Recently former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added her voice to those who have long been urging the Republican Party to reach out to black voters. Not only is that long overdue, what is also long overdue is putting some time—and, above all, some serious thought—into how to go about doing it.
A Further Perspective
Despite attempts to cloak itself in science, political correctness is the very opposite. The political correctness movement’s real emphasis is on politics, not correctness. Its goal is to have prevailing thought determined by a political dynamic.
As repeatedly witnessed, political correctness is about installing its subjective version of truth in the court of public opinion, not in distilling objective truth. Its end is to implant a certain idea, belief, or behavior as the only acceptable course of action or thought — to the exclusion of any other.
Usually, this puts political correctness in opposition to prevailing norms. Not holding a majority outright, political correctness takes a political approach toward installing itself. It is organized; it is coordinated; it marshals stock answers — all, to advance itself.
Political correctness attacks its opponents — it does not debate them. It is always on the offensive. It seeks to demonize its opponents and make them explain their opinion, because it knows in today’s soundbite world, explaining means losing in public discourse.
This stunning recent graphic offers victim numbers on modern history’s greatest mass murderers. Each blood drop represents one million killed. China’s Mao Zedong ranks “first” with 78 million, followed by the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin with 23 million and Nazi Adolf Hitler 17 million.
“These cold-blooded dictators do not care for the value of life as much as they do achieving their selfish motives of domination, power, and immortality,” the grim graphic aptly summarizes.
Interestingly, Belgium’s notorious King Leopold is fourth with 15 million who died in the Belgian Congo under his brutal colonial exploitation. Then there’s Japanese World War II militarist Tojo with 5 million, and Turkey’s WWI chief Enver Pasha with 2.5 million and Cambodia’s Communist despot Pol Pot with 1.7 million. North Korea’s founding tyrant Kim Il Sung is next with 1.6 million, then Ethiopia’s Mengistu with 1.5 million. Nigerian dictator Yakobo Bowon (1966-1975) is the final listed villain with 1.1 million.
The United States and the international community are rightly outraged by Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine. However, the Kremlin maintains that Russia has acted within the bounds of international law, and the case against Moscow is complicated when Russian president Vladimir Putin employs arguments that sound very much like Obama administration talking points.
Russia has engineered a plebiscite next week in Crimea in southern Ukraine, to decide whether the region will join the Russian Federation. The area is majority Russian, and was part of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic until 1954. The vote is widely expected to favor annexation, and the Russian Duma has already agreed to accept Crimea. There is no legal basis for the vote; Ukraine’s constitution states unambiguously that Crimea is “an inseparable constituent part of Ukraine” and its laws are subordinate to the central government. But once the annexation is a fait accompli, there will be little the international community can do about it.
If anyone wanted to pick a time and place where the political left’s avowed concern for minorities was definitively exposed as a fraud, it would be now — and the place would be New York City, where far left Mayor Bill de Blasio has launched an attack on charter schools, cutting their funding, among other things.
These schools have given thousands of low income minority children their only shot at a decent education, which often means their only shot at a decent life. Last year 82 percent of the students at a charter school called Success Academy passed city-wide mathematics exams, compared to 30 percent of the students in the city as a whole.
Why would anybody who has any concern at all about minority young people — or even common decency — want to destroy what progress has already been made?
One big reason, of course, is the teachers’ union, one of Mayor de Blasio’s biggest supporters. But it may be more than that. For many of the true believers on the left, their ideology overrides any concern about the actual fate of flesh-and-blood human beings.
With Russian troops in Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, here’s a look back at how Barack Obama and Mitt Romney sized up Russia and Vladimir Putin during the 2012 presidential campaign.
First, here’s an excerpt of Romney’s interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on March 26, 2012:
ROMNEY: The actions he’s (Obama’s) taken so far, which he says are to reset relations with Russia, have not worked out at all. Russia continues to support Syria. It supports Iran, has fought us with the crippling sanctions we wanted to have the world put in place against Iran. Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage.… What he (Obama) did both on nuclear weaponry already in the new START treaty, as well as his decision to withdraw missile defense sites from Poland, and then reduce our missile defense sites in Alaska from the original plan -- I mean, these are very unfortunate developments.
BLITZER: But you think Russia is a bigger foe right now than, let’s say, Iran or China or North Korea? Is that what you’re saying, Governor?
The Left’s effortless smearing of Arizona’s religious freedom law indicates the speed with which the country is changing. Liberals are in the cultural catbird seat and they know it, resorting to simple name-calling to shut down any real debate. The Arizona law was, if anything, a modest defense of religious freedom. That Republicans ran away from it so quickly is a testament not to its unsoundness but to the mau-mauing power of the media in a secularizing culture like this one.
The framers of the First Amendment would have been astonished to learn that part of its real meaning, according to the Left, is that Americans lose all right to religious freedom the moment they decide to open a business. The Left says it is intrinsically unjust for a business to withhold services from a gay wedding. No, it isn’t. Were the underlying activity to which the business objected moral, one could make the case that a denial of service is unjust. But that is not a category into which gay marriage falls.
Yet another important facet of individual liberty disappeared with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of legislation protecting people’s right not to be forced to violate their religious principles while doing business. The governor has decided: Hang out a shingle and you must leave your deepest beliefs at home. We all are slaves to the political zeitgeist.
The issue in Arizona was not a lack of tolerance by those in business. There is no dearth of firms across Arizona willing to serve gays. Even among those not in the forefront of gay rights, the opportunity to make a little money is a strong incentive in a weak economy. It seems doubtful that gay events go without because of bigots run amok.
Instead, the real question was tolerance for those in business. Why are you expected to abandon your conscience the moment you step into the commercial world? Why is it mandatory to violate your liberty in order to protect the wishes of others?
It seems as if, everywhere you turn these days, there are studies claiming to show that America has lost its upward mobility for people born in the lower socioeconomic levels. But there is a sharp difference between upward "mobility," defined as an opportunity to rise, and mobility defined as actually having risen.
That distinction is seldom even mentioned in most of the studies. It is as if everybody is chomping at the bit to get ahead, and the ones that don't rise have been stopped by "barriers" created by "society."
When statistics show that sons of high school dropouts don't become doctors or scientists nearly as often as the sons of Ph.D.s, that is taken as a sign that American society is not "fair."
If equal probabilities of achieving some goal is your definition of fairness, then we should all get together -- people of every race, color, creed, national origin, political ideology and sexual preference -- and stipulate that life has never been fair, anywhere or any time in all the millennia of recorded history.
Then we can begin at last to talk sense.
Politics is often like war. Unfortunately, politicians, the media and the voting public seldom have the same degree of realism and discipline with which professional soldiers fight wars. You can indulge your emotions and base your decisions on wishful thinking in politics, in a way that you are not likely to when your own life is on the line in battle.
One of the most dramatic and heartening events of World War II was the miraculous evacuation of British troops trapped on the beaches of France in 1940, at Dunkirk. And its lesson is still relevant today.
The British troops were in France to help the French fight off the invading army from Nazi Germany. But the sudden collapse of the French army left the Brits stranded on the beaches, with the German army closing in on them.
The British navy’s ships in the area were too large to move into the shallow waters close to the beaches, so as to evacuate the troops. Instead, hundreds of British civilians headed for Dunkirk in their fishing boats, recreational craft and practically anything else that would float.