The Outstater
A Generation’s Mea Culpa
BEFORE WE GET TOO OLD and before our ChatGBT assistants go woke, we should put together a comprehensive list of the stupid ideas held by our generation, particularly the really, really stupid ones to which we have clung long past the point we should have known better. I’ll start.
1. That Charles Darwin explained why we are here — We continued the misunderstanding of Darwin’s theory. It was about species adapting over time, not the spark that kicked the whole show off. His work on natural selection is for explaining how finches get fancier beaks or why moths blend into sooty trees. The creation of life, though, is a different ballgame, and Darwin didn’t even step up to the plate. His theory kicks in *after* life was already established, not at creation. Challenge that and you’ll get a lecture on fish crawling onto beaches and terms like “emergent properties” or “complex systems.” The origin of life, though, remains a scientific black box. And it is not “science,” to insist that if you give a theory enough time it will be proved true. Again, our generation has continued to mistake adaptation for creation, undeterred by logic or the limits of what Darwin actually said, all at great cost to our understanding of man’s place in the universe.
2. That democracy ensures freedom — We have believed along with that nitwit George W. Bush that if we ensured democracy at home and instilled it abroad — at gunpoint, if necessary — that all would be well. But most of us were daydreaming in civics class when it was explained that our freedom and prosperity is the result not of a democratic government but of a historic and wildly successful experiment with a constitutional republic, a brilliant refinement of English Common Law. Pure democracy, on the other hand, is merely an ancient means of mathematic succession, only slightly better than the guillotine or gallows, and considered unworkable in modern multi-cultural societies. Indeed, if it were a choice between such a democracy and a constitutional monarchy we would be wise to choose the latter. It ensures stable, predictable succession and fosters long-term national unity and continuity. It embodies historical tradition, providing a unifying symbol above partisan politics. For monarchs, trained from birth, don’t fall into leadership but are prepared, often prioritizing duty to their country over personal preferences. Do we need to draw the contrast with the 500 odd members of the U.S. Congress flailing around chasing riches and short-term popularity no matter the consequences to their countrymen?
3. That equality of results could be achieved without sacrificing equality of opportunity — We envisioned a world where everyone’s outcome could be identical — same wealth, same status, same everything, ignoring statistical proof to the contrary. But logic and experience tells us that the moment you let someone seize an opportunity — say, starting a business or studying harder — you get different outcomes. One person has a yacht; another has a bus pass. One brother is a doctor, another is an embezzler. That’s not inequality; that’s life. We have proposed wealth taxes, quotas and redistribution schemes, believing these will make everyone equal while preserving everyone’s opportunity. But why innovate if the fruits of your labor are served up to random guys on welfare. We used buzzwords like “equity” or “systemic fairness,” pretending we could force equal outcomes without kneecapping ambition. But people aren’t robots programmed to share nicely. Some will always work harder, think faster, or just get luckier. Meanwhile, the equality merchants pretend they can legislate away envy, grit and randomness itself. Their fix? More rules, more controls, more bureaucrats deciding who gets what, not the least of which was the $3.8 trillion “Great Society” program that has taught several generations now to fail rather than succeed. The result is a society where opportunity shrinks for everyone.
4. That integration would improve the performance of black students — Related to the last point, we believed that if the courts commanded equality in education, racial disparities would disappear. It has been more than seven decades since Brown vs. Board of Education and both test scores and race relations are unimproved, have arguably worsened. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics confirms that standardized test scores for blacks remain lower and the achievement gap has actually widened. Black economists such as Thomas Sowell and the late Walter Williams argued that black students are worse off because the decision was based on a false sociological observation, i.e., that blacks must be sitting next to whites to learn. More damaging generally, it overturned James Madison’s conviction that in a free society voluntary good will eventually corrects moral wrongs. Instead, the Court in effect upheld a Marxist dictum that good will is not an effective force in human affairs, that government force is always necessary. Paul Craig Roberts of the Wall Street Journal, summed it up in an article for Brown’s 50th anniversary: “Although decided in the name of equality, Brown ushered in inequality with the racial quotas and preferences that followed in its wake, in the end invading even freedom of conscience of the American people.” Our generation’s legacy, then, is rule by judges in a kritarchy, the destruction of equality before the law, the replacement of persuasion with coercion, the end of freedom of conscience and the rise of insatiable racial grievances. Add to that Indiana’s adoption of the 1973 Collective Bargain Act diluting local management prerogative and you have a recipe for educational disaster. Gad, what a sorry record.
That should about do it. Oh yes, there’s one more: How did our generation think there would be future generations if we did not maintain a society that exalted or at least encouraged men and women forming families, preferably nuclear ones, bearing children and protecting those still in the womb?
Your turn. — tcl
Comments...