Joe Biden’s tweet, and the 152,000+ likes that accompanied it, highlights one of the fundamental differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals tend to be corporatists. That is, they divide people into classes based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status. The farther to the left you go, politically, the less the individual matters. They often make decisions based on class alone.
Conservatives, on the other hand, make decisions based on individual characteristics. And this is a frequent source of frustration when a Conservative engages in conversation with a Liberal on issues of justice or truth.
Why would Joe Biden say that he would only consider a woman? And why do Democrats give near universal support for the idea? Can you imagine if he said he would only pick a man? Isn’t that hypocrisy?
The quick answer is “yes.” But a one-word answer oversimplifies things.
Western Civilization and the Individual
The notion that Western Civilization was designed to oppress minorities while guaranteeing success for whites is a fundamental belief on the left. It’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of western ideology.
In the West, liberty is the focus and therefore individualism trumps corporatism. The accusation that an individualistic society manufactures “winners” and “losers” based on their class seems inherently flawed. Especially since Asians, not whites, maintain the highest standard of living in the United States.
So why does the left make this claim?
I believe corporatists – and here we can group them together as Progressives, Leftists, Socialists, and, to a lesser extent, Liberals – project their own world view onto Conservatives. In other words, they judge Conservatives as if Conservatives were corporatists. Thus, notions such as private property are seen by corporatists as attempts to reward groups of people – i.e. “generational wealth” – whereas Conservatives see it as rewarding individuals.
And this extrapolates into nearly every issue.
Diversity in the New York Philharmonic
During the Civil Rights era, auditions for positions in the New York Philharmonic were conducted in front of a panel of judges. This led some to accuse the judges of discrimination based on race and gender. So they changed the process to a blind audition, where judges based their decisions solely on listening to the audition from behind a screen.
While blind auditions did change the makeup of orchestras to an extent, they remain one of the least diverse institutions in America. This fact prompted The New York Times’ chief classical music critic, Anthony Tommasini, to call for an end to blind auditions and a move towards inclusion.
In the examples of Joe Biden picking Kamala Harris and the New York Philharmonic, we see the monumental difference between the corporatist and the individualist.
The individualist looks at nominations for political office as a meritocracy. In other words, they ask “Who would make the best candidate based on credentials?” The corporatist criticizes this: “How can you avoid blatant or subtle discrimination?”
It’s a fair question on the surface but not a sincere question, as we shall see.
The Prejudice and Totalitarian Nature of Corporatism
In the New York Philharmonic example, they avoided allegations of discrimination by instituting blind auditions – a true meritocracy. But this did not satisfy the corporatist because it does not produce the results he desired. His solution – and the fatal flaw of corporatism – is to remove blind auditions and force the group to “look like the community it serves.”
In other words, the corporatist re-injects blatant prejudice (as opposed to only perceived prejudice in the meritocracy of auditions) into the process and then forces the result he wants. At which time he claims that true diversity has been achieved.
The Blatant Hypocrisy of Corporatism
This is not only prejudice and totalitarian but also hypocritical. Examine the racial makeup of the National Basketball Association (NBA), which is overwhelmingly black. The percentages of Latino and Asian athletes are under 3%, while there are no Native Americans. White American-born players are also severely underrepresented.
But when an individualist sees these numbers, they once again see a meritocracy. They see a collection of the best individual players in the world.
But here’s the interesting thing. The same corporatist who decries the lack of diversity in the New York Philharmonic praises the diversity of the NBA! They see no inconsistency in this because they see the world entirely from the oppressor/victim paradigm.
In a corporatist’s world view, a black person is a victim, period. Therefore, even if an organization suppressed white people and gave their positions to blacks, the corporatist would praise the diversity and justice of the organization.
Corporatism in the Media’s Narrative
No plainer example of the media’s corporatist mindset exists than examining their coverage of the George Floyd killing and the slaying of Cannon Hinnant. Whereas George Floyd received maximum media coverage, Cannon Hinnant received very little.
Is there not justice for Cannon Hinnant, the 5-year old white boy shot in the head by his black neighbor? I visited the Facebook pages of my social justice advocate friends and of the leaders of the social justice movement. I couldn’t find anyone taking up the cause.
Now, I’m an advocate for waiting until evidence is produced to draw any conclusions on the motive of the killer. But a corporatist draws instant conclusions on motive solely based on group categories.
We need to ask ourselves this question: why is it that the only justice sought after by the Social Justice movement as a whole is when it fits a specific narrative? Why? Is Cannon Hinnant a powerful white man? Is he already considered “privileged” and therefore not worthy of justice?
When a world view fails to consider the millions of deaths of the unborn, the thousands of deaths of black men at the hands of other black men, white deaths at the hands of anybody, and five-year-olds shot execution-style on their bicycles, it’s time to question the world view.
