Politics

I was reading a post today on Facebook from a person who is a friend. She was bemoaning the fact that when she posts progressive talking points on Facebook, she gets "pushback" and arguments. Paraphrase - "I am so tired of having to fight with the people on the right on simple facts that show how wrong they are." It gave me pause and made me think. She is truly a lovely person, but somewhere along the line, she misplaced her humility. It is also interesting that she uses the word "pushback" versus the less pejorative word "discussion." This seems symptomatic of many leftists or progressives who enter every social media post as a statement of indisputable facts. However facts are not usually the issue. Most people agree on the facts, it is understanding the relationship of those facts and what that relationship means in the world is where divergence happens.

A wonderful example is the fact that blacks in America are woefully behind in almost all economic success indicators. For decades, America has poured trillions of dollars into programs designed to close the economic gap for Black Americans. From housing subsidies and education grants to affirmative action and targeted hiring initiatives, the nation has made unprecedented investments in one group’s advancement. And yet, the gap remains stubborn.

The easy answer — the one often repeated — is that slavery, Jim Crow, and systemic racism explain everything. While no honest historian denies those forces left deep scars, they are not the full story in 2025. If history alone dictated outcomes, we would expect all minority groups with painful pasts to lag equally. But they don’t.

Consider Asian Americans. Chinese laborers who built the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century lived in conditions close to slavery, were barred from owning property in many states, and endured outright bans on immigration. Japanese Americans were herded into internment camps during World War II and lost homes, businesses, and savings overnight. Yet today, Asian Americans are the wealthiest demographic in the United States by median household income — outpacing not only Black and Hispanic Americans, but white Americans as well.

So what explains the difference?

One factor is how government policy interacts with human behavior. Many social programs are structured with what economists call the “welfare cliff” — benefits phase out quickly as income rises, so a small raise can mean losing thousands in subsidies. This creates a rational, if unintended, disincentive to climb the income ladder. Worse, when dependency becomes generational, the skills, habits, and social networks that support economic mobility can wither.

Another factor is family structure. Nearly 70% of Black children are born to unmarried mothers, compared with less than 20% among Asian Americans. Stable, two-parent households aren’t just about “traditional values” — they tend to have higher combined incomes, more time for children’s education, and a greater ability to save and invest.

Cultural expectations matter too. Many Asian immigrant communities arrive with — and enforce — intense norms around academic achievement, entrepreneurship, and family honor. These aren’t magic traits; they’re behaviors reinforced daily in households, schools, and community networks. By contrast, in some struggling Black communities, social pressures can stigmatize academic excellence as “acting white,” subtly undermining upward mobility.

There’s also a difference in how wealth is built. Asian immigrants often had no access to large-scale welfare upon arrival, so they turned to tightly knit family savings pools, community business networks, and relentless educational investment. The result? High representation in high-paying professional fields and a robust presence in small business ownership.

None of this is to deny the ongoing reality of racial prejudice, nor to claim that all Asian Americans thrive — many don’t. But if we are serious about closing the Black-white economic gap, we must face the uncomfortable truth that history alone does not dictate the present. Incentives, family stability, cultural norms, and education matter.

The challenge is that well-intentioned government policies, when poorly designed, can quietly reinforce the very inequalities they aim to fix. Redistribution without asset-building creates dependency, not independence. A focus on grievance without equal emphasis on responsibility breeds stagnation, not growth.

If we truly want different results, we need to ask different questions. Not just, “How do we spend more?” but, “How do we design systems that reward upward mobility, strengthen family structures, and cultivate the cultural habits that lead to long-term wealth?”

The past may explain how we got here. But it is the choices — by individuals, communities, and policymakers — that will determine whether we stay here.

We need to ask are we really arguing about the facts or are we simply forcing the facts to fit our ideological bias?