BCT Editorial – 1/25/05

This page was last updated on January 30, 2005.

The home front; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 25, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“In his second inaugural address on Thursday, President Bush used the words ‘freedom’ 27 times and ‘liberty’ 15 times.

“Loosely defined, those terms are virtually interchangeable.

“In Webster’s New World Collegiate Dictionary (Fourth Edition), the first definition of freedom includes the word ‘liberty’ and the first definition of liberty includes the word ‘freedom.’

“And while the president’s praise of freedom and liberty was eloquent - ‘In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.’ - Bush gave short shrift to two other words that are essential ingredients in any successful democratic society, ‘justice’ and ‘just.’

“While freedom and liberty were sprinkled liberally throughout the speech, ‘justice’ was mentioned five times (‘there is no justice without freedom,’ ‘this journey of progress and justice,’ ‘ideals of justice and conduct,’ ‘the unjust encounter justice,’ and ‘an ebb and flow of justice’) and ‘just’ only once (‘make our society more prosperous and just and equal’).

“Webster’s first definition of ‘just’ is ‘right or fair; equitable; impartial.’”

[RWC] When liberals start throwing around the words “just” and “justice,” run for cover. Despite objections to the contrary and citing dictionary definitions, the liberal definition of justice is “equal outcome.” If the outcome for a pet liberal group is not at least what it is for an “unfashionable” group, there was no justice. For example, if women don’t make up at least 50% of firefighters, women are not being treated justly.

“Do we have a just society, or are we evolving into an unjust society in which wealth and power are being concentrated in the hands of an all-too-often lucky few, those who, as columnist Matthew Miller has written, hit the ‘pre-birth lottery.’”

[RWC] This sounds like the same “justification” given for “affirmative action” or “diversity” programs.

“In his book ‘The Two Percent Solution,’ Miller wrote, ‘But if we ask, in the spirit of taking luck seriously, what does equal opportunity and a decent minimum in America mean, can’t we agree that full-time work should enable a family to live a decent life? That every citizen should have basic health coverage? That serious effort should be made to make sure schools for poor children are good? And that average citizens should have some way to have their voices heard amidst the din of big political money?’”

[RWC] The editorial failed to note what the book title means. Mr. Miller believes government could solve our ills by adding two percent of GDP to our current spending.

FYI, Paul Krugman wrote a glowing review of this book. Mr. Krugman is about as far left as an economist can get.

Using “luck” as justification for socialism is nothing new.

“‘The road to justice leads through luck, and it’s a road conservatives and liberals can walk together. It’s a way of remembering that social justice is a form of enlightened self-interest, for so long as we leave tens of millions of the unlucky unhelped, our economy will not grow as fast, our crime rates will be higher, our collective potential will suffer in ways that ultimately harm us all.’”

[RWC] Think carefully about “It’s a way of remembering that social justice is a form of enlightened self-interest …” In other words, if you don’t agree with Mr. Miller’s definition of “social justice,” you are unenlightened (read: stupid). This is a common liberal theme; if you don’t believe as I do, you are stupid.

Given that much of Europe operates as described in these paragraphs, perhaps the Times can explain why the “unjust” United States consistently outperforms Europe? Our citizens have greater freedom, our “poor” are richer, our unemployment is much lower, our economic growth is greater, and when someone is in trouble, whom does the world turn to?

“(Miller, whose views were heavily influenced by John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice,’ stresses that he isn’t advocating equal incomes or equal outcomes, just equal opportunity.)”

[RWC] Nice try, but that’s what all liberals claim, just before they claim an “injustice” based on perceived “under representation” as in my firefighter example above.

If Mr. Miller doesn’t advocate equal incomes or outcomes, what does he call a “decent minimum?” For those people whose economic value is below a certain level, the whole group will receive equal incomes and outcomes.

As I’ve written before, read what liberals write closely and you will eventually find what they say is not what they mean.

“Spreading freedom and liberty around the world is a noble and praiseworthy goal. However, the march of freedom and liberty abroad does our nation no good if we continue to move to an unjust society at home.”

[RWC] Once again we see the real definition of “justice” used by liberals means giving to one group by government taking from another. A tenet of liberalism is that government is more “moral” and “just” than the individuals it’s supposed to represent.

Perhaps the Times editorial writers can moonlight for MoveOn.org.