The Left and les faits de la vie

Dennis Prager's recent column examines the inherent problem that the left has in effectively presenting it's idealized worldview and trying to conform it to fit reality. Les faits de la vie, or "the facts of life" seem to be unimportant when presenting a worldview that is not grounded in anything resembling the state of affairs as they actually exist.

"In my original article, I offered one explanation: Since the Enlightenment, the secular world has had to believe in man (or "humanity") because if you don't believe in God and you don't believe in humanity, you will despair.

But one critic opened my eyes to an even deeper reason most liberals do not acknowledge that people are not basically good.

This is what he wrote:

"What a sad world it would be if we all believed as Dennis Prager that mankind is inherently evil."

And this is what I responded:

"I did not write that man is inherently evil. I wrote that he is not basically good. And, yes, that does make the world sad. So do disease, earthquakes, death and all the unjust suffering in the world. But sad facts remain facts."


...the left lives by theories and dogmas into which the facts of life must fit. That is why left-wing ideas are usually wishful thinking...


Here are four descriptive statements rejected by the left for these two mutually reinforcing reasons.

1. People are not basically good.

Leftists tend to reject this because a) It is too painful to accept, and b) it undermines the leftist dogma that people do bad because of outside forces -- poverty, capitalism, racism, etc.

2. Men and women are inherently different.

Leftists have rejected this idea because some of the differences are too emotionally upsetting to accept. Men are variety-driven by nature? Too upsetting. Women may have less yearning for, and ability in, math and engineering? Only a sexist like former Harvard president Lawrence Summers would say such a thing. Moreover, the belief that men and women are inherently different violates the left's foundational principle of equality. Many liberals admit that they reject talk of male-female differences because it can easily lead to gender inequality.

3. Black males disproportionately commit violent crime in America.

Leftist reactions to this truly painful fact are to label one who notes it a racist and to decry American society as racist because there are more black males in prison than in college.

4. The United Nations is a moral wasteland.

Since before the U.N.'s founding in 1945, liberals placed much of their hope for a peaceful world in the United Nations. That the U.N. has turned out to be an abettor more than a preventer of violence is a fact that the left finds too painful to acknowledge. And it violates the left-wing belief that nationalism is evil and internationalism is the solution.

It is generally believed that as people grow older, they reject much of the liberalism they believed in when they were young. This is true, and one reason is relevant here: As we get older, we tend to make peace with painful faits de la vie."

I tend to agree with all of Prager's points except for perhaps one. Gregory Kane points out in today's column that "There are more black men in prison and jail than in college, some black talking heads like to point out. The claim is false: For the 18-to-24 age group, the ages when black men should be in college, the numbers of black males in institutions of higher learning outnumber those in prison by 4 to 1." However this is a talking point that is widely accepted after being repeated ad naseum and it tends to be believed by a lot of people.

Star Parker reports on something I touched upon the other day which involves some painful facts as well...

"Almost two years ago, a new Democrat administration and congress took control of Washington.
They immediately sent out invitations to the American people.

“You are cordially invited onto the government plantation. P.S. We’re in charge but you pick up the tab. RSVP by November 2, 2010.”

The RSVP’s have poured in and the majority of Americans have replied “Sorry, we’ve got other plans.”

But it was mostly white voters who turned down this invitation.

Why are blacks, who know life on the government plantation better than whites, and who are proportionately being hit much harder in this difficult economy, still buying what working class whites have rejected hands down? That, as Karl Rove put it, “…we can spend our way to prosperity?”

The problem is broader and deeper. Blacks still by and large see government dependence as the remedy rather than the disease, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They still choose to listen to left wing black political leadership and media who have careers in keeping it all going."

Of course when I criticize left wing black political leadership for keeping it all going, it's suggested in ominous tones that I just might be "a racist prick" or a "bigot". Is Star Parker a racist for holding such views? Of course not, to argue as so would be an exercise in abject stupidity. The important thing in the mindset of the left is to appeal to emotion, make the accusation of intolerance and move the discussion away from the issues at hand and try to paint those with opposing viewpoints as racists because they cannot win in the court of ideas with arguments on their own merits.

EDIT: It turns out that a certain internet cesspool has taken up the topic of whether or not I am bigot. Wow! My own thread. I HAVE arrived people! The comment that made me literally laugh out loud the hardest was this one...


"He (JD Curtis) seems to think bigotry is using racist names or categorizing any entire group (Entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole for him) .
He's not racist because he married a black woman and has links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense."

I would like to see this person come over here and argue such nonsense.

#1. Where did I ever say that an "entire group minus one person is enough of a loophole" for me or even remotely try and argue as such? If the answer is absolutely never, then why is this not an complete and outright lie?

#2. "He's not racist because he married a black woman". I will go on record and state that it is an absolute, 1000% fact that my wife is black. The above writer mentions this but then fails to square this with the alleged, yet factually bankrupt notion that I am in any way, a bigot.

#3. "..links to black commenters on his sidebar is JD's frequent defense". As if I use this as mere cover for my latent racism. Ha ha ha ha! The above writer fails to take into consideration that the sidebar of columnists on my blog serves as a resource for me. In a blog that is about a year and a half old I have cited columns and created threads for writers like Larry Elder, Walter E. Williams, Ellis Washington (at least 3X), Mychal Massie (at least 5X),Deroy Murdock (at least 5X), and from Thomas Sowell a minimum of SEVENTEEN TIMES. Can the above writer cite any other blog on the internet that they frequent that cites more black columnists then this one?

B-b-b-b-but don't let that fool you folks! It's all just an intricate scam that he devotes alot of time and effort to just to throw you off! Bigot! Bigot! Bigot! Racist! Racist! Racist! or something like that.