Speaking up in an age of Wokeism
Investigation #26
Racism is not dead, but it is on life support — kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as “racists.”—Thomas Sowell
About a decade ago I wrote a letter to the press that became one of my most controversial pieces in the mainstream media. Some days later Lee Kuan Yew passed away and a General Election was called subsequently that year. Opinions were flying everywhere and it was a contentious year. That letter also received a defensive reply from the academics who wrote the initial letter I responded to; my letter was reposted on various blogs aligned to the opposition and received many criticisms and angry reactions. The letter presents some of the Libertarian views I gravitate towards.
Interestingly, over the years that letter which appears on a blog of mine that hosts a collection of them—received the most hits/reads including recently; it has also been referenced elsewhere; the readers come principally from Singapore, the US and UK. It garners that response I believe because it took a contrarian position and is against the mainstream perspective.
The letter can be found here: Why MOE-AU scholarship is a good idea
This piece stems partly from a reader’s response to my previous post, 2024 is Orwell’s 1984. It is best to explain my position on replies to responses that may be posted here so it may account for why there may be few or no responses at times.
My approach to dealing with responses, particularly those that are a vilification rather than a reasoned reaction, is shaped by my exposure to and participation in debates since youth. My debating activities were largely competitive, held locally and internationally, and some televised. The attitude towards the debates was a zero-sum one: my team and I were only interested in winning. However, the learning gained from that was priceless.
I am no longer interested in winning debates or even arguments, there are enough trophies and prizes from those days and it belongs to the past. Hence, I am not interested each time to give a sharp response to critical replies regarding what I say. Sometimes responses are unavoidable and clarification may be required but they are no longer laced with the desire to win.
My approach to responses are broadly, (a) replies/rebuttals in debates, (b) responses to philosophical queries and clarifications sought, (c) reactions to general comments. The first is history, the second happens rarely, and most falls under (c). Debates are agonistic, that is not always so with ‘general comments’. But none of the negative responses from ‘general comments’ over the years match the severity of replies, attacks, and rebuttals endured during competitive debates: they were made sometimes by those who knew exactly what they were doing and were better in their skills than me; they were whom I learnt most from. It was brutal, exhilarating, and educational.
Nothing since has replicated that experience, no amount of criticism or attacks mounted online often under pretence of a general comment measures up to the quality of the savage onslaughts of a properly adjudicated debating competition ; at times it was a war zone particularly the overseas competitions: but the victory achieved was palpable.
My perspective on criticism is technical and responses are viewed clinically. Is what is hurled or stated a genuine response; is there an argument; are points made effective and viable; are they original and arresting; is there common sense; and is it the counterintuitive response that leads to insight; but with virulent counterattacks in general they are none of the above.
So in many instances, I did/do not respond at all to the attacks and criticisms in publications to some of my views. There was support as well, but the critics are the most vociferous.
In the case of Trump, it is not so much my support for him in all he says as that he espouses sensible views that at times coincide with Libertarian values. Most of his opponents have nothing to offer but what does not accord with common sense or the national interest; they are destructive in nature, and bloated with wokeism.
Notwithstanding, it is unreasonable to explain the basis of all my views in detail in each piece as that has been done elsewhere. Classical Liberalism is the original Liberalism that underlies the Libertarian thought which shapes my views.
Examples of Libertarian thinking can be found in the ideas of economist Milton Friedman (now regarded as one of the most influential people of the 20th century), and John Rawls: perhaps the most important political philosopher of the last century. Both have impacted my thinking.
Moreover, my Libertarian leanings occur within the framework of a moral philosophy that cannot be explicated in each instance. So what appears to be a post that is empathetic to Trump-Vance contra Harris-Walz has a basis that may not always be apparent.
However, the following link leads to a convenient collection of some of the background pieces to my thinking.[1] My ideas are usually the result of careful thought over the years that have undergone revision and evolution; they are still in a process of fine-tuning. The pieces can be found at: Philosophers for Change. This does not make my views correct, they provide insight into how they have developed over time—views that do not always go with the status quo, the politically correct, the wokeists; they tend to have a spiritual dimension which makes them even more niche at times than intended.
Therefore, blanket comments defending the weird Harris-Walz duo do not answer substantive points:
Harris stealing Trump’s ‘no tax on tips’ idea when she enforced those taxes with Biden
Harris’ failure as ‘border czar’ in allowing millions of illegals that have led to increased violent crime in the US
Heightened inflation because of failed Biden-Harris economic policies that resulted in high taxes and plans to further increase taxes. Harris just announced increasing the corporate tax to 28% (making it higher than China’s); introducing a 44.6% capital gains tax (which is insane); a 25% tax on unrealised capital gains (which is psychotic) that means if there is a rise in the value of your property over the year the federal government will tax you for that even if you have not sold it: this applies to businesses wherein they will be taxed a quarter of their enterprise’s worth, e.g. if you’re a billion dollar company you will be taxed $250 million for not selling the company: so if it actually earned $220 million that year it would be taxed into bankruptcy.
A ‘green new deal’ that leads to higher energy costs and destruction of arable land and livestock for solar panel and wind farms, and production of more electric cars (Elon Musk supports Trump despite this because he prefers reasonable taxes on businesses etc.). This will lead to the end of the auto industry and job loss, and rise of the exorbitant electric car industry.
Walz has destroyed private enterprise by higher taxes in his state and did nothing when riots raged there several years ago (and take a look at his allowing for tampons in boys’ school toilets and transgendered surgery for minors)
Harris supports scrapping private health insurance but wants a single payer universal healthcare which will drive up costs; she is now claiming otherwise but is vague on details. But obviously she wants the taxpayer to cover health costs for illegal migrants. Even the British realise that the National Health Service is unsustainable but both main parties do not want to scrap it because they believe it is popular with voters. But all this has to be paid for by taxpayers including costs of housing illegal migrants.
Yet the defenders of this self-destructive agenda are blindly supporting Harris-Walz because they hate Trump. There is no reasoned presentation, substantial plan or platform that leads to prosperity and national resilience by the Democrats and their supporters: only vacuous statements, a screed on why Wokeism is good and anything against it is a lie.
And to that King Lear’s immortal words apply: “That way madness lies.”
End note:
[1] Examples of background pieces would be: Adam Smith: The moral economy unhijacked (which also appears here); Making moral philosophy relevant again: the rent across the ‘veil of ignorance’; The economic unconscious.
© 2024 Sanjay Perera. All rights reserved.
[Top picture: Andrew Megano.]
