Do you remember this piece, Gentle Reader?
A class is defined by its legal and social privileges. The aristocrats of medieval times were not distinguished by their lineages or their deeds, but by the things they were allowed to do, without penalty, that commoners were not. There is reason to believe that the majority of medieval aristocrats were fairly responsible stewards of their lands and of public order within them. That does not justify the creation of a class of men who could wield high, middle, and low justice over others, but who would normally escape all consequences for deeds for which a commoner would be severely punished.
The American response to the failings of traditional aristocracies was the Rule of Law: the fundamental principle that the law must treat all men impartially, regardless of their identities or station in life. The old shorthand for this principle was “blind justice,” meaning that the law must not see one’s person, only one’s deeds. In a society that respects the Rule of Law, a king would stand in the same dock as a trash-hauler, were the two accused of the same offense. All that would matter would be the evidence for their guilt or innocence.
In the absence of a scrupulously observed Rule of Law, classes with differing degrees of privilege will emerge. The flourishing of the members of each class will be influenced, often heavily, by the class’s privileges and how effectively they can be exploited. Men being what we are, we will be moved to use those privileges in our own interest, both against competitors within our class and against other classes.
The essay was about the special privileges being awarded – by implication rather than openly and de jure — to American Negroes. But the mechanism for constructing an aristocracy applies to any award of special privileges to any specific group. The aristocratic group need not have a formal, generally acknowledged definition as long as its members are treated as privileged, according to their shared difference from others.
Keep that thought in mind as you proceed further.
It seems a new aristocracy has formed among us:
Taylor Starling, a high school cross-country runner at Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, California, lost her spot on the varsity team earlier this season to a transgender transfer student.
Multiple parents of students at Martin Luther King have told Fox News Digital that the school has allowed the trans athlete to compete on the varsity cross-country team despite missing practices for academic reasons. These parents include Starling’s father, longtime firefighter Ryan Starling, and construction subcontractor Dan Slavin, father to Kaitlyn, another runner on the team.
[…]
Ryan Starling told Fox News Digital that the loss of his daughter’s varsity spot disrupted his entire family emotionally, as cross-country played a pivotal role in her life. And then when his daughter and other girls on the team confronted their school administrators about it, he claims they were told “transgenders have more rights than cisgenders.”
I added the emphasis. Please read the whole article.
There’s no way to prettify this, Gentle Reader. The politics of division called “identity politics” is being used to nullify the rule of law as the core principle of American justice. Today, a man who “identifies as” a woman is awarded extra “rights” that born women lack, at least in California high school sports.
Yes: The proper word is privileges. And those who award them are fully aware of what they’re doing.
A lot of ink has been spilled on this subject. I don’t think I have much to say about it that I haven’t said previously. But it remains valuable as a pointer to how the norms of our society are being dismantled, and what’s intended to replace them.
Some time ago, actor Richard Dreyfuss proposed that civics be re-established as an educational priority in these United States. To the best of my knowledge, nothing of the sort has happened in American primary or secondary schools, though Dreyfuss threw his weight behind it. Yet it should be a high-priority item for anyone interested in educational reform.
Perhaps we should make a point of randomly asking young Americans what “rights,” “privileges,” “aristocracy,” and “the rule of law” actually mean. I doubt most would be able to answer coherently, much less substantively. But following that line of thought any further would draw me into another tirade, and my back hurts quite enough already.
