Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall national politics & policies Popular

The Cost of Reparations

Nearly 180 years ago, the Jesuits who ran Georgetown University sold 272 enslaved persons to save the institution from insolvency. In a non-​binding referendum earlier this month, the university’s undergraduate students voted to impose a student fee of $27.20 per semester to fund reparations for the descendants of those slaves.

Small potatoes? Well, when the slavery reparations idea catches fire outside of a student body, the dollar amounts talked about expand beyond mere double digits. 

Which can be awkward. The leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Karen Bass (D‑Calif.), complains that slavery reparations are often “used … to ridicule African-​Americans, as if what black people are interested in is a check.”

Nonetheless, White House aspirant Rep. Julián Castro (D‑Tex.) reminds Democrats that “when it comes to Medicare for All” as well as “tuition-​free or debt-​free college, the answer has been, ‘We need to write a big check.’” Castro contends Uncle Sam ought not skimp on “compensating the descendants of slaves.”

The slicker Democratic contenders for the 2020 presidential race have conveniently embraced legislation introduced in the House by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D‑Tex.) to establish a commission to study the idea — allowing presidential aspirants to talk up the proposal to black audiences while assuring less enthusiastic audiences that they are merely committed to studying it.

One lesser known candidate, author Marianne Williamson, didn’t get the memo, however. She proposed “a $100 billion plan of reparations to be paid over 10 years,” to be disbursed for purposes of “economic and educational revitalization to be achieved within the black community.”

By federal spending standards, a tiny figure. But even at ten times that figure, check-​propelled revitalization seems unlikely.

Students of politics take note.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

slavery, reparations, blacks, guilt, white

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability folly ideological culture local leaders media and media people national politics & policies

Where Have You Gone, Al Franken?

Today, finally, is the day. Barring some last-​minute hijinks in the extended resignation ritual announced almost four weeks ago by Sen. Al Franken (D‑Minn.), the comedian turned cad turned politician turned pervert leaves his U.S. Senate seat.

And hopefully keeps his mitts off other people’s seats to boot. 

Even without deadline hijinks, the Franken saga has been strange. After hearing Franken’s resignation statement on the Senate floor, CNN’s Chris Cizzilla wrote, “He didn’t believe he had done anything for which he should have been forced to resign.” 

But note: No one “forced” Senator Franken to step down. As my Sunday Townhall​.com column reminded, he did so voluntarily. 

Why?

Peer pressure. Three-​quarters of fellow Democratic Party senators demanded Franken leave, to clear the way for election-​year attacks on Republican sexual sleaze-​balls without partisan distraction. 

And now some cry crocodile tears. They want the no-​longer-​amusing Franken out. Sure. But they also wish to continue the pretense that Franken is a wonderful fellow just the same. 

“His voice will be stronger than ever,” argued fellow Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar—ridiculously. A Vox article was headlined, “Al Franken resigned amid sexual misconduct allegations, but Democrats aren’t making him leave in disgrace.” 

Is it a paraphrase of the old joke: “Don’t go away in disgrace, Senator, just go away”?

But Franken is leaving in disgrace. Should be. 

Eight women have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. The senator’s response has been to publicly apologize, profusely, and then, later, claim that “some of the allegations” are “not true.” 

Others he remembers “differently.”

Not good enough, ex-senator.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies responsibility

Excepting Responsibility

Responsibility: demand it of others, expect it demanded of you.

So you might think that those who try to redress old grievances with compensatory (“reverse”) discrimination would be a bit more careful. 

Yesterday I wrote about the bizarre Google Memo case, wherein an employee was fired for (basically) warning of a groupthink ideological monoculture at Google … thus proving him right.*

Last weekend I wrote about racial quotas in college entrance. 

In both cases, there’s this idea that moderns in general and white males in particular must “accept responsibility” for the past.

And the evidence is undeniable: Our pale-​faced ancestors — or more likely a very small percentage of other white people’s ancestors — held human beings in bondage. So, too, did almost all peoples around the world; slavery’s old. Here in these United States, after our bloodiest war, our forebears ended that ancient crime. Then there was another century of Jim Crow discrimination, with systemic violence committed against blacks in many areas of the country, often with government acquiescence or involvement.

Harvard and other educational institutions are trying to right those wrongs. 

But there’s a problem: the principle behind their affirmative action schemes is lunatic: Each person of one race bears responsibility for the crimes committed by any person of that same race.

Far better is individual responsibility. Individuals have every right to compensation for any harm another has caused them, certainly. But folks have no right to create new harms against innocent people who happen merely to be of the same race or gender as those who have caused them past harm.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not crazy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* The author, it is worth noting, addressed this monoculture in his title, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” wonder if being proven right by one’s enemies compensates for job loss.


PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly government transparency national politics & policies political challengers responsibility

No Innocence Abroad

After establishing, during the big Super Bowl day interview, that President Donald Trump respects Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Bill O’Reilly asked why. 

After all, the Fox News star challenged, “Putin’s a killer.”*

“We’ve got a lot of killers,” Trump replied. “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

This disturbed just about everyone. On the left, it was more evidence of Russian influence. The right recoiled at Trump doing the leftist thing, equating our moral failings with the much worse failings of others.

“I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way that the Russians conduct themselves,” insisted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R‑Ky), “and the way the United States does.” 

But is that really what Trump said? He merely pooh-​poohed America’s innocence.** 

And not without cause. His predecessor, after all, holds the world record (not Nobel-​worthy) in drone-​striking the innocent as well as the guilty in seven countries … none of which the U.S. has declared war upon. 

But wait: if “we’ve got killers” is the new acceptable-​in-​public truth, then why not “we’ve got currency manipulators”?

Yes, I’m shifting focus from east of Eastern Europe onto the Far East. According to a different Fox report, “Trump accused China and Japan of currency manipulation, saying they play ‘the devaluation market and we sit there like a bunch of dummies.’”

Despite incoherent objections from Japan***, let’s not forget the obvious: the U.S. manipulates currency, too. What do you think the Federal Reserve is for?

I mention this not to rub Trump’s nose in hypocrisy. It’s to establish an estoppel principle here.

How may we object when others do that which we do ourselves?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The Russian State is asking for an apology from O’Reilly. Not for a retraction on the grounds of truth, mind you, but an apology. O’Reilly wryly balks.

** Which certainly doesn’t absolve Vladimir Putin of guilt.

*** Yoshihide Suga, a spokesperson for the Japanese Government, insists that “the aim of monetary policies that have pulled the yen lower is to spur inflation, not devalue the currency.” Nice distinction. Thanks.


Printable PDF

Categories
ideological culture

Philosophic Anti-​Fanaticism

Popular French philosopher Pascal Bruckner is in hot water with fellow left-​leaning French intellectuals.

Bruckner doesn’t hate humanity and doesn’t want to unplug all the life-​promoting conveniences of industrial civilization. He intimates as much in a controversial new book entitled The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings, available only in French for now, but soon in English translation as well.

The book assails ludicrous and nihilistic environmentalist pronouncements of the Left. As the title suggests, the author believes that these are based more in religious fervor than in carefully reasoned science. He stipulates that he does not object to ecology as such but rather to the “greenwashing” notions that the “planet is sick. Man is guilty of having destroyed it. He must pay.”

After all, what is the “carbon footprint that we all leave behind us [but] the gaseous equivalent of original sin, of the stain that we inflict on our Mother Gaia by the simple fact of being present and breathing?” A baleful implication of such views is that peoples in developing countries should forget about improving their economic and technological circumstances. The earth has suffered enough, n’est-ce pas?

Bruckner’s observations underscore how radical environmentalism is largely a convenient hook for anti-​capitalism. Long before anybody fretted about our chronic exhaling of carbon dioxide, certain anti-​capitalists urged the extinguishing of industrial civilization and a return to the blissful Tupperware-​free, iPhone-​free, hunting-​and-​gathering way of life.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.