It's All About 'Justice'

Candidates for political office have long sought to find and use phrases and themes to rally support. “A chicken in every pot,” “compassionate conservatism,” “change we need,” and “I’m with her,” have all been employed in past presidential races.

That today’s political liberals have been effective in sowing division into America is no secret. Our nation is divided into classes and categories like never before. While once our divisions were generally limited to race and economic stature, we now seem to have more dividing lines than can be numbered: rich/poor, cis-gender/trans (and every other kind of)-gender, gun owner/gun grabber, open border/secure border, Trump-lover/Trump-hater, and on and on it goes.

Liberals have taken to a new method of phrase creating to go hand-in-hand with persuading the subdivisions of people groups that they have either formed or at least are pandering to: the need for “justice.” Like “fairness” or “equality,” justice is a term and concept for which there is no negative counterpoint. No one is against justice; everyone wants to have it for themselves and others as well. It’s a universally positive word that can be applied to bolster any given theme.

Barely a blip on the nation’s terminology radar just ten years ago, it’s now impossible to watch a Democratic candidate debate, ad, or press conference without hearing references to “social justice” every thirty seconds. Social justice is now a major at many American universities.  Whatever it truly is, one thing is sure -- today’s liberals are convinced that we have precious little of it and are in need of a lot more, no matter the cost. So just vote for me, and I’ll shovel some your way.

It’s a tactic with truly limitless potential. Find a cause of hurt, then promise to collect and use other people’s money to right the wrong by bringing some “justice.” 

“Environmental justice” worked its way into the public parlance during the Obama administration years and made its way to the Environmental Protection Agency website, where it remains to this day. Our EPA frames the topic thusly: “Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Talk about alphabet soup that says nearly nothing. But that’s not what matters; what matters is justice!

In one of the many attempts by candidates to out-liberal one another during the first Democrat primary debate, Julian Castro was asked an obligatory question about protecting abortion rights. Castro thundered his reply, “I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice!” He went on to (sort of) explain what he meant by stating, "Just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise this right to choose."

Thus, “justice” in this context means that if you are too poor to afford your own abortion(s) it is “just” for society to pay for it or them, even if you’re male. (A "transgender female" is a biological male who identifies as female.) It was his biggest applause line of the night.

The crafting of the “justice” racket is both ingenious and without bounds. First carve off a subset of society; second, identify areas in which it feels underserved or disadvantaged; third, claim that what’s needed to cure the disadvantage is “[name of the cause] justice!”

Ten years ago, no one had heard of these causes. If today we need social, environmental, reproductive justice, what others are out there that liberals will be championing ten years from now?

Do you not have a car or do you have an oil-leaking, beat-up old jalopy? It’s not your fault; it’s not fair, there are people with a brand-new Mercedes-Benz. What you need is “automotive justice!” Vote for me, and I’ll get you some.

When’s the last time you were able to take a vacation? 2005?! There are people who have taken two this summer alone! That’s fundamentally unfair. What you need is some “recreation justice!” I will set up a Department of Recreational Justice, which will see to it that every American is able to get the rest and relaxation we need that comes from quality vacations, so it’s not just the rich who are able to unwind in the Bahamas!

Are these difficult to hear coming from the mouths of the likes of Castro, O’Rourke (who just claimed we have a right to live close to our jobs), or Bernie Sanders? If you can’t hear it coming from one of them, then you may be in need of some “auditory justice!”

Derrick Wilburn is the founder and Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives and a fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado.

Candidates for political office have long sought to find and use phrases and themes to rally support. “A chicken in every pot,” “compassionate conservatism,” “change we need,” and “I’m with her,” have all been employed in past presidential races.

That today’s political liberals have been effective in sowing division into America is no secret. Our nation is divided into classes and categories like never before. While once our divisions were generally limited to race and economic stature, we now seem to have more dividing lines than can be numbered: rich/poor, cis-gender/trans (and every other kind of)-gender, gun owner/gun grabber, open border/secure border, Trump-lover/Trump-hater, and on and on it goes.

Liberals have taken to a new method of phrase creating to go hand-in-hand with persuading the subdivisions of people groups that they have either formed or at least are pandering to: the need for “justice.” Like “fairness” or “equality,” justice is a term and concept for which there is no negative counterpoint. No one is against justice; everyone wants to have it for themselves and others as well. It’s a universally positive word that can be applied to bolster any given theme.

Barely a blip on the nation’s terminology radar just ten years ago, it’s now impossible to watch a Democratic candidate debate, ad, or press conference without hearing references to “social justice” every thirty seconds. Social justice is now a major at many American universities.  Whatever it truly is, one thing is sure -- today’s liberals are convinced that we have precious little of it and are in need of a lot more, no matter the cost. So just vote for me, and I’ll shovel some your way.

It’s a tactic with truly limitless potential. Find a cause of hurt, then promise to collect and use other people’s money to right the wrong by bringing some “justice.” 

“Environmental justice” worked its way into the public parlance during the Obama administration years and made its way to the Environmental Protection Agency website, where it remains to this day. Our EPA frames the topic thusly: “Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Talk about alphabet soup that says nearly nothing. But that’s not what matters; what matters is justice!

In one of the many attempts by candidates to out-liberal one another during the first Democrat primary debate, Julian Castro was asked an obligatory question about protecting abortion rights. Castro thundered his reply, “I don’t believe only in reproductive freedom. I believe in reproductive justice!” He went on to (sort of) explain what he meant by stating, "Just because a woman, or let’s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to exercise this right to choose."

Thus, “justice” in this context means that if you are too poor to afford your own abortion(s) it is “just” for society to pay for it or them, even if you’re male. (A "transgender female" is a biological male who identifies as female.) It was his biggest applause line of the night.

The crafting of the “justice” racket is both ingenious and without bounds. First carve off a subset of society; second, identify areas in which it feels underserved or disadvantaged; third, claim that what’s needed to cure the disadvantage is “[name of the cause] justice!”

Ten years ago, no one had heard of these causes. If today we need social, environmental, reproductive justice, what others are out there that liberals will be championing ten years from now?

Do you not have a car or do you have an oil-leaking, beat-up old jalopy? It’s not your fault; it’s not fair, there are people with a brand-new Mercedes-Benz. What you need is “automotive justice!” Vote for me, and I’ll get you some.

When’s the last time you were able to take a vacation? 2005?! There are people who have taken two this summer alone! That’s fundamentally unfair. What you need is some “recreation justice!” I will set up a Department of Recreational Justice, which will see to it that every American is able to get the rest and relaxation we need that comes from quality vacations, so it’s not just the rich who are able to unwind in the Bahamas!

Are these difficult to hear coming from the mouths of the likes of Castro, O’Rourke (who just claimed we have a right to live close to our jobs), or Bernie Sanders? If you can’t hear it coming from one of them, then you may be in need of some “auditory justice!”

Derrick Wilburn is the founder and Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Black Conservatives and a fellow at the Centennial Institute in Colorado.