Both have wrung their hands publicly the past few days, bemoaning Republican Scott Frantz’s denounciation of “social justice” a term that, as defined today, has nothing to do with the principles on which this country was founded.
Frantz: “The Democrats: How fundamentally un-American of them to push for concepts such as social justice. “I’d like to coin what I think might be a new term tonight and that is opportunity justice. That is fundamentally American.”
These words sent Greenwich Democrats aflutter because someone has criticized and exposed their primary goal:
“Social justice is what ended the poll tax”, Fudrucker moaned, “and moved Rosey Grier from the back of the bus. Frantz’s cold hearted callousness, his indifference to bigotry and yea, even slavery itself, disqualifies him from holding public office”. [note from his business partner and Dan Rather – this is a rough paraphrasing of his histrionic comments]
He did not call the concept of social justice un-American. He labeled all Democrats un-American for advocating the idea. In this era when every politician has to wear an American flag lapel pin or run the risk of being called un-patriotic, our state senator’s painting his political opponents as un-American was an abrupt departure from his normally civil campaign style.
While I might amend Horton’s interpretation of Frantz’s remarks to a condemnation of all Democrats who advocate radical social justice, I suppose these days, the one includes the other. What it does not include or refer to is the concept of social justice Malloy, Fudcuker and Horton claim to treasure: compulsory union membership, rural electrification and the Hoover Dam: the term “social justice” has an entirely different meaning than that which our local Democrats pretend to understand (and which I think they do).
The very term of “Social Justice” was first expressed in 1840 by a Sicilian priest. The concept and the need for social responsibilities existed long before but as in all of history, a label and definition was necessary to fully express the issue….
Eventually Social Justice was a label used to plead social reform for peasants who were displaced or uprooted and whom became the urban workers….
It’s about benefiting society’s collective interests, human rights, social equality and providing equal resources to the foundation of what it means to not only be alive but to progress both socially, intellectually and monetarily for and by free individuals.
Present day Social Justice & Current Issues
Social equality and justice for all has evolved and the definition, terms surrounding the very thought or notion have adapted to accommodate the past and the present. John Rawls is a well known moral political philosopher who wrote the 1971 “A Theory of Social Justice” and presented us with this quote:
Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others”
Another section of that same blog discusses eduction:
Home life? How can that be, parents are teaching children the same values are they not? Lead by example is a coined phrase that parents tend to stick to. However, parents may be neglecting the race social justice issues while conversing with their children. Choosing the easy way out and describing all races as equals isn’t enough. Children need to understand from their parents that all people are created equal. Social equality can begin in an education system but it has to be followed through at home, with the parents.
Does that sound like an endorsement of the abolishment of the poll tax to you? I’ll bet even Frankie doesn’t think so.
Not that you’d want to waste your time, but a quick Googling of the term “Social Justice” turns up page after page of what Scott Frantz was talking about and what Governor Malloy and his Greenwich Democrats are talking about: