Newsom Lockdown Reminiscent Of Affirmative Action

His spoken words give insight into tyrannical motivations

Perhaps you’re thinking those with that question are ignorant fanatics of the kinds of civil rights they remember fitting the accepted meaning of that term in our country’s first century — after all, who else, you might say, would be puzzled by such precautions, whether they believe in their effectiveness or not? But I’m referring to those who ask why those in power think as they do, why they don’t seem to weigh the economic destruction with actual rather than sensationalized health measures.

One example is California’s nationally-syndicated radio talkshow host Dennis Prager, who recently admitted puzzling for months over such behavior on the part of his governor Gavin Newsom. Of course I paraphrase but his answer was that Newsom found it unacceptable to be blamed for covid deaths regardless of harm to those who didn’t die (let alone suicides, overdoses, or delayed treatments due to fear — and as I said, not counting mental and social damage, especially to children or those isolated in care facilities).

I claim a different explanation — not credit for superior thinking, mind you…I just happened across Gavin the philosopher-king scolding one of his subjects over how bigoted it is for those who desire or need to venture from behind a desk to earn their living to “leave others behind” in the process, though I don’t suppose most bureaucrats’ own remuneration has been limited. In response to a question about concerns that new ways of evaluating counties for reopening businesses might retard economic recovery he responded as follows (from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeZFGBDyhvo):

At 4:03 — “You believe in growth and you don’t believe in inclusion? Then we’re going to leave a lot of people behind. And one of the things we value as a state is inclusion. And we believe that we’re all better off when we’re all better off. Leaving communities behind in order to game your testing and your case rates I don’t think is right.” He went on to offer generalities to the effect that some counties may be able to open sooner as a result of fighting harder for all their residents in the name of such “inclusion.” Aside from not offering specific examples which could be verified at that time, he of course ignored the potential for the opposite happening whenever you raise standards. But even if he only stressed “all of us doing better” and not possibly worse, he doesn’t have to remind me of equality; I’m already reminded of Soviet supermarket lines when I see Best Buy customers waiting outside like they just had Thanksgiving dinner.

By the way, Newsom strikes me as quite sincere in what he said. If you’re looking to cast any voting or recall decisions based on how you think he might affect others, I would not suggest that he is cynically manipulating millions for his reputation with voters or to curry favor with anyone who might hope Trump is blamed for the destruction of the lockdown. (I hope I don’t get in trouble for associating Biden with curry after what he said about people from India working at 7-Eleven, as if anyone would vote on that relative to other issues.)

Newsom isn’t on the ballot, and I don’t know of any statements on this specific subject by Biden or Trump. And true to the tradition of my articles earlier this month, I wouldn’t dream of “telling” you whom to vote for anyway. Of course asking if you know what you’re really voting for is another matter. Just as others have said this election is about where the country is going, I would say it’s not about what party you’re voting for (universally or a la carte), but whether you’re voting for those who share your values in weighing the costs. If you agree with Gavin Newsom that, as long as there’s inequality and that stamping it out is the highest value one can aspire to, that it’s selfish for people to try to help themselves economically no matter what damage they’ve sustained, then you can know that he and others who think like him will give due weight to ensuring we endure whatever we need to in order to prove ourselves part of a community. While employees in some fields may do fine from home, perhaps it’s only some types of working privilege that needs to be shamed. Perhaps blue-collar privilege would be a suitable label to include employees who are deplorables as well as police officers?

Then again, maybe not. Maybe such politicians afraid of running afoul of cancel culture guidelines and their proclamations don’t represent their true values. Then will you take the fearless at their word or give the equivalent of “affirmative action” points to those who are presumably courage-challenged?

But while it’s one thing to debate a candidate’s values where there’s actual potential evidence, I would not countenance anyone fabricating theories based on circumstantial evidence. There is a recall movement against Newsom, and it would be all too easy for those commenting on this article to suggest that, while he urged radical technological innovations to the electoral process, he refused to update antiquated petition rules because he knew making them contactless would only expose his unpopularity by not deterring those who want to isolate themselves as much as possible (in both senses of the word). He never said he was acting out of fear, so please don’t say such things.