James Baldwin was a 20th century author and essayist, as well as a Civil Rights leader. He wrote several non-fiction and fiction books and lived for a good while in France in self-imposed exile. Another point to note is that he was also an open homosexual in a time in this country where doing so would put one at a considerable disadvantage for ones career prospects.
I'm not prone to professing a singular "favorite author", but if one ever came close, it is indeed this man. I feel like he had his finger on the pulse of the black-white racial drama better and more consistently than almost anyone else I've ever read.
This video is of James Baldwin being interviewed about both Malcolm X and MLK Jr. and where he feels the country was headed at the time with respect to racial relations. Be sure to check out where the discussion is headed - that is, the question. It's lucid and as relevant today as it was then, albeit in a different light or context. It's meaning and substance today cannot be denied in the minds of all Americans.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Fear of the White Psyche
I often wonder what the first White father must have been feeling when he told his child about the Black man, whatever it was that he said. Reading history, I have several gut feelings on this.
I know plenty of what the White male says today about the Black male, both publicly and privately. This is a highly nuanced situation today, and the White psyche in the U.S. has undergone a transformation of sorts, not only in the way it deals with its own racist conditioning, but with the way it projects its racist conditioning. This transformation is largely due to historical context, but a transformation is not a destination in this country, anymore than the Civil Rights legislation was a destination or the abolition of slavery was a destination.
The interim, that vast span of time in which the White male psyche and identity developed between the arrival of Europeans to the North American continent and the people we see today, is not what I'm as curious about. I've done much reading and thinking on that in terms of how I can reconcile a way to approach what is increasingly being understood as the new problem of the 21st century, the "color-blind" (contrasted with W.E.B. DuBois's color-line), and indeed, this is still a relevant concern to be addressed. Instead, I've lately been wondering and studying more on what preceded the arrival of these people and what must have taken place internally in a cultural and social sense to allow such a cycle to unfold in their institutions and in their hearts and minds.
Indeed, what was the first White parent thinking when they played their role with children, as Neil Postman put it, of "sending a message to a future we cannot forsee"?
Suffice to say that I'll never truly know, but given what I do know about both living and being seen as White in North American culture, internalizing that life to now, and having read and analyzed history, I have an idea.
It has to do with a message (internal and external) of fear.
I don't imagine it's too far away from something once suggested by James Baldwin. Contrary to the popular narrative we like to remind ourselves of several days every year (both directly and indirectly), the first White people in America were not freedom seeking individuals. For that matter, they were scarcely "White people" at all. They were bands of unhappy people of Europe. They were not the winners of Europe, they were the disenfranchised. They sought prosperity, for one. And in their eyes, due to myths of God-sponsored Manifest Destiny, they had open arms awaiting them. Of course, for every prize, their is a price. There is a toll, physical, mental, or monetary (or all) to be paid. Europeans, by and large in an attempt to escape the wretched existence they feared in Europe, came to the shores of America, but with a sacrifice to make - an internal one that to this day is still being brought to account.
It is often said that the three original sins of this continent were that the land was stolen from the red man, worked by the black slave, and the white man had to become racist to feel okay about it. This term, "become" racist, is key, because this cultural-systemic initiation started a phenomenon deeply embedded in our country today. Indeed, in the Europeans escape from supposed misery, he put himself in a more miserable spot upon arriving.
He gained a psychological wage, in addition to the monetary wage he would garnish on the backs of those he would oppress or gain from. He would gain a social and cultural notion, albeit false, that he was above all else, no matter how poor his situation. He was poor, he was unheard, he was cast off to the side all of which if he were poor, but he could take some comfort in knowing he was not Black. As time went on, this psyche had to evolve as did the notion of Whiteness and race.
The White man developed, from his unchecked and unfaced fear from that continent his ancestors suffered in so many years ago, a false sense of superiority and power. His false power, however, was and is only that - false. He is slave to an urge he does not quite comprehend and can only feel driven by in a small way. He is constantly at war with himself because of this. The reactions to this struggle, this unmentioned turmoil, are as many as there are White people, to be sure. But more often than not, the turmoil has been time and again evaded, circumvented without courage and projected through aggression onto those more and more suspecting people he deemed and deems "non-White".
This turmoil exists in the mind of every White male, no matter how "conservative" or "liberal". This sentiment of directionless terror and confusion, stemming from centuries of hardening and crystallizing, is becoming harder and harder for many to ignore inside of themselves. The crystallization process may be halted and broken down to reshape a new identity in order for any White person to have the hope to regain what a corrupt system stole from them long ago and supports the theft of to this day - their humanity.
Whether Baldwin's statement that "This world is white no longer, and will never be white again" is becoming more or less true is something to be seen with time. But I can say this: White people cannot escape the misery of their past, the confusion of the present, and any hope of self-redemption in the future by evasion, furthering the fear they live with, and a lack of self-love and understanding. White people, in short, need to learn how to implement tough-love within themselves. Loving oneself and loving others is a difficult task, because one has to face and eventually let go of fear of hurt, fear of pain.
Non-white peoples lives as a legacy have been defined by a sort of existential and disenfranchised pain of identity unknown by White people in this particular context. This is the idea to begin with for White people, the idea to be internalized, but White people must be willing to confront the troubles that lie deep within themselves.
Indeed, the path White people choose is crucial and must be aimed at a humanistic goal: to work to arrive at the breaking down of this identity that is constantly being maintained by a structure of power, not only culturally and economically, but psychologically. The pain involved in the White mind of knowing one is both a beneficiary of the contract without having been a signatory is the key to beginning to take responsibility and starting the deconstruction. This internal struggle (no matter how long it may take, perhaps a life-time) is what appears to be the complementary process of the non-White struggle for self-empowerment and self-love in this place everyone is in now. Tim Wise, Robert Jensen, Peggy McIntosh...these people have identified the core of their fear. I just hope that other White people have the courage to do so.
I know plenty of what the White male says today about the Black male, both publicly and privately. This is a highly nuanced situation today, and the White psyche in the U.S. has undergone a transformation of sorts, not only in the way it deals with its own racist conditioning, but with the way it projects its racist conditioning. This transformation is largely due to historical context, but a transformation is not a destination in this country, anymore than the Civil Rights legislation was a destination or the abolition of slavery was a destination.
The interim, that vast span of time in which the White male psyche and identity developed between the arrival of Europeans to the North American continent and the people we see today, is not what I'm as curious about. I've done much reading and thinking on that in terms of how I can reconcile a way to approach what is increasingly being understood as the new problem of the 21st century, the "color-blind" (contrasted with W.E.B. DuBois's color-line), and indeed, this is still a relevant concern to be addressed. Instead, I've lately been wondering and studying more on what preceded the arrival of these people and what must have taken place internally in a cultural and social sense to allow such a cycle to unfold in their institutions and in their hearts and minds.
Indeed, what was the first White parent thinking when they played their role with children, as Neil Postman put it, of "sending a message to a future we cannot forsee"?
Suffice to say that I'll never truly know, but given what I do know about both living and being seen as White in North American culture, internalizing that life to now, and having read and analyzed history, I have an idea.
It has to do with a message (internal and external) of fear.
I don't imagine it's too far away from something once suggested by James Baldwin. Contrary to the popular narrative we like to remind ourselves of several days every year (both directly and indirectly), the first White people in America were not freedom seeking individuals. For that matter, they were scarcely "White people" at all. They were bands of unhappy people of Europe. They were not the winners of Europe, they were the disenfranchised. They sought prosperity, for one. And in their eyes, due to myths of God-sponsored Manifest Destiny, they had open arms awaiting them. Of course, for every prize, their is a price. There is a toll, physical, mental, or monetary (or all) to be paid. Europeans, by and large in an attempt to escape the wretched existence they feared in Europe, came to the shores of America, but with a sacrifice to make - an internal one that to this day is still being brought to account.
It is often said that the three original sins of this continent were that the land was stolen from the red man, worked by the black slave, and the white man had to become racist to feel okay about it. This term, "become" racist, is key, because this cultural-systemic initiation started a phenomenon deeply embedded in our country today. Indeed, in the Europeans escape from supposed misery, he put himself in a more miserable spot upon arriving.
He gained a psychological wage, in addition to the monetary wage he would garnish on the backs of those he would oppress or gain from. He would gain a social and cultural notion, albeit false, that he was above all else, no matter how poor his situation. He was poor, he was unheard, he was cast off to the side all of which if he were poor, but he could take some comfort in knowing he was not Black. As time went on, this psyche had to evolve as did the notion of Whiteness and race.
The White man developed, from his unchecked and unfaced fear from that continent his ancestors suffered in so many years ago, a false sense of superiority and power. His false power, however, was and is only that - false. He is slave to an urge he does not quite comprehend and can only feel driven by in a small way. He is constantly at war with himself because of this. The reactions to this struggle, this unmentioned turmoil, are as many as there are White people, to be sure. But more often than not, the turmoil has been time and again evaded, circumvented without courage and projected through aggression onto those more and more suspecting people he deemed and deems "non-White".
This turmoil exists in the mind of every White male, no matter how "conservative" or "liberal". This sentiment of directionless terror and confusion, stemming from centuries of hardening and crystallizing, is becoming harder and harder for many to ignore inside of themselves. The crystallization process may be halted and broken down to reshape a new identity in order for any White person to have the hope to regain what a corrupt system stole from them long ago and supports the theft of to this day - their humanity.
Whether Baldwin's statement that "This world is white no longer, and will never be white again" is becoming more or less true is something to be seen with time. But I can say this: White people cannot escape the misery of their past, the confusion of the present, and any hope of self-redemption in the future by evasion, furthering the fear they live with, and a lack of self-love and understanding. White people, in short, need to learn how to implement tough-love within themselves. Loving oneself and loving others is a difficult task, because one has to face and eventually let go of fear of hurt, fear of pain.
Non-white peoples lives as a legacy have been defined by a sort of existential and disenfranchised pain of identity unknown by White people in this particular context. This is the idea to begin with for White people, the idea to be internalized, but White people must be willing to confront the troubles that lie deep within themselves.
Indeed, the path White people choose is crucial and must be aimed at a humanistic goal: to work to arrive at the breaking down of this identity that is constantly being maintained by a structure of power, not only culturally and economically, but psychologically. The pain involved in the White mind of knowing one is both a beneficiary of the contract without having been a signatory is the key to beginning to take responsibility and starting the deconstruction. This internal struggle (no matter how long it may take, perhaps a life-time) is what appears to be the complementary process of the non-White struggle for self-empowerment and self-love in this place everyone is in now. Tim Wise, Robert Jensen, Peggy McIntosh...these people have identified the core of their fear. I just hope that other White people have the courage to do so.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Rage, Contempt, and Justice: The Process of Concentration and Clarity
The target of continual and systematic oppression, victimization, or disenfranchisement typically feels inevitable rage. It has root in the anguish and pain of being put at the hands of wrongdoing.
Rage of the oppressed, by itself, can destroy and consume an individual (or a group), giving vicarious energy to the oppressor. It either gives way to acquiescence (when rage goes untapped properly, or at all, and wears down an individual over time) or to violence (which tends to bring only momentary results and does not win the understanding of an enemy, thriving on hatred rather than love for humanity).
Rage must be, in the words of James Baldwin, dissembled. During this process, two things happen, and they're done by controlling rage with ones intellect. The thing is that rage does not go away, it merely reorganizes in this process. But the process cannot go unfinished, and must be realized through two dualistic means.
First, the intellect eventually does away with the thoughtless in the core of rage. Ones rage is given a rhyme and reason, a relative order. Second, what is left gives way to an undeniable and unquestionable feeling of contempt, often deeply seated. This is the funneled and reorganized way that the target of injustice hones their efforts.
This contempt puts the individual at inevitable war or struggle with its context (this includes, to a degree, with the individual themselves). The struggle, now approached intellectually, has at its end one primary goal: to rob the aggressor of their naivete or make it cost them rather sufficiently. Either case is what tends to bring about what the victim really seeks immediately and fundamentally: an affirmation of ones own suffering, pain, and humanity.
This affirmation, if reached, is the integral step towards the achievement of justice.
Of course, there will be resistance. Oppressors do not typically like to have their often unadulterated power just taken away. There are few, if any, examples of simple and struggle-free emancipation and recognition in human history.
One of the goals of the oppressor is to put at a certain human remove the clear understanding of the oppressed individuals own pain and lack of justice (resulting in the lack of dissembling of rage) so as to reduce the effects or boundaries of the victims thought processes and reactions. This is done in myriad ways.
One way is to teach the oppressed persons history or understanding of themselves in a way that delegitimizes their own place in what seems to be a "natural order" of things. This diffuses any sense of self-worth, at both an individual and group level. By teaching history, I don't mean solely rote classroom memorization and academic dishonesty (though this is an unquestionably strong tool). I also mean the culturally conditioned practices in speech, narrative, and philosophical approaches to dealing with the oppressed. This, in effect, diffuses the clarity and realization of oneself and minimizes the retaliation one has of not only oneself critically, but more saliently, of the society/context at large.
There are of course, several other ways in which the oppressor seeks to downplay the effects of their actions. The point is that these tactics reduce the chances of the oppressed in gaining the self-concept (and social concept) needed to overcome the position they are in.
This quelling of the victims framework comes from a different manifestation of rage: the manifestation through the footsteps of the oppressor. This rage is rooted in fear - the fear of oneself and what one does or does not know to be true about oneself. This, if unchallenged and not faced, eventually tends to evolve into a type of arrogance. This arrogance is what drives the oppressor to misuse what power or control they find in their hands to rein in over the victims they target.
What the fight for eradicating injustice ultimately means is a struggle, one between the oppressed overcoming the systems through which dissembling of rage and channeling of clarity are quelled and getting others to do the same, and the resolve of the oppressor in evading their roots of their rage, and in doing so, denying the fundamental human aspects, reactions, and processes to the very victims they are targeting.
Rage of the oppressed, by itself, can destroy and consume an individual (or a group), giving vicarious energy to the oppressor. It either gives way to acquiescence (when rage goes untapped properly, or at all, and wears down an individual over time) or to violence (which tends to bring only momentary results and does not win the understanding of an enemy, thriving on hatred rather than love for humanity).
Rage must be, in the words of James Baldwin, dissembled. During this process, two things happen, and they're done by controlling rage with ones intellect. The thing is that rage does not go away, it merely reorganizes in this process. But the process cannot go unfinished, and must be realized through two dualistic means.
First, the intellect eventually does away with the thoughtless in the core of rage. Ones rage is given a rhyme and reason, a relative order. Second, what is left gives way to an undeniable and unquestionable feeling of contempt, often deeply seated. This is the funneled and reorganized way that the target of injustice hones their efforts.
This contempt puts the individual at inevitable war or struggle with its context (this includes, to a degree, with the individual themselves). The struggle, now approached intellectually, has at its end one primary goal: to rob the aggressor of their naivete or make it cost them rather sufficiently. Either case is what tends to bring about what the victim really seeks immediately and fundamentally: an affirmation of ones own suffering, pain, and humanity.
This affirmation, if reached, is the integral step towards the achievement of justice.
Of course, there will be resistance. Oppressors do not typically like to have their often unadulterated power just taken away. There are few, if any, examples of simple and struggle-free emancipation and recognition in human history.
One of the goals of the oppressor is to put at a certain human remove the clear understanding of the oppressed individuals own pain and lack of justice (resulting in the lack of dissembling of rage) so as to reduce the effects or boundaries of the victims thought processes and reactions. This is done in myriad ways.
One way is to teach the oppressed persons history or understanding of themselves in a way that delegitimizes their own place in what seems to be a "natural order" of things. This diffuses any sense of self-worth, at both an individual and group level. By teaching history, I don't mean solely rote classroom memorization and academic dishonesty (though this is an unquestionably strong tool). I also mean the culturally conditioned practices in speech, narrative, and philosophical approaches to dealing with the oppressed. This, in effect, diffuses the clarity and realization of oneself and minimizes the retaliation one has of not only oneself critically, but more saliently, of the society/context at large.
There are of course, several other ways in which the oppressor seeks to downplay the effects of their actions. The point is that these tactics reduce the chances of the oppressed in gaining the self-concept (and social concept) needed to overcome the position they are in.
This quelling of the victims framework comes from a different manifestation of rage: the manifestation through the footsteps of the oppressor. This rage is rooted in fear - the fear of oneself and what one does or does not know to be true about oneself. This, if unchallenged and not faced, eventually tends to evolve into a type of arrogance. This arrogance is what drives the oppressor to misuse what power or control they find in their hands to rein in over the victims they target.
What the fight for eradicating injustice ultimately means is a struggle, one between the oppressed overcoming the systems through which dissembling of rage and channeling of clarity are quelled and getting others to do the same, and the resolve of the oppressor in evading their roots of their rage, and in doing so, denying the fundamental human aspects, reactions, and processes to the very victims they are targeting.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The "You're Human!" moment...
Once, not too long ago, I heard someone (polite stand-in word for "white guy") at my workplace say something to a hispanic worker that I felt was notable for some further thought and criticism.
"I don't see you as Hispanic, really. You're pretty white (laughs). I just see you as a person".
This was said due to the person in question being clearly educated, well-spoken (in "standard" English, that is), and seemingly bright. The white person saying this did not see anything wrong with their statement, and to the contrary must have felt it was some kind of compliment. The compliment being, "You're smart, therefore you're white (and therefore, more human in my eyes)".
Doesn't this mean that the norm is of white people being seen or thought of smart and eloquent? What if a White person isn't? Are they less white somehow and a part of some other racial group? Nah, typically they're just "an idiot" - read that: an exception to the rule of Whiteness meaning humanity, smartness, etc. And for those White people that act so outside of designated Whiteness that it calls into question their Whiteness? Oh yeah, that's right, we already have done that historically. When whites act like what we conceive black people to act, we call them 'wiggers' to insult them (invoking the merging of White with an offensive slur against Black person, perhaps telling us how we may see Blackness in a way that we're not ready to face up to).
When Whites stand up for non-Whites, we say they're "probably hanging out with a lot of non-Whites, dating a non-White, too racially sensitive". There's always some individual instance or consideration of deviation when Whites break from the typical rank of behavior.
So just to get the connotations right at this point: white=good, non-white=bad. When you act a way that I see as racial, you're not White to me. You're not normal to me. You're a race. When you act a way that I designate as smart or educated or like me (white), you're normal.
Everytime I hear something like that, these are some of that sentiments that I gather from it:
"You're better than those OTHER [read: bad] people that are [racial group here], in fact, you're kinda like ME [read: good]."
"Seeing as race isn't important to my life [HAHA!] and you're in it, I'm going to have to ignore that you're [racial group] so that I don't have to think about such unimportant things as race and racism, and therefore move on to correcting my preconceived notions about other racial groups. Whew."
"Wow, you are an actual human being...therefore, it's simply not possible for you to be [racial group]!"
This is not the only way I've witnessed a habitual instance of White people invoking an engrained evasive tactic to facing up to their own racial preconceptions they may or may not be aware of. The same Hispanic worker in question was once asked by a White female patron if he spoke Spanish. When he replied "no", her expression was full of shock and a maternalistic sense to tell him, "Well, you really ought to learn! I mean, even I'm learning!" See, even though it's her faulty preconception that all dark-skinned people that may or may not be of Hispanic descent "must" speak Spanish, she has told herself that instead of facing up to this and changing it through work and self-criticism, it's on the "other" person to change their reality to suit her psychological constructions of people.
This White privilege in practice. This is White centrism in practice.
If you're frequently guilty of such behavior or attitudes, please, utilize some tact the next time you run into a person of color whose personality has "gone above and beyond" some preconceived notion you have of their 'racial group'. Then, do yourself (and all of us) one further and find ways to challenge this conception you have of people so that we might actually get to a point where we are "just people".
"I don't see you as Hispanic, really. You're pretty white (laughs). I just see you as a person".
This was said due to the person in question being clearly educated, well-spoken (in "standard" English, that is), and seemingly bright. The white person saying this did not see anything wrong with their statement, and to the contrary must have felt it was some kind of compliment. The compliment being, "You're smart, therefore you're white (and therefore, more human in my eyes)".
Doesn't this mean that the norm is of white people being seen or thought of smart and eloquent? What if a White person isn't? Are they less white somehow and a part of some other racial group? Nah, typically they're just "an idiot" - read that: an exception to the rule of Whiteness meaning humanity, smartness, etc. And for those White people that act so outside of designated Whiteness that it calls into question their Whiteness? Oh yeah, that's right, we already have done that historically. When whites act like what we conceive black people to act, we call them 'wiggers' to insult them (invoking the merging of White with an offensive slur against Black person, perhaps telling us how we may see Blackness in a way that we're not ready to face up to).
When Whites stand up for non-Whites, we say they're "probably hanging out with a lot of non-Whites, dating a non-White, too racially sensitive". There's always some individual instance or consideration of deviation when Whites break from the typical rank of behavior.
So just to get the connotations right at this point: white=good, non-white=bad. When you act a way that I see as racial, you're not White to me. You're not normal to me. You're a race. When you act a way that I designate as smart or educated or like me (white), you're normal.
Everytime I hear something like that, these are some of that sentiments that I gather from it:
"You're better than those OTHER [read: bad] people that are [racial group here], in fact, you're kinda like ME [read: good]."
"Seeing as race isn't important to my life [HAHA!] and you're in it, I'm going to have to ignore that you're [racial group] so that I don't have to think about such unimportant things as race and racism, and therefore move on to correcting my preconceived notions about other racial groups. Whew."
"Wow, you are an actual human being...therefore, it's simply not possible for you to be [racial group]!"
This is not the only way I've witnessed a habitual instance of White people invoking an engrained evasive tactic to facing up to their own racial preconceptions they may or may not be aware of. The same Hispanic worker in question was once asked by a White female patron if he spoke Spanish. When he replied "no", her expression was full of shock and a maternalistic sense to tell him, "Well, you really ought to learn! I mean, even I'm learning!" See, even though it's her faulty preconception that all dark-skinned people that may or may not be of Hispanic descent "must" speak Spanish, she has told herself that instead of facing up to this and changing it through work and self-criticism, it's on the "other" person to change their reality to suit her psychological constructions of people.
This White privilege in practice. This is White centrism in practice.
If you're frequently guilty of such behavior or attitudes, please, utilize some tact the next time you run into a person of color whose personality has "gone above and beyond" some preconceived notion you have of their 'racial group'. Then, do yourself (and all of us) one further and find ways to challenge this conception you have of people so that we might actually get to a point where we are "just people".
Monday, March 7, 2011
On Libertarians
Disclaimer: This post is not wholly representative of my typical writing and structure, but is more a response to a packed series of recent days spent talking with Libertarians.
Moving on...
Recently, I had a pretty extensive debate (surprised? ;)) with a Libertarian over the prospect of guns in schools. While I won't start on that one here, I want to make some notes about some of the ideas that Libertarians seem to entertain about not only everyone and their place in society but their own place in it.
First, let me get it out there: I'm talking about the ideology as it is manifested in the United States, as I'm uneducated on how it pans out in other countries (where it is even relevant there). I do personally think the ideology is warped and detatched from reality, which I will explain my reasoning for here. I furthermore state here that there has never been a functioning civilized society that has not had taxation or regulation. That all being out in the open, I find that most Libertarians fall under one of these two categories:
1. A teenager (or someone who is still living a teenagers, parent-subsidized life) reading Ayn Rand in his room, with enough money in his life that shields him from the full effects of his choices. And with zero consciousness of this fact. Typically, it's someone with no real experience in the real world.
2. People who play video or computer games and believe that DOOM and Mad Max are optimal descriptions of the potential nature of human interaction and relations. In short, one who romanticizes the world based off of nothing corroborated by reality.
Lately, I've run more into the first type (the shielded Libertarian) than the second (the romantic). I should also mention advisedly that the vast majority of Libertarians with whom I've had the opportunity to converse with are typically male, straight, and white in social categories. This is not always the case, but is in such frequency that it becomes unsurprising after a while.
I often hear Libertarian-minded types repeat a claim that "Well, if you don't like your job, just quit and get another one! It's the beauty of the free market!" as if that would change anything for an individual, as if the class of people blithely ditching their jobs are worlds different from the people most able to pack up and move away from a conventional, state-based dictatorship. They are often blinded, willfully ignorant of, or incoherently educated on class matters.
Structural and institutional realities are also something Libertarians tend to be either unaware of or grossly misinformed on. I’ve seen and heard from kids whose parents put them through good high schools, expensive after-school programs, and good colleges where they had their room and board, books and tuition fully paid for or subsidized in some other way they were not responsible for claim that they got where they were entirely on their own merit. They have a hard time imagining that someone without those privileges would find it more difficult to achieve on the same level. Also, Libertarians often deny that structural barriers to success even exist, and it’s typically because they haven’t encountered them. I had one person argue with a straight face that a CEO really works 2000 times as hard as a janitor holding down two full-time jobs.
Libertarians tend to tout an oft cited claim (with, funnily enough, no tough evidence to back up) that regulation kills efficiency and growth in the marketplace and economy. This is usually said with zero to no ironic understanding on their end that this most recent global financial crisis followed a decade of massive deregulation of the markets and historically very low tax rates. Using their simplistic litmus test, their philosophy fails on even a decade trial run.
Libertarianism is lacking in real world application and understanding, much like many of its adherents and preachers. Beware their simple, bumper-sticker explanations of events and phenomenon with no further analysis that holds up with fact and historical trends.
Moving on...
Recently, I had a pretty extensive debate (surprised? ;)) with a Libertarian over the prospect of guns in schools. While I won't start on that one here, I want to make some notes about some of the ideas that Libertarians seem to entertain about not only everyone and their place in society but their own place in it.
First, let me get it out there: I'm talking about the ideology as it is manifested in the United States, as I'm uneducated on how it pans out in other countries (where it is even relevant there). I do personally think the ideology is warped and detatched from reality, which I will explain my reasoning for here. I furthermore state here that there has never been a functioning civilized society that has not had taxation or regulation. That all being out in the open, I find that most Libertarians fall under one of these two categories:
1. A teenager (or someone who is still living a teenagers, parent-subsidized life) reading Ayn Rand in his room, with enough money in his life that shields him from the full effects of his choices. And with zero consciousness of this fact. Typically, it's someone with no real experience in the real world.
2. People who play video or computer games and believe that DOOM and Mad Max are optimal descriptions of the potential nature of human interaction and relations. In short, one who romanticizes the world based off of nothing corroborated by reality.
Lately, I've run more into the first type (the shielded Libertarian) than the second (the romantic). I should also mention advisedly that the vast majority of Libertarians with whom I've had the opportunity to converse with are typically male, straight, and white in social categories. This is not always the case, but is in such frequency that it becomes unsurprising after a while.
I often hear Libertarian-minded types repeat a claim that "Well, if you don't like your job, just quit and get another one! It's the beauty of the free market!" as if that would change anything for an individual, as if the class of people blithely ditching their jobs are worlds different from the people most able to pack up and move away from a conventional, state-based dictatorship. They are often blinded, willfully ignorant of, or incoherently educated on class matters.
Structural and institutional realities are also something Libertarians tend to be either unaware of or grossly misinformed on. I’ve seen and heard from kids whose parents put them through good high schools, expensive after-school programs, and good colleges where they had their room and board, books and tuition fully paid for or subsidized in some other way they were not responsible for claim that they got where they were entirely on their own merit. They have a hard time imagining that someone without those privileges would find it more difficult to achieve on the same level. Also, Libertarians often deny that structural barriers to success even exist, and it’s typically because they haven’t encountered them. I had one person argue with a straight face that a CEO really works 2000 times as hard as a janitor holding down two full-time jobs.
Libertarians tend to tout an oft cited claim (with, funnily enough, no tough evidence to back up) that regulation kills efficiency and growth in the marketplace and economy. This is usually said with zero to no ironic understanding on their end that this most recent global financial crisis followed a decade of massive deregulation of the markets and historically very low tax rates. Using their simplistic litmus test, their philosophy fails on even a decade trial run.
Libertarianism is lacking in real world application and understanding, much like many of its adherents and preachers. Beware their simple, bumper-sticker explanations of events and phenomenon with no further analysis that holds up with fact and historical trends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)