|
How the belief in equality shields evil and punishes truth
Mark Steyn writes in The Spectator: “Everything they [the four Muslim terrorists on the same transcontinental flight with actor James Woods prior to September 11th] did stuck out. But it didn’t matter. Because the more they stuck out, the more everyone who mattered was trained not to notice them.” [Emphasis added.]
Contrary to what almost all conservatives believe, the “see no evil” attitude described by Steyn is not merely a perverse result of PC run amok. Rather, it is a logical and inevitable result of the belief in equality. The very notion of equality demands that we pretend that what is worse than ourselves is really as good as ourselves, and that what is different from ourselves is really the same as ourselves. It requires that we not see the truth of inequality and difference. From this it follows that the WORSE the conduct of a particular minority group, the MORE we are required to turn our eyes away and pretend not to see it. If the behavior of the minority ethnic group is mildly problematic, then speaking the truth about it would only make one mildly racist. But if the behavior of that group is murderous and demonic, then speaking the truth about THAT would make one a horrible racist. As a result of the belief in equality, the MORE evil the evil is, the MORE it must be shielded from scrutiny, because the more racist the truth about it seems to be.
Comments
One way of accurately expressing the equality imperative is as a requirement to ignore certain facts (e.g. apparent race) when making certain decisions (e.g. who to search at the airport). When abstracted from particularities entailed by the two “certains” — particularities that can only come from tradition or explicit comprehensive enumeration — the result is a requirement to ignore all facts in all circumstances. Since this is incoherent and because liberalism explicitly rejects the authority of tradition the result is endless protected-class list-making, the only other possible option. But you will also discover that liberals are unwilling to place any bounds upon the number of entries and contents of the explicit lists, because of course “everyone has the same rights”. It is difficult to accurately characterize something, like liberalism, which is fundamentally incoherent; but equivocation on any attempt to accurately and rationally characterize the equality imperative while at the same time the insistence upon its divorce from tradition appears to be a part of it. |