NBC News
National Review
Obviously very different views on it
Right, he doesn't "come across" that way in much the same way that David Duke was the nice Klansman who didn't scream the N-bomb every two words like his predecessors did. He smiled, was good looking, soft-spoken, and didn't sound illiterate. But like Duke's the agenda Kendi pitches is terrible.
I've posted a link to it before, but did you really read what Kendi wrote about this Department? It's an overthrow of the constitutional order. It trumps every legitimate level of government and answers to nobody. Not sure how that isn't totalitarian and pretty dangerous. If it's not, then we owe Stalin an apology.
I understand that, but sometimes the hyperbole is so wild that it loses its value. And what I find remarkable is that the medieval European system actually has far more in common with socialist nations than it does with the a American system.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think we need to look at whether the fundamental capitalist system is the cause (as the left would claim) or that government policies are. I'd argue that most of what's pushing us in the wrong direction is the latter. We largely don't teach marketable skills in public schools because we think most should go to college. We encourage colleges and universities to charge a lot for tuition and encourage debt as the means to finance it. That puts our kids in a very big bind from the start. Then we import cheap labor. Well, that's not a bad economic system. It's bad government policy.
I honestly don't understand the focus on income inequality. I used to oppose gay marriage. Even if I still personally disapprove of it, I don't mind it from a policy standpoint. Why? Because after being asked how a gay couple marrying hurts me, it occurred to me that I don't have an answer. Well, likewise, I don't have an answer for how Jeff Bezos making an extra billion dollars next year hurts me so long as he doesn't steal or cheat me for it, and he doesn't. He makes money by selling items online that I can choose to buy or not buy. It isn't even stuff like food that I have to buy. It's largely nonessential stuff that I could buy somewhere else or not buy at all. And of course, he makes money off of people wanting to buy his stock, which I can choose to buy or not to buy. Can we point to sleazy tax abatements for guys like Bezos to attract his business? Yes, but again that's not the economic system. It's bad government policy.
What can hurt me? Lack of available jobs hurts (not me personally but others like me), and for all the complaints I've had for some things wealthy people do, every job I've ever had came from and because of a rich guy. It's very hard to hurt him without hurting job-seekers. Poor education options for my kid hurts. High taxes hurt. High inflation massively hurts. Making my rent go up $200 per month because we're trashing our currency hurts. I worry about stuff like that more than I worry about Jeff Bezos having more money. None of that is my business or concern.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about the poor. We should, but I don't see a reason to care how much the rich have.
The problem isn't that you say Bill Gates had an advantage. He did. The problem is that you presume that it's a racial advantage when it's actually having a rich and/or well-connected daddy privilege, and that's something that has always existed and will always exist in pretty much every culture and economic system.
You brought up Trump as an example of someone whose success is largely the product of his dad having money, and I mostly agree. However, I struggle to visualize a system in which that sort of thing isn't present. Obviously, if your dad is on the politburo and you're in a communist country, it's very good to be you. If your dad or good friend is a powerful bureaucrat in a social democratic country (like in Western Europe), it's pretty good to be you. Shall we talk about Hunter Biden? He's basically my oldest sister, but he's rich and she's broke. Think the fact that his dad is a powerful government official and my sister's dad isn't might have something to do with that?
Here's what I think you and other capitalism critics lose sight of. In America, not having rich or connected friends or relatives is a disadvantage, but as economies get more government-oriented, the disadvantage tends to get stronger, not weaker. Furthermore, it gets harder to overcome.
They probably didn't have the same opportunity, but is it because the kid was black or because his dad didn't quite have the money? If you think it's racial, then why are there tens of millions of white kids in the United States for whom going to a school like that was never even close to being on the menu?
I'm not so sure. There are 12 black billionaires in the world. Seven are from the United States - because our system makes that more possible than any other.
Probably for the same reason there haven't been many sons of white garbage collectors who became CEOs. The education and connections are rarely there, so there haven't been many qualified applicants.
Either way, looking at things like big CEOs reeks of tokenism. That's a tiny number of people. Even if every one of them was black, it would be pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I'm more concerned with who's able to enter the middle and upper middle classes than who can hold a tiny number of big jobs.
It's the exception, but it's not a particularly rare exception. But why is it the exception? That's the question. Is it really because it's unreasonably difficult to do it or truly a lack of opportunity? It's not hard to find kids of any color whose opportunities don't match Bill Gates's. He has few peers. But more kids are going to college than ever before. The opportunities to move up generally are there. Have we taught them to value and exploit those opportunities? Perhaps not.
But is breaking down everyone's supposed racial biases really the most productive place to focus? Yes, a guy named Keyshawn who's qualified for a professional job shouldn't get screwed over because of his name. However, I'm a lot more concerned about how few Keyshawns ever become qualified for a professional job. It's a much, much bigger problem.
I don't use the term totalitarian lightly, and frankly you know better than to think I would. I read an objective policy position written by the leading advocate of this ideology. I call it that because it is under any reasonable definition of the term. If it's not, then I'm not sure what would be.
Last edited:
