But this is true for all things.
The Left benefits from misery. The more misery in society, the more voters will demand that activist government “do something”. So, if you are an activist in government, you WANT as much misery as possible.
You can campaign for better schools, less racism, better wages, more opportunity — but the LAST thing you want to provide is better schools, less racism, better wages, more opportunity. What’s the upside to that????
Sell the sizzle all day long. But don’t ever give anyone any steak.
If black men are not achieving at the same rate as white men with comparable backgrounds, perhaps it is partly because they have been bombarded with the message that the system is rigged against them and that they won't be able to make it because of white racism. If the effort is doomed, why even try?
True, but there is another related consideration. Politics tends to attract narcissists, but I would argue that there are many more narcissists amongst liberal politicians. I would further argue that this is so because liberal politics/activist politics provides the best opportunity for a narcissist to embellish their own importance - 'saving the world, fighting injustice, pushing for equality of all (except them, of course)'. It's a quite selfish motivation, and it leads to a plethora of politicians on the left who want to 'transform America'. After all, if they don't do 'activist' things, what can they take credit for?
Welcome to anti-Trump action. The unhappier the voters will be in four years, now three, the more they will be inclined to change. Saul Alinsky uses about half of his rules for radicals on this topic. Both Clintons and Obamas were disciples.
rwood