Bill Greener: When Ideology Replaces Honest Debate

As an aging conservative, it is increasingly more difficult to participate in serious and civilized conversation, much less debate, over what is right or wrong about the history of our country or what should be done as we move forward. It is safe to say, there is no shortage of influences from our traditional institutions urging me to more quickly admit my ideology is deficient, and only by actively embracing the progressive view on things past and present is there any hope for me to atone for my flawed approach to things. Let me urge my progressive friends to spend a little more time engaged in the sort of reflection they deem appropriate for me.

The “Unholy Trinity” and Ideological Conformity

The dominance of progressives within the Unholy Trinity—academia, traditional media, and the world of entertainment—is so real and entrenched that it is beyond argument in my view. Diversity equates to 175 different groups getting into the same room with zero differences of opinion. Tolerance becomes defined as agreeing with them. Any push back becomes “divisive” and evidence of ignorance and/or morally flawed thinking. However, a quick look at the headlines of the day seemingly would justify a more nuanced approach.

Taxes, Spending, and Economic Reality

The No Kings army, led by aging cat ladies (affluent white female urban liberals), insists on substituting their feelings over mathematical fact. “Make the rich pay their fair share” is the repeated mantra. Just what would be their fair share? The top one percent of earners already pay more than 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top ten percent contribute 70 percent. Right at 50 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes. All this hollow rhetoric comes with a price. Individuals and successful companies are fleeing blue states every day. Seattle, Washington, is witnessing an exodus at an astounding pace. Meanwhile, its socialist mayor essentially says good riddance. How about spending some time thinking about economic realities as well as the concept of fairness? Dare we even consider the notion that spending money we do not have, no matter who gets it, might not be the best idea when the national debt is approaching $40 TRILLION?

Race, Culture, and Difficult Conversations

For a long time, and for good reason, decent Americans have agreed that slavery is a permanent stain and that racism exists today. At the risk of burning my hand on this third rail of politics, can we ask some other questions? First, would it not be strange that if everything that defines what is unique about being a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP) was negative, while just the opposite is true for all other groups and cultures? Might something other than systemic race be involved in having more than half the homicides where the race of the offender is known, committed by 13 percent of the population (African Americans)? Is it okay to worry that 48 percent of Somalian immigrants are recipients of welfare? Is it racist to observe the astounding amount of fraud evidenced by this community? In an apples-to-apples comparison (taking into account income, language barriers, etc.), students of color consistently underperform relative to whites. In no way, shape, or form is there any suggestion on my part that race itself creates any of these outcomes. However, as African American scholar (and true treasure) Thomas Sowell has highlighted, low expectations can indeed contribute to this reality. Could it be that there are some aspects of WASP culture that others would be well served to emulate? Is even asking the question racist? Can we have a discussion without anything other than blaming systemic white racism for a problem is seen as proof of that racism?

Representation, Gerrymandering, and Identity Politics

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court on racial gerrymandering has led to widespread criticism from the Unholy Trinity and progressives in general. The truth is that it has taken a very creative imagination to draw the actual lines intended to result in the election of an African American. We hear the argument that racism is to account for anything other than minorities holding a percentage of seats at least the equivalent of their percentage of a given population. Maybe not.

Proportionate representation is a moving target at best. When the African American female Democrat mayor of Charlotte announced she would be resigning, the white former mayor, also a Democrat, offered to serve the remainder of the outgoing mayor’s term pro bono. The response of the local NAACP? Only another black female would be acceptable. The City Council has 10 Democrats and one Republican, when the Republican share of the vote is a far greater percentage. More than half of those on the Council are black in a city where they constitute barely a third of the population. Maybe some attention to the best qualified versus focusing on the singular matter of race is in order. That person certainly could be an African American female, but that ought not to be a requirement.

COVID, Control, and Public Trust

That look in the mirror, hopefully, might result in progressives asking themselves what their top priority is. Very often, it appears to me as though controlling outcomes is what propels their thinking. This is the case on a multitude of issues beyond the couple addressed in this piece.

Let’s close with this one. Do you really think an honest concern for public health best accounts for the draconian measures imposed during the COVID “pandemic”? It is fair to say that during the early days of the scare, we knew very little, and erring on the side of caution was the prudent thing to do. However, pretty quickly, we had strong data indicating it was pure fiction to argue “we are all in this together,” and shutting everything down made any sense at all. Just consider these two numbers. Between 80 and 90 percent of those who died were at least 65. 94 percent of death certificates included at least one additional condition or contributing factor. Do we think all of this had more to do with who would control things than anything to do with public health?

Common sense: It would seem time for progressives to at least consider their loud, condescending, and self-righteous views on a variety of matters has more to do with their political agenda than actual facts.