The latest GOP talking points are contained in a screed by Arthur Brooks, head honcho of the American Enterprise Institute, Rush Limbaugh’s favorite think tank. He claims that this country is devolving into a culture of victimhood.
I used to be a right-winger back in the early 1990’s, and I would constantly listen to Rush Limbaugh and read the National Review and devour the latest talking points. I left it around 1995, when there were certain aspects of right-wing thought I could no longer stomach, such as its support for the death penalty and then turning around and claiming to be for the sanctity of human life. I saw other aspects of right-wing thought and actions that contradicted what is actually written in the Bible; for instance, the prohibition against bearing false witness.
But during that time frame, the notion of victimization was one of Rush Limbaugh’s favorite talking points. Women, Blacks, Native Americans, and other minorities were simply setting themselves up as victims in his book so that they could make millions off frivolous lawsuits for themselves and their lawyers. He used Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas as examples of hard-working Black men as opposed to the great majority of “welfare queens,” who, in his book were lazy and selfish. And then, in Rush’s carefully constructed world, there were these elitists who made their living by getting people to feel that they need them in order to get along in this world. Mr. Brooks’ talking points, therefore, are nothing new; he simply puts academic window dressing on the notion.
Mr. Brooks quotes the following study:
The results were stark. Those who wrote the essays about being wronged were 26 percent less likely to help the researchers, and were rated by the researchers as feeling 13 percent more entitled. In a separate experiment, the researchers found that members of the unfairness group were 11 percent more likely to express selfish attitudes. In a comical and telling aside, the researchers noted that the victims were more likely than the nonvictims to leave trash behind on the desks and to steal the experimenters’ pens.
This tells me nothing new. In vulgar terms, if you tell someone they are a piece of s—t (you know what word I am referring to), they are much more likely to act like one than if you didn’t. This, in fact, confirms the entire narrative on which Black Lives Matter is based — the racism that was institutionalized by Jim Crow didn’t go away; it simply changed form. Instead of the state making up laws to separate the races, we now have our police officers playing judge and jury by shooting down Blacks in the streets like Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and others. And if you think you’re safe because you’re white, you’re not — witness the case of John Livingston, shot in the middle of the night by police trying to conduct an illegal search on his property. It’s not about creating a culture of victimization; it’s a matter of personal responsibility — what, as a White American, can I do to ensure that my Black brothers and sisters are no longer shot down in the streets by rogue police officers? The right talks a lot about the concept, but it is noticeably lacking in the area of race.
Mr. Brooks tries to frame the issue as one of free speech:
First, look at the role of free speech in the debate. Victims and their advocates always rely on free speech and open dialogue to articulate unpopular truths. They rely on free speech to assert their right to speak. Victimhood culture, by contrast, generally seeks to restrict expression in order to protect the sensibilities of its advocates. Victimhood claims the right to say who is and is not allowed to speak.
What about speech that endangers others? Fair-minded people can discriminate between expression that puts people at risk and that which merely rubs some the wrong way. Speaking up for the powerless is often “offensive” to conventional ears.
But he is setting up a straw man. Nobody is calling for the jailing of people who express contrary opinions. However, there are certain views which are outside the mainstream of American political thought, such as calling for a return to Jim Crow, for instance. And shouting out the N word on a college campus does not merely “rub people the wrong way,” as Brooks puts it. It is speech that is designed to create a chilling environment for Blacks on the college campus. There is a big difference between saying something that rubs people the wrong way, which I have done when I am not careful, and saying something which is designed to create a chilling environment.
This is in line with Supreme Court decisions on sexual harassment.
In 1986, in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Court held that a work environment violated Title VII where sexual harassment was "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment."
Following the 1986 decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidelines defining essentially two types of sexual harassment: "hostile environment" and "quid pro quo." Hostile environment refers to harassment in which the unfavorable behavior disrupts one's ability to carry out his or her job or creates an intimidating hostile environment. Quid pro quo harassment refers to a request made for sexual favors that is tied to promotions or other employment conditions.
This is also in line with the announcement that is read before any NCAA basketball contest: “Racist, sexist, and other intimidating actions directed at officials, coaches, players, and representatives of either school will not be tolerated and are grounds for removal from the facility.” In other words, I can cheer my team on to victory, but I cannot make threats against someone from the other team if they commit (in my mind) a cheap foul against someone from my team.
The problem with the University of Missouri is that they let complaints about racism on campus that was creating a hostile environment for the students go for too long. It wasn’t a matter of a few people saying things that rubbed people the wrong way. It was a matter of certain people seeking to create a hostile environment for Black students — Mizzou did not integrate until 1950, and there was a widespread belief among Jim Crow apologists that Blacks had no business being at “these good white schools” in the South. So the desire of some to create safe spaces for Blacks and other minorities is justified based on these lingering notions of racial purity. Freedom of speech means that nobody can walk through life without being offended or rubbed the wrong way at some point, as Mr. Brooks rightly holds. However, you do not get to create a hostile work environment for anyone and then turn around and call it “free speech.”
Mr. Brooks says:
Second, look at a movement’s leadership. The fight for victims is led by aspirational leaders who challenge us to cultivate higher values. They insist that everyone is capable of — and has a right to — earned success. They articulate visions of human dignity. But the organizations and people who ascend in a victimhood culture are very different. Some set themselves up as saviors; others focus on a common enemy. In all cases, they treat people less as individuals and more as aggrieved masses.
That’s the whole point — the Police State is running scared because Blacks and others are organizing as communities working towards common goals in the same manner that our Native American forebearers did before Columbus for 13,000+ years. Mr. Brooks’ version of earned success serves to perpetuate white privilege, since whites start off with distinct advantages in our society. But when Blacks and Latinos and Native Americans start to organize themselves into communities in this manner, the Police State runs scared at the display of human unity. And then they wonder why so many of our police forces are militarized.
If Mr. Brooks is serious about stopping what he sees as the culture of victimization in this country, then let him support Basic Income. That way, people who live in communities with police departments that practice brutality can move without serious financial consequences — it costs $1,000-$2,000 at least to uproot by my calculation. Or they can pay off thousands of dollars in traffic fines and no longer have to worry about the threat of imprisonment hanging over their heads. Or students living on college campuses with hostile environments can go somewhere else without it being too great of a financial burden. It turns out that contrary to stereotypes, direct cash handouts to homeless people work — they believe in personal responsibility just as much as the rest of us. So, how much more would it work if we handed it out to everyone in this country? It would create a revolution in personal responsibility (as opposed to what he sees as “victimization”), which would warm his heart.