Over the weekend I ran across a fascinating piece by the Washington Post’s Darlena Cunha. In ‘I’m a die-hard liberal. It ruined my parenting,’ she admits that liberalism is hurting her parenting and warping her kids’ minds — before telling readers that in response to the realization she will double down on liberalism.
To really appreciate such a beautifully bizarre piece of prose we must break it down into pieces.
My intentions are good. I want my two daughters, 6, to think critically, to fight for fairness and justice whenever they can. I want them to value equality above all else.
She wants her kids to value equality “above all else.” Therein lies the rub. When a woman values equality “above all else,” she becomes an advocate for tyranny, whether she realizes it or not.
In a free societies, inequalities will always exist. That is the natural result of individuals exercising free will. That is also why those who cherish equality of outcomes over equality of opportunity almost always find themselves seeking more power with every failure to impose arbitrary visions of “fairness” and “justice” on a world.
Ms. Cunha continues:
Three is probably a bit too young for the pay-gap speech, but there I was, explaining why I turned down a low-paying position at a local business. […] I thought my parenting approach would lead to strong, confident girls who are able to assess situations and logically thwart unequal systems. And it probably will, someday. But right now? They’re 6. The lessons I’ve taught them have led to two very dissatisfied girls who don’t know if their mother is their friend, their adversary or their keeper.
Anyone can be your friend, but only one person can be your biological father. Only one person can be your biological mother. Mothers and fathers have profoundly different roles than “friends,” and any parent who confuses their children in that regard is doing them a grave disservice.
The author’s recent trip to the grocery store is a harbinger of things to come — for the family and for the community her daughter ultimately ends up living in as an adult:
My daughter wanted me to buy her candy but had not behaved well enough to warrant an extra treat.
“Mom,” my daughter said, “people without money need help, and people with money need to help them.”
“Yes, that’s right,” I said.
“Well, I don’t have money, and you do, so you need to help me and buy this.”
A perfectly well-reasoned, thought-out argument.
When the answer was still no, she tantrumed and screamed, and I had to drag her out of the store. She did what I’d taught her; she still didn’t get what she wanted. I didn’t get what I wanted. Everyone was unhappy. …
I’ve taught the wrong message — that life should be fair and there is no other acceptable option. I did it before the girls had the capacity to understand the meaning of fair. “Fair became what I want right now because I want it”
Notice that Ms. Cunha calls her small child’s inane argument “well-reasoned.” It is not, which is why she soon admits that “fair became what I want right now because I want it.”
If that sounds familiar, then it is because that is what I said the argument boils down to for “diversity” race-baiters like Jesse Jackson:
The end result is that diversity activism boils down to “I want what I want when I want it.” What constitutes “diversity” is completely arbitrary. When numbers can be used as a racial cudgel, expect to be beaten. When numbers are inconvenient, it’s none of the white/asian guy’s business.
When children of Washington Post liberals grow up, they are exactly the kind of people who throw tantrums because black people make up 20 percent of the U.S. population, but not 20 percent of all doctors, wedding cake makers, auto mechanics, lawyers, and computer programmers. When a man values “equality above all else,” he does so at the expense of freedom and liberty.
Inequalities in and of themselves are not a bad thing. The rational man looks to see why the inequality that strikes his interest exists before passing judgment. If black men aren’t particularly fond of the automotive field, then he isn’t particularly concerned. There is no reason why black men should become auto mechanics if that is not what they desire. If there is no meaningful obstacle blocking their participation in the field, then the rational man salutes and moves on. In fact, if a survey was conducted that found black people want nothing to do with the profession, then inequality in the field could very well be a good thing.
The liberal activist does not see the world this way. If an inequality exists, then the coercive power of the State must be channeled to bring about his or her desired result. It is an incredibly odd mindset, which is why Ms. Cunha’s piece is worthy of attention. Like rare video footage of deep sea giant squid, the world now gets to see how these ideas continue to thrive generation after generation.
While I do not subscribe to this author’s political views, I am grateful to her for sharing her stories with the world. They are incredibly instructive, in ways that she appears to not fully comprehend.
Give the entire piece a read if you get a chance. It can be found here.