If there was any doubt about the level of my interest in science fiction, it was dispelled when I read the first of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation books. Set thousands of years in the future, it talked of a time when the Galactic Empire had long been established and was in decline. Harry Seldon was a university professor who had developed an algorithmic system known as psychohistory in which he was able accurately to predict future events. Seldon foresaw the breakup of the Empire which would be followed by a millennial long period of chaos – unless he could set in motion certain events which would shorten that period of destabilization.
It’s probably difficult for those younger people who view history as anything that happened before lunch to have a long term perspective. It’s difficult even for those of us who have a respect for history to think in terms of how what we do today has implications for what might transpire in a thousand years. But splitting the difference, it is possible to take a sober view of events that have transpired in our life times and reach an understanding of why things are today as they are, determined in part by recent past events.
Those who have tried to explain the virulent anti-Trump demonstrations by stating that the protesters are upset about the result of the 2016 election are merely focusing on a symptom, not the root problem. Yes, the left is upset that President Trump won, more so than that Hillary Clinton lost. But that merely scratches the surface of their frustration. Their election loss last year was not simply the loss of an election but the end of an agenda whose goal was to transform the country into little more than just another global player at the same level as are Sri Lanka and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, toward which they have been working for the last fifty years.
When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law on July 2, 1964 he set into motion a series of events whose repercussions are manifest today. LBJ promoted this law as a matter of political expediency and certainly not as a result of his personal belief in equality – an attitude he had never seemed troubled by through his extensive political career. But between Viet Nam and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., he had his hands full. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did what all politicians do in time of crisis. They pass laws that they think make them look good without concern that the law will actually do good.
The law which guaranteed that people could not be discriminated against by reason of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was something that fair minded Americans approved of. It also outlawed segregation in public schools and the use of public facilities. But it had few teeth. Seeing that the law was generally well received by their constituencies, the Congress passed further laws which added enforcement authorities to the original – and, of course, with the philosophy that if voters in their districts liked the first law, how much more would they like other laws which expanded the original. So over a short time span, Congress enacted additional laws including the expansion and loosening of welfare benefits as well as adopting what we know as Affirmative Action.
Now if we consider the purported intent of the Civil Rights laws – to eradicate discrimination (which primarily was intended to help black Americans despite the inclusion of other classes), Affirmative Action deserves our specific attention as it is an excellent example of progressive thinking. Affirmative Action was predicated on the assumption that for any of a variety of reasons, black Americans while theoretically equal to any other American, had specifically been deprived of the equal opportunity which the Declaration of Independence declared to be each American’s birthright.
As a result, in order to eliminate discrimination, Affirmative Action would rectify this injustice by instituting a policy of discrimination. The Federal government would impose quotas either tacitly or specifically in both colleges and the workplace to insure that there was what they deemed to be an acceptable level of minority representation among those who studied or worked in those institutions or businesses. There were several problems with this policy.
The first was that minority students who were enrolled in colleges and universities and had gained admission not because they were the best intellectually qualified to have earned those places dropped out at a rate four times as high as their white counterparts. The reason for that was evident. Many of these students had come from high schools which poorly prepared their students for higher education.
The second was that Affirmative Action rankled many white Americans who were supportive of the Civil Rights movement but whose children were being adversely impacted in achieving a college degree for no fault of their own other than that they were denied admission because of their skin color despite showing higher academic achievement than others who were admitted simply because of their skin color. If there was any one reason for the growth of racism by whites in the country, Affirmative Action provided the perfect platform.
Because of the demography of the country in 1964, the Civil Rights Act was primarily designed to eliminate discrimination again black Americans as I said previously. However, with the large influx of both Hispanics and Asians that has occurred in the last half century, it is interesting to look at some educational statistics to see how these two minority groups have fared educationally since they are also protected under the law.
For the year 2012, of the forty-eight states and the District of Columbia which reported, the overall nationwide graduation rate for high school students stood at 80%. White students graduated at a rate of 86%; Hispanics at a rate of 73%; Blacks at a rate of 69%. Asian students graduated high school in 35/48 jurisdictions at the same or a higher rate than white students for an overall graduation rate of 92%. The question naturally suggests itself, “Why do students who bear the additional challenge of coping with a language which in many cases is not their first language do better academically than black students who do not have that obstacle to their education?”
It would be overly simplistic to lay all the blame at the feet of the various inner city schools which presumably “educate” the vast majority of black children in the country. But it is interesting that middle class, suburban blacks’ children graduate from high school at virtually the same rate as their white classmates. Unfortunately, unless you are a Hip Hop mogul or get signed by the NFL or NBA, lacking a good formative education, there is very little opportunity for the black child born in the ghettos of our cities. Lacking a particularly great athletic or musical talent, most of our inner city black children are faced with a future of hopelessness – or membership in a gang.
During her campaign, Hillary Clinton made the remarkable statement that, “Being part of a gang is like joining a family.” Well, that’s true – if you’re talking about the Manson family. That statement is something that could only be uttered by someone who is a white liberal and who has neither the concern nor the understanding of the dynamics of life in the inner city where murder is the number one cause of death for those under the age of forty. And if you don’t understand why there is no outrage from the left on either black on black violence or the poor quality of education which inner city black children receive you shouldn’t be. It’s not an accident but by design that these conditions exist.
At one point, liberals wooed black Americans with idealistic jargon about equality and how they would redress the past indignities that these people’s ancestors had endured. And they had a simple way of convincing them of their sincerity – money. They bought their allegiance through ever increasing numbers of programs, rewards for having more children, lunch subsidies, free or subsidized housing and most recently under the last administration, free phones.
But if Clinton had won the election, blacks would have had a very big surprise in store. With the left’s victory which was denied, they would have thrown open the borders – and far more Hispanics would have found their way to the United States, ultimately dwarfing the number of blacks who live here – and making their political support irrelevant. Then blacks would have found that they really have been living on a liberal-crafted plantation lo these many years. And while the vast majority of our black citizens do not yet realize it, Donald Trump’s election is the best chance they have of truly participating in what should be freely available to all Americans – a shot at achieving the American dream.