I still am not sure what Sen. Webb was trying to accomplish with this article he posted in the Wall Street Journal. Ostensibly I think he's trying to say that today's anti-discrimination laws are inherently discriminatory because they aren't applied evenly. With that, I agree. But soon he starts wondering into the relm of his Scotch-Irish paradigm that he (and only he) sees the world. I remember when Webb was elected people began to fancy him as some new Andrew Jackson, which I thought was strange. At his heart, Webb really is kind of a 19th century guy. He seems to be arguing, and correct me if I'm wrong, that "white culture" is diverse and has been treated as an evil monolith. I don't even know what to say to that. But this quote struck me most:
Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist
those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity
programs should end.
Now I agree with Senator Webb for the most part, but he's splitting hairs. How else can you "assist African-Americans still in need" without government-directed diversity programs. Its an odd stand to take. I can't wait for Sen. Webb to run for reelection asking black leaders in Richmond, Hampton, Chesapeake, and Portsmouth to help him out after that little number.
I get that Senator Webb wants to help poor whites in rural Virginia, its a worthy cause. But he is essentially complaining that black Americans got the long end of the straw because of racism while poor whites, relegated as backwards racists, have been left behind. In fact, that is false. Much, if not all, of FDR's New Deal in the South was controlled by white senators and congressman in Washington who brought schools, roads, dams, and electricity to the rural South, not to mention that NRA, AAA, and the CCC. The kind of government "help" that Webb is talking about is something only out of the 1960s.
I get the feeling that when Webb says he's dedicated his career to economic fairness, in his context he means to white people. The problem is that Webb still accepts the premise that the government is the answer to any person's problem. Rural America has been pounded by rationing, outsourcing, and a reliance on federal subsidies. Rural America doesn't need subsidies or the government, they need to be fully unleashed so our "fruited plains" can feed the world. But sadly in places like the rural South they have become prisoners of federal pork monies to maintain their lifestyles instead of being allowed to flourish.
What bothers me is that if this were written by a Republican or a conservative, the reaction would much less intellectual and much more "maccaca."
Recent Comments