Tuesday, May 16, 2023

"Is Wokeism Dying?"

 First, apologies for the length of this essay. Over two hundred words were cut last evening and another ten this morning. Still, it runs to just over 1,600 words, about a third longer than usual. A disciplined editor with an acute eye and sharp blade could have removed more words but, alas, that was not to be.

 

The Durham Report was released yesterday, finally. While it found no evidence to justify the FBI’s launch of a full-scale investigation into the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign in 2016 and Russia, it also brought no indictments against those who launched the investigation, which cost taxpayers millions o dollars. Perhaps that was because if indictments were brought it would condemn the entire Justice Department and the intelligence services, and the swamp in which they thrive?

 

By the way, with 81-year-old Martha Stewart on the cover of Sports Illustrated, it suggests the 80s may be the new 40s, at least for a lucky few!  

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Is Wokeism[1] Dying?”

May 16, 2023

 

“At its heart, wokeness is divisive, exclusionary, and hateful. It basically

gives mean people a shield to be mean and cruel, armored in false virtue.”

                                                                                                Elon Musk, Babylon Bee

          December 21, 2021 interview

 

For the last few years, the stench of wokeness has enshrouded our nation – in schools, corporations, politics, and cultural institutions. It arrived under the names “Political Correctness” and “Diversity;” as it came in on T.S. Eliot’s “little cat feet,” unobtrusively, but seductively and relentlessly, backed by the arrogance of the self-righteous. While many of its proponents want a world where racism does not exist, where sexuality is a choice, and where a sustainable climate allows mankind to flourish, the world they have created has the absurdity of Gulliver’s travels to the kingdom of Balnibarbi and the island of Laputa.

 

It is the folly of wokeness that augurs its demise: that slavery defined our nation’s founding, and that racism infects all white people, at least those who do not hew to a progressive line; that biology does not define a man and a woman, and that gender is a choice; and that unless we all give up gas stoves and drive electric vehicles the world will become uninhabitable. 

 

At the same time, we face real problems: failing public schools; a shrinking military; a permeable southern border; federal debt that, as a percent of GDP, is higher than at any point since World War II; persistent inflation; an aging population that will require more entitlement spending; a decline in global influence; a general sense of pessimism expressed in declining birth rates; and a President who, as Bruce Thornton recently wrote, “makes Chance, the Gardner look like Abraham Lincoln.” 

 

Students score poorly on international tests in math, science and reading, and they fail questions regarding history and civics. We have been divided into tribes, into oppressors and the oppressed. Those who are seen as victims (and their heirs) are condemned to victimization for all eternity. California has considered reparations to descendants of slaves, including those five to seven generations removed.  Ignored is the instinct for people to better themselves. Neglected is the Biblical admonition from Ezekiel 18:20: “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father the guilt of the son.” 

 

While it will never totally disappear, racism has lessened over the years. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court held that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. Since then, interracial marriages in the United States, as a percent of all marriages, have increased from 3% to 19%. Executive order 11246, signed by Lyndon Johnson fifty-eight years ago, prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin. It was amended two years later to include women. The last half century has seen improvements in race relations and women’s rights. Since the 91st Congress (1969-1971), the number of Blacks in Congress has steadily increased. Currently there are 60 in the House, or 13.8%, and three, or 3%, in the Senate. Parity has not been reached in the Senate, but progress is undeniable. Women make up 28% of the 118th Congress. Eight years ago, they represented 19.4% of the 113th Congress. Nevertheless, silliness prevails. Colleges have incorporated critical race theory into their curriculums; they have segregated dorms and graduation ceremonies. Black judges who do not adhere to progressive orthodoxy are ‘Uncle Tom’s.’ Mary Hamil Gilbert, professor of classical studies at Birmingham-Southern College, was quoted recently in The New York Times on the subject of black actress Adele James who plays the role of Cleopatra in the new Netflix docudrama, “Queen Cleopatra.” As a professional actress, it is a role she is entitled to play. Nevertheless, Ms. Gilbert felt compelled to add that, while Cleopatra was of Greek origin, she was “culturally black,” that “she was part of a culture and history that has known oppression, triumph, exploitation, and survival.” Who and what cultures do those words not describe? My lily-white ancestors came from Britain, where they had been conquered by Vikings and Normans a thousand years ago. As colonialists in North America, they were subject to “taxation without representation.” Does that make me “culturally black?” Of course not.

 

Gender dysphoria is real but not widespread. From time immemorial, it has been a condition felt by young people as they went through puberty. A Pew Research Center poll found that 3.1% of adults younger than 25 feel they are a trans man or trans woman versus just 0.5% of those between the ages of 25 to 29. There have long been exceptions: George Jorgenson traveled to Denmark, in the 1950s, to become Christine Jorgenson. In the 1970s Richard Raskind was reborn as Renée Richards, and in 2015 former Olympian Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner. However, we have reached a level when only the Babylon Bee or Alfred E, Neuman can do the subject justice: Schools, and some in the medical profession, permit surgery to transition to another sex (removal of breasts, uteruses, and penises) at great medical and psychological risk. Students are told that men can give birth and a statue of a naked, bearded man breastfeeding a baby has been placed in a public spot in Denmark. “Person” is substituted for “man” or “woman” regarding the production of sperm or eggs. Biological men are able to compete in women’s sports. And the Defense Department is more interested in pronouns than in military readiness. Interestingly, while the Woke have become more assertive in their adamancy, the same Pew Research Center study found that the number of Americans who believe gender is determined at birth has risen from 54% in 2017 to 60% in 2022. Will the Woke catch up to the people? 

 

Protecting the environment is a legitimate and welcome exercise, yet in a world of climate fanaticism, inmates now run the asylum. Historically, we were fortunate. Our democratic system of government and free-market capitalism allowed living standards to rise for all inhabitants – far beyond the expectations of our parents and grandparents. While the United States represents only 5% of the Earth’s population, we consume 30% of its energy and are responsible for 28% of carbon emissions. And yet, while we consume more energy per capita than did our forefathers, our rivers, shores, lakes, forests, and mountains are more livable than what they knew. Each year, clean energy technology improves, especially in natural gas, but that is not enough for the Woke who forget how we achieved what we did. Like Canute, who claimed to be able to stop the incoming tide, they say they can halt the warming (or the cooling) of the Earth – a planet that has been around for four and a half billion years – which has been covered with hot and humid jungles and, at a different time, with miles of ice, and where continents have shifted hundreds of miles. Yet the Woke claim that a ban on fossil fuels in the United States, which makes up less than 10% of the Earth’s land mass, will prevent seas from rising. At the margin, their efforts may have some small effect, but at what costs? Have they considered the amount of fossil fuels needed to extract cobalt and lithium (mostly sourced from China), and copper and zinc, to make batteries and solar panels? Have they considered the effect offshore wind platforms have on undersea life? Have they considered how higher energy costs will affect the poor in the U.S., and what those costs will mean to developing nations? Should not adaption to changing environmental conditions be part of their plan?

 

Christopher Rufo recently wrote in the Manhattan Institute’s “President’s Letter:” “Left-wing cultural politics is very good for affluent, single, urban professionals, the ‘avocado toast’ class, but when those people mature into the phase of buying a home and raising a family, I think they’re going to realize that those cultural politics actually work against their interests and values.” I hope he is right, and believe he is. With parents fighting back regarding schools, we have begun to see the beginnings of resistance. People are noting the difference between “equity of outcomes” and “equality of opportunity.” Trustees of pension funds in some states are awakening to the age-old maxim that returns on investment supersede political injections of ESG. Residents of high-taxed states – California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey – are experiencing out-migration, while low taxed states like Florida, Texas, and Tennessee are experiencing in-migrations. Missing from woke ideologies have been common sense, reflection, wisdom, respect for the opinions of others, along with simple decency. 

 

On February 3 of this year, I wrote an essay with a similar theme: “Is Sanity Replacing Wokeism?” I was heartened by what I felt were signs of optimism – parents of school age children fighting back; (some) university trustees assuming responsibility, and (some) state legislators cutting taxes. Heartened by today’s increasingly comical version of Wokeism, I remain of the opinion, with the pendulum swinging back toward common sense, that Wokeism is dying.

 

In his 2021 book, Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam, Vivek Ramaswamy wrote: “’Diversity’ has become a term of art, a symbol, one so powerful that the symbol is now more important than the thing it was supposed to represent. Wokeness sacrifices true diversity, diversity of thought, so that skin-deep symbols of diversity like race and gender can thrive.” Churchill was alleged to have once said: “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else.” Wokeness has become mindlessly hubristic, which gives me hope that a more sensible world lies ahead – that the American people will do the right thing – so long as we do not self-destruct in the meantime. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                

 

 

 

 

 

 




[1] Wokeism. noun. Usually disparaging. Promotion of liberal, progressive ideology and policy, as an expression of sensitivity to systemic injustices and prejudices.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, November 21, 2020

"A Cultural Revolution?"

                                                                   Sydney M. Williams

30 Bokum Road – Apartment 314

Essex, CT 06426

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

November 21, 2020

“A Cultural Revolution?”

 

“…the Cultural Revolution’s most enduring legacy in China was…

the destruction of the bonds of organic trust which hold together a society.”

                                                                                                       Xiao Li

                                                                                                       Pseudonym for an academic based in America

                                                                                                       UnHerd, a British news website

                                                                                          (The author’s father was imprisoned and punished 

                                                                                                During China’s Cultural Revolution. He later 

                                                                                                emigrated to the United States).

 

For a democracy to collapse into authoritarianism, what are required is a man or a woman and a movement. In Trump, we have a man but no movement. On the Progressive Left, we have a movement but no one person. To be effective, the movement must have the backing of the media, the academy and a sufficient number of bureaucrats who run government – advantage, the Left. 

 

Trump is criticized by his detractors as a neo-fascist, a would-be dictator, but, apart from his love for America and his call to “clean the swamp,” he has no overriding political philosophy. The Tea Party did not expand during his White House tenure. The Progressive Left calls for an expansionist government that will provide more regulation, a “green new deal,” free college, all of which will mean higher taxes and limit individual freedom. They have on their side mainstream media, the academy and most of the bureaucracy that runs Washington. But they have no one individual around whom they gather.  Some might look at this as an optimistic appraisal – a leader with no real movement and a movement with no one leader – and assume an Alfred E. Neuman stance. 

 

However, there are cultural trends abroad that should worry a believer in a free and open society. In the essay, from which the rubric was drawn, Mr. Xiao wrote about his father and his contemporaries, now living in the United States: “…they can feel a certain febrility in the air which reminded them of the events of half a century ago.” Former President Obama, in a recent speech, prescribed “a combination of regulations and standards within industries to get us back to the point where we at least recognize a common set of facts,” suggesting a need for an Orwellian Ministry of Truth. In a speech on November 12 before the Federalist Society National Lawyers Convention, Justice Samuel Alito warned that “tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools, and in the broader academic community.” Richard Stengel, who joined Joe Biden’s transition team, wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post in October 2019: “All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails.” Whose Truths? Whose lies? Whose guardrails? 

 

Students at Harvard, America’s oldest and best-known university, called on college officials to ban Trump officials from giving talks or holding positions on campus. Like tyrants in dictatorial countries, the students called for the administration to “set up a system of accountability for high-level political appointees and Trump administration consultants before they are invited as fellows or to teach or speak on campus.” The letter went on: “Harvard should stand firm with its stated commitment to a just Harvard and a just world, to free and honest inquiry in the unfettered pursuit of truth” – except when that search uncovers a truth opposed to their narrative.

 

Religious liberty has become a “disfavored right,” so spoke Justice Alito. Social media platforms police conservative ideas; schools expunge history that does not accord with their pre-determined story; colleges promote a cancel culture and encourage safe places for students against “harmful words,” and politicians compartmentalize voters, creating a salad bowl of diversity rather than the melting pot traditionally promised immigrants. These actions have led to identity politics where the narrative of victimization has replaced the concept of individual responsibility. The consequence is an ideology that “seeks to displace all prior traditions and institutions, with,” using Hannah Arendt’s definition of a totalitarian society, “the goal of bringing all aspects of society under the control of that ideology.”

 

When government recommendations become edicts, when enforcement of rules, such as the wearing of masks or keeping family gatherings below a fixed number, relies on neighbors or friends informing on others, we reach a tipping point. One of the most powerful books to be published in the wake of China’s Cultural Revolution was Nien Cheng’s Life and Death in Shanghai. In it, she wrote: “One of the ugliest aspects of life in Communist China during the Mao Zedong era was the Party’s demand that people inform on each other routinely…This practice had a profoundly destructive effect on human relationships…It encouraged secretiveness and hypocrisy.” We have not reached that point in the U.S. However, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her squad, after the recent election, suggested that information should be collected on anyone who might ever had said anything positive about Trump, lest such people scrub their records and pretend they were critical of him all along. To do so, she believes, would be a “public service.” To do so, in my opinion, would put us further down the road to serfdom, to borrow a title from Friedrich Hayek.

 

The United States has never had an aristocracy, a landed gentry or a permanent ruling class. But it has always had exceptional people who have risen to the top of their field – politics, business, finance, the arts, media and the world of sports. Attempts to pull up the ladders that provide opportunity, something we see in inner cities where school competition is denied, should be resisted. The U.S. stands alone, a beacon of freedom based on the rule of law and the rights of individuals. The nation is unique. For generations, it has set standards for other nations.

 

Is there a cultural revolution underway in the U.S.? The evidence suggests there is. It is fascinating to witness how many of us (including myself) have, with the pandemic as an excuse, willingly complied with directives from the state – succumbing to mask-wearing everywhere and staying away from family and friends. Is it enough to plunge us into an authoritarian regime? I think not at this time. Nevertheless, there are those who have exhibited authoritarian tendencies, like Andrew Cuomo of New York and Gary Newsom of California. I worry that a charismatic leader, adored by the media, could emerge. And I know that I would rather encounter an impolite man with a bark than be seduced by the mellifluous voice of a temptress. We do not want a cultural revolution.

Labels: , , , , , ,