Jonah Goldberg appears to agree with Emerson that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. In a column supporting government programs such as Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” that provide assistance exclusively to young black (and maybe a few Hispanic) males, Goldberg rejects the arguments (such as Roger Clegg’s and Terry Eastland’s) that racial and gender discrimination are unconstitutional as “rigid legalisms.”
Goldberg doesn’t quote Emerson, but if he should be tempted to in replying to the responses he will no doubt receive from other disappointed rigid legalists, he should be careful to note that what Emerson actually wrote is that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds….” (Emphasis added)
There is nothing foolish about requiring the state to treat its citizens without regard to race, and it is sad to see a conservative, or anyone, abandon that principle wherever racial disparities are regarded as “gloomy” and “disproportionate” enough.
“Obama’s” My Brother’s Keeper? “NEW”?
Say…what ever happened to “Be Correct”, and “Assume responsibility” I remember from The Million Man March?
What is being addressed by the racist/sexist nature of My Brothers Keeper, that isn’t negated by the “disparate impact” positions in prison population demographics, as well as the “new” Voting Rights for (certain) Felons theory?
Is “Second Hand Lions” to be dismissed as “acting all white and stuff”? How about “Slum Dog Millionaire”?
How about reopening jobs and opportunities, previously available to “target groups”, now closed down to “punish” political/”economic”/”justice” theory enemies?
OK, actually read Goldburg’s bit (in the newspaper).
It was only annoying because IMHO, half was good/half was “disconnected”.
MY position stands, as implied above, but I HATE it when
I’m “challenged” by worthy rhetoric.
Or was I?
*sigh*I blame semantics, and “usage”.