My Two Common Sense
A phrase tossed about by the recently canonized presidential candidate Kamala Harris is as frightening as its achievement is untenable.
Harris claims that it’s her desire to use the sledgehammer of government to ultimately create equality of outcome for everyone.
That particular stance is the actual preferred endgame for those of the liberal persuasion. It’s no longer good enough to legislate equality of opportunity — removing the barriers of discrimination against different races. It has become now that everyone deserves everything they ever wanted, and if they cannot get it themselves, then the nannies in D.C. will provide.
Several problems present themselves with that scenario. For instance, there are certain differences between the sexes that regardless of intent cannot be bridged. Sure, women and men can perform the same actions, but frankly, not together; look at the boxing fiasco in the Olympic games. Genetically verified males are pounding the snot out of women and winning medals.
That’s just one of the myriad physical differences. Separately, women could win against women, but this is not equality of outcome.
Another problem with the idea is what will be considered the baseline. Who in the government will decide what will be the equal everyone gets?
More importantly, will that equality include those in the ruling class, the elites that buzz around in the halls of government, that have become millionaires while working at a job that doesn’t pay millionaire-level wages.
Will it mean that everyone gets personal security, several thousand square foot homes and beaucoup bucks in the bank? If it does, then where is that coming from? Who’s generating the income for that? Who’s paying to build all the homes necessary for that?
Will there be a limit on anything? With people flowing over the border like water from a tap, does that mean they automatically get the gold star concierge service? Or what about the opposites? Will everyone be subject to home invasions? Thefts? What is and who decides the definitions?
Obviously that answer is the government, and that brings us to the very last problem. It is not now, nor has it ever been, the responsibility of the federal, or for that matter the state, government to provide whatever is lacking for anyone with a need.
Taking the phrase in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution — promote the general welfare — to mean ensure is a misreading of our basis of government. The folks in Washington, D.C., are just there to keep us safe while we pursue our dreams. That means all of us, by the way.
It doesn’t give them license to create disparity and division and then create programs and policy to fix them. In fact, it doesn’t give them the power to do much at all, certainly not to create an equality of outcome.
Governments do not create anything, and because of this, can only provide some things to some people at the expense of others. That means, to build the disenfranchised up, it must tear the franchised down.
And you can bet your sweet bippy that these elite leaders and what they enjoy won’t be part of that equation.
Tony Farkas is editor of the Trinity County News-Standard and the San Jacinto News-Times. He can be reached at [email protected].
Comment
Comments