Is it the responsibility of Oakland’s government to make sure that every poor person in the city is able to enjoy the same benefits that middle-class or wealthy people enjoy? This is at the heart of the debate about who governs Oakland.
Progressives argue that, yes, the job of government is to lift up poor people and “equalize” their experience in the economy. Indeed, this what their favorite word, “equity,” means. It seems to be a very American approach: our country was founded on the equality principle, whereby government power was limited so that people could rise economically and socially by their own efforts—and not be kept down by government’s actions, as they were in Great Britain at the time. It’s a great principle of governing, which is why it was adopted by so many other countries across the globe. They saw how limited government and maximum economic opportunity had made America wealthy and powerful, and it was the secret sauce they wanted.
Unfortunately, that tried-and-true formula has been abandoned in the bluest, most progressive parts of the country, including Oakland. For the last thirty years or so, we’ve developed a political ideology that demands equal outcomes for everyone. That include the benefits of economic success—without actual economic success. A home of one’s own, healthcare, a good income to buy all the good stuff in the marketplace—these are the things we all treasure, but most of us learn, at an early age, that we can’t enjoy these things unless we get jobs and work hard. Most of us…but not progressives. They appear to believe that the American Dream means that everybody can enjoy these things, even if they can’t afford them. They argue that, if someone is unable to pay for the pleasurable things in life, it’s probably because they’re victims of racism. After all, most poor people are people of color. They are made in the same image of God as the middle classes. They have the same feelings and ideals, the same drives and dreams, so if they’re not succeeding, there must be a pernicious reason for it. What else can that reason be, other than that there’s a conspiracy to keep them poor and downtrodden? And if there’s a conspiracy, then the conspirators must be the people who actually are economically successful: White people. Therefore, White people must be punished, and their wealth must be transferred to poor people.
What I’m describing is the difference between Communism and free-market democracy. The former has lots to like. It guarantees everyone a basic quality of life. It tends to level out income classes among the population, so that no one has to feel left out. But the problems of Communism are by now well known. It stifles individual development, and results in stagnant economic systems. It means that, if no one is poor, then no one is really successful either. It’s particularly susceptible to corruption. It’s a boring, one-dimensional, drone society, which is why no Communist country in history has ever succeeded.
But when it comes to Communist-inspired ideologues like Carroll Fife, Pamela Price, Cat Brooks and Rebecca Kaplan, they don’t read history. For them, it’s more important to be ideologically pure than to actually have their societies lifted up. They work in thrall to an ideology that has been discredited around the world. To the extent they’ve been able to foist that ideology on Oakland—and the extent is considerable—it’s ruined us. They’ve taken a respectable, middle-class, safe community and turned it into a third-world ghetto, with all the crime, garbage and incivility that implies. They don’t care how much suffering they’ve caused. All they care about is the extent to which they’ve communized our city. Is their behavior criminal? Very likely. Should it be punished? I leave that to the future. In my opinion, yes.
Have a wonderful, safe weekend! Back on Monday.
Steve Heimoff