Jayson Blair debacle illustrates the dangers of misguided altruism
Whether the motivation is to earn a place in heaven or to impress a colleague, the Jayson Blair debacle illustrates the misguided motivations of the modern-day altruist. Like a spoiled brat, who has had everything handed to him, this young man has laughed and continues to laugh in the face of the many handouts that have come his way. He has cleverly played the "pity me" card to avoid completing his education and has used it to land a job for himself at (what some consider) one of the most respected institutes of journalism in the world: the New York Times.
The blame for his downfall can be placed squarely upon the shoulders of the tunnel visioned philanthropists at the New York Times. They gave freely and then freely gave again, apparently oblivious to the fact that monsters, like Mr. Blair, are easily created and fostered. It is extremely unfortunate and not very likely that they will ever see where the fault lies.
Mean-spirited and selfish, they repeatedly proclaim while editorializing about conservatives. Self-responsibility is unrealistic, they say, shooting another barb.
Is it not surprising that their deprecating words are a shock to productive, upstanding citizens? "Self-responsibility is unrealistic?" we ponder. Is it wrong to believe in the abilities of human nature? Is it wrong to expect every man to 'ask not what his country can do for him, but what he can do for his country'?"
Great cliches cannot themselves change reality. Chronic do-gooders deceive themselves and their children when they declare that it is possible to be selfless. They forget a simple fact:
In order to give, someone must take, and forcing or convincing someone to take is not a selfless act.
And conservatives know a sad little secret: The act of taking that which has not been earned, corrupts human nature, and ultimately drives the taker further from 'all that is good'. It creates a dependency that shatters pride and perpetuates a subclass from generation to generation. Every nursing home attendant knows that even old people crave the opportunity to give in return for what they must receive.
This cannot be interpreted to mean that conservatives are content to abdicate all responsibility. On the contrary, they care very deeply and believe that the poor and underprivileged can be helped, but not with handouts, and not with artificial "job opportunities" or favored "college admissions" that are just thinly disguised charity.
Raising their own children has taught conservatives that the "disadvantaged" are best helped when they are exposed to a culture that values success, applauds achievement and evenly rewards productivity. Everyone must be surrounded by a morality that treasures life, guards property rights (so that rewards are not taken away) and despises the random use of force.
Children and adults rise to the occasion when the bar is set to an appropriate, consistent level and when each individual is expected to be the best that he or she can be.
The New York Times would do much more to help society if the board made a decision to revert back to the policies, typical of the 1950s, that hired and fired based on ability and education. The company would of course have to make one minor revision: Managers should now be expected to "judge people, not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character."
-TR.............
Copyright 2003