How should we deal with people? Should we judge people as part of a group or as individuals? This is part of a larger individualism vs. collectivism argument. The Left sees people not as Individuals, but as parts of groups– their race, their gender, their religion, and so on. Is this the best way? Is it fair?

This of course, depends on the context. To use the term “Left,” even in this essay invites judgment as a group. This can be useful when trying to identify traits common to a particular group. Often, we generalize how people are based upon their membership of a particular group. This is a shorthand way of ascribing traits to the constituent members of that group. Problem is, the larger the group, the ascribing of specific traits to specific members becomes harder, particularly if those traits are not intrinsic to that group. We can state things like: “Asians are like this,” or “Whites act like this,” and so on. We can even associate groups with stereotypical behaviors. And yes, a large plurality of those groups might fit certain stereotypes, but seldom if ever do all.

Maybe the question should be: How do we wish to be judged? Most people would like to be judged as individuals most of the time. Most of the time, we are acting as individuals, not as part of a group. Most of life is experienced as an individual. We experience pain, pleasure, joy, comfort, sorrow, all as individuals. We eat, sleep, work, and learn as individuals. We apply for jobs as individuals. How many names are at the top of your resume? When’s the last time a race got a movie roll, or an ethnicity was awarded a military decoration? A boxer might depend on a small team of people, the manager, the cut man, the trainer, etc., to win the big fight, but only the boxer gets awarded the championship belt. Why? Because only the boxer can land the knockout punch, or risk getting injured in the ring, not the boxer’s race, not the boxer’s sex, not the boxer’s ethnicity.

Imagine waking up to a pounding on your front door. You open the door, and several well-armed police are on the other side. You can’t imagine what you’ve done to warrant this. You hope against hope they are looking for someone else. You, confused and afraid ask them who they are looking for. You expect them to give you a name, but instead they give you not a name but “white, middle-aged male” (and you happen to be a white, middle-aged male). You get read your rights and stuffed into the back of the squad car. You get to the station, they fingerprint you and take your mugshot, when you see the mugshot you notice not your name on the board, but the words: “White, middle-aged male.” You’d suspect, and rightly so, you’re not in for very just treatment. Even if you find out that indeed, a white, middle-aged male committed a particular crime, it would not, in any stretch of the imagination, be justice for you to stand trial. Imagine further, even though you could prove that you did not commit the crime, the prosecution showed beyond a reasonable doubt that some white middle-aged man committed the crime, and thereby, you were guilty and sent to jail. That would not be justice, infact, it would be the opposite of justice.

Yet, every day in the world, the Left more than any other group, convict individuals for the crimes, real or imagined, of the greater group the individual is a part of. Any group that is not in favor with them, gets condemned, jointly and severely of whatever that group as a whole is accused of. If you are a member of any segment of humanity that holds majority status over others, you and every other member of that group are guilty of oppressing all lesser groups. Cultural Marxism, a defining characteristic of the Left, holds that all persons or groups that have more power than other persons or groups, will necessarily oppress the weaker group. Forget for a moment all of the instances where this is not true. The military, at least of a free republic, does not leverage its superior armament against its citizens. Parents do not as a matter of course, oppress their children. In even a nominally functional family, parents nurture them. Leftist reasoning under cultural Marxism holds that since some parents oppress their children, the oppression of children is a function of parenthood. If a race or ethnic group should hold more political power then another, it follows under cultural Marxism that the stronger race will exploit the weaker ones. If by the way you want to change back from cultural Marxism to regular Marxism, just replace “race” with “class” and it works the same. Of course, to the Marxist, whether it is race, class, or some other characteristic they blame for the oppression, depends on which one works better to gain them political support.

So why the emphasis on group identity on the left? The left are collectivists. That collectivism might take the form of communism, socialism, or fascism. Each of these ideologies subordinate the will and the needs of the individual to that of the collective. It should come as no surprise then, that a focus on group rather than individual identity is paramount. Also, it is not surprising that collective punishment is part of the leftist way. Neither is it any wonder that meritocracy, which is a function of the individual, is not valued to nearly the degree it is by the right.

While judging people based upon their membership in some greater group is not in and of itself wrong, it is often not appropriate. In the end, one must build merit for oneself, and one must be judged upon those merits. Merits and shortcomings alike are earned individually and thus cannot be transferred to others. Individuals are to be judged for individual deeds and be awarded or punished accordingly, and groups, likewise, should be awarded or punished for deeds committed by the entire group. Doing anything else results in injustice.