Why is it not equally logical to reverse this syllogism? Why not, the more black the city the worse place it is likely to be and the more likely it is to be progressive?
The answer is that it's politically incorrect to reverse the logic and one dare not utter those sentiments in polite discourse. But until we acknowledge that it is not just macroeconomics but race that contributes to the devastation of Indian an Eskimo villages, we will never hope to help these wretched people. Until we are able to acknowledge that there is a difference (statistically speaking-because we are always eager to acknowledge the individual on his own terms and accomplishments as being "created equal" under the law and in fact, no matter what the statistical norm) in the culture of the African-American race, we will have more Detroits and more Ferguson Missouri's.
Until we are ready to identify a difference in the ways in which the culture of Chinese ghettos live in family unity and prosper in education, we as a society will fail to learn from their values until we are ready to acknowledge that race plays a part. The author Williamson has done a credible job in this article identifying the connection between progressivism and political and cultural decay.
The idea that all of the problems of black American cities can be laid at the feet of "progressives" is attractive to us conservatives and it is certainly part of the story but it is not the whole story. We are so gun shy about openly acknowledging the real truths about race that we verge of intellectual dishonesty. I watched Newark burn in 1967 and I know the cause was not wholly the progressive administration of Mayor Addunezio, all the correlations were also to race.
If that be political incorrectness, make the most of it.
