By Shawn Mitchell
Monday, April 29, 2013
The movie 42, about Jackie Robinson, the first black man
to play Major League Baseball is an inspiring triumph that strangely made me
want to go punch a liberal…or to be more precise, to punch liberal moral
bullies.
The aggressive
impulse stems from my own political drama, which, though I’d guess isn’t rare,
has nothing to do with the film or the maker’s intended message. So before I
explain, let me indulge in some amateur movie criticism.
It was great! The
tale of Jackie Robinson strikes several profound themes. Robinson was
exceptionally gifted, not just with athleticism, but with courage and
fortitude. The story is bigger though, and the movie encompasses much: Harrison
Ford plays Branch Rickey (who looks more like a bespectacled Johan Goodman) a
team owner with the moral compass and confidence to do a revolutionarily right
thing, the sense to know it would be good business, and the shrewdness to play
the right cards to make it happen.
Robinson’s
devotion to his wife Rachel, her support of him, and the couple’s courage in
the face of challenge and hateful opposition should inspire any couple about
the sources of peace in life’s storms. The film’s depiction of American
society, including even Robinson’s teammates, feeling the way toward doing the
right thing, while one man bore the weight of it on his excruciatingly visible
shoulders, evoke admiration, anger, and a few tears.
At one of those moist eyed moments I had a bracing
thought: “I love this guy I don’t even know. I honor the path he pioneered. I
want the best life offers for everyone. For everyone. But today, a lot of
liberals might call me racist because of my positions on current political
issues.”
That’s when I got mad. Racism. What an ugly word and an
ugly concept. And what an ugly weapon that supporters of big government
brandish against supporters of freedom and limited government.
Wait…before the politics, let me dwell a minute on
humanity. Most of us love our neighbor. Well, some of us are too busy or
disorganized to think all that much one way or the other about our neighbor,
but we respond to the chords of humanity. Suffering makes us sorry. Hardship
makes us sad. Success makes us cheer. Courage makes us admire, and profound
sacrifice or triumph can make us tear up a little. In short, we are human
beings and we wish well to other human beings, whatever their race, creed,
religion, national origin, or choices in the pursuit of happiness.
But in the matter of how we organize our society, though,
and how much power we give the collective vote of our neighbors over our
personal choices, we vary widely. From the “Don’t tread on me” liberty
advocates to the “Government is we the people” progressives, our visions
drastically diverge about the role of the state in steering toward the blessings
of domestic tranquility.
It’s an important debate that has continued from the days
of the founding and the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. But in my experience, the debate doesn’t
unfold on a level playing field. People who want government to impose a
solution to every grievance and problem claim the high ground of caring and
morality, while they and the media ascribe the worst motives to people who
believe that a free community can figure out ways to interact for the greater
good.
This is not to deny the role of government as a change
agent. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and their continued
enforcement have given us a better America. But all bureaucracies have the
incentive to expand their portfolio and some unprincipled beneficiaries have
the incentive to milk the expansion.
So today, we have the circumstance of legal theories like
“disparate impact” asserting that it’s racist to require a college or even a
high school degree, or to employ skills testing for job applicants. We have elite
bureaucracies imposing ratios on limited educational and work opportunities,
and calling it affirmative action.
And we have an elite and media culture that calls it
racist to question government policies that choreograph and ration access to
life’s opportunities.
It goes much further, of course. Anyone who questions any
of government’s progressive empire, from welfare, to environmental regulation,
to national education policy, is accused of selfishly hating the poor, clean
air, and education for children.
But in fact, it all comes down to a debate over the
efficacy and benefit of an overweening state. Those who love political control
claim to be the only ones that love their fellow man.
It’s getting old.
No comments:
Post a Comment