Over the last several years, the hyper-sensational and ubiquitously-digitized social and political stage seems to have a preference for creating the solutions to our biggest problems with massive, sweeping fundamental change. While solutions can be found within change, it’s not an office or a household the public is trying to change; it’s our country, our society, and even our culture. This doesn’t necessarily make any such changes a “bad” thing, but it does take time to institute such changes.
Enter the second school of thought in today’s problem-solving realm: “we need to change this now.” Urgency and passion can be appreciated, but true change, especially fundamental change, requires extended periods of time for workshopping ideas, course-correcting when necessary, and assessing the effectiveness.
While the country is no stranger to the conversation of reparations for black Americans to correct the evils of slavery and discrimination, the country is relatively new – at least in the modern political era – to hasty, fast-paced decision-making simply because of the urgency and passion of the advocates. In the whirlwind of emotion, even if justified, forwarding-thinking is lost and precedents can easily be set without a second thought.
While the trickle-down effects of slavery cannot be denied, what’s a much more gray area is should people nowadays be on the hook? The knee-jerk response is that people today are not slaves, nor are they slave owners. Therefore, it’s a moot point.
But while that debate ensues, the debate over exactly how poorly-affected black communities are today because of slavery continues. Governor Hochul did not mention many specifics in her speech before signing the legislation, just that we all need to work together to right the wrongs of the past.
Reverend Al Sharpton also did not offer many words of specificity, instead alluding to the fact that some members of the media would insinuate his support is only due to a backroom deal. A serial tax cheat, Sharpton has made most of his money through political organization, union intimidation, speaking fees, and even his own charity.
In fact, vagueness is the bread and butter of the last few years of proposed racial problem-solving. Blaming “systemic” problems is clearly effective in rallying the troops; the logic renders everyone culpable without calling out anyone in particular. We’re all guilty, but we can’t exactly plant the blame squarely in one corner.
Then comes the very complicated effort of deciding who is eligible for reparations. Not all black Americans are of African descent but could nonetheless claim the collateral disadvantages. What about black Americans who not only trace can their lineage to slaves, but also the African lords who sold their own people into slavery hundreds of years ago? Are payments scaled based on estimated disadvantages one faces? How would those be calculated empirically?
These are just a few of the questions that would have to be answered in order for a program such as this to work. And if they can be answered, what’s the final price tag? California’s task force recommends payments of $1.2 million to each recipient, which would throw the state’s already-underwater budget billions in the red. New York would be no exception in that regard. Even if lump-sum or residual payments would actually solve the gaps claimed by some in today’s America, such an expenditure is killing a fly with a sledgehammer. Sure, the black communities might receive compensation for injustices past, but the question is how far will those reparations go in a state or country much worse economically than we started? Such fiscal irresponsibility would sink the ship we’re all on, much less one divided by race.
But this issue boils down to just that: division. Discussing problems and injustices is a fine way of giving problems exposure and giving arguments a chance to hold water. But when it becomes a constant discussion, the problems become more present than they actually are. Our society is also run by a constant conversation of the “haves and the have-nots,” or the “1% vs. the 99%.” Are we to believe the reparations argument will make already pea soup-thick tensions any more palatable?
Forcefully taking money from certain groups – the taxpayers, regardless of race – and giving to others based on race sets two bad precedents. First, it allows for a massive wealth transfer based mostly on subjective and feeling of obligation, which would allow for much more serious wealth transfers between groups of people, a sort of “redistribution of the wealth” that has claimed many a roaring economy. Second, it makes such great strides for civil rights, such as the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act and its ancillary legislative packages, shells of their former selves. By allowing another form of discrimination to take place by trying to vaguely and objectively ascribe blame and restitution, it undoes decades of progress made by our country.
Some point to previous iterations of the federal government issuing reparations for the Native Americans or Japanese citizens who were interned after the Pearl Harbor attacks. The problem with the comparison is that to “fix” the proposed problems today would be a much more complex and vague scenario.
Furthermore, with allegations of “systemic oppression,” we continue to await actual policies from Washington that seek to make affected communities better, not just with empty apologies and the prospects of free money. Donald Trump’s “Opportunity Zones” were the first substantial efforts in revitalizing these hollowed-out inner cities, but many forget that critical part of the 2017 tax package.
We think that the first people who should kick into the reparations fund are members and elected officials of the Democratic Party. While New York was not an unequivocal “hero” during the times of slavery or segregation, the bastion of the Union North was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped turn the country away from such practices. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, was responsible for the Solid South, Jim Crow, segregation, and secession of the Confederacy from the United States.
The Messenger calls on members of the party to put their money where their mouths are and start righting the wrongs of history that the party so undeniably caused.
