Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why the Left Needs an Underclass
International news reports that the Muslim immigrant population in Europe has clearly become the continent’s outcasts. I believe this development is due in part to the violence and isolation of certain Muslims; it is also due to the left’s need for an underclass. As I thought about the nature of an underclass, however, I realized that many on the left demand an underclass in our own country.
Before the Civil War and to some degree afterward, the African-American population was America’s underclass. Once slavery was abolished, and even before in many cases, blacks as a group began to find their way, becoming literate, educated, and finding work. By the 1950s the group was emerging out of their role as an underclass and joining the middle class. But the political class of the left was not happy about their success.
The left decided it needed to “help” our black population. Without going into the details of welfare, US policy essentially created an underclass. Rather than celebrate and publicize the accomplishments of our black citizens, the left was committed to create the illusion of a helpless, hopeless class of people: we were losing our underclass with the progress of blacks, and a new underclass needed to be created.
Unfortunately, this effort to “lift up” African Americans has hurt them overall. Today, most black families are one-parent families without a father present. Many blacks have been convinced by leftist propaganda (with the help of the media) that they deserve to be helped, that they are entitled to assistance from the “white man,” and they continue to embrace this lie. Fortunately, many other black Americans have seen through this propaganda and have become successful citizens who have families, are church-going, and who have realized personal and financial freedom. Yet the left, which is determined to maintain an underclass, continues to promote the lie of their inferiority.
Why would they do such a thing? It’s hard to be certain, but I propose a few reasons. First, the political left needs to recruit more people to support their agenda; the black population had a history of deep oppression, the left leadership knew it, and capitalized on that history. But they also needed to convince the citizen population that portraying the country’s blacks as victims who need to be helped by the left is an admirable pursuit. Today, the leadership plays on the emotions of the population, calling for sympathetic action toward blacks. It suggests that accomplished, compassionate people should feel guilty for their own success and feel they owe it to others who are not so successful to “do something.” The leadership convinces them that feeling guilt is the same as doing something, that they can show their generosity by shaking their heads sadly at the very people whom they have hobbled, instead of simply freeing them from their contrived restraints. They choose to feel bad for folks who have less than they do and treat them as if they are less.
By creating an underclass and “trying to help them,” the left can feel much better about themselves: they are the benefactors, the heroes for those who are suffering. It never occurs to the person on the left that he or she is perpetuating the illusion of the underclass, and in fact works to reinforce it.
Another reason to maintain an underclass arises from the arrogance of the left: they have the solution for those who suffer from the illusion the Left has created. Only their solutions can work; they assume that black Americans cannot find their way forward with their own determination and hard work. And the left is ready to help them. But their “help” further cripples their recipients and erodes their faith in themselves.
Finally, someone or something must be blamed for this atrocious situation. An “other” must be conjured up, an entity that is wholly responsible for the injustices that the blacks are subject to. If it’s not the left that is hurting them, it must be the United States, particular the political right. In a bizarre way, the left has accused the US culture and government of harming blacks, yet ironically the Left has manipulated US law to debilitate blacks further. One only needs to look at entitlement programs: the very programs that are supposed to help blacks have further injured them. Even though the left has demanded those programs, the government takes the rap for hurting black Americans.
To the chagrin of the left, blacks are slowly beginning to find their way in society. The black unemployment rate at the end of February was 6.8%; before this month, the lowest was 7.4% in 2000. There are many examples of their progress. But the left may be nervous about whether blacks will continue to embrace their role as the underclass and continue to support the left leadership by voting for them; I suggest the Left is planning for the future.
As a result, the left is fighting for increased immigration, for illegal and legal immigrants. For now, they are championing illegal immigrants, those who are covered by DACA and even those who are not, including criminals. Since I believe the majority blacks in our country will eventually see through the lies of the left, it would make sense for the left to identify a new underclass, one that will see the left leadership as its saviors, and that will allow itself to be pitied by their fellow citizens on the left. Since the voters on the left have already been indoctrinated to the black underclass, including a new group should be easy.
Don’t you agree?
Published in Culture
BTW—that passage from the letter of James is a favorite of mine. It informs my work as a chaplain. But —as I frequently have cause to tell my students—there are reasonable limits there, too. I can’t be the chaplain to the whole world. I can’t be “Here If You Need Me” for everyone. Heck, I can’t even manage it all the time for my own family, my own people. Let alone everybody.
I am often questioning why this immigration is suddenly being not only proposed, but proposed in such a way that no “humane, cultured, educated or caring person” dare refute the need to allow for the continual acceptance of ever more immigrants.
One of the dirty little secrets of Obama’s Presidency was his uniting with Ahnold Schwarzennegger & deporting some half million to three quarters of a million people. No one knew about it. Or if they did, no progressives anywhere marched in any streets over it. Not even here in Cal where the most immigrants were so suddenly deported.
So how is it that people inside the US, and in places across Europe are being led into making the acceptance of immigrants some kind of new religion?
Last year, in looking through various websites regarding information about falling fertility rates, I encountered a group of smug high ranking officials who sat in their chic casual but dressy codes discussing the future. Already they know that in 12 to 15 years, most nations in Europe will have had their populations flipped. The Christians of white, Western civilization background will be vastly outnumbered by the Muslims. This will occur through two situations: One – that refugees from Africa will continue to make their way north. And Two, once in their new homelands, their birthrates are much higher.
Some areas of Europe now have only a birth rate of 1.1 – while Muslims who emigrate have 3 to 5 children. There was no talk of assimilation – the people with the greater numbers will be ruling. The week I listened to this video happened to be the same week that I heard that the crucifix was now being banned in classrooms in Germany.
We can expect such a population flip here as well. A really enjoyable fake quote from Chuck Schumer went something like “So since we can’t get people here to vote for us, we will import ’em.” Donald Trump ended the DACA debate, at least for now, by letting the opposition know that he’ll allow for DACA persons to remain, provided that they then undertake steps to become citizens, & provided that they are not given the vote for 12 years from now.
Dems refused the gift Trump handed them. This is something most immigrants want badly – to no longer fear deportation. They’re not up in arms over how their ability to vote will be delayed – as mostly they think it’s enough if their children will vote. But Dem leaders turned Trump’s gift down. We all know why they did so.
People from south of the border have not been expected to learn English for at least some ten years now. Cal employers inside hospitals, clinics and nursing homes never enforce the laws on the books stating all employees who interact with patients must speak English well enough to communicate. Cal schools won’t hire English speaking teachers, but teachers whose grasp of even the native Spanish is questionable!
@katebraestrup – to be honest one of the limits to possibility is me – who I am – if I was perfect I’d do a lot more. Another way to look at it is as a matter of Dharma, which can be translated as ‘duty’ – we all have multiple duties – to ourselves, to others, to different people and groups – which often are in conflict. It’s a matter of finding a balance where possible.
@josepheagar – we’ll there’s this.
CarolJoy—interesting! But in the U.S. we have what I think is a big advantage. Though I agree that immigration should, above all, happen in accordance with the laws as passed by a government that purports to represent the (American) people, the people coming across our border from the south are far more likely to be Christian than anything else. This is an advantage for them, in that it gives them both a bit of cultural commonality and access to non-governmental entities (churches) to assist them in navigating the American way. It is an advantage for Americans in that the newcomers share some features of a common moral language (“What would Jesus do” is a bumper sticker that would make sense to most Mexicans even if it had to be translated into Spanish first) and, of course, Central and South American Catholicism does not have a substantial faction advocating violent struggle against the United States and Western Civ.
So I think the immigration problems in Europe and the U.S. are related but distinct, with Europe’s representing a potentially existential, as well as practically intractable calamity.
I agree. This is one of many reasons to suspect ulterior motives.
Yes. And finding the balance requires, by definition, realism and a willingness not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Leaders of countries or continents are supposed to make policy based in reality. This includes the reality of human frailty and limitation.
So any rational person contemplating the sheer demographics of the 2015 migrant pool could spot the obvious frailties and limitations. He could predict increases in crime, disorder, disease and therefore distress for the citizens of Europe. That same rational person would know that patience, generosity, discomfort-and- risk-tolerance, self-sacrifice and other required characteristics are unevenly distributed throughout even the most progressive population and represent finite rather than inexhaustible resources.
Clever, educated people, armed with the very best in settled science, might be absolutely sure that it is possible for Europe to take in as many migrants as are able and eager to come (billions) without damaging the evolved systems that have made Europe an astonishingly free, rich and productive culture, a good place to live and an attractive place to migrate to.
Nonetheless if a substantial majority of European people do not believe this and are convinced instead that mass immigration will prove damaging to their short and longterm interests as Europeans, the cognoscenti do not have the right (let alone the duty) to trick, shame, coerce or force them to accept it. The leaders are the servants of the people who elected them; they are not saints sent to save the unfortunate of the world or to rescue Europe from its history.
However, the “leaders” positioned inside the EU are people who often were rejected at the polls of whatever country where they originated. So if Smarmy Politician X ran for Prime Minister in Britain and lost, he or she could very well be appointed to head some important decision making council inside the EU. This is one reason that people in Great Britain wanted out.
John Podesta, whose friend and political icon Hillary was rejected in Nov 2016, now sits inside a high council inside the United Nations. That august body of power mongers has already crafted legislation that dictates that all nations have an obligation to take in any and all who wish to emigrate to another nation. Like you mention, this is a matter of billions of people. But the UN is determined that all nations give up their sovereignty in order to “aid the plight” of refugees and job seekers.
Yes—I didn’t even get to the unelected Smarmy Know-It-All Politicians, of which there should be precisely zero in a free society. “Government by the consent of the governed” is the only moral and rational formula; everything else is illegitimate and extremely ill-advised.
You can’t make this up.
It’s a democracy. I don’t know why it’s assumed that the re-elected (albeit with lower vote share) Merkel doesn’t reflect public opinion while AfD (12% vote share) does.
Fwiw:
http://www.dw.com/en/new-study-shows-consistent-german-public-opinion-on-refugees/a-38823623
Germany is a democracy. I don’t know why it’s assumed that the re-elected (albeit with lower vote share) Merkel doesn’t reflect public opinion while AfD (12% vote share) does.
Fwiw:
http://www.dw.com/en/new-study-shows-consistent-german-public-opinion-on-refugees/a-38823623
Super. 37 percent are confident that Germany can cope with the challenges. That is good news.
I have a question about the methodology: do they poll all Germans, including recent immigrants, or do they selectively poll native-born Germans? Also, how anonymous is the polling? Do Germans who are asked questions about their view of migration feel comfortable expressing negative views? There is evidence that, for example, there were people who planned to vote for Trump who did not say so to pollsters. And I know that when I’ve participated in polls, my answers —constrained as they generally are by the choices on offer—are often reactions to what I think the pollster’s angle is.
I’m not trying to dismiss the poll cited in your link, just musing about how opinion polls work.
It’s a data point, along with vote share. I’m sure there are reasons to believe both or either or neither. Peace.
I think Merkel does represent public opinion. I think her characterization of 2015 as a moment when Germans were given a chance to prove that they weren’t the Germans of 1938; they could at last transcend their dreadful history by helping rather than creating terrified refugees. And let’s hope the optimists are right, and this situation will soon begin to resolve itself into American-style peaceful coexistence. Let’s hope European muslims, new and old, Shia and Sunni, Iraqi and Iranian, Afghani and Pakistani and Somali and Sudanese all begin to work harmoniously, together and with the native-born Europeans to develop a new, gentler version of Islam that doesn’t involve terrorism, or gay bashing, Jew bashing, forced marriages, clitoridectomies, killing people who insult Mohammad, polygamy and all around Sharia. Maybe the secularizing effect of European culture that appears to have drained most of the oomph out of Christianity will do the same for Islam? Maybe we can keep Rumi and beautiful dark eyes and ditch the honor killings?
Seriously, that would be a fine thing. I will be honestly happy if I am wrong about this, and the pessimists whose arguments sound so much more plausible to me right now are proven wholly incorrect. For that matter, I would guess that Murray himself would be pleased in that case, because it will mean that Europe isn’t committing suicide after all, and he and his beloved can continue to live in safety at home in England.
I’d feel a whole lot better about the prospects for a good outcome if only those on the other side weren’t quite so eager to avoid an honest discussion or so quick to suppress or explain away inconvenient facts or demonize honest opposition.
Hey—-if Europe is totally fine in 25 years, I owe you a beer. (Of course, we’ll be kind of old. )
One part of the article stood out to me:
This is by far the biggest practical problem of European immigration. The labor markets in European countries are far too rigid to absorb large influxes of immigrants. It’s a human tragedy when it happens. Europeans need to understand that their governing models, especially where labor and product markets are concerned, impose practical limits on things like immigration.
I know Continental types like to dismiss this as “Anglo-Saxon capitalism”, but I think there’s something to the idea that the best way to keep the peace between the different parts of your demos is to have free, unfettered trade between them.