Is social justice really a serious problem in the country?

November 28, 2023

Social justice is an old concept that has become a hot topic lately.

The Britannica website offers this description: “Social justice, in contemporary politics, social science, and political philosophy, the fair treatment and equitable status of all individuals and social groups within a state or society. The term also is used to refer to social, political, and economic institutions, laws, or policies that collectively afford such fairness and equity and is commonly applied to movements that seek fairness, equity, inclusion, self-determination, or other goals for currently or historically oppressed, exploited, or marginalized populations.”

Human Rights Careers online offers the following: “The connection between social justice and human rights has strengthened over the years to the point where many use ‘social justice’ and ‘human rights’ interchangeably.”

And, from Wikipedia: “Social justice is justice in relation to a fair balance in the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society where individuals' rights are recognized and protected.”

While the idea of social justice in America has involved everyone having an equal opportunity to make their own choices about their future, there is a faction that believes that certain groups have been discriminated against, and therefore deserve what the Wikipedia description says: equal distribution of things, not equal opportunity to pursue things.

Yes, discrimination does exist. But is it really a major problem?

A new book analyzes the “social injustice” that many people claim to be rampant in America. Titled “Social Justice Fallacies,” the author is Dr. Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and a brilliant thinker. 

Comments on the cover of the book say that “The quest for social justice is a powerful crusade of our time, with an appeal to many different people, for many different reasons.”

“’Social Justice Fallacies’ reveals how many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed.”

“History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.”

Those errors were the result of human fallibility, due to the fervor of the crusader mindset, which often is so strong in its followers that they make serious mistakes in their efforts to correct a problem, including ignoring contrary evidence.

In the book Sowell details the problems with this error-ridden theory.

Addressing the idea that everyone should get the same opportunities, or the same amounts of all things, he notes that people with different backgrounds do not necessarily even have a desire for the same things, and certainly do not want to do whatever may be necessary to achieve them. This may perhaps be the case even if those things are given to them.

An example he cites is that some social justice warriors blame sexual discrimination for the fact that women are statistically under-represented among Silicon Valley employees. But a step further into the data shows that the work done in these companies requires engineering skills, and women receive less than 30 percent of the needed engineering degrees. Why? Because they do not choose to study engineering. 

People are not all the same. There are natural and lifestyle differences that play a part in a person’s capabilities and desires. Geographic areas encourage different lifestyles and behavior. Living in Florida is not like living in Alaska, or Iowa, or West Virginia. Growing up in farm country is different than growing up in a big city.

A person’s family and the family’s experiences most often play a major part in how children develop, and how they pursue life.

Sowell wrote that “children raised where there is only one parent present have been found in a number of studies to have a higher incidence of many social problems.” Boys without fathers have a higher incidence of things like truancy and murder. Girls raised by one parent have a higher incidence of teenage pregnancy. 

So, the question of why Billy made the football team and Joe didn’t; why Mary was the valedictorian and Freda wasn’t; or why Jane got the promotion to sales manager over Frank, probably was not the result of discrimination. There are many factors that may be involved in most outcomes other than race, ethnicity or gender.

In seeking persons to fill advanced medical research positions, Sowell posits, do we want equal numbers from all population groups, and hope for the best? Or will we make sure that we get those from whatever backgrounds who have demonstrated a mastery of medical science?

He wrote, “But neither society nor government comprehends or controls all the many and highly varied circumstances — including a large element of luck — that can influence the fate of individual classes or nations.”

And, “Circumstances beyond our control are major factors in economic and other inequalities. Trying to understand causalities is not necessarily the same as looking for someone to blame.”

Is the alleged “white supremacy” real and the result of racial discrimination? Is it because white people make up 59 percent of the population? Or, is it a false flag promoted for some political purpose?

Sowell shows us that social justice is another politically correct concept that causes more problems than it solves.

U.S. military below acceptable standards, according to analysis

Among the numerous troublesome topics bedeviling our lives today is this: “The U.S. military is only ‘marginally’ prepared to defend America’s interests at a time when adversaries are ramping up military capabilities.” This dose of reality comes from the 2022 Index of U.S. Military Strength, an annual 600-page look at our armed forces, started in 2015 by The Heritage Foundation. This edition was released earlier this month.

Of late, the concern for national security has transitioned toward cultural, social and political issues. And “military unreadiness” is the direction our armed forces leadership has moved over the last decade or so.

The military has a very narrow, critical mission. Its overriding concern is national security, and when it comes down to it, effectively fighting and winning against armed enemies. The vision held by any and all nations that might dream of defeating the United States must be that such actions will be met with overwhelming force by what is known worldwide as the most powerful and adept military on Earth. 

That is the goal that must never be sacrificed for political correctness, or social justice distractions.

Throughout history presidents have removed military commanders they viewed as inadequate or insubordinate, based upon the philosophy of the individual president. But that action must never result in weakening our national security.

President Barack Obama, tenure 2009 to 2017, declared at a political rally prior to his election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Among other things, Obama worked to transform the U.S. military, including imposing significant budget cuts.

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily in October of 2013 noted that since his inauguration, Obama had purged at least 197 military officers. And that included nine senior commanding generals in 2013.

A senior retired general told The Blaze — on the condition of anonymity, because he provided services to the government and feared retribution — that "they're using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don't agree with them or do not toe the party line.” 

“For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies,” the editorial stated. “It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be ‘his’ military and used only for ‘his’ purposes.”

As a result, the highest levels of military leadership became dysfunctional.

“The Index of U.S. Military Strength assesses the ease or difficulty of operating in key regions based on existing alliances, regional political stability, the presence of U.S. military forces, and the condition of key infrastructure,” states the executive summary of the Index. “Threats are assessed based on the behavior and physical capabilities of actors that pose challenges to vital U.S. national interests. The condition of America’s military power is measured in terms of its capability or modernity, capacity for operations, and readiness to handle assigned missions.”

The Index’s aggregate rating for all military branches is “marginal.” The individual rankings are as follows: 

Army: Marginal. A force only about 62 percent the size it should be earns the service a “weak” rating for capacity. However, 58 percent (18) of its 31 regular brigade combat teams are at the highest state of readiness, thus earning the Army a score of “very strong” on readiness and conveying the sense that the service knows what it needs to do to prepare for the next major conflict.

Navy: Marginal. The Navy is rated “marginal” on a downward slope to “weak” in readiness. It desperately needs a larger fleet of 400 ships, but current and forecasted levels of funding will prevent this from occurring for the foreseeable future.

Marine Corps: Strong. The score rose from “marginal” for two reasons: 1) The 2021 Index changed the threshold for capacity, lowering it from 36 infantry battalions to 30 in acknowledgment of the Corps’ argument that it is a one-war force that also stands ready for a broad range of smaller crisis-response tasks, and 2) because of the Corps’ extraordinary efforts to modernize and enhance its readiness during the assessed year.

Air Force: Weak, down from “marginal.” Though the Air Force possesses 86 percent of the recommended combat aircraft, public reporting of the mission readiness and physical location of these planes indicates difficulty to respond rapidly to a crisis. Its ability to recruit and retain pilots adds to its challenges.

Dismissal of senior officers that didn’t fit the president’s desires — admirals and generals, primarily — and budget cuts have reduced military readiness.

Retired Marine Lt. Col.Dakota Wood, senior research fellow with Heritage, said “This is not an indictment in any way of the men and women who serve in the military.”

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, touted former President Donald Trump’s foreign policy accomplishments, including the rebuilding of the U.S. military after nearly a decade of decline under the Obama administration.

This is yet one more area of governing that President Joe Biden would be well advised to continue. But that doesn’t fit into the Democrat’s play book.