Though Mayor Sam Adams and Commissioner Amanda Fritz advocated for—and the Portland City Council subsequently created—the Office of Equity and Human Rights, wherefore the need? As a principle, equity is fine, yet by legislating equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity, this melioristic fancy of theirs will simply serve as another protracted disappointment, wasting both time and treasure along the way.
Three scant years ago in the United States, “change” became the coin of the realm. Portland City Commissioners, ideological disciples of the 2008 movement, latched on to this and ran. Is such a tact so prudent? Twentieth Century political theorist Russell Kirk cautioned that “hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.”
Hasty and far from principled, the five are a radical bunch. As such, and again to borrow from Kirk, the radical believes: “that education, positive legislation, and alteration of environment can produce men like gods; they deny that humanity has a natural proclivity toward violence and sin.” City Hall has long been devoid of leadership which can combat such efforts—“good-hearted efforts,” as Adams and Fritz say—which lead exactly nowhere.
Well-intentioned though the commissioners may be, perfect human beings and perfect societies cannot be legislated or planned into existence.
A human being is, by his or her mere nature, flawed—imperfect. A society is, by 18th Century Irish statesman Edmund Burke's description, “joined in perpetuity by a moral bond among the dead, the living, and those yet to be born.” Imperfect souls thus constitute an imperfect society, yet the Council concerns itself with legislation for Portland to become a perfect city, paying no mind to maintaining that moral bond of which a society requires.
In this regard, scattershot legislation and the latest “livability” standards will either lead to public backlash or an apathetic public will relent to the power-hungry on Fourth Avenue and go along for the bumpy ride. Disappointment either way.
The new office is likely to achieve exactly the opposite of its stated intentions. One class of people is more apt to become favored over another, only it will be a class that the Council and its bureaucrats intend it to be. The program is iniquitous at its core.
On the other hand, it is disingenuous to claim that unabated freedom and a laissez-faire marketplace can or will provide for all of the needs of the public at large. Leaders and true statesmen are called for. Presently, there is a void of leadership at City Hall, no matter the amount of Tweets, press releases, or photo opportunities emanating from within.
An abstraction such as this latest expansion of city government only serves to enlarge an already bloated bureaucracy and de-emphasize leadership, while encouraging City Hall's wanton pursuit of power.
This nation already recognizes equality before courts of law, so the Council's latest adventure is simply unnecessary duplication. Being created equal, and having equal standing under law, does not dictate that the equality of condition follows, yet this is the ultimate goal of the Council. Mandating and regulating equal outcomes will ultimately translate into an equality of apathy and subservience.
Do Portlanders want to be bound by the power wielded by an oligarchical Council?
Consider moderation. Plato noted that it “consists in an indifference about little things and in a prudent and well-proportioned zeal about things of importance.” The Council inhabits the negative space around this concept: zealous over little things while indifferent about the important ones.
Where does this all lead? As for the hasty innovation of the “good-hearted” Council—its constituent members largely free of principle, discipline, and moderation—one may want to note the approaching seven score anniversary of the bovine misstep in Mrs. O'Leary's Chicago barn.
[The writer is a descendent of Massachusetts O'Learys.]
