Lots of things come out of Nancy Pelosi’s mouth. Many of them are downright silly; others are revealing. If we listen carefully, we can discover facts about contemporary liberalism that Democrats would prefer to hide.
Do you remember when the Speaker of the House, told us that we would have to pass the Affordable Care Act in order to understand what was in it. This implied that legislation should occur in the dark of night rather than where the public can see what is going on. It was the opposite of transparency.
Nancy got a free pass because anything associated with Barack Obama was then interpreted as an instance of “hope and change.” While Pelosi has not changed, her erstwhile protector is no longer on the scene.
So what gaff has she perpetrated lately? Furthermore, will Americans who hate Donald Trump discern its implications? I am not talking about Pelosi’s description of the chaos on our southern border a manufactured crisis. Nor am I citing to her dismissal of Attorney General William Barr as Trump’s lapdog.
No. I am referring to her response to Trump’s proposals for reforming immigration policies. Our president argued that migrants be allowed into our country primarily on the basis of merit. Instead of family connections being the main consideration, skills and abilities should count for more.
Trump explained that we ought bring in people who will add to our prosperity. Instead of being dependent on the public trough for their upkeep, they should be independent—perhaps even starting new businesses. Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, do this. Why shouldn’t we?
Pelosi immediately objected. This was a condescending way to treat migrants. Didn’t Trump realize that many of the ancestors of contemporary Americans arrived here dirt poor? He was merely exposing his disdain for those who are not rich.
But notice that Pelosi protested against the word “merit.” This was extraordinarily informative. Merit was an elitist term. Years ago, I read a sociology paper that described merit as an anti-minority plot. Using it as a criterion for selecting people for jobs was disparaged as a euphemism for keeping blacks out.
So what does this indicate? Do I want my physician to be without merit? Do I expect airport flight controllers to be without merit? In fact, the latter are currently being selected on the basis of having no previous experience with airplanes. In this case, merit is decried as discriminatory.
But let us focus in on the Democrats. Do we want our political leaders to be without merit? Is Pelosi telling us that she deserves to be Speaker of the House because she is mediocre? As importantly, will the Democrats running for president follow her lead? Will they argue that they are better than the next guy because they not as good.
If this sounds silly, it actually alarming. Democrats have made a living out of promising voters that they would rescue the downtrodden. Regrettably, this requires trainloads of mediocre souls who cannot take care of themselves. Without them, there would not be enough human material to release from bondage.
As a consequence, liberals have discovered that they have to import people who do not have substantial merit. They require them by the millions if they are to retain a hold on power. Dependency and mediocrity go together. The worse off people are, the more prepared they are to cede their independence to others.
So let us reconsider merit. It is not synonymous with wealth. Nor is it the same as being well educated. Lots of poor people qualify as meritorious, that is, if they are motivated to help themselves. Thus, my ancestors came to this country dirt poor, but within a decade owned their own businesses.
The difference between then and now is that we have become a mass techno-commercial society. This requires different abilities and dispositions than were needed then. Ought not this be taken into account when we decide how to distribute the limited number of green cards at our disposal?
Merit should not be lightly dismissed in order to obtain a temporary political advantage. I am sure that Nancy did not mean to suggest that she is without intelligence or moral virtues. Indeed, don’t most liberals believe that they are special human beings?
Merit should be celebrated. It should be encouraged in almost every aspect of life. If it is not; if we embrace mediocrity, it will not be long before others are surpassing us. Joe Biden aside; the Chinese are on our heels and will catch up if we decide that average is good enough.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment