Kamala's Freedom Fallacy

Since Kamala's entrance into the 2024 presidential race, she has frequently referenced the importance of "freedom" in her attempt to elevate herself as the self-proclaimed freedom fighter. From the title, you already know that I profoundly disagree with Kamala's false bravado when it comes to the way she flirts with and flaunts her version of "freedom". Nevertheless, there's no denying that her campaign platform centers around freedom and civil liberties, and she believes that she is the answer to restoring freedom to the masses.

In the release of Kamala's initial campaign ad, Beyonce's Grammy nominated song Freedom was featured and became the official song for her 2024 presidential campaign. The ad itself reads as follows:

"I'm Kamala Harris, and I'm running for President of the United States. In this election, we each face a question: What kind of country do we want to live in? There are some people who think we should be a country of chaos, of fear, of hate. But us, we choose something different. We choose freedom."

Ok, I get it...the song, the campaign theme: the connection is obvious in that two high-profile women are celebrating America's foremost value that has influenced American history from the Revolutionary War, to slavery and the Civil War, to today. Freedom in America has been a battleground for centuries with countless lives lost only to result in the triumphant restoration of human dignity and the fulfillment of our premier guiding documents, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution. In the immortal words of the late, great Martin Luther King Jr., Let Freedom Ring, and yes indeed, American freedom is truly the prize and envy of the world.

Interestingly, however, when you listen to Freedom by Beyonce, which again is Kamala's official presidential campaign song, the following lyrics are ironic and jaw-dropping, I'MA RIOT, I'MA RIOT, THROUGH YOUR BORDERS. In today's vernacular, we call this Foot in Mouth Disease and rightly so due to our current catastrophic situation at our southern border, especially given Kamala's status as the presiding "Border Czar". That said, do these lyrics serve as code for Kamala by signifying "freedom" for illegal immigrants crossing over to the U.S.? After all, she is on record for being a staunch advocate for the decriminalization of illegal immigration(1). Similarly, do these lyrics become marching orders for illegal border crossers, and if so, is she responsible for any rioting or violence that occurs hereafter along the U.S.-Mexico border? Time will tell as we watch and wait with these lyrics ringing loudly in our ears like a bad case of tinnitus.

In all seriousness, with all the celebratory freedom talk by "team Kamala", I find her approach flippant, misguided, and egregious. The freedom flaws are evident to the naked eye and detrimental to a proper and historically accurate understanding as formulated and treasured by America's founding fathers.

Joseph Loconte's timeless article Faith and Freedom: The Missing Link, written in 2000, exposes Kamala's flawed handling of the essence of America's founding and greatness. In the follow-up to his unpacking of the importance of faith and political liberty to a post-Revolutionary War America, Loconte brilliantly makes the following deduction:

The reason goes back to the Founders' view of democracy. Freedom depends on citizens who can govern themselves, which means freedom requires virtue. But it takes more than laws to sustain morality. It requires religion - not the enfeebled variety of an established church, but the muscular faith of individual believers and congregations exercised in the public square.

John Witherspoon, one of America's most inspiring and influential founding fathers, also a signatory to the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, gives historical context and meaning to Loconte's claim in this pithy but remarkable quote, "God grant in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both." This from a man who carried the tiles of statesman, minister, and president of the College of New Jersey, which later became Princeton University. He was so honored and respected that John Adams once said that John Witherspoon was "as high a son of liberty as any man in America." (2)

Lastly, David J. Gowdy's excellent article reinforces what I have expressed thus far, but he goes one step further. Gowdy provides a historical backdrop that captures the prevailing faith-freedom sentiment of the early colonist.

John Adams stated it this way, “Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” In this regard, the revolutionary war was as much a battle against “the corruption of 18th century British high society,” as it was against financial oppression.  While the Founders and American colonists were very concerned with their civil liberty and economic freedom, demanding “no taxation without representation,” they were equally concerned with their religious liberty, particularly in preserving their rights of individual conscience and public morality.  With respect to the vital need for virtue in order to establish and maintain a republic, the Founders were in complete harmony:

George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”

Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” 

James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical [imaginary] idea.”

For brevity's sake, I only provided three quotes from Gowdy's list, but you can go to the link below to read the full article and see all thirteen names and quotes, which is an impressive and compelling list. His Compilation successfully defends his argument and the crux of my position which is that freedom is not reducible to some flimsy, shallow, political talking point driven by electoral popularity or political posturing. This is the case with the Harris-Walz freedom fallacy and is why Gowdy's argument from history is still applicable and highly relevant to today's body politic. Theirs is a flagrant hijacking and misuse of freedom by liberal ideologues and a shameful ignoring of the historical foundation and all-important intersect between the indispensable ideals of faith and virtue as necessary conditions for the proper use of freedom so that our democratic republic endures "forever". From her official campaign ad to her campaign speeches, Harris fails to capture any of this and thus poses a serious risk to effectively promoting freedom in America in the spirit and intent of the founders. We can only hope that well-informed and well-intended citizens challenge her conceptualization as a corrective to Kamala's Freedom Fallacy for the common good and the preservation of American exceptionalism so as to honor freedom's heritage and Christian foundation without compromise.

________________________________

1. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/88623/what-is-kamala-harris-position-on- decriminalizing-illegal-entry

2. Minister to Freedom, Loconte, J. Ph.D., 2001

The Racial Equity Fallacy (part 3): A Douglassonian Critique

Frederick Douglass has had a noticeable presence in a number of my commentaries since I started this blog a few years ago. He truly is one of my favorite historical figures. This is probably so because of his oratory eloquence, historical impact, and his intellectual ferocity when it came to the abolition of slavery and advocating for the interests of Blacks, intellectually, politically, spiritually, and economically.

In the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, one passage stands out as one of the more memorable and defining statements for who he was and what he represented.

The work of instructing my dear fellow-slaves was the sweetest engagement with which I was ever blessed. We loved each other, and to leave them at the close of the Sabbath was a severe cross indeed. When I think that these precious souls are to-day shut up in the prison-house of slavery, my feelings overcome me, and I am almost ready to ask, "Does a righteous God govern the universe? and for what does he hold the thunders in his right hand, if not to smite the oppressor, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the spoiler?" These dear souls came not to Sabbath school because it was popular to do so, nor did I teach them because it was reputable to be thus engaged. Every moment they spent in that school, they were liable to be taken up and given thirty-nine lashes. They came because they wished to learn. Their minds had been starved by their cruel masters. They had been shut up in mental darkness. I taught them, because it was the delight of my soul to be doing something that looked like the bettering the condition of my race.

These words demonstrate a Douglass who was fully in touch with and convicted about the enormity of chattel slavery and what was needed to overcome the hellish conditions that plundered life, liberty, and happiness for slaves in America desperate for freedom and basic human dignity.

Douglass hammered home the issue of freedom throughout his life and in many of his speeches. This only makes sense, for he bore witness to some of the most depraved and despicable atrocities in human history, horrors that violated humanity's most fundamental God given right, human freedom. This compromise was indefensible to its core because in Douglass' worldview, humanity was created for every individual to freely pursue their chosen purpose free from oppression, injustice, and human atrocity.

In parts one and two of this series, I highlighted a wide range of conceptual, practical, and Constitutional problems associated with Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its related movements (Social Justice, Racial Equity, and Systemic Racism). Core to this community is the shared belief that a robust emphasis on equity over equality is the pathway to true racial justice. It is well established, however, that in order to achieve equity, inequality is a natural and accepted outcome wherein Whites, it is believed, must surrender their privilege, entitlements, and the benefits that accrue from whiteness. The CRT community does not regard this as problematic but rather vindication and justification for historical disparities. In the end, the move of equity over equality is necessary in order to achieve the greater goal of equitable outcomes and the redistribution of social benefits and burdens. In short, not only is this moral compromise, but it is Unconstitutional at its core because CRT is both hostile to and incompatible with the very virtues and values of freedom and fairness safeguarded by our Constitution.

While today's racial challenges are a far cry from those of Douglass's day, his thoughts from well over a century ago offer prescient words of wisdom that should not be ignored nor confined to the past. Like all historical figures, Douglass, in particular, embraced the challenges of his day with extraordinary passion, relentless conviction, and purpose-driven principles to accomplish great things for humanity. HIs life is relatable to contemporary America through his courage and inspiration which should motivate us to remain resilient amid crisis and conflict. From the thoughts and words of Douglass, we can be inspired to overcome the flaws and failures of what we are witnessing today in this moment of rising radical racial antipathy.

Douglass's speech in 1890 titled The Race Problem confronted the efforts of southern Resurrectionists to deny African Americans their newly won civil rights that became legally protected by the federal government. This address took place in Washington, DC at Metropolitan A.M.E. Church, and his goal was to educate the public and advocate for the continued protection of African American civil rights as authorized by federal law. Throughout his lecture, he referred to the frequently cited "Race Problem" with suspicion and annoyance seemingly to suggest there is something wrongheaded about this expression, language that to Douglass deserved outright condemnation and rejection.

In the opening, Douglass shares his objection to how the problem is viewed and defined exclusively as "The Negro Problem", a term that had taken root in the South post Civil War. Douglass states the following:

For this reason, and for my own self-respect, I shall endeavor to say only what I believe to be the truth upon what is popularly called "The Negro Problem...."

. . . It has been well said that in an important sense words are things. They are especially such when they are employed to express the popular sentiment concerning the Negro: to couple his name with anything in this world seems to damage it and damage him likewise. Hence I object to characterizing the relation subsisting between the white and colored people of this country as the Negro problem, as if the Negro had precipitated that problem, and as if he were in any way responsible for the problem....

Clearly, Douglass seeks to challenge myth and inflammatory rhetoric with truth and sociological facts. The same applies today with respect to CRT and how they deconstruct race and history through the lens of equity and the use of social disparities and dogma at the expense of established norms and principles that are grounded in the Constitution, namely equality, due process, and equal protection.

Douglass continues his brilliant treatment of the so-called Negro Problem with the following:

With their usual cunning, these enemies of the negro have made the North partly believe that they are now contending with a vast and mysterious problem, the mere contemplation of which should cause the whole North to shudder and come to the rescue. The trick is worthy of its inventors, and has been played for all that it is worth. The orators of the South have gone North and have eloquently described this terrible problem, and the press of the South has flamed with it, and grave Senators from that section have painted it in most distressing colors. Problem, problem, race problem, negro problem, has, as Junius says, fitted through their sentences in all the mazes of metaphorical confusion.

. . . The true problem is not the negro, but the nation. Not the law-abiding blacks of the South, but the white men of that section, who by fraud, violence, and persecution, are breaking the law, trampling on the Constitution, corrupting the ballot-box, and defeating the ends of justice. The true problem is whether these white ruffians shall be allowed by the nation to go on in their lawless and nefarious career, dishonoring the Government and making its very name a mockery. It is whether this nation has in itself sufficient moral stamina to maintain its own honor and integrity by vindicating its own Constitution and fulfilling its own pledges, or whether it has already touched that dry rot of moral depravity by which nations decline and fall, and governments fade and vanish.

Douglass shows how the deceptive tactics of southern "Resurrectionists" agitated the North through exaggerated rhetoric by using race to portray and define the problem as Black and extreme. While race continues to be a problem in America today, one that is present in a number of different manifestations, Critical Race Theorists exploit narratives, history, stories, current events, data, and anecdotes to create an ominous portrayal of systemic racism as a ubiquitous yet flawed threat to American society writ large. But notice Douglass's charge: to preserve and defend the integrity of the Constitution with truth, fidelity, and moral courage! By making this a Constitutional issue, Douglass has expanded the scope of the problem from a regional North-South dynamic to a national one vis-à-vis the Constitution, civil rights, and the federal government. Douglass makes this explicitly clear in the next section, as he presses the matter further with his own brand of today's intersectionality. In the following, he directly appeals to the cause of women's suffrage to make the case that equality, under the banner of civil rights, is federally protected and, therefore, morally defensible.

Our American women are asking for a sixteenth amendment to the Constitution, whereby they may vote. They ought to have it. If the American people shall adopt such an amendment, the women problem will cease to exist.

In like manner, when the negro was declared free by the highest authority in the land, when the whole system of his bondage was broken up, when he was invested by the organic law of the land with the title, dignity and immunity of an American citizen, and when it was declared that any discrimination made by any State against him on account of race or color was unlawful, I hold that his race condition could no longer be consider a problem. The thing was done: it was finished. The nation had taken its position and all the parts of the nation must ultimately adjust themselves to the whole. The individual States may be great, but the United States is greater. The mountain will not and cannot go to Mahomet, so Mahomet must and will in the end go to the mountain. Herein is the ground of my hope.

....The time may never come this side the millennium when men will not ask "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" But what business has government, State or National, with these prejudice? Why should grave statesmen concern themselves with them? The business of government is to hold its broad shield over all and to see that every American citizen is alike and equally protected in his civil and personal rights. My confidence is strong and high in the nation as a whole. I believe in its justice and in its power. I believe that it means to keep its word with its colored citizens. I believe in its progress, in its moral as well as its material civilization. Its trend is in the right direction. Its fundamental principles are sound. Its conception of humanity and of human rights is clear and comprehensive. Its progress is fettered by no State religion tending to repress liberal thought: by no order of nobility tending to keep down the toiling masses: by no divine right theory tending to national stagnation under the idea of stability. It stands out free and clear with nothing to obstruct its view of the lessons of reason and experience.

The Race Problem by Frederick Douglass is refreshing because it reinforces core American principles and ideals and offers the kind of timeless and transcendent thinking that is desperately needed today to restore the efficacy of equality and the Constitution. As Douglass battled southern racists and the Democratic Party, he was clear-eyed and unapologetic in his fidelity to and support for the Republican Party who paved the way for emancipation and civil rights for African Americans nationally.

I affirm that while the National Government shall remain in the hands of the Republican party and under the principles of that party, no State will or can permanently disfranchise any of its citizens because of race or color or previous condition. Attempts may be made to do this, but the race problem in that respect is solved, and the case cannot be permanently reopened.

For Douglass, this was a monumental triumph by the federal government and The United States over the tyranny of individual states, for these states alone did the unthinkable by seceding from the Union to form a Confederacy that trampled over the authority of the Constitution and basic human rights to uphold and prosper from an evil and unjust system we know as chattel slavery, a system that indelibly harmed America and African Americans to this day. Through Douglass, however, we can unite as Americans by fiercely defending the sanctity of equality as protected by our Constitution and thereby use Douglass to champion equality over the hazards of equity and all that it seeks to undo through Critical Race Theory.

The Racial Equity Fallacy (Part 1)

On January 26, 2021, President Joe Biden spoke to the nation in an address titled Remarks by President Biden at Signing of an Executive Order on Racial Equity. Just as the title states, it was a speech devoted to the issues of race, racism, and more specifically, racial equity. He called on the nation, starting with the federal government, to overcome economic inequity by confronting systemic racism. Early in his speech, he states:

Across nearly every faith, the same principles hold: We’re all God’s children; we should treat each other as we would like to be treated ourselves. And this is time to act — and this time to act is because it’s what the core values of this nation call us to do. And I believe the vast majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans, and independents — share these values and want us to act as well.

We have never fully lived up to the founding principles of this nation, to state the obvious, that all people are created equal and have a right to be treated equally throughout their lives. And it’s time to act now, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because if we do, we’ll all be better off for it.

Biden's commitment to equity is loud and clear, but notice that equity is now associated with our founding principles and is being elevated above equality, which, up to now, was the standard when it comes to American justice as fairness. But in the last paragraph above, the language also suggests that Biden and the Democrats have given up on equality because equity, for them, is better able to deliver the outcomes necessary to close the economic divide between the races.

From the Racial Equity Institute, they define and describe the issue of racial equity as follows:

Racial Equity: Racial equity refers to what a genuinely non-racist society would look like. In a racially equitable society, the distribution of society’s benefits and burdens would not be skewed by race. In other words, racial equity would be a reality in which a person is no more or less likely to experience society’s benefits or burdens just because of the color of their skin. This is in contrast to the current state of affairs in which a person of color is more likely to live in poverty, be imprisoned, drop out of high school, be unemployed and experience poor health outcomes like diabetes, heart disease, depression and other potentially fatal diseases. Racial equity holds society to a higher standard. It demands that we pay attention not just to individual-level discrimination, but to overall social outcomes.

For racial equity advocates, this belief and its growing social movement center around redistributing society's benefits and burdens so that racial outcomes are more equitable. Notwithstanding the Socialism implications, which are very real anytime the economic formula for wealth creation and class stratification are altered to comport with the Marxist principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," racial equity is a flawed approach to overcoming racism by improving racial outcomes. As a result, racial equity is conceptually incoherent and thus runs afoul of the Constitution, the premier gatekeeper of equality, justice, and fairness; utilizes a flawed approach to racial disparities; and lacks historical compatibility with African American historical thought leaders like Frederick Douglass.

Racial equity's conceptual incoherence stems from its advocates' willingness to compromise and sacrifice equality and fairness for all as safeguarded by the Constitution in order to advance racially equitable outcomes that are purely driven by internal policy reforms and commitments to social justice for the few. This is well captured in Montgomery County, Maryland's 2018 Resolution to Develop an Equity Policy Framework in County Government. Item (7) of the Background section states:

As part of the Govermnent[sic] Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE), a growing number of jurisdictions are undertaking the work needed to operationalize equity, and integrate it into the decision-making process. These include the use of an "equity lens" to determine who benefits from public policies, regulations and practices and the development of equity tools and plans to inform local decision-making.

Just like the racial equity statement from the Racial Equity Institute highlighted above, "equality" has been exchanged for "equity" wherein the principle force behind equity is the use and redress of historic injustices and disparate outcomes. Again, from the Montgomery County Resolution, the equity-disparity connection figures prominently and is indispensable with virtually all policy prescriptions that advocate for racial equity:

Eliminating disparities by promoting equity - the fair treatment of individuals and diverse groups - is an economic imperative. The Urban Institute's Racial Inequities in Montgomery County, 2011-15 report shows that a more equitable Montgomery County would increase the number of immigrants, Latinos, African Americans, and Asians with some college education, and would also increase employment and homeownership rates among people of color. A more equitable Montgomery County would enhance opportunities for all residents, thereby improving the economy.

By eliminating disparities through equitable outcomes, benefits and burdens are redistributed thus making for a more just society, at least that's what the racial equity advocates want us to believe. The reality is, however, that equitable outcomes for X necessarily create unequal outcomes for Y, and this tramples over everything the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution stand for and mandate when it comes to justice, fairness, and equality before the law. Because equity replaces equality, the Constitutional requirements delineated under the Fourteenth Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause are now rendered mute, moot, and meaningless under this flashy new arrangement. This troubling exchange creates a portentous legal situation of incalculable claims and harms as equity becomes the policy preference at the local, state, and federal levels of government.

Racial Equity is nothing more than repackaged egalitarianism with racial justice veneer. In short, egalitarianism is the belief that between law and public policy, everyone is rightfully entitled to all social benefits, and these are to be distributed equitably. From politics and economics to health care and education, there's to be no difference in societal treatment. In so doing, egalitarianism violates its own rules of valuing the individual by imposing the weight of government over human agency, individual autonomy, and self fulfillment. Under egalitarian systems, individual accomplishments that result in "excesses" over that of others is frowned upon. Again, harkening back to Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," achievement, enrichment, and advantage are inherently incompatible with the ideals of equity because this creates social disadvantage (i.e. inequity). Tibor Machan fleshes this out masterfully in his timeless article, The Errors of Egalitarianism upon which my egalitarian critique is based. Machan exposes the egalitarian flaws and fallacies in the following:

Egalitarianism is thus both a political and moral crusade, demanding that people do the right thing via their political institutions and, when it comes to their personal conduct, demanding that they give away all of their own wealth beyond whatever is deemed subsistence level.

The Declaration of Independence tells us that "all men are created equal." Ever since, critics of the idea of the free society have argued that this is nonsense because, in fact, we are quite evidently not all created equal. Indeed, they stress, the truth is we ought to be equal--it is only fair and just but we are not. Nature bungled. Accordingly, force should be deployed in society not primarily to combat criminal conduct but to make us all equal in al important aspects.

Of course, the Declaration was referring to equality of rights, equality of legal status in society. Men are said to be "created equal" in the respect of possessing unalienable rights to, among other conditions, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, we are all rights possessors. That does not mean we are--or should be--equal in our heights, fortune, intelligence, looks, or talents.

Despite all the clear and undeniable differences among human beings, there are some basic principles we ought to respect and protect, namely, our fundamental rights as agent of our choices. Any kind of broader egalitarianism is both impossible, and, to the extent that its incoherent program is coercively imposed, blatantly unjust.

Machan's treatment is very powerful, compelling, and a necessary corrective to the errors of the liberal worldview that has resurfaced under a new identity. Equally, his critique applies to the fallacies of racial equity in that this emerging theory is unjustifiably hostile to the fundamentals of liberty and equality as defended in the Constitution. In the end, it cannot deliver what it sets out to accomplish and should be rejected and redirected toward advancing and protecting the virtues of racial equality that were spearheaded by the civil rights movement, a tradition that gave us enormous historical successes politically, legally, socially, and economically despite ongoing challenges and hardships that must be overcome in the interest of the African American community, specifically, and the United States of America, collectively. In part two, I will examine the issue of disparities more closely and how racial equity theory distorts and misapplies this important concept with reckless disregard.