do. That’s debatable, but if it is true, then we should seek immigrants to do the work, like employers who create incentives to attract applicants. But this should be initiated by employers in concert with the government, not by people breaking the law. We should also know the criminal history of those coming into the country. You cannot know that when people cross the border without our knowledge. Our government controls the immigration laws and can easily increase the number of people they admit. But we can’t be more inviting to those coming through the front door while millions sneak in through the back door. This is lost on the Left.

  Like the earlier gun debate, their political stance on illegal immigration does not align with their actions. They say that they are for border control and just want to be compassionate while implementing it. The Republicans lobby for legislation which would accomplish this and the Left calls it racist. Here are some forgotten quotes on illegal immigration from prominent Democrat pundits and politicians:

  “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” – Glenn Greenwald

  “Immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. The fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear. We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” – Paul Krugman

  “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.” – Barack Obama188

  “The first of these seven principles is that illegal immigration is wrong; plain and simple. When we use phrases like ‘undocumented workers’, we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration, which the American people overwhelmingly oppose.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer189

  “We have to send a clear message: just because your child gets across the border doesn’t mean your child gets to stay.” – Hillary Clinton190

  It’s important to note that Schumer’s ‘seven principles’ included border control, biometric-based electronic verification for employment, and mandated that all illegals in the country at the time register and submit to a ‘rigorous process’ of converting to legal status.

  If these quotes were from 50 years ago, you could say the commenters evolved. But these comments were all recent. Clinton was specifically talking about the large number of children that came in after Obama announced DACA in 2014. Here again we’d go to the Logic Board:

  If they believe anyone who says these things are invariably racists, then their hero, Barack Obama, and his heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, are both racists. If you point this out, they will likely shift the topic to provocative things Trump has said. You follow with the fact that comments aren’t policy and ask what about the policies is racist or unfair. Next, they’ll try the ‘family separation’ policy. You point out the fact that children were detained under Obama, with several being released to human traffickers.191

  They will likely bring up the many articles calling the Trump administration’s accusation that this happened under President Obama false. Here, you can show them the following quote from Jeh Johnson, Homeland Security Secretary under President Obama: “We had 34,000 beds for family detention, only 95 of 34,000 equipped to deal with families. So, we expanded it, I freely admit it was controversial. We believed it was necessary at the time. I still believe it is necessary to remain a certain capability for families. We can’t have catch and release, and in my three years we deported, or repatriated, or returned over a million people.”192Those articles they referenced play into the president’s claim of fake news.

  The last thing they’ll bring up is the wall. Here, I would suggest not defending the wall. Instead, ask if they would be willing to give the Republicans all of the other proposals to reform immigration, if they abandoned the wall. They will undoubtedly say no. Their belief is that people should not be barred from trying to have a better life and people cannot be ‘illegal’, this at least bring to light what they really believe.

  With their true beliefs out in the open, you know there is no way to have a rational debate on the topic. They conflate illegal entry with legal immigration. They say they are not for open borders but won’t let the government secure them. When pressed for details, we find that they are against border barriers, deportation of most illegals, holding families in detention centers, or refusing asylum to anyone requesting it.

  This process works for any plan the Left proposes. They say there’s no difference between men and women; you ask why we need girl-specific programs. They say whites are racist; you ask if that includes Democrats. Whatever the issue, it is better for people to hear them defend their arguments than it is for them to listen to you put them down.

  INTERSECTIONALITY

  To change the culture, you have to control the language, and the Left is a master of creative wording. Whether it’s wacky modifiers like ‘social’ justice (rather than justice) or ‘my’ truth (which generally has nothing in common with the truth); switching terminology like ‘illegal’ becoming ‘undocumented,’ or ‘global warming’ becoming ‘climate change;’ taking over words like ‘liberal’ or ‘feminist;’ or redefining words like ‘racist’ and ‘man’ and ‘woman;’ manipulating words is one of the basic weapons in their arsenal. Their latest plot is to change the culture with words that are designed to guilt others into changing their behavior. We’ve all heard them: trigger warnings, mansplaining, safe spaces, and the latest one: intersectionality.

  If the Left loses its battle for the soul of America, it is unlikely it will be because the Right fought back. It is more likely to be destroyed by an internal force; the best candidate for this is intersectionality. Intersectionality is a term used to describe how diverse groups, divided by race, class, gender, religion, etc., are intersected by overlapping discrimination and mistreatment. The goal is to form a united front to fight back against a common enemy; usually the Right or straight white men.

  For those of us trying to counter the cultural push, this is our greatest weapon, but few realize it. Since the Right doesn’t agree with the premise of intersectionality, they miss the potential it has to create a rift within leftist ideology. It’s kind of like the split bet
ween the right and moderate wings of the Republican Party, except Republicans are not as vicious with their rivals and don’t have a mob. Here’s how it works.

  Intersectionality is the reason a Muslim group, which includes men who are anti-gay, could protest with a LGBTQ group. If the protest is in support of the BDS movement, a movement demanding sanctions on Israel for its treatment of Palestinians, it makes sense that they unite on this issue. But there’s no way this alliance can last. At some point the cultural differences between the secular, nihilistic gays and the religious Muslims will butt heads. Intersectionality demands that one group defers for the sake of the whole. This is unlikely to happen.

  This type of clash is currently playing itself out in NYC over admission to specialized public high schools. Mayor Bill De Blasio wants the eight elite high schools to “reflect the city better.” He feels the lack of diversity is unfair to black and Latino students as they represent 67% of the city’s public-school population but only 10% of the students at these schools. The problem is that the majority of the students are not white, they are Chinese.

  In NYC, Chinese students make up 53% of the student body at top-tier schools but are only 6% of the city’s population. This discrepancy is because enrollment at these schools is based on test scores and the Chinese kids tend to excel. This is a result of hard work and the structure of their family lives and culture. This, however, upsets the goals of increasing minority enrollment.

  To rectify this, the mayor and Schools Chancellor Richard A. Carranza announced a plan in early June to eliminate the exam, in an effort to improve diversity at specialized high schools.193 There’s an obvious problem with minimizing achievement goals and ignoring success. But the bigger problem is how the move creates inequality and animosity among the deserving Chinese students.

  Proponents of the mayor’s plan claim that the exam is arbitrary, yet arbitrary doesn’t mean biased. If the exam consisted of questions that are culturally easier for Chinese student to get correct, then that advantage would be unfair and the arguments against the exam would have merit. This is not the case. To simplify, if the exam tested knowledge of throw pillows and every applicant had an equal opportunity to gain the requisite knowledge, you can’t say that it is racially biased.

  There must be a reason why Chinese students are doing so well. If the exam isn’t about Chinese culture and they aren’t getting the answers in advance what can the reason be? They are also outperforming white students.

  Those arguing that this is unfair forget that the Chinese students are minorities too. They were discriminated against, prohibited from living in certain areas, banned from entering the country for a period, and paid lower wages. They also looked different and didn’t speak the language. What is different? It seems that if you are too successful you can get a status upgrade. Because of the lower crime rates and higher incomes of the Chinese community, they have become honorary whites.

  This is playing itself out at the college level as well. Elite universities like Harvard and Stanford are skipping over highly qualified Chinese students with fantastic grades, impressive extra-curricular activities, and off-the-charts ACT and SAT scores to accept less qualified black and Hispanic applicants. Here are the results of the most recent study of medical school acceptance by race:

  When called on the practice, the schools say that they consider other factors as well to ensure a well-rounded student. In reality, this is intersectionality saying that, because the Left’s primary goal is diversity, Chinese students are supposed to take one for the team. It is only a matter of time before some group pushes back and calls these actions what they are; racist.

  Earlier this year, Emma Stone got a crash course in intersectionality. At the 90th Academy Awards, Stone was tasked with presenting the nominees for Best Director. In her introduction, Stone said, “These four men, and Greta Gerwig, created their own masterpieces this year.” She got caught up in the #MeToo movement. She thought she was hip and woke; then the Left attacked.

  The critics swiftly attacked her in magazines, newspaper editorials and on social media. What was her crime? You see, two of those ‘men’ were minorities. Jordan Peele, one half of the comic duo Key and Peele, is black. Guillermo del Toro is a Mexican filmmaker. Many felt that only saying Gerwig’s name minimized their historic accomplishments. April Reign, the creator of #OscarsSoWhite, tweeted, “I’m not here for the participation trophies & partial credit some are so eager to give out. Emma Stone made a movie with Woody Allen, played a whitewashed character, and erased the importance of two men of color in a category. But she identified a woman … yay?” She went on to say, “Intersectionality isn’t a thing that many white women do well. Emma Stone (and those applauding her) are prime examples.”194 I guess being black or Hispanic trumps being white on the grievance scale, regardless of gender.

  Looking at every group, business, or organization and counting those who are members of a minority group is destined for failure. Not because it is the wrong way to achieve equality, though it is, but because you will never be able to satisfy everyone. Every minority group has an organization fighting on its behalf. CAIR, NAACP, NOW, NCLR (La Raza), and GLAAD all advocate on behave of their chosen group. All say their goal is equality, but how do you achieve equality by fighting solely for gays or women? At some point, an issue will come down to resources or power being allotted to only one group, they will all fight for their own. In the end, intersectionality brings out a stronger strand of the very tribalism they claim Trump invokes.

  We are already seeing signs of this. A Loyola Chicago student chided the illegal immigration debate, not because she doesn’t support illegals, but because she feels black illegals aren’t getting enough attention. Black students at Stoneman Douglas echoed this expressing concern that only the white students were being heard after their school shooting.195 Soon, everyone says their victimhood one-ups another groups’. Intersectionality will bring the Left more pedagogic exposure than any history lesson could.

  RECRUIT LIBERALS AND INDEPENDENTS

  Stemming the tide on the cultural decline is not a conservative problem and should not be a conservative fight. Much of the discussion comes back to politics even though the problem is not a political one. That is because legislation is the mechanism used to solidify a given agenda. LGBTQ issues and their promotion are about the culture, but legalizing gay marriage is the government implementation of that cultural promotion. Laws are intended to be our representative’s way of governing the people the way they want to be governed. This is why presidential executive orders are so troublesome. This is a one-man mandate, usually because he cannot get the measure passed through Congress. In any event, political action should follow the desires of the culture.

  This is why it’s important to recruit independents and classical liberals. Most of these people who identify as independents are really disillusioned Democrats and Republicans. I would argue that very few people are actually centrists. Many say they are fiscally conservative but socially liberal. That may be true, but it says nothing of their party affiliation. How they weigh the two is what is important. Most of the people I know fit that description. So why are such a large percentage of them Democrats? Because they weigh their socially liberal traits as far more important than their fiscally conservative ones. This seems bad for conservatives, but you have to dig deeper.

  When you take politics out of the equation and ask these ‘independents’ about specifics, they start to move back to the right. Take my typical black friend in his mid-forties. He says he’s a Democrat. He distrusts Republicans and hates Trump. However, ask about the hot button issues of the day or the leftist demands, and he sounds more like Rush Limbaugh than Chris Matthews. He decries high taxes, the transgender movement, and illegal immigration. He thinks work ethic and God are lacking in society today.

  He believes that racism is still a problem in America, and buys into the notion that it is fomented by Donald Trump; however, he admits
it’s not a problem in his everyday life. He thinks Black Lives Matter is well-intentioned but misguided and believes the black community needs to be more introspective. Finally, he believes there’s racism within police departments and it needs to be addressed, but he doesn’t paint all blacks who were shot by police as innocent victims.

  I’m convinced those who are fighting the Left can reach many people like this, if they tried. Most don’t even point out the true enemy. The Left is destroying the culture and that should be the biggest concern. This is why I rarely talk about Trump. Whenever I get the opportunity to talk about what’s going on today my theme is a take on Bill Clinton’s ‘It’s the economy, stupid!’ motto; I say, “It’s the culture, stupid!”

  When someone does bring up Trump, I hold a mirror up to society. They ask if I heard the latest about Trump and I say, “No. Have you seen the videos of parents recording their kids saying vile things and posting them on the internet?” They bring him up again and I ask, “Have you seen the woman who made a music video celebrating being on Section 8?” I continue, “What about the professor who says you should be able to legally kill your infant?”196 No matter how many times they bring up Trump, I have an endless supply of these far more damaging examples.

  Those of us who disagree with the extreme movement to the left need to form a group. Just like the Left is organized, we need to galvanize, then seek out others who see the dangers. An Evergreen College professor refuses to leave the campus when minority students demand that whites do so; sign him up. A University of Chicago professor faces protests for inviting Steve Bannon to speak to students; encourage him. Gay men see problems with linking them to transgender people and the gender fluidity movement; tell them their voices are needed.