“A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest while we are building ideal monuments of Renown and Bliss here we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.”
James Madison Letter to William Bradford (9 November 1772).
As long as some folks view individuals as nothing more than their race, I suppose one can accrue a few advantages simply by being part of the largest racial group.
Moreover, as I explained at length in my Sunday column at Townhall.com, numerous government policies do indeed hit minorities harder.
The War on Drugs has ravaged the black community much more than the white community, for example. This may result more from the higher poverty rates for minorities than to race alone: Police and prosecutors are more likely to arrest and harshly prosecute the poor for no better reason than that the poor are less able to defend themselves, legally or politically.
That’s wrong. We very much need major reforms of unaccountable police power and abusive prosecutors as well as end the drug war.
But getting back to that trendy “white privilege” — it misses a big source of “unfair” advantage.
I’m white, but my privilege mostly isn’t. Of my many advantages, my skin pigmentation nowhere near tops the list.
Whatever success I’ve enjoyed derives mostly from this: I was reared by two parents who supported me, nurtured me, corrected me and cared about me every day from before I was born to now.
No government program, no amount of money, can best that gift.
The most critical element in the success of black and brown and yellow and peach and white kids is not a politician who cares, but a parent — or, better yet, two — providing a nurturing environment, including tough love.
We could all use more of the “unfair” advantage that parents provide.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
On March 17, 1780, General George Washington granted the Continental Army a holiday “as an act of solidarity with the Irish in their fight for independence.”
In adopting a republican form of government, I not only took it as a man does his wife, for better or for worse, but what a few men do with their wives, I took it knowing all of its bad qualities. Neither ingratitude, therefore, nor slander can disappoint expectation nor excite surprise. If, in arduous circumstances, the voice of my country should call for my services, and I have the well founded belief, that they can be useful, they shall certainly be rendered; but I hope that no such circumstances will arise and in the mean time, ‘pleas’d let me trifle away.
Gouverneur Morris to John Dickinson (May 23, 1803).
Pierce County, Washington, Executive Pat McCarthy charges that “a majority of the County Council bowed to political pressure, even though this could set a terrible precedent that the most basic administrative actions of government can be derailed by the simple act of signing a piece of paper.”
Yeah, right.
At issue is a $127 million construction project to build a new county administration building. Back in February, the Council voted 4-3 to move forward on the project.
The total cost of the new building, including financing fees and interest, will add up to $235 million according to Jerry Gibbs and a group called Citizens for Responsible Spending. These activists filed a petition to demand a public vote on the issue next November.
As is all too common these days, their grassroots effort was quickly countered by the big guns: the city filed a lawsuit against them, attempting to block the referendum.
The lawsuit didn’t sit well with people in Pierce County.
“Why don’t they want this voted on by the people?” asked Gibbs.
“This is absolutely an abuse of power,” decried resident Sheila Herron, “this is bullying of a private citizen.”
Council Chair Dan Roach argued that the power to launch a court challenge must come from the council, which had not discussed it. He warned his fellow city officials: “you are sending a very chilling” message to citizens not to “dare try to challenge what we’re doing as the government.”
Last week, the County Council voted 4-3 to drop the lawsuit, bowing to political pressure . . . from the people they represent.
In short, good government broke out.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
[A]ll power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right of acquiring property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purpose of its institution.
James Madison served as fourth President of the United States.
On March 16, 1995, the state of Mississippi formally ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, becoming the last state of the Union to approve the abolition of slavery. The Thirteenth Amendment had been officially ratified in 1865, one hundred thirty years earlier.
James Madison, fourth President of the United States and “Father of the Constitution,” was born on this date in 1751.
At Townhall, the question this weekend is whether racism might be less of a factor than we think in today’s re-emerging racial divide. Your Common Sense column is greatly expanded — hugely! — from a Common Sense last week — worth reading, and debating. I hope.
Click on over, then come back here for more background. I ask more questions than I answer, but I do give the general form I think the best answer takes. There is a lot to consider. Here are some relevant links:
March 15 was “the Ides of March” in the Roman calendar, and in 44 BC, Julius Caesar, Dictator of the Roman Republic, was stabbed to death by a handful of prominent senators on that date.
On the same date in 1783, General George Washington eloquently entreated his officers not to support the Newburgh Conspiracy. His plea was successful and the threatened coup d’état never took place.
When Democratic politicians complain about the Citizens United decision, what they are complaining about is their loss of the power to censor political thought and media in America. This is the movie that the FEC prohibited from being shown in America during the 2007–2008 presidential campaign.
Citizens United is a non-profit corporation, which made Hillary the Movie, a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, then a candidate for president. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned the portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that allowed the government, in this particular historical case, to stop a movie from being shown in America.
Imagine what Democrats would say (rightly) had the Federal government tried to prohibit Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911.
As a proponent of free speech and the press, you may even be, ahem, obligated to watch this artifact of our history — which is timely once again now that Mrs. Clinton is in the news, considering another run for the presidency.
The Citizens United website has links to the full decision and more.