An Investment in Failure

[Tigermike 4,084]

August 21, 2007

An Investment in Failure

By Thomas Sowell

It is not just in Iraq that the political left has an investment in failure. Domestically as well as internationally, the left has long had a vested interest in poverty and social malaise.

The old advertising slogan, "Progress is our most important product," has never applied to the left. Whether it is successful black schools in the United States or Third World countries where millions of people have been rising out of poverty in recent years, the left has shown little interest.

Progress in general seems to hold little interest for people who call themselves "progressives." What arouses them are denunciations of social failures and accusations of wrong-doing.

One wonders what they would do in heaven.

We are in no danger of producing heaven on earth but there have been some remarkable developments in some Third World countries within the past generation that have allowed many very poor people to rise to a standard of living that was never within their reach before.

The August 18th issue of the distinguished British magazine "The Economist" reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens.

Some of the economic policies that have led to these results are discussed in "The Economist" but it is doubtful that members of the political left will stampede there to find out what those policies were.

They have shown no such interest in how tens of millions of people in China and tens of millions of people in India have risen out of poverty within the past generation.

Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the left's denunciations of society.

When the poor stop being poor, they lose the attention of the left. What actions on the part of the poor, or what changes in the economy, have led to drastic reductions in poverty seldom arouse much curiosity, much less celebration.

This is not a new development in our times. Back in the 19th century, when Karl Marx presented his vision of the impoverished working class rising to attack and destroy capitalism, he was disappointed when the workers grew less revolutionary over time, as their standards of living improved.

At one point, Marx wrote to his disciples: "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing."

Think about that. Millions of human beings mattered to him only in so far as they could serve as cannon fodder in his jihad against the existing society.

If they refused to be pawns in his ideological game, then they were "nothing."

No one on the left would say such things so plainly today, even to themselves. But their actions speak louder than words.

Blacks are to the left today what the working class were to Marx in the 19th century -- pawns in an ideological game.

Blacks who rise out of poverty are of no great interest to the left, unless the way they do so is by attacking society.

The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 but the left has shown no more interest in why that is so than they have shown in why many millions of people have risen out of poverty in Latin America or in China and India.

Where progress can be plausibly claimed to be a result of policies favored by the left, then such claims are made.

A whole mythology has grown up that the advancement of minorities and women in America is a result of policies promoted by the left in the 1960s. Such claims are often based on nothing more substantial than ignoring the history of the progress made prior to 1960.

Retrogressions in the wake of the policies of the 1960s are studiously ignored -- the runaway crime rates, the disintegration of black families, and the ghetto riots of the 1960s that have left many black communities still barren more than 40 years later.

Whatever does not advance the left agenda is "nothing."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...in_failure.html

[WinCrimson 61]

You invest in failure every time you close the curtain and pull the lever, Mike.

And don't say, "it's not me, it's the ones at the top!", when you knowingly voted for the bullsh*t of the last 7 years on more than one occasion.

As for that last paragraph, does Uncle Tom Sowell suggest that we return American blacks to second class citizenship? His loss...

[Tigermike 4,084]

You invest in failure every time you close the curtain and pull the lever, Mike.

And don't say, "it's not me, it's the ones at the top!", when you knowingly voted for the bullsh*t of the last 7 years on more than one occasion.

As for that last paragraph, does Uncle Tom Sowell suggest that we return American blacks to second class citizenship? His loss...

Are all Yellow dog democrats as racists as you?

[CCTAU 3,832]

How come there are no Uncle Tom dimocrats? Hmmm.

[AURaptor 1,137]

And don't say, "it's not me, it's the ones at the top!", when you knowingly voted for the bullsh*t of the last 7 years on more than one occasion.

And with all we have to complain about by voting for the b.s ,it's still a far better choice than the alternative would have been.

FAR better.

[WinCrimson 61]

You invest in failure every time you close the curtain and pull the lever, Mike.

And don't say, "it's not me, it's the ones at the top!", when you knowingly voted for the bullsh*t of the last 7 years on more than one occasion.

As for that last paragraph, does Uncle Tom Sowell suggest that we return American blacks to second class citizenship? His loss...

Are all Yellow dog democrats as racists as you?

So let's recap. . .

I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat and a racist.

Looks like your batting 0 for 2 there, pal.

[Tigermike 4,084]

You invest in failure every time you close the curtain and pull the lever, Mike.

And don't say, "it's not me, it's the ones at the top!", when you knowingly voted for the bullsh*t of the last 7 years on more than one occasion.

As for that last paragraph, does Uncle Tom Sowell suggest that we return American blacks to second class citizenship? His loss...

Are all Yellow dog democrats as racists as you?

So let's recap. . .

I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat and a racist.

Looks like your batting 0 for 2 there, pal.

Yeah let's do recap. When you use a pejorative term toward a black man because you disagree with him it is racist. You are the one who brought race into the equation. As for you being a yellow dog dimocrat, there has been no indication on this board that you are anything but.

Batting 2 for 2.

[WinCrimson 61]

You invest in failure every time you close the curtain and pull the lever, Mike.

And don't say, "it's not me, it's the ones at the top!", when you knowingly voted for the bullsh*t of the last 7 years on more than one occasion.

As for that last paragraph, does Uncle Tom Sowell suggest that we return American blacks to second class citizenship? His loss...

Are all Yellow dog democrats as racists as you?

So let's recap. . .

I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat and a racist.

Looks like your batting 0 for 2 there, pal.

Yeah let's do recap. When you use a pejorative term toward a black man because you disagree with him it is racist. You are the one who brought race into the equation. As for you being a yellow dog dimocrat, there has been no indication on this board that you are anything but.

Batting 2 for 2.

Me calling Sowell an "Uncle Tom" is not a racist comment. Racism, by definition, is is a belief or concept that inherent differences between people, in particular those upon which the concept of race is based, determine cultural or individual achievement, and may involve the idea that one's self-identified race is superior. If I had said that Sowell's article was pathetic because he was black, you'd have a point. However, I never have and never will make a comment along those lines -- ending all of your dreams of painting me as a racist.

A couple of posts on a message board and you know all about my political views? Mind reader, eh? Truth is that I've always teetered between being a liberal Independent and a moderate Democrat. When Democrats actually show a spine on issues I care about, I'm more than happy to associate with them. However, that's like a week or two out of the year.

I realize that Thomas Sowell is a hit and run journalist. Probably a good one. I just disagree with nearly everything he writes. I interpreted the last thoughts as the negative aspects of the liberation (and, that's exactly what it was) of blacks as a justification for segregation. He came as close to arguing for separate buses, water fountains, and schools as you can get without actually stating it verbatim.

Recapping, I'm neither a racist or a blind ideologue. While I do lean Democratic, I vote person over party and have voted for several Republicans in the few elections in which I've been eligible to vote. Hell, I count Governor Riley as a good friend and have even worked in his office. I'm no pawn.

[Tigermike 4,084]

OK the next black guy you see call him Uncle Tom and see if he thinks it is racist.

Uncle Tom is a pejorative for African Americans and is usually (not always but usually) used by blacks toward blacks who are not walking in lock step with the NAACP or which ever race hustler in preaching. In your case you used it toward a black because he was black. You didn't bother to speak to the article, just jumped to the racial pejorative. That is racist and if it were a Republican that said it you and the entire DNC would be screaming to high heaven. In fact your choice of words was not any more over board than those heard from the left about Condoleezza Rice. Say what ever you wish, but all I have to go by is your choice of words in this thread.

"A more offensive term with the same meaning is house n****r (as contrasted with field workers from the days of slavery). In 2002, actor/singer Harry Belafonte used a variation of the term, White House n****r, to characterize certain political figures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

[AUloggerhead 2,863]

Me calling Sowell an "Uncle Tom" is not a racist comment. Racism, by definition, is is a belief or concept that inherent differences between people, in particular those upon which the concept of race is based, determine cultural or individual achievement, and may involve the idea that one's self-identified race is superior. If I had said that Sowell's article was pathetic because he was black, you'd have a point. However, I never have and never will make a comment along those lines -- ending all of your dreams of painting me as a racist.

A couple of posts on a message board and you know all about my political views? Mind reader, eh? Truth is that I've always teetered between being a liberal Independent and a moderate Democrat. When Democrats actually show a spine on issues I care about, I'm more than happy to associate with them. However, that's like a week or two out of the year.

I realize that Thomas Sowell is a hit and run journalist. Probably a good one. I just disagree with nearly everything he writes. I interpreted the last thoughts as the negative aspects of the liberation (and, that's exactly what it was) of blacks as a justification for segregation. He came as close to arguing for separate buses, water fountains, and schools as you can get without actually stating it verbatim.

Recapping, I'm neither a racist or a blind ideologue. While I do lean Democratic, I vote person over party and have voted for several Republicans in the few elections in which I've been eligible to vote. Hell, I count Governor Riley as a good friend and have even worked in his office. I'm no pawn.

While the Uncle Tom comment may not be racist per se, it's definately an ethnic slur and completely uncalled for. What purpose were you trying to achieve? Disparagement? Disagreement with what he wrote? Your interpretation of what Sowell was saying in the above article is so off the mark it makes me question if you even read it through. Here's a novel approach: try reading/understanding first before you settle on projecting your own bias.

And what exactly do you mean by the term "hit & run journalist?" Thomas Sowell has written a regular column for decades. He's also a prolific book author as well.

I just disagree with nearly everything he writes.

What an idiotic statement! How could you possibly know this unless you've read everything he's written? FYI, Sowell doesn't consider himself a Republican nor a conservative. He prefers to be known as a libertarian. Link

[WinCrimson 61]

OK the next black guy you see call him Uncle Tom and see if he thinks it is racist.

Uncle Tom is a pejorative for African Americans and is usually (not always but usually) used by blacks toward blacks who are not walking in lock step with the NAACP or which ever race hustler in preaching. In your case you used it toward a black because he was black. You didn't bother to speak to the article, just jumped to the racial pejorative. That is racist and if it were a Republican that said it you and the entire DNC would be screaming to high heaven. In fact your choice of words was not any more over board than those heard from the left about Condoleezza Rice. Say what ever you wish, but all I have to go by is your choice of words in this thread.

"A more offensive term with the same meaning is house n****r (as contrasted with field workers from the days of slavery). In 2002, actor/singer Harry Belafonte used a variation of the term, White House n****r, to characterize certain political figures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

Again, there is zero proof of racism.

All you have to go by is a misconception and a hope that you can mold me into something that I'm not. That's what you have to go by.

The bottom line is that Sowell is a man who sucks the GOP hind tit in effort of roping in readers. While I disagree with his articles, I recognize he's just doing his job. Sucking up -- say, what's the phrase people use to describe this?

While the Uncle Tom comment may not be racist per se, it's definately an ethnic slur and completely uncalled for. What purpose were you trying to achieve? Disparagement? Disagreement with what he wrote? Your interpretation of what Sowell was saying in the above article is so off the mark it makes me question if you even read it through. Here's a novel approach: try reading/understanding first before you settle on projecting your own bias.

And what exactly do you mean by the term "hit & run journalist?" Thomas Sowell has written a regular column for decades. He's also a prolific book author as well.

What was off the mark about what I said? I see that you were unwilling (or unable) to defend Sowell's article or do anything except attack my post. There was no rebuttal or formed argument from you whatsoever.

After touting the progress made in Latin America and China (progress that had absolutely NOTHING to do with conservatism), he dissed his own kind by, in my interpretation, by blaming the social ills of African-Americans on their new found freedoms. The disintegration of the black American family? It's kinda hard for a family to break apart when they have to be locked in their homes at dusk and counting down the minutes until a bomb is tossed through their living room window.

Sowell is the one who made this a black vs. white issue, not me. Why did he not bother to focus on the exponential increase in whites using illegal drugs? Or the rising number of blacks wearing white collars to work? Though, in doing this, he did fire TigerMike up -- and that's his only goal.

[AUloggerhead 2,863]

What was off the mark about what I said? I see that you were unwilling (or unable) to defend Sowell's article or do anything except attack my post. There was no rebuttal or formed argument from you whatsoever.

After touting the progress made in Latin America and China (progress that had absolutely NOTHING to do with conservatism), he dissed his own kind by, in my interpretation, by blaming the social ills of African-Americans on their new found freedoms. The disintegration of the black American family? It's kinda hard for a family to break apart when they have to be locked in their homes at dusk and counting down the minutes until a bomb is tossed through their living room window.

Sowell is the one who made this a black vs. white issue, not me. Why did he not bother to focus on the exponential increase in whites using illegal drugs? Or the rising number of blacks wearing white collars to work? Though, in doing this, he did fire TigerMike up -- and that's his only goal.

Your own cluelessness is distressing to say the least. Are you really a university student? Before this thread, I never understood why others on this board thought you were such a blithering idiot. Oh well, my bad for not paying close enough attention. Quit shooting from the hip with your "interpeting" what he meant and just read the words he uses in the order presented. Start with title and the first paragraph: Sowell is criticizing the political left. Your statement:

After touting the progress made in Latin America and China (progress that had absolutely NOTHING to do with conservatism), ... {mindless drivel}]

dovetails nicely with Sowell's continued criticism of the left:

The August 18th issue of the distinguished British magazine "The Economist" reveals the economic progress in Brazil, Argentina, and other Latin American nations that has given a better life to millions of their poorest citizens.

Some of the economic policies that have led to these results are discussed in "The Economist" but it is doubtful that members of the political left will stampede there to find out what those policies were. They have shown no such interest in how tens of millions of people in China and tens of millions of people in India have risen out of poverty within the past generation.

Despite whatever the left may say, or even believe, about their concern for the poor, their actual behavior shows their interest in the poor to be greatest when the poor can be used as a focus of the left's denunciations of society. ...

FYI -- Sowell has always advocated the use of empirical evidence & objective assessments of hard data in the development of social policy. He is a highly respected economist after all.

You, on the other hand, are an ignorant, opinionated bigot with near non-existent reading comprehension skills prone to flying off the handle on some philisophical rant over a perceived non-existent injustice. Good day to you. (I'd call you sir, but you don't deserve the courtesy.)

[WinCrimson 61]

Yes, he was criticizing the political left but had nothing to base the criticism on.

I couldn't give a flying fig if he was a respected economist or a dime store hooker. I attacked what I saw was a foolish, backwards comment and would do it again. I'm still waiting for someone to justify his last statement.

You do have me on the China idea, though. I've been hearing in the news lately about how Hasbro has been using Chinese child labor to produce their products. You're absolutely correct, Loggerhead, that's right up the Republican alley. You'll have to forgive me.