Name That Ilk

When participating in another thread, I had a thought that might deserve its own discussion. PROPOSED: We---that is, conservatives---should refuse to use racial terms to describe phenomena that have nothing to do with race.

I began to break my own habit during discussions of #BLM. Despite very earnest attempts, #BLM never could find evidence of racism in even the most egregious police shootings; the premise of the movement was essentially a lie. The uncomfortable reality is that Michael Brown, Alton Sterling, Eric Garner and George Floyd were, like too many black and brown men, involved in criminal activity. It was that---not racism---that brought them into contact with the police.

Why so many black men are, as they say, Involved With The Criminal Justice System is its own issue and one that would be well worth identifying and addressing. But the left, race-obsessed, instead has to come up with ever more convoluted ways to blame crime on racism...but that is only a tiny step away from blaming crime on race.

Luckily, I don't have that problem. As someone who has spent a fair amount of time with police officers all over the country, and thus in intimate contact with criminals and victims (mostly victims), I can confidently attest that the common denominator in crime is not skin color. In Maine, West Virginia, Vermont, Utah...the perpetrators and victims will be white. In Baltimore or Chicago, they'll be black or brown. But in any of these jurisdictions, the majority of police calls for service will come from welfare-dependent communities. Welfare dependency consistently correlates with crime. I, of course, believe this is because the welfare system produces that constellation of factors well-known for increasing individual vulnerability to criminality: fatherless households (any race) bored, under-supervised and aimless youth (any race) reared by adults (any race) shaped by a system that punishes initiative, industry and thrift while rewarding helplessness, mendacity, profligacy and graft.

But the point here is that I try very hard not to refer to "black communities" when what I mean is "welfare-dependent communities."

I know it's tempting to point out that the pro-Mamdani voters were disproportionately white, since progressives themselves might find that fact embarrassing, even revealing. But it perpetuates the progressives' neo-Marxist framing in which every issue is---not always but often---literally black and white.

Mamdani himself isn't white. In progressive terms, however, he is: That is, he was and remains a child of privilege. In this, he is indistinguishable from the others of his ilk, just like Obama, or AOC. The ilk may be disproportionately white, but whiteness isn't what makes it what it is.

What is the alternative? Name that ilk!