One of the talking-points that comes up in politics is diversity. Particularly, racial diversity (though, as my smarter readers are aware of, there is more to diversity than looking different). In this area, the left (particularly Democrats) love to boast that they’re the pro-diversity party, even going as far as to pretend that their rivals are opposed to diversity, as though they themselves were always diverse, all along.
However, that’s a misconception. But it’s a misconception that they’ll feed into, knowing that it benefits them.
The fact is, both sides of the American political climate are for diversity. The difference between them is in how diversity is achieved.
First, the right (usually represented by the likes of Republicans and Libertarians). The American political right believes that diversity should come about naturally, and to this end, a person’s race should not be considered in their endeavors.
Ideally, an employer should consider a candidate based on their merits. If this were the case, people of different races will be present in a large enough business by virtue of the fact that no race is being purposely excluded. Likewise, a college considering an applicant should consider the potential student based on the likelihood that they’d succeed in the environment, without regard to the applicant’s race. Under these conditions, diversity on campuses wouldn’t just be likely, they’d be expected.
Practices that discriminate based on race, such as racial steering and block-busting would be illegal, as they would exclude qualified candidates and applicants based on race.
The left, as exemplified largely by Democrats, has a different approach when it comes to diversity. Their difference in approach provides an excellent illustration in how their political philosophy as a whole differs from their opponents.
The left’s approach when it comes to diversity involves achieving diversity through top-down intervention.
Rather than allowing diversity to occur naturally, the left prefers to pressure employers and institutions to achieve diversity with quotas. As the left would have it, the representation of each individual race in each setting must be consistent with their own ideal of how each race should be represented. Whether this is through equal representation of each race, or consistent with each race’s representation in the general population, the left isn’t always clear.
When you understand the left’s tendency towards top-down controls, even on the societal level, you’ll have an easier time understanding why social engineers tend towards the left.
When you consider the left’s tendencies towards top-down societal controls, the implications should give you the chills, especially if you’re of the opinion that each individual should have the freedom and autonomy to determine for themselves how they live their lives.
And I would think that most people would prefer to make choices for themselves, such as which car to buy, without having the selection limited by a governing body they does not understand the nuances of an individual’s decisions. And, for that matter, an individual should have freedom of choice as to who their spouse would be, without having their selection limited based on race, provided their selection consents. And the couple should be free to produce the number of offspring that they choose, without external manipulation or intervention.
In fact, any form of external manipulation or intervention in any of these choices should absolutely not be tolerated.
However, the left is of a different mind. They are generally more favorable of the idea of top-down control on the part of the government, even as far as engineering society into the shape of their preference. This is in stark contrast with the right, which favors limited government, by principle.
The right tends more towards libertarianism, while the left tends more towards authoritarianism. As one examines their respective policy positions, this becomes evident. The moniker of liberal really doesn’t fit the left very well.
If we were to examine the American political right in good faith, it would be apparent that they desire diversity. Not only that, they have a far superior way of achieving it, which involves a stronger society, by reason of important roles going to the best qualified, rather than to diversity hires.
The left might try to paint this as a pretext for racial discrimination, but there wasn’t much expectation of an argument in good faith from those lacking moral absolutes. While that may sound like a cheap shot, it holds up with the observation that a larger representation of leftists are of the idea that human government is the highest level of authority, and that there’s no truth but power. But that’s an issue for another essay.