Rumours of Racism's Death are Greatly Exaggerated

Shortly after the U.S. federal election in November, I wrote:

But it's the old race card in a new suit, another "heads I win, tails you lose" tactic. If Obama wins, race is not an issue - it's about the merits of his person and position, and the lack thereof in the case of his opponent. If he loses, it's because of race - not about merits.

Over at Uncommon Knowledge - where Peter Robinson conducts very interesting interviews - I stumbled across an interview with Shelby Steele, where he explains the reason for Obama's popular appeal:

But there is an inherent contradiction in all of this when whites, especially today's younger generation, proudly support Obama for his post-racialism, they unwittingly embrace race as their primary motivation.

Everywhere I went on my book tour with regard to this book, young people would come up, "We're beyond your generation. We're going to vote for Obama," and so forth. "Don't you think that we, we grew up differently than you did." No, you didn't. You did not. You are now obsessed with race. Race is the only thing that's driving your interest in Barack Obama. You couldn't even tell me what his policies are. You're never critical to him in any way. If you were free of race, you would not judge him culturally. You would judge him politically. You'd look at his position on social security, on all these mundane, boilerplate issues that presidents actually have to deal with, his economic policies. You never want to see that. You are consumed by race.

The whole thing is worth watching, but this exchange begins at 15:35.

Unions, Productivity, and the Automakers Crisis

Workers' unions came about because of terrible working conditions and employers who mistreated their employees. Employers were abusing their power and their workers. Unions have been responsible, at least in part, for improving working standards and conditions.

But the pendulum has long since swung to the other side. It is now the unions that are abusing their power and the workers they claim to represent. There are many things that can be said about the actions and effects of today's unions, but let the following non-exhaustive list suffice:

• Today's unions do not balance the needs of workers with the needs of employers and managers. Workers are best served when they are fairly treated and compensated, but also when such treatment and compensation does not threaten the profitability and stability of their jobs and livelihood - the company for which they work. Many recent union "wins" are thus actually losses. Unions are too opposed to management and ownership to seek the common good.
• Today's unions make financial sense for those at the top, but not necessarily for those at the bottom. Union bosses are very well compensated, but does the average worker recover the losses incurred after strike pay runs out during a lengthy strike?
• Today's unions are political. It can be argued that it is for the good of the workers to support a political party that is likely to be sympathetic to union demands. But do political contributions represent the diversity of political support among the union members? And what can be said, for instance, of the CAW boss Buzz Hargrove's official letter to Prime Minister Harper taking a political stand during the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006? Did his recommendations represent the majority view of union members? Even if it did, what business is it of CAW's to make political pronouncements?
• Today's unions actually discourage creativity, efficiency, productivity.

This last one likely has a lot more to do with today's Big Three auto crisis than any one is letting on. It's a systemic problem, and any real solution to the automaker crisis must deal with it. More in this great read at Pajamas Media - Rand Simberg: Detroit’s Downturn: It’s the Productivity, Stupid. Here's an excerpt, but read the whole thing - there are some mind-boggling and telling examples of the union mentality.

But almost all of the discussion, when it comes to UAW culpability, has been on wages. The even larger issue, though, is the elephant in the room that seemingly no one discusses, even when given a political opportunity... And it’s not like people are unaware of it, at least people familiar with the industry. The issue isn’t wages — though those are a problem — so much as work rules. UAW work rules, which have evolved over the many decades since the passage of the Wagner Act, are the biggest reason that General Motors is uncompetitive with its non-union American counterparts.

What are work rules? They are agreements negotiated in the contract between management and the union covering how the employees are to be classified, how many breaks they get, how much time off they get, who can do which jobs, how discipline is to be enforced, etc. The goal of the rules is not to enhance productivity or production quality. It is to provide opportunities for featherbedding, increase numbers of (overpaid) jobs for union workers, and minimize how much they have to actually work. This is important because it’s at least in theory possible that the industry could be making money even at current wages, if they could be provided with the flexibility to increase worker productivity.

Fighting the War on Life Issues

At a recent Campaign Life Coalition luncheon, Former Liberal MP Tom Wappel - well-known for his pro-life stance - took the Roman Catholic Church to task for its lack of support for him and others fighting the war on the life issues. But his criticism was constructive and offered 13 specific recommendations to give that support.

These are suggestions from someone who spent 20 years in federal parliament, who was a member of the Pro-Life Caucus, who understands the fight from that perspective. So these recommendations are instructive for all who want to return to a respect for life. From LifeSiteNews, Tom Wappel's 13 Recommendations for Catholic Clergy and Bishops:

Number 13 - Engage the congregation to think about there [sic] faith... how can you speak in favor of the freedom to "choose" for example, or same-sex marriage or some type of euthanasia?

Number 12 - have educational meetings at the Church, I would recommend, once a month. Invite speakers on issues such as abortion, marriage, euthanasia, and publicize it well.

Number 11 - invite the local Member of Parliament, the local Member of Provincial Parliament and the councillor to these meetings.

Number 10 - Encourage the Catholic Women's League and the Knights of Columbus, if you have them in your parish, to seek meetings with the local MP's about the life issues and have them report back on those meetings.

Number 9 - Encourage parishioners to be engaged in public policy debate. Encourage them to write to their representatives when they run across issues that they feel strongly about - express their opinions.

Number 8 - Talk to the principals and staff, if you are allowed to do so, at all the Catholic schools in your parish and walk them through the issues - as you do the parishioners.

Number 7 - engage with the students at all levels about the life issues. It is never too young, in my opinion, to talk about a respect for life.

Number 6 - encourage your fellow priests and pastors of other denominations,

Number 5 - encourage and, indeed, insist that the Bishops institute these kinds of practices nation-wide in an organized manner...

Number 4 - ... the CCCB should meet with the representatives of the Parliamentary pro-life caucus,

Number 3 - provide your parishioners, at all times, and in particular during an election campaign, with specific sources where they can accumulate information about candidates.

Number 2 - Advise parishioners on the exact positions of the candidates on the life issues.

Number 1 - ...the entire congregation [should] pray to God that God would rekindle the fire of faith of those whose faith has been extinguished, stoke the smoldering embers of faith of those who are losing their faith and fan the flames of those whose faith is strong...

The Bush Legacy

I've argued often that history will judge George W. Bush much kindlier than current popular opinion. The typical rap is that he is an unintelligent, far-right ultraconservative, selfish theocon. These allegations are nearly all false, and are less supported by knowledge and fact than by emotions and intense ideological opposition. Bush is well-read and his Texas drawl hides his intelligence. He is not far-right or very conservative - in fact, his big-government approach was disappointingly centrist. His demeanour betrays self-confidence, but not selfishness. And he is less theocon than say, George Washington, or any of the Fathers of the U.S. Constitution - read a few of Bill Federer's American Minute pieces for a picture of this. But these things will come out with time.

However, as Victor David Hanson writes at the corner, it's not taking much time at all: Bush Through the Obama Prism.

Obama's victory (predicated on painting Bush as a Hoover/Nixon redux), more so even than perhaps a John McCain's, may do more for Bush's reputation that anyone ever imagined. And the Mumbai mess (over there, not here) will only empasize all this, as an array of old 9/11-era experts who used to warn us about radical Islam, then, in the subsequent respite at home, screamed that Bush fabricated a war against terror against bogeymen, and now in their third manifestation are paraded once more out to warn us about?—why, yes, radical Islam!

A Chilling Display of Tolerance

Despite overwhelmingly supporting Barack Obama in last week's election, Californians also voted 'Yes' on Proposition 8, a measure legally defining marriage in California as "marriage between a man and a woman."

The gay lobby has framed its fight in terms of victimhood, equal rights, and tolerance. But they've always been about bullying - shouting down their opponents and using the race and bigotry cards. And, of course, the battering ram of judicial activism, quite unlike the democratic process used by Yes on 8.

That's at the best of times. Here's what happens when democracy gets in the way of their plan: Crazy lefties attack old lady at No on 8 protest.

Thoughts on the US Presidential Election

A few thoughts on the US presidential election won by Barack Obama. There was no shortage of platitude or inflated rhetoric with regard to Obama the candidate. His election has occasion for yet more sensationalism. I find much of it disappointing, and worse, dishonest.

Exhibit A is the issue of race and racism. Racism has been declared dead or at least dying, the media tells us, now that a black man is to be the President of the United States. But it's the old race card in a new suit, another "heads I win, tails you lose" tactic. If Obama wins, race is not an issue - it's about the merits of his person and position, and the lack thereof in the case of his opponent. If he loses, it's because of race - not about merits. So race was very much a part of the campaign and the election - the trump card of race was ready for use if it was needed. More on this from Mark Levin at the Corner:

Let's not fool ourselves. If Barack Obama had been a conservative Republican (a la Lynn Swann, Michael Steele or Ken Blackwell) the response to his election would not the same as it is today. Before the election, the liberal and media commentariat were putting out different arguments for an Obama election — including that this was not an election about race if he won or it was an election about race if he lost. But now that he has won, I am hearing this is victory against racism. But I didn't think modern America racist. Of course, there are individuals and pockets that are. But that's different. I don't remember the same tests, such as they are, being applied to the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. I understand that's different than a national election. However, it simply cannot be denied that there is a double standard as applies to liberals and conservatives regardless of race or gender. Indeed, if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, we would be hearing similar words of celebration; but if Sarah Palin had been elected vice president, we would be hearing very nasty things, as we have since she was nominated.

Exhibit B is the deconstruction of the two campaigns: Obama's campaign was brilliant and largely free of mistakes, while McCain's campaign was weak and error-ridden. I concur that McCain did not run a strong campaign, and that there were too many mistakes. But I find statements about Obama's brilliant win somewhat dishonest. McCain needed a strong campaign to win. First, he was running for the same party as Bush. But he was up against another, much larger, obstacle that Obama did not have to face. Mark Hemingway, also at the Corner:

I have next to nothing good to say about how the media (on the whole) conducted themselves in this campaign. I don't think my complaints here should take away from Obama's victory, as the Republicans made more than few mistakes and the loss is theirs and theirs alone. Still, it's hard not to see how the press completely ablated any and all professional standards in one clumsy attempt after another to destroy McCain and Palin. Meanwhile, when they weren't cheerleading for Obama they were actively ignoring even the most damning criticisms of their preferred candidate.

The frantic searching for any kind of ammo against Palin was one thing. But when the media is more interested in investigating 15 minutes of fame called Joe the Plumber than a candidate for President of the United States, its praise of said candidate's campaign rings hollow. There were plenty of things worthy of investigation with regard to Obama. They did not matter because the media refused to acknowledge them. McCain had pretty good results for a mediocre campaign. With the media running cover for him, Obama neither ran nor needed to run a strong campaign.

Socialism is No Joke

At a recent rally, Obama served up this joke in response to the McCain campaign's charges that he is socialist:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

But this is not a throw-away joke; it's actually quite revealling, as John Hood posts at The Corner:

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.