By Graham Hillard
Monday, July 22, 2019
Reparations are an ethical disaster. Proceeding from a
doctrine of collective guilt, they are the penalty for slavery and Jim Crow,
sins of which few living Americans stand accused. An offense against common
sense as well as morality, reparations would take from Bubba and give to
Barack, never mind if the former is an insolvent methamphetamine addict or the
latter a dweller in near-pharaonic splendor. That reparations are a hopeless
cause, supported by only a quarter of Americans, makes them more of an affront
to reason rather than less, for it illustrates the enthusiasm with which
Democratic politicians will bang their heads against the wall in an attempt to
purchase votes.
Even in pragmatic terms, reparations fail. As Michael
Tanner argued
on National Review Online last month, the real-world difficulties that
would attend such payments “are obvious enough to suggest that the sudden
support for reparations amounts to little more than pandering.” These
difficulties are so extraordinarily compelling that one wonders how the call
for reparations retains any support at all. Since the money used to pay for
them would have to be raised alongside “the taxes needed to finance
[Democrats’] grandiose spending plans,” reparations would “totally wreck the
economy,” sentencing Americans of all races to a future of “higher
unemployment, slower wage growth, and less entrepreneurship.” Because potential
awardees would have to prove their eligibility in some manner, reparations
would “be an invitation to perpetual litigation” and would subject America to
the spectacle of government officials deciding who counts as black. (Rachel
Dolezal, your moment has come.)
These are powerful objections, and the case against
reparations could easily prevail on their strength alone. Yet they are not the
only flaws in the reparations scheme and are, in fact, subordinate to a more
fundamental blemish. Even if the practical defects of the project could be
overcome, reparations simply wouldn’t work. They would not make
atonement. They would neither settle nor soothe. In short, they would fulfill
none of the promises explicit in the language of their proponents.
Like all political ideas unburdened by their likelihood
of actually happening, reparations are frequently spoken of in outlandish
terms. In 2018’s oft-cited inequality tome The Divide, for example,
anthropologist Jason Hickel obliterated all previous estimates by placing
America’s debt to the descendants of slaves at a mind-boggling $97 trillion —
about five years’ worth of the entire country’s economic output– a figure
achieved by applying the U.S. minimum wage to every hour of forced labor
performed between the years 1619 and 1865. Sensing enemies to her left,
presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren has argued that Native Americans and
same-sex couples ought to be given money, as well. That such one-upmanship is a
regular feature of a political culture that rewards rallying the base is no
surprise. What is surprising — or should be — is the extent to which
recent Democratic remarks about reparations have been allowed, with no scrutiny
whatsoever, to take on a cast of quasi-religious utopianism.
What are these remarks? They are Kamala Harris’s
assertion, to NPR, that reparations are an opportunity “to correct course.”
They are Beto O’Rourke’s claim, in his recent and deeply narcissistic Medium
post, that reparations are among the “necessary steps to repair the damage
done.” They are Julian Castro’s argument, at South by Southwest, that we are
“never going to fully heal as a country . . . until we’ve addressed” — with
reparations — “the tremendous wrong that was done with slavery.” Correct
course, repair, heal. What such words have in common is their promise that
“a national reckoning [can] lead to spiritual renewal.” (The phrase is
Ta-Nehisi Coates’s, but the sentiment belongs to all reparations-mongers.) Pay
what you owe, such language suggests, and America can have its soul back.
Confess your sin with a large enough check, and you can be forgiven. The
problem, as any Christian knows, is that forgiveness only matters if it’s
permanent. “As far as the east is from the west,” the psalmist writes, “so far
does God remove our transgressions from us.” That assurance, properly
understood, is life-changing. And because Christ’s redemptive work is finished,
God can rightly grant it.
Can the reparations lobby?
To believe that it can, one has to believe that the
political apparatus currently pursuing reparations would simply cease to exist
upon their being awarded. That no further expiation of the nation’s sins would
be necessary. For the Left, however, reparations are merely the icing on the
existing cake of admissions preferences, minority-contracting requirements, and
an eternally expanding welfare state. Ask a progressive if the $97 trillion
would make unnecessary any further gestures in the direction of affirmative
action, and he will laugh nervously and pretend not to understand the question.
If you’re lucky, that is. These days, he might very well call forth a Twitter
mob to smite you.
The reality is that reparations, however generous, would
have nothing like the effect promised by those calling for them. Pay them to
African-Americans today, and you will soon be called upon to pay them to
others. (In this, if in nothing else, Elizabeth Warren is ahead of the curve.)
Compensate one generation, and you will confirm your debt to the next.
Reparations will not mend us, restore us, or bring us together. They will only
divide, embitter, and impoverish.
We can’t afford to pay them. We can’t even come close
to it. But even if we could, we shouldn’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment