One again, Blacks voted for Obama in “mass quantities.” Some put the number at 95 percent, although I’ve seen a number around 92 percent. The Black vote in the Philadelphia wards was off the charts. One article carried this headline, “Vote was astronomical for Obama in some Philadelphia wards,” even though another article reported in September of this year that “[p]overty rose significantly in Philadelphia and its surrounding counties over the last two years, while the city’s median household income in 2011 ranked second-worst among the nation’s 25 largest cities.”
These areas are deeply affected by policies that are championed by the Democrats. Have the majority of blacks benefited by decades of calls for more poverty programs and and wealth transfer incentives? When you have time, read the article “Philadelphia’s Poverty Problem” that was published online in PhillyMag in 2010. It’s heart wrenching:
More than a third of the city’s kids don’t graduate from high school . . . . Sixty percent of the city’s children are born out of wedlock. A third grow up in poverty. Philadelphia, recent stats say, is America’s poorest big city.
Which hurts all of us. Consider the problems just on a practical level: It’s tough to attract new business to the city when so much of it is dangerous, when we lack an educated workforce. We lose out on tax revenue. We end up spending more — billions more — on prisons and services trying to resurrect our poorest people than we would in tackling some of their problems head-on.
No doubt some Blacks break free from the conditions that they were born into, as the above article points out. They beat some very bad odds, but they are expected to stay with the liberal insistence that a strong central government managed by caring political party is their way out of poverty, and woe to any “minority” who says otherwise. Black and Brown people who support Republicans are said to be “window dressing.” Remember how Stacey Dash was savaged by blacks for her support of Mitt Romney? Consider these comments by Joy-Ann Reid, an on-air contributor at MSNBC:
They just think they need to put more window dressing on it, and find some more black and brown people to say the exact same things they believe. They don’t believe they need to change their positions on issues. They just believe they need to change the decoration.
Of course, Blacks aren’t the only ones who have travel “the road to serfdom.” There are a lot of poor Whites who are content to take confiscated money from taxpayers in the name of “fairness” or some contrived “social justice” narrative. Some people are content to go through life as wards of the State and they vote accordingly.
Conde Pallen’s “utopian” novel Crucible Island depicts what happens when the State takes on the attributes of a benefactor. The devotion to the State is religious. Man looks for a substitute provider so “the individual should have no thought, desire, or object other than the public welfare, of which the State is the creator and the inviolable guardian. As soon as the child is capable of learning, he is taught the Socialist catechism, whose first questions run as follows:
Q. By whom were you begotten?
A. By the sovereign State.
Q. Why were you begotten?
A. That I might know, love, and serve the Sovereign State always.
Q. What is the sovereign State?
A. The sovereign State is humanity in composite and perfect being.
Q. Why is the State supreme?
A. The State is supreme because it is my Creator and Conserver in which I am and move and have my being and without which I am nothing.
Q. What is the individual?
A. The individual is only a part of the whole, and made for the whole, and finds his complete and perfect expression in the sovereign State. Individuals are made for cooperation only, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth.1
Welcome to Crucible Island. You’re chains are on the table.
- Condé B. Pallen, Crucible Island: A Romance, an Adventure and an Experiment (New York: The Manhattanville Press, 1919), 109–110. [↩]