Yesterday’s column by Mike Gonzalez illuminates yet another tactical stroke against American conceptions of equality: the substitution of the word equity, a quite different concept. The core of the thing:
Equality is the standard of our old Constitution, the one framed in 1787 and amended since then, most memorably in the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction Amendments. It holds that government should see all people as having been created equal, and equally deserving of the law’s protection….
Equity is the buzzword of the new constitution trying to take the place of the old one. It holds that government must treat Americans differently according to what category the government has put us in. So equity literally holds that government must treat people un-equally.
First, let it be noted that that’s not the dictionary definition of “equity.” The Left is exploiting the general unfamiliarity with the word as an opportunity to redefine it. (People are already too familiar with equality, and its meaning in Constitutional terms, for the Left to redefine it.) If you read all of the Gonzalez column – which I exhort you to do – you’ll catch the drift immediately.
Mind you, this is all completely contrary to the Constitution, to say nothing of the natural inclinations of the American people. We’re rather heavily invested in equality before the law and the other concepts derived from it. You can’t find the Left’s notion of “equity” anywhere in the Constitution, nor in any statute compatible with it. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly contradicts Leftist “equity” in its all-important first paragraph:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Of course, the federal government of the Land of the Formerly Free has been treating Americans unequally for quite some time. We could start with the income tax, which treats Americans differently according to how much they earn. Or there’s the Selective Service Act, which treats Americans differently according to their ages, sexes, educational and occupational categories. But the Left, using its leverage over the Usurper Administration, has another idea in mind: to treat Americans unequally according to their races, ethnicities, sexes…and political views.
The Left wants the power to discriminate among us according to its whims. Despite the representations of such as Kamala Harris, this isn’t motivated by any concept of “fairness” or “compassion.” It’s a naked grab for power, with one eye focused on reinforcement for the coalition politics the Democrat Party has used to attain its current political elevation.
I’ve written about this before, of course:
The interests of the various components to [a] coalition must not be mutually antagonistic.
Democrat coalitions satisfy that condition: they’re based on the enveloping promise that “if you agree to support Democrat candidates, we’ll take money and rights from those who support Republicans and redirect them to you.” Though that promise has often been broken afterward, the components of the Democrat coalition have routinely accepted it. Contemporary politics is rife with examples.
(See also this recent essay, which might be a bit more optimistic than realistic.)
This is now the explicit aim of the Left: to use its current federal status to embed in our laws, in defiance of the Constitution and all the precepts behind it, discrimination among Americans on the basis of their “identity group.” It’s been openly expressed by Kamala Harris, as Gonzalez notes.
If they succeed, it will affect every American alive today. The disfavored Peters will be legally enslaved to the identity-group Pauls the Left favors.
Have a little Kipling, for flavor:
Let him arise and control both that man and his labour.”
They said: “Who is eaten by sloth? Whose unthrift has destroyed him?
He shall levy a tribute from all because none have employed him.”
They said: “Who hath toiled, who hath striven, and gathered possession?
Let him be spoiled. He hath given full proof of transgression.”
They said: “Who is irked by the Law? Though we may not remove it.
If he lend us his aid in this raid, we will set him above it!”
So the robber did judgment again upon such as displeased him,
The slayer, too, boasted his slain, and the judges released him.
“But the Constitution will protect us!” I hear you cry. Given the flimsy protection it’s afforded us this past century, I’m not willing to bet the mortgage money on it. Remember what Hubert Humphrey pledged when he was campaigning for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? He vowed that if the Act were to result in racial quotas, he’d eat the entire bill on the floor of the Senate, with the cameras rolling. Well, the quotas arrived, just as the Act’s opponents predicted. What came of Humphrey’s promise? Nothing.
Still, that was then, and this is now. We’re alert to such things today, in part because of the disasters that 1964 CRA has visited upon us. It can’t happen to us again, right? Right?