Ferguson and the Dark Side of Social Justice
In my previous article on Ferguson, I wrote that a “serious problem with Social Justice is the potential for harm because, unlike justice, it is not connected to reality. It may line up with reality sometimes, but at other times it won’t and when that happens bad things can occur.” This has sadly been the case in Ferguson.
From the very beginning, supporters of Social Justice assumed the worst. They cast the shooting of Brown into a political framework of white racism and black victims. In doing so, they increased tensions and built up anger; anger that exploded into violence when the facts did not correspond to mythology that they had created, and that they had been encouraging.
Of course, after the riots that they helped inspire left parts of Ferguson in ruins, many will say all the correct platitudes about not wanting violence. These, however, will quickly be followed up by claims that we should not let a violent few, or I might add the facts, get in the way of the bigger issue of systemic racism in our culture.
Yet the fact remains that all those who prejudged this, who were prejudice against the police officer, and who fanned the anger and resentment, bear a moral responsibility for the results of that anger that was released on Ferguson.
Again this highlights a key difference between Justice and Social Justice. Justice is grounded in objective truth, while Social Justice focuses on subjective feelings, feelings that are often contrary to reality, as they were in this case. Face it! If you attack someone who has a gun, much less a police officer, and then charge at them as Michael Brown did, you are very likely to be killed. The facts are clear that the police officer acted in self-defense and thus the Grand Jury had no legitimate choice other than to reach the conclusion they did. To do otherwise would have been a miscarriage of Justice.
So when President Obama said that the anger of those displeased with the results was “understandable” he raised the question of in what way was it understandable? It certainly was not understandable in the sense that there was any legitimate criticism of the Grand Jury’s conclusion. So just how was their anger understandable? The only way is if you ignore the law, ignore the facts, or both.
This is the dark side of Social Justice as revealed in Ferguson. But the problem goes well beyond the destruction of Ferguson. It sows the seeds of future unrest. While advocates of Social Justice speak of healing, because it is not based on reality, Social Justice only exacerbates the problem and creates even more division. It makes things worse, not better.
Supporters of Social Justice constantly say we need a frank discussion on such issues. Yet, because its aims and goals are not grounded in truth, Social Justice acts as a barrier that hinders such discussions. To point to the truth often results in angry charges of racism aimed at shutting down any who would disagree. The results of the Social Justice mindset can be seen in that now that the facts are known, supporters want to move quickly past the facts so to get back to their agenda.
Ed Stetzer, writing in Christianity Today following the Grand Jury’s decision wrote, “White evangelicals must listen because there is a context to this tragedy, we must listen to feel the pain behind the problem and finally we listen so that we might acknowledge that injustice really exists.” There is a context. It is a context built up by well-meaning advocates of Social Justice, and by not so well-meaning race hustlers. It is a context that focuses on racism; one that divides and isolates communities; one encourages hatred, fans anger and builds resentment.
It is a testimony to the lack of clear thinking on this issue that here I am obliged to make the otherwise obvious statement that of course I believe there are racists in this country. I simply reject that it plays anywhere near the role that advocates of Social Justice or the race hustlers claim.
My view is not just based on my own experience, as I have encountered very few racists, nor the false claims of racism such as at Ferguson. It is also based on the fact that those who make such claims frequently have to resort to talking about hidden and subconscious racism. The simple fact is that Occam’s razor works very well in eliminating these tortured and complex rationalizations that seek to find racism everywhere, even where it does not exist.
This is not to say that everything is well and good and that we can move on. There are serious and complex problems here. There is the breakdown of the family, failing schools, lack of economic opportunity, and crime, just to name a few. But the misplaced focus on Social Justice in general and race in particular hinders, not helps in addressing such problems. In fact even honestly talking about these can get you labeled a racist, as Rudy Giuliani recently discovered when he cited some statistics concerning black on black crime.
If we really want to prevent future Fergusons we need to focus on Truth, Justice, and individuals, not on groups, Social Justice and agendas. Only then can we address the actual problems, rather than perceived grievances. A lot will have to change and it will take a lot of time and effort, but at least we would be working on the actual problems and going in the right direction.-
Interview with Doc Thompson on the Morning Blaze
Here is the interview from the Morning Blaze:
https://podcast.energion.co/2014/10/elgin-hushbeck-interviewed-the-blaze/
The Pope, Inequality and Soical Evil
A recent article on the Huffington Post, commented on a tweet by the Pope (in and of itself an interesting concept) that “Inequality is the root of social evil.” Of course this is one of the problems with twitter, pithy it may be, but clear it is not. Just what does he mean by “Inequality” and just what is a “social evil.” These are left unexplained, and in such cases the reader is left to fill in the meaning of these terms as they see fit.
Inequality is probably economic inequality, but given the vast array of inequalities among people it need not be. People are individuals, and thus by definition not equal. We are not all equal in height, age, experience, background, abilities. In fact, differences between people abound, and that is what makes us each unique. Still I suspect that the Pope is referring to economic inequality.
If economic inequality is the root of social evil, then why is economic inequality not a major concern of the Bible? Sure, the Bible says we are to be concerned for the poor and disadvantaged, but that is just not the same thing as being concerned with economic inequality. Economic inequality is a political agenda, not a biblical concern.
More problematic is what he means by the term “social evil.” In my book, What is Wrong with Social Justice, I show that if you have to put a modifier in front of Justice, you no longer have Justice. The same holds true here. If you have to put a modifier on evil, you no longer have evil.
So what does the Pope mean by social evil? It cannot be economic inequality itself. If that were the case, you would end up with economic inequality is the cause of economic inequality, which is nonsensical. So what is a social evil? Poverty? This would be a good candidate, but inequality hardly causes it. Poverty is where humanity started, and inequality occurs as some people escape poverty.
Crime might also be considered a social evil, but inequality does not cause this, nor does poverty cause it. While those on the left often make this claim, it is not backed up by the evidence. For example, the Great Depression, which saw a marked increase in poverty also had a marked decrease in crime. The bottom line is that crime is a moral problem, not an economic problem.
So ultimately, it is not clear what the Pope means by social evil, but this should not be that surprising, as his earlier statements condemning “unfettered capitalism” were equally confused. Just what is “unfettered capitalism?” Again if you have to add a modifier, like Social Justice is not Justice, unfettered Capitalism is not Capitalism.
The core problem with the Pope’s statement is that he sees inequality as a problem. It is not, it is a natural and necessary part of the solution. Even a cursory examination of history will show that poverty is the normal state for humanity. Much, but not all, of human history has been the struggle of people to provide a better life for themselves.
In this struggle out of poverty, nothing has improved the standard of living of more people than has capitalism. This improvement has not only provided wealth, it has improved nearly every aspect of life. In light of this, the Pope’s criticism of inequality is truly misplaced. Inequality is going to happen as some people successfully escape poverty. The only way to avoid inequality, is to come up with a system that would allow everyone to rise out of poverty simultaneously. But, while there have been many proposals, all have been dismal failures. Not only have they failed to improve people’s lives, as I point out in What is Wrong with Social Justice, those governments that focus on Social Justice, actually end up with greater economic inequality, not less.
Attacks on inequality, and particularly those that attack capitalism, such as the recent protests on Wall Street, are misguided. They attack the very thing that has been most effective in raising people out of poverty and improving their lives. Rather than focus on economic inequality, it would be much more productive to focus on economic mobility, the ability for those who are poor to work their way up out of poverty. It is not inequality, but a lack of economic mobility that oppresses people and keeps them in poverty. That would be a much better subject for the Pope’s tweets.
Social Justice and Illegal Immigration
Social Justice is a very broad term and covers a wide range of issues and topics. In my book, What is Wrong with Social Justice, I primarily focused on economic issues, or so-called Economic Justice. Here I want to expand on an area I only briefly mention: Illegal immigration, or as it is sometimes called Immigrant Justice, or Immigration Justice.
One of the many problems of Social Justice is the way it conflates things, and it is no different here. While speaking of Immigrant Justice, the majority of the effort is focused primarily on those who are here illegally. Yet many supporters of Immigration Justice do not even accept the concept of illegal immigration. In fact for some, there is not even a concept of immigration. They call on us to “be the people who break down the arbitrary barriers that divide us from them.”
It is more than just a source of confusion, where one side is focused on illegal immigration, and the other sees all immigration as the same. It feeds into another error with so much of Social Justice. Supporters do not believe in the arbitrary barriers called borders because “We are one, and love and hope will guide us.” This might sound nice, and may even be a worthy goal, but as is so often the case, supporters of Immigrant Justice often not only disregard their opponents’ desire for law & order and national sovereignty, they instead cast them into the worse possible light. Efforts to control illegal immigration are, in their eyes, “encouraging hatred and bigotry.”
However desirable the goal of one world where people are able to move about freely in peace and harmony might be, the simple fact is that we are not there yet. It probably will not be for quite some time. While supporters focus solely on those here illegally, pointing to how much better their lives would be if they could stay, that is not the entire picture. The simple fact is that there is a great deal of harm being done.
A country’s first duty is to its citizens, and illegal immigration negatively impacts US citizens in several ways. First let me be clear: It is not all negative. Illegal immigration has some positives as well as negatives. For example, by providing a cheap source of labor they keep prices down (a positive), but they also keep wages down and take jobs that otherwise could go to US Citizens.
Some argue that US Citizens will not do these jobs, but that is hardly true. Perhaps they will not do them at the wages offered. But that is an argument that the wages should go up. At best it would be an argument for increased legal immigration, or perhaps a guest worker program in the case of seasonal work.
There is also the cost to the taxpayer. Again it is true that illegal immigrants pay taxes, but they get some benefits as well. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, when you take the taxes they pay in and subtract the total benefits and serviced received you “have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.”
Another factor is crime. Again, let me be clear most people here illegally, except for their immigration status, are law abiding. Yet the cover and protection given to illegal immigration also provides cover for illegals who are criminals. In addition criminal elements play a strong role in the process of illegal immigration. According to the Justice Department, the majority of violent crimes and drugs come from gangs, most of whose members are here illegally.
The border has become so dangerous that the government has posted signs in some places warning that travel is not recommend because of the proximity to the border.
Then there is the harm to the illegal immigrants themselves. The openness of the border and our lax enforcement of immigration laws encourage people to try and cross the border. But this frequently involves placing oneself into the hands of criminals, and while often they just smuggle their human cargo across the border, this is not always the case. Thus in 2010, a drug gang captured people and forced them to work for the gang. Seventy-two refused and were executed. Others are held for ransom once they reach the US, and others are forced into sex trafficking. Even without the criminal element, crossing the desert on the southern border is dangerous, and hundreds die each year in the attempt, and those are only the ones whose bodies were found. Even once here illegal immigrants are largely outside of the normal protections and much more subject to exploitation and abuse.
Finally there is one more group harmed by illegal immigration: those who are trying to immigrate here legally. To be against illegal immigration is not to be against all immigration. But when the country is straining under the burden of illegal immigration it is difficult to get any movement on legal immigration.
Now supporters of illegal immigration will agree with part of this critique, particularly the part concerning the hardships faced by illegal Immigrants. This is why they want all borders abolished. Unfortunately, that is politically impossible, and even if it did happen would put such a burden on an already exploding federal budget as to bring about fiscal collapse. Simply refusing to enforce the law encourages a breakdown of the law; after all if you can just ignore immigration law, why not just ignore other laws? It also perpetuates the current system with all its problems. Allowing all of this harm, while holding out for the impossible, is not compassion. Neither is Immigrant Justice, Justice for Immigrants.
Interivews for What is Wrong with Social Justice
I am doing a lot of interviews these days for my new book, What Is Wrong With Social Justice be sure to check out my Interviews page for upcoming interviews
