“Attempts to minimize economic differences in an open an free society necessarily involve the use of coercive power. They politicize economic life. And economic activity comes to depend to a greater degree on political decisions. People’s income and their economic modus vivendi come largely under the control of politicians and civil servants. . .
“Extensive politicization of life enhances the prices of political power and thus the stakes in the fight for it. This outcome in turn intensifies political tension, at least until opposition is effectively demoralized or forcibly suppressed. And because people’s economic fortunes come to depend so much on political and administrative decisions, their talents and energies are diverted from economic activity to political life, sometimes from choice, sometimes from necessity.These consequences are manifest in many societies, especially in multiracial societies.
“In many countries the politicization of life, often pursued in the name of equality, now means the question of who the rulers are has become of the greatest importance.”
More, several pages later: “Redistribution of income and reduction of poverty are often thought to be interchangable concepts. Indeed, it is often taken for granted that egalitarian policies necessarily improve the condition of the poor. This is not so. The promotion of economic equality and the alleviation of poverty are distinct and often conflicting. To make the rich poorer does not make the poor richer.
“The advocates of egalitarian policies focus on relative income differences, or the relative position of different groups. They thereby divert attention from the causes of poverty, especially the causes which underlie real hardship and from the possibilities of effective remedial measures. Relief of poverty, especially the improvement in the position of the very poor, has nothing to do with the pursuit of equality. The policies of egalitarianism often ignore the very poor, especially those who are self reliant and enterprising.
“Except perhaps over very short periods, redistributive policies are much more likely to DEPRESS [emphasis mine] the living standards of the poor than to raise them. The extensive politicization brought about by large scale redistribution diverts people’s energies and ambitions from productive economic activity to politics and public administration.”
Black people in America thought he was going to help them. In effect, this is what he promised, and what they had been led to believe: the way ahead is through politics and not self determined, private sector economic advancement. Obama could not keep this promise, since none of his policies could ever have acted, except over the very short term, to do anything but continue the very thorough destruction of the black community that 50 years of leftist truth-abuse has thus far enabled.
Put another way, it was always the case that black Americans would suffer most, as would poor people generally (most of whom are Hispanic or white), once Obama took office. This was a foregone conclusion. Nothing but conservative policies would have stimulated the growth needed to create rising prosperity for all. The poor suffer first, and benefit last, clearly, and failing to see this does not become a plus for leftists in their pursuit of vacuous goals which result in much misery.