Posts

Trump, Cruz and New York Values

New York City values are going through the roof. And it’s not just real estate. A prime story the last many days has been the GOP debate dust-up between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After the senator impugned “New York values” in an effort to call into question the businessman’s conservative bona fides, Trump responded with an impassioned defense of New Yorkers’ character. Trump won the exchange on style with rhetorical effectiveness, but, frankly, Cruz was right on substance.

This is not a commentary on whether Trump exemplifies NY values. In fact, I love most of what The Donald is saying; furthermore, while I have great respect for Cruz, the fact that no other candidate Thursday night could join Trump in supporting a halt to Muslim immigration — a common-sense measure — calls their qualifications for the presidency into question. But this isn’t a commentary on that, either, or on NY values, although I will touch on them. This article is about something far deeper.

All of us generalize. And most of us bristle at generalizations we don’t’ like — whether true or not. It’s then that we, waxing emotional, may complain about the “folly of generalization.”

Now, it may come as a shock to the critics of mine who suppose I live in West Virginia and eat chicken-fried steak, but I was born in NY and grew up in NYC — the Bronx, to be precise. And believe me, there are NY values (along with an ever decreasing number of NY virtues). Moreover, as Cruz said, most people know what they are. Trump certainly does; after all, he referenced his NY values in a 1999 interview. And while radio host and Trump supporter Michael Savage, another man I greatly respect, took exception to Cruz’ remarks, I remember when he complained on air that Vermont was ruined and became Sandersized when too many New Yorkers moved there.

What are NY values? Well, state residents elected a governor who said in 2014 that pro-life, pro-Second Amendment conservatives “have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are’”; and the Big Apple elevated to mayor Bolshevik Bill, a Marxist who honeymooned in Cuba and once raised money for the Sandinistas. You figure it out.

My real concern here, however, is not how people value New Yorkers or Cruz or Trump, but how they value generalization itself. For our refusal to properly generalize is one of the characteristic faults of our time — and a dangerous one at that.

Here’s a good example: if it’s wrong to generalize about New Yorkers because, in principle, it’s wrong to generalize, how can we then generalize about terrorists or Muslims? Doesn’t it make it harder to justify a halt to Muslim immigration if generalization is taken off the table? So some may get offended and say “Not all New Yorkers are liberals,” but this is reminiscent of liberals opposing common-sense profiling and saying “Not all Muslims are terrorists” (or “Not all terrorists are Muslim”). In point of fact, the percentage of Muslims who are terrorists is lower than the percentage of New Yorkers who are liberal, but this is irrelevant. The fact that virtually all the terrorists bedeviling us are Muslim is significant and indicates the importance of honest examination of Islamic values — which, like NY values, certainly exist.

The reality is that “not all _____ are _____” is not a valid argument against generalization, only reflective of a misunderstanding of it. If I say “Men are taller than women,” it’s silly to respond “But not all men are taller than all women!” After all, I didn’t say “all” and wasn’t implying the absence of individual variation; rather, I was referring to men and women as groups. And just as we must judge every individual as an individual and not paint everyone with the same brush, we must judge an individual group as an individual group and not paint every one with the same brush.

In fact, the only reason we can even identify groups as “groups” is that there are differences among them. And barring the rare cases in which groups are differentiated solely by location (as when dividing a class of boys into two groups placed at different tables), those differences are often neither arbitrary nor insignificant. Is location the only thing differentiating Afghans from Americans? Is location the only thing differentiating New Yorkers from Alabamans? Just as there’ll be very different government if you replace the 320 million Americans in the US with 320 million Muslims, there’ll be very different state government if you replace the 4.8 million Alabamans in Alabama with average New Yorkers.

In fairness, most NY counties without big population centers are red. “Aha,” you say, “what about those rural values in the Empire State?!” Yes, there can be sub-groups within groups, and there is a general ideological divide between the woods and the hoods. But the point is that speaking of “rural values” is a generalization, too — and a correct one.

Why does this matter? Question: who’s in closer touch with reality, someone who only understands individual variation or someone who also understands group variation? In fact, the latter is necessary for survival. Just as being able to judge individual character (as when choosing a babysitter) is important, so is being able to judge group character (related to this is being able to properly judge what faults are found mostly in a given group, even if they’re exhibited by only a minority in the group). This is especially true given that understanding group character aids in assessing individual character.

This is not synonymous with prejudice. It rather is part of profiling, which, to paraphrase Dr. Walter Williams, is a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, since an Israeli airport-security agent can’t spend a month living with and becoming acquainted with every traveler, he must make judgments based on group associations; thus, knowing not all Muslims are terrorists but virtually all Mideast terrorists are Muslim, he’ll scrutinize a Muslim flier more closely.

We all make such generalization/profiling-based judgments. A stranded woman motorist may refuse to roll down her window and accept aid from a young man with greasy hair who’s peppered with tattoos and body-piercings; of course, he could conceivably be well-meaning, but this is a situation where she really does have to judge the book by its cover. Likewise, she may refuse to lower her window for any man, knowing that while most men aren’t rapists, most all rapists are men. I’m not hiring a member of the Communist Party USA as a babysitter no matter how pleasant the person appears. And not all dogs bite, but it’s still a good policy to not pet strange dogs.

Doctors also must consider group characteristics, to do their patients justice. For example, understanding that Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate and that black men’s prostate-cancer rate is twice white men’s can serve as indicators for screening. And only women are routinely examined for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop the disease.

Of course, no good person wants generalization to descend into prejudice, a fault man so often exhibits. But to consequently dismiss generalization, and thus throw out of the baby with the bathwater, is much like dispensing with medical diagnostics merely because witch doctors have existed. Moreover, note that since “prejudice” is defined as “an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason,” such an uninformed, unfavorable opinion of generalization is a prejudice itself. And it’s a prejudice that can get you killed.

Ted Cruz: It’s In His Heart

A frustrated hopeless patriot wrote…

Unfortunately Mr. Marcus, it’s not only the left but also the right that is out to destroy America. Wicked people in high places, the elite if you will, control both parties. That is why no matter who is elected that nothing changes.”

This patriot brother’s discouragement explains why I want Ted Cruz in the driver’s seat as president. On numerous occasions, Ted Cruz has proven that he has no problem being odd-man-out in regards to Washington politics. Cruz desires the same for our country as We the People.

I have made the following point numerous times. Politicians promise the moon on the campaign trail. The 64,000 dollar question is who will have the cojones and core conservative instincts to follow through if elected? Atop my list is Ted Cruz.

A gospel classic is titled, “It’s in My Heart.” Folks, Ted Cruz has proven that conservatism is in his heart. Our only hope of liberating ourselves from the “Washington cartel” (both parties conspiring against the people) as Cruz perfectly described it is to select a presidential nominee with conservatism in his/her heart.

Cruz is well experienced in being hated by both political parties and the media. He acts like a duck, allowing their relentless venomous rebukes to roll off his back. Cruz stays laser focused on doing what is right for God, country and We the People. That’s what has me standing up and cheering for Ted Cruz.

I love Dr Ben Carson. However, early in his campaign, I wrote an article praising Dr Carson for standing firm on a non-PC comment he made. My publisher informed me he could not publish the article because Dr Carson apologized. As I stated, I highly respect and love the man, but that action scared me folks. Early in his campaign, political inexperience prompted Dr. Carson to imply that he may be open to controls on owning a semi-automatic weapon depending on where one lives. Dr Carson now stands strong for the Second Amendment.

Trump’s success at slapping PC in the face has emboldened other presidential contenders to do the same, including Dr Carson. Will Dr Carson stand strong for conservatism if elected president?

Donald Trump has been a huge blessing, voicing the frustrations, outrage and desires of millions who long to see America made great again. It is quite remarkable that because of racial guilt, we have allowed an anti-American regime to dethrone us as the world power and transform us culturally, morally and economically for the past seven years. But I digress.

Unquestionably, if elected, Trump will make positive changes regarding our economy and immigration. On social issues extremely critical to who we are as a people, I do not sense much passion, urgency or commitment from brother Donald.

Ted Cruz is the total package.

Here are just a few of Sen Cruz’s greatest hits standing up for America and conservatism. With facts and common sense, Cruz crushed can’t-we-all-just-get-along-with-the Left John Kasich in debating Obama’s insane Iran Nuke deal

Cruz fearlessly called out the CNBC debate moderators, exposing them as “left-wing operatives.” 

Cruz blasted Obama for supporting sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law; endangering the lives of Americans.

Democrats arrogantly refuse to obey laws they do not like such as immigration law. This same bunch of Democrats/Leftists jailed Christian clerk Kim Davis. Davis refused to betray her faith by issuing same sex marriage licenses. Some Republicans/conservatives faltered. Cruz sent out a clarion call to “constitutionalists and lovers of liberty” to stand with Kim Davis. 

Cruz promises his first day as president will be extremely busy. He will “rescind every illegal executive action taken by Barack Obama,” including his “executive amnesty.” Cruz will instruct the DOJ to investigate Planned Parenthood and prosecute any criminal conduct uncovered.

Obama has been using the DOJ and IRS as his personal hit-squads against anyone opposing his transformation of America. Cruz promises to instruct both agencies to “cease persecuting” individuals for standing up for their rights.

Remember the Catholic nuns that have been helping the poor and elderly since 1839 bullied by Obama for not signing on to birth control against their faith? Cruz said as president he will send the Little Sisters of the Poor a letter dismissing their case. Cruz would also invite them to the WH to tell the world their story.

Continuing his first day in the Oval Office cleaning house, Cruz will end Obama’s catastrophic Iran Nuke deal. Ending day one as president, Cruz will begin the process of moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Cruz said moving our embassy to Israel’s “eternal capital” sends the world the message that we stand with our allies. 

Folks, any one of our GOP presidential contenders is far superior than soulless politician and sociopath Hillary Clinton. Hillary in the White House would be a continuation of the Barack Obama nightmare. The only difference is the MSM would characterize opposing Hillary’s far left radical policies as sexism rather than racism. You know the drill folks.

Therefore, I will wholeheartedly rally behind our GOP nominee; Dr Carson, Trump or any of the others.

But the candidate who checks all of my boxes for not giving a rat’s derriere about what the Washington cartel and media thinks of him; the candidate who places America and her people first; the candidate who is unapologetic regarding his Christian faith; passionately defends liberty and honors our Constitution is Sen Ted Cruz. Will Cruz remain the same person when elected? You betcha!