Disparate realities

Democrats’ professed concern was always mere smokescreen

With Democrats and their allies in the legacy media now voicing “concern” that the Trump administration is proposing to jettison the racialist legacy of “disparate impact” in federal regulations, it’s worth noting that the Democrats themselves were never really all that serious about the concept.

The premise of “disparate impact” is that if any government law or policy affects designated minority groups — African-Americans, Hispanics, women (even though they’re the majority gender) — unevenly from how it affects whites, then said policy or law is presumed to be unconstitutionally racist or sexist whether animus colored the creation of the law or rule or not.

Example: A policy that requires firefighters to be able to carry a certain weight a certain distance could be banned if it is shown that a smaller percentage of women than men are able to fulfill the requirement — even if said requirement can be shown to be critical to the job function.

But the reality is that black and Hispanic Americans are statistically more likely to be poor than are whites. And most regulations tend to hit the poor harder than the rich. Sales taxes and gas taxes, for instance, are often described as “regressive” by those on the Left because they take a larger percentage of the poor’s total income than they do the rich.

It’s a fair point.

But if Democrats were serious about applying “disparate impact” consistently, then things like bike lanes, electric vehicle rebates, and most other green initiatives would all be tossed out because they clearly benefit the rich more than the poor. (The arguments from the “climate change” church — whose membership skews heavily white, wealthy and urban — that the poor benefit most from “climate justice” find little traction among the poor themselves.)

Indeed, in the kind of left-leaning jurisdictions where “disparate impact” is most likely to be used as a political tool, we see continued pushes for things like plastic bag bans and “mileage taxes” — which, again, most heavily hammer businesses like restaurants and landscaping, plumbing and other trades, which skew minority-owned and operated more than other enterprises.

Too often, the media narrative on “minority viewpoints” is little more than what ruling class whites think black and Hispanic residents ought to think about the issues.

Consider that Democrats are having panicked summit meetings at high end luxury resorts to discuss how they can recapture the loyalty of working-class voters. (Given how notoriously cheap the rich are, it’s likely that attendees at these summits have only further alienated the working-class folks waiting on them and cleaning up after them at these resorts.)

But also consider this: It is in the most “progressive” jurisdictions that rates of poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, and school dropout rates are highest.

California, the supposed crown jewel of left-wing policymaking in this country, is among the national leaders in income disparity — i.e., the gap between the wealthiest residents and the poorest. And things have gotten so expensive that in much of the state, $100,000 is now considered the poverty line!

But despite the pockets of tremendous wealth in California, the gap in reading comprehension between black and white fourth graders in California has significantly worsened over the past 25 years, and now stands at an astounding 40 points, while Hispanics were almost 30 percent behind white students.

Disparate impact indeed.

-30-