[Note: This post is intended for a liberal audience, of the variety that are inclined to ask DagnyTateleh to explain her recent conversion to conservative sensibilities after a long young adulthood of liberal stances. Conservatism versus liberalism is often seen as a battle between the heart and the mind, or the feeling versus the thinking. Liberalism or, more accurately, progressivism, says that to base one’s adopted philosophies primarily upon logic is to dismiss the heart. The thought is understandable, given the unfortunate tendency of several thoughtful conservatives to frame their arguments in toxic and callous tones, complete with name-calling and condescending dismissal of those who challenge them. I have found that the heart and mind may be reconciled, and to embrace perceived “anti-social” statutes is not to turn one’s back on humanity.]
My liberal tendencies as a younger woman stemmed from real concern for others, empathy for the grimacing beggar and the little black child whose face fell when the white ones called him “nigger.”
What is better - condescension or respect? In truth, “tolerance doctrines” are as degrading to perceived minorities/disenfranchised groups as they are to the perceived powerhouses (snidely referred to as WASPs or Dead-White-European-Males). Even in my most liberal state, working alongside a person of African ancestry found me with nagging queries that I wouldn’t dare voice – “are you here because you’re truly competent, or because you’re moderately competent and black?” Many of these coworkers were graduates of a tier-4 school known for its stringent affirmative action policies and “party” reputation – the white coworkers consisted both of graduates from the same college as well as more prestigious schools, but in any case it was a certainty that affirmative action had gotten them neither college acceptances nor jobs. I have no comment on the work ethic of black people as a whole when compared to white people; within this group there were ultimately some black workers who easily were among the best of our employees and some who were not fit to sweep the floor. In knowing that they were all subject to the same quota policies, every tactical or grammatical error on the part of any of black worker, competent or not, sparked a scrutiny that was not always warranted. I realized that a mandatory government “equalizer” of this sort serves to exacerbate issues of tension and distrust between races. In an economically and socially free market, the only question of who to hire is to staff any enterprise with the best people possible (as it is in the economic interest of a capitalist to do so) – this may result in less racial diversity in any given workplace, but the minorities who find such positions are free of the assumption that they are where they are as token position fillers and nothing more.
The temptation to act as an advocate for minority groups of which one is not a member sometimes stems from a “hero” complex – in this situation, the advocate acts on the presumption that said minority group needs to be “parented”, as if it were an inept child who could not be trusted to speak for himself – while publicly proclaiming its equality and ability to groups who do not require such a defender. The recent phenomenon of coddled children whose parents don’t trust them to sit through a job interview by themselves comes to mind -(http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2007-04-23-helicopter-parents-usat_N.htm).
This endeavor and its intention are ignoble.
Alternately, only in a society where every person is expected to make full use of their mental gifts and resources, can a person’s achievements be lauded fully and truly as just that: theirs.
