Oh there are so many words that could fit the week we’ve had. I hope it does not disappoint anyone that the word of the week will not, in fact, be “s**thole.” But it’ll be connected to the latest round of fury and outrage surrounding that supposed statement (seriously, Democrats, you wonder why you don’t get invited…), and it’s a word and a subject that I’ve been meaning to address for a long time. Today’s word that the left really should stop using until they learn what it really means is “diversity.”
Right off the bat you ought to be thinking “but that’s one of their favorite words, right up there with ‘racist’ and ‘Nazi’ and ‘f**k!'” After 23 previous chapters of WTLSNU, it ought to come as no surprise that the left’s favorite words are also the words they misuse the most. Merriam Webster defines “diversity” as “the condition of having or being composed of differing elements.” In the strictest possible sense, when the left talks about “diversity,” they do get this base definition right, but as we all know, being a little bit right does not prevent you from being entirely wrong.
As we celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. day this coming week, it’s a good time to remember that it’s been about fifty years since people stood up and marched (with Democrats forming most of the opposition) in support of the idea that people ought not to be judged on their appearances but on their merits. Anyone remember what awful racist Nazi patriarch posited that idea? Anyone? Anyway, we’ve been told and thinking people have generally come to the conclusion that superficial attributes ought to take a backseat to things like talent and intellect and character when judging a person… and then somehow this “diversity” nonsense came about. The Democratic party engaged in a two-pronged assault on American civilization, with the welfare state engineered to corner the minority vote and second-wave feminism aimed at corralling women’s votes, both by promoting these groups’ loyalty to and dependence on the ever-expanding state. Then they had the nerve to act surprised when people from these groups ended up being less qualified for jobs and positions and college scholarships and government offices and basically anything worth doing.
So they came up with this drippy malarkey about how “diversity is our strength” and “our progress depends on our diversity,” and attempted to pitch it using straw men and fictional examples of where good ideas got rejected because they came from the wrong people. I remember an old radio ad where an employer is trying to find a replacement for a department head and goes through a list of people who he rejects just based on who they are and then fumes about how ridiculous it is that “in this entire department not one person is qualified,” the implication being that he has about a dozen people who are qualified, he’s just a prejudiced jerk. Well, in the free market, not only does this kind of thing happen very rarely, but when it does happen, it tends to fix itself pretty quickly–any of those nominees who got passed over and actually were qualified for a better position would get hired by someone who actually wanted to make money. But of course these people think capitalism is the root of all evil so they can’t even consider the possibility that it might be the solution to prejudice. These ads inadvertently reinforced the idea that the left is now trying to get away from–it does not matter what you look like, it matters what your skills and qualifications and character are.
There is only one kind of diversity that actually IS a strength, and that is diversity of opinion and perspective. This in turn is only a strength if we’re in a society and a system that can be honest with itself and accurately weigh the value of opinions and perspectives, because the perspective of, say, a CEO who oversees the operations of the entire company ought to carry more weight than that of the line worker who knows his job and a little bit about the job of the guy next to him. That doesn’t mean the line worker won’t know something the CEO might have overlooked, it just means both of them should be considered for what they are, not WHO they are. When leftists talk about “diversity,” however, this is not the kind of diversity they mean, and in fact it is quite the opposite. The left is only concerned with who you are and what grievance group you fall into, and in fact they believe that if you’re a part of one of their wholly-owned grievance subcategories that THAT not only dictates your value, but also sets what your opinions and perspectives are. We spent decades acknowledging that the color of your skin or the country of your origin is almost totally irrelevant (nobody’s telling Yao Ming he can’t play basketball because he’s Asian) only to get to the point where this irrelevant characteristic is not only one of an individual’s greatest strengths (or weaknesses) in terms of hireability, but is trumpeted above actual talent and qualification on an organizational and even national level as well.
The dark fact is that not only is “diversity” of race and ethnicity and culture NOT a strength, but it is in fact a serious liability. I can already hear eyes rolling and “racist” and “Nazi” and “alt-right” but hang on a minute and hear me out. It doesn’t matter which races or cultures you put in close proximity. Throughout history, whenever the kind of ethnic diversity that we have in the United States has existed, with disparate cultures in close proximity to each other due to growth or relocation or conquest or what have you, the inevitable result has been genocide, persecution, and bitter, bloody war. It is a testament to the underlying strength of the United States and American culture that we have survived the ethnic diversity we have for so long. Once again, it isn’t hard to figure out why we were able to do that–our culture of freedom and emphasis on assimilation (the old “melting pot” metaphor) together with the voluntary nature of most immigration to the USA made this a place that most people who are here wanted to be part of, so they subsumed their national identities into the larger whole. And don’t start with me on African slaves, nobody living now was a slave or owned a slave, and we not only set up a whole country in Africa for freed slaves to return to if they chose but we paid a heavy price in blood and treasure to end the time-honored repugnant Democratic institution of chattel slavery. No one but no one is here because they have to be. And as we splinter further into grievance groups (and the left becomes more violent and deranged with every passing year) we draw closer to the point where we will be shown once again that some people may consider diversity a nice thing to have, but it comes with a price tag.
I don’t care what you look like. But the fact that you look differently from me does not make either one of us better than the other, nor is any group in which we both happen to be members stronger in any way because we don’t look the same. Diversity is not a strength and it never has been, and it’s certainly not a value we ought to stake our entire country on.
Another word next week. The list is long and growing.