Start with Christopher Chantrill.  "Imagine the world if the left had spent the last 160 years teaching the working class and then women and blacks and now Muslims how to wive and thrive in the capitalist economy instead of teaching them how to wreck it."  Perhaps "how to wreck it" is too strong, and yet enabling dysfunction and calling it diversity or authenticity isn't turning out too well.  Take Chicago.  Robert Tracinski suggests the troubles there are self-inflicted, and names names.
If the city is about to get the riots it deserves, the protesters have to admit they have gotten the city government they asked for.

It’s not just that they have voted for politicians from the Democratic Party. It’s that they have uncritically embraced that party’s ideology. As they have suffered under the yoke of a big, intrusive, corrupt, callous, and indifferent government, they have clamored for more of it.
That's going to require getting rid of the ward-heeler politicians.
Chicago’s protesters have a legitimate grievance against their city government. What they don’t yet have is a legitimate solution. That’s going to require breaking the Democratic Party’s monopoly on the city’s politics—and something much more difficult, breaking the big-government left’s monopoly on their own minds.

Chicago has a long history of embracing lefty do-gooders and rabble-rousers who make a lot of noise about how much they care about the poor, but manage to drain billions in taxpayer dollars without making anything better. Yet the people remain in thrall to those political charlatans—they even sent one of them to the White House.

What they need is not just a blind rebellion against the police or against City Hall. What they need is a real rebellion against the paternalistic ideology that treats them as wards or subjects of government, even as it fails them continuously for 50 years.
There's a symbiosis between desperate people who like having a ward-heeler "fighting for them" and a ward-heeler who mau-maus the rest of the polity about the continued parlous condition of his or her constituents.  A ward-heeler cannot call out the constituents for engaging in self-destructive behavior, nor get re-elected in a district in which constituents discover, or re-discover bourgeois habits.  Better to have constituents rendered helpless by years of Democratic policies.
As far as those bourgeois habits, there's a roundup of the social science, peer-reviewed and incomplete, tacked to Newmark's Door.

Imagine honoring your commitments, telling the truth, and exchanging your best efforts for the best efforts of others.

No comments: