On Socialism and Democracy

This Post appeared on the Facebook page of The Federalist Papers:

DSA [Democratic Socialists of America] Co-Chair Megan Romer did Americans a favor by saying the quiet part out loud.

“We will win by making conditions so intolerable to the ruling class that they would rather give in to our demands than live with the disturbance we cause until we are able to fully seize power ourselves.” [Confirmed]

Read those words again.

This is not a call to persuade voters, win honest debates, or pass legislation through the normal democratic process. It is a declaration that socialists intend to deliberately make life intolerable until people surrender to their demands.

That is what socialists do.

They create disruption, resentment, fear, and economic pain, then present themselves as the solution to the misery they helped produce. The objective is not peaceful coexistence. The objective is power.

Americans should take this threat seriously.

When political activists block roads, occupy buildings, intimidate workers, interfere with law enforcement, destroy property, or attempt to shut down ordinary life, government officials cannot continue treating it as harmless protest. Peaceful protest is a constitutional right. Coercion, vandalism, threats, and organized lawlessness are not.

Anyone who crosses that line should face arrest, prosecution, jail, civil liability, and every other lawful consequence available.

There can be no special exemption because the people causing the disruption claim to be pursuing “social justice.” A crime committed for socialism is still a crime.

The most revealing portion of Romer’s statement is the desire to “fully seize power.” That phrase should destroy the comforting fiction that the DSA is merely seeking a slightly larger welfare state. [My emphasis]

America was founded on limited government, private property, individual liberty, religious freedom, and the right of citizens to live without being ruled by an all-powerful political class.

Socialism attacks every one of those principles.

You cannot claim to love America while working to eliminate the freedoms that make America worth loving. You cannot praise democracy while planning to make life intolerable until your opponents submit.

Believe them when they tell us what they intend to do.

What consequences should people face when political disruption crosses the line into intimidation, destruction, or organized lawlessness?

Source: Commentary magazine, “The Misery Strategy”

The Federalist Papers followed this up in the comments with;

The people calling themselves the enemies of the “ruling class” rarely intend to surrender power once they obtain it. 

This is true. Although the “Democratic” in Democratic Socialism refers to totalitarian democracy—the hideous idea that the right to vote is the most fundamental right that confers on elected politicians unlimited power to do as they please without restraint because they are elected—that same democracy that got Socialism elected can work in reverse, throwing the Socialists out of office. So while the Democratic Socialists (or any dictatorship) will claim their despotic policies are legitimate because instituted democratically, they’ll never submit their rule to voters for continuing validation. After HAMAS won election in Gaza under President Bush’s “Forward Strategy of Freedom,” it immediately canceled all future elections. 

That is why, once in power, the DSA will never allow free and fair elections. They will never allow themselves to be voted out of power. They will either abandon elections altogether or allow only rigged elections (Their advocacy for public funding of elections is a step in that direction). This has been true of Socialism from Vladimir Lenin to Nicolas Maduro. Why? Because elections require certain individual rights—rights to free speech and press, private campaign financing, dissent and opposing ideas, honest debate, association, one-man-one-vote, and so on. For Socialists, it’s not only about power. It’s about principle. They are collectivists. As the 20th Century Socialist Robert L. Heilbroner acknowledged, individual rights fundamentally conflict with Socialism’s collective moral goal—central planning—and thus cannot be allowed. 

Heilbroner, a leading Socialist intellectual and best-selling socialist writer of the 20th century, had no illusions about what Socialism requires. In a Dissent magazine essay titled What is Socialism, Heilbroner wrote:

The rights of individuals to their Millian liberties [are] directly opposed to the basic social commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal… Under socialism, every dissenting voice raises a threat similar to that raised under a democracy by those who preach antidemocracy.

In  The Nature and Logic of Capitalism by Heilbroner wrote; 

Political freedom in modern times has only appeared in capitalist states. Democratic liberties have not yet appeared in any nation that [is] fundamentally anti-capitalist, which is to say within the self-styled Marxist ambit. The . . . separation of realms [politics and economics] creates the essential conditions for political freedom because the state cannot enforce its will though economic sanctions, such as denying work to political dissidents.

Heilbroner also noted that “democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist.”

Bolshevik  Communist Vladimir Lenin, the first head of the Soviet Union, banned all other parties and oppositions, internal Communist Party factions, an independent press, and free, fair, and open elections, on the principle that open dissent acted as a counter-revolutionary danger. Socialists use the liberties of free, Capitalist-oriented nations to come to power, then ban those liberties. Socialists can exploit capitalism’s “tolerance of dissent” to gain power, Heilbroner explains in What Is Socialism?, but then must not allow dissent to undermine their power. Once in power, socialists must understand that

Dissents, disagreements, and departures from norms then assume a far more threatening aspect than under bourgeois society, for they hold out the possibility of destroying the very commitment to a moral consensus by which socialist society differs from capitalist.

Nor can we wriggle off this hook by asserting that, among its moral commitments, socialism will choose to include the rights of individuals to their Millian liberties. For that celebration of individualism is directly opposed to the basic socialist commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal.

We can also dispel the delusion that Socialist rule can be anything but total. I quote Heilbroner from What Is Socialism? Page 344:

Socialists have always railed against the invidious striving of the market that forces individuals to subordinate their full personalities to narrow economic roles. Moreover, it is not only the motivations of capitalists that are at stake. . . The issue is the motivation of working people. For the market mechanism is not merely a means to profit. It is also a means to individual betterment by the maximization of one's income. Without this drive, the mechanism will not work. 

But is the drive for private gain compatible with the goal of socialism? I do not see how it can be. The market system, in order to function, requires attitudes of self-seeking that are in direct conflict with the goal of an "other-oriented" society. If socialism seeks to avoid both the anarchy and alienation of capitalism, it must seek to break the hold of the market, not merely over the economy but over the mind.' [Emphasis added.]

Get that? “. . . over the mind,” not only of capitalists but of working people. This is what Socialists mean when they express concern for the “working class”—to break their minds, and spirits, so as to make them “other-oriented” rather than strivers for self-betterment.

This dispels the notion that Socialism is for “working people.” This dispels the notion that Socialism is “only about economics.” Note, again, Romer’s choice of words—”until we are able to fully seize power ourselves.” fully seize power. Clearly, she’s not referring to elective power, which in America is limited. She’s referring to the day after the Democratic Socialists win electoral control of the presidency and Congress—at which point, Hitler style, they end the Constitutional checks on government power, abandon the Declaration of Independence, and establish—seize—full despotism, thus ending rightful liberty in America. That’s why there has never been—not in Soviet Russia; not in Red China; not in Castro’s Cuba; not in North Korea; not in modern Venezuela; not anywhere full Socialism has been established—anything but one-party totalitarianism under Socialism—and philosophically and logically never can be.

RELATED:

QUORA: ‘Would socialism be constitutional in the U. S.?’

Socialism's Totalitarian Nature Cannot Be Obscured by 'Democratic Socialism'

QUORA: ‘Is capitalism voluntary?’

Ralph Peters: “Mesmerized by Elections, We Forgot Freedom”, my essay for The Objective Standard

Mesmerized by Elections, the NJ Star-Ledger Forgot that Tyranny is Tyranny

Democratic Socialism: The Left Escalates America’s Journey to Totalitarianism

Socialism vs. Welfare Statism: Why These Terms Matter

New Jersey’s Racist John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act

New Jersey has gone full collectivist—especially racist—on the Democratic process. On July 2, 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act.

What does that law do? According to the AI summary of BillTrack50,

This bill, known as the "John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act of New Jersey," aims to strengthen voting rights and prevent voter suppression and dilution, particularly for "protected classes" which include racial, color, or language-minority groups. It establishes the public policy of New Jersey to maximize voter participation and ensure equal opportunity for all eligible voters, especially those in protected classes, to engage in the political process. [my emphasis]

This is a reaction to the SCOTUS ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which overturned a racially gerrymandered Congressional district because it violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits voter discrimination on the basis of race, color, or membership in language minority groups. 

The Left’s hysterical mantra has been that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been neutered, eviscerated, weakened, or even repealed, even though no one’s rights have been weakened, compromised, or otherwise violated. We had, and still have, equal voting rights for all—the proverbial, ironclad rule “one man, one vote” principle.

No one has been restricted from “engaging in the political process,” which involves more than voting, like campaign donations, issue advocacy, campaigning for a candidate, or debating fellow citizens. (It’s interesting that Democrats would use that terminology, since it is they who would restrict people from engaging in the political process, through various campaign finance legal restrictions, and fighting to overturn pro-free speech SCOTUS rulings like Citizen’s United.)

So, what gives?

The Left has snuck in a sinister gimmick—switching the concept of voting rights from the individual to the collective. Reread the summary of the NJ law. There are no, and cannot be, “protected classes” in the United States of America. America is explicitly a nation built on the unalienable rights of the individual, not the group, and for which our government is legally bound to secure equally for all. But by the Left’s standards, certain groups or classes get the special privilege of being virtually guaranteed the election of politicians of its favored race, skin complexion, or language. (What of ideas, policy, character, or political philosophy of the candidates?) And what of the individuals who make up the dissenting minorities within those privileged classes, who have no such guarantee? What of un-”protected” classes? What of the equal protection of the laws? What is the unsaid premise behind such hideous laws as that of New Jersey, which are intended to rig certain elections in favor of certain politically privileged “protected” voting demographics? That unsaid premise amounts to, “All voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others.”

There are no, and can logically never be, such a thing as collectivized voting rights, or collectivized rights of any kind. As the great American philosopher Ayn Rand has observed, 

Any group or collective, large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the rights of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application of these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants' right of free association and free trade. (By legitimate, I mean: noncriminal and freely formed, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)

The notion of collective rights (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that rights belong to some men, but not to others; that some men have the right to dispose of others in any manner they please and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine rests on mysticism: either on the old-fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like The Divine Right of Kings or on the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

Of course, the “protected classes” are created by political fiat—i.e., by force—in which no individual member of that group was given a chance to consent or not. Thus, the “protected classes” are groups of individuals who are forced to join, whether they choose to or not.

Oh, well. It makes perfect sense from the standpoint of the Left’s long-held tribal narrative—That so-called “people of color” are an inferior human breed who need government favoritism to make it in a free society. As I noted in a Facebook post:

The violent Leftist reaction to the ruling also affirms the fundamental racial/collectivist orientation of the Left and the Democratic Party (I deliberately chose the NYT article to demonstrate this). That political block sees every issue through a lens of race. But, MEMO to the Left: dark skinned people are INDIVIDUALS, each with a mind of their own, capable of deciding FOR THEMSELVES how to vote, just like every other person. They are not some homogenous colored herd with some collective brain that they must be told they must follow.

Don’t believe the way most of the press is characterizing this ruling. This [SCOTUS] decision is a great outcome.

To demonstrate how the misrepresentation gets traction, consider the wording of these clips. From Supreme Court no ‘rubber stamp’ for Trump, Kagan says

While standing up for her conservative colleagues, Kagan did express disappointment with many of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, including what she termed the “evisceration of the Voting Rights Act.” 

The link connects to a Politico report:

From Supreme Court limits Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court significantly narrowed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in a 6-3 ruling Wednesday, further eroding the impact of the landmark civil rights-era law.

For decades, Section 2 — a provision that broadly outlawed discrimination in voting on the basis of race — has been interpreted to allow, and sometimes demand, the use of race-conscious data in redistricting, to protect the voting power of minorities.

Note the glaring contradiction. The “key provision” that was allegedly “significantly narrowed” was Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But it was not actually Section 2 that was narrowed. It was a particular interpretation of Section 2—an interpretation that actually twisted the Voting Rights Act “to allow, and sometimes demand, the use of race-conscious data in redistricting, to protect the voting power of minorities” rather than individuals, a provision that is not found anywhere in the actual 1965 Act. What does the Act actually say?

Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act “prohibits voting practices or procedures [like redistricting?] that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act. Most of the cases arising under Section 2 since its enactment involved challenges to at-large election schemes, but the section's prohibition against discrimination in voting applies nationwide to any voting standard, practice, or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. Section 2 is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act. [My emphasis]

New Jersey’s new John R. Lewis Voter Empowerment Act, which is intended as a counterweight to the “voter suppressing” SCOTUS ruling, is actually a hideous law that actually weakens the voting rights of individuals.

Clearly, Politico’s reporting is the most accurate. Note that the Act refers to “the right of any citizen to vote,” NOT the “right” of any citizen to rig an election so someone of his race or color can win. No citizen’s right to cast his vote was denied, abridged, or “eviscerated” by the SCOTUS ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. What was eviscerated was the hideous practice of race-based redistricting—a resounding victory for the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the equal right of all citizens to vote.

Related Reading:

Woke Redistricting Madness in NJ

Did SCOTUS Promote or Reject Racism in Alabama Redistricting Case?

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice by Craig Biddle for The objective Standard

Trump’s Trade War Begins: Disaster to follow

My Facebook comments:

Trump has declared world trade war, disrupting business plans, abrigating contracts, upending consumer budgets, rendering $billions of productive investment useless, hammering Americans’ retirement portfolios, and killing jobs. It’s much worse than expected, which was already bad. For the first time, an American Administration is deliberately trying to engineer a global recession—or worse. And it’s based on discredited poverty-inducing 17th Century economics. It’s pre-Adam Smith. It’s primitive. And it’s also based on unimaginable paranoia. What does it even mean when Trump says “other countries have been ripping us off” and other such nonsense? Countries don’t trade. Private individuals do. When a foreign company exports its product to the U.S. to offer for sale, and an American decides to buy it, both sides win. Trade is WIN-WIN. Who's getting “ripped off?” Nobody. 

Economically, Trump’s collectivist premise that this will “make America wealthy again” really means make the government wealthier. The money raised by the tariffs—which will be much less than Trump dreams—will not enrich the average American. It will be sucked out of American consumers to enrich the government. Somebody’s getting ripped off, alright—American consumers, American businesses that depend on global trade, and foreign companies that supply the goods that enrich Americans’ lives. Trump cares about America, in the same sense as a big government Progressive—but he doesn’t care about Americans.

Trump’s trade war is not only economically destructive. It is immoral. It violates the inalienable individual rights of Americans to freely trade with other people. Economic freedom is fundamental to Americanism. Trump is trampling all over the American Dream.

Too many Americans have been flipping out over a few Federal workers losing their jobs and some spending being cut. But this is penny-ante stuff—and in principle positive. The real danger is in Trump’s trade war. I hope Congressional Republicans get a backbone, join with Democrats—as 4 rational Republicans just did on Canada tariffs—and outlaw Trump’s whole tariff scheme, and curb the presidential power to impose tariffs willy-nilly by executive order—a power no president should have. No, it’s not the end of the world—not yet. Perhaps the hope that this is all a negotiating ploy, and things will ultimately work out, is still alive. But we’re in dangerous territory. Make no mistake. Trump has led our country into taking the first step down a road that ends in World War III. Congress must stop Trump on this issue. That would really be Putting AMERICANS First.

At this posting, the stock market is experiencing a massive coronary. 

But there is one potential silver lining developing. Trump’s unconstitutional power grab may be jolting Congress into growing a spine. The Washington Post reported . . . 

A bipartisan bill that would give Congress final approval on tariffs imposed by a president was introduced Thursday by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington). The bill seems to have little chance of passage but underscores the unease among some Republicans with Trump’s tariffs plan, which sent shock waves through financial markets and rattled business owners around the world on Thursday.

I’m not holding my breath. Maybe enough Republicans will join all Democrats in stripping Trump, and the presidency, of it usurped power to impose tariff taxes, which Constitutionally belongs to Congress. Unfortunately, too many Republicans are blind Trump backers, Democrats have their own protectionist problems. But “I’ll keep my fingers crossed.”

Related Reading:

Trump just imposed the largest tax hike since 1942 without congressional approval

Trump’s tariffs are a tax by another name, and the power to levy taxes lies with Congress.

If Trump were trying to implement an income tax hike of similar magnitude by executive order, it would be plainly unconstitutional. Everyone knows that only Congress can set tax rates. What’s different about tariffs? On its face, nothing. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The McKinley Tariff that Trump has said he admires was not an executive order signed by President William McKinley; it was legislation sponsored by McKinley when he was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. So, too, the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — which did much to worsen the Great Depression — was passed by Congress. It was not an executive order from President Herbert Hoover.

The problem is that, since the 1930s, Congress has delegated considerable authority to the president to set tariff rates. But, as in so many other areas, Trump is stretching executive authority beyond the breaking point.

The United States has done much better during the past 50 years than other industrialized economies: U.S. GDP per capita is 2.4 times larger than Japan’s and 1½ times larger than Germany’s. In October, just before Trump’s election, the Economist proclaimed the U.S. economy “The envy of the world.” How is this an emergency?

“This is a shocking abuse of the president’s authority to declare national emergencies,” she told me. “I don’t think that will stand up to a court challenge.” It is imperative that Congress take back the power to set tariff rates. Only elected legislators are allowed to raise taxes, and only elected legislators should be allowed to raise tariffs — which are simply taxes under another name.

Phony Liberation From a Phony War

Hillary’s Cave-in to the Left on Free Trade

NAFTA, Whatever its Flaws, Was a Good Thing

‘Buy American’ is UN-American—Harry Binswanger

The real reason Trump is destroying the economy: Trump is imposing ruinous tariffs because American democracy is no longer strong enough to stop him. [Mostly spot on. But I have to take issue with his reference to America as a Democracy. This reference confuses the issue, and leads to unnecessary contradictions. America is a Constitutional Republic. But the author’s basic argument is correct; Trump is violating the Constitutional checks and balances by imposing taxes without Congress, and is abusing emergency powers—albeit by using powers that he inherited.]

Why is Trump rewriting US economic history? Anyone?

DEI Exposed for What it Means, and Where it Leads

New Jersey Spotlight News )NJSN) has a very revealing piece on President Trump’s war on the Left’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) movement—Taylor Jung’s ‘Chilling effect’ feared as Trump administration attacks DEI. Here is an annotated review of Jung’s “news” article. Indented portions are direct quotes from the article, with my emphasises.

Escalating federal pressure to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives is raising more questions than answers about the future of anti-discrimination programming in New Jersey and across the nation.

I have observed that NJSN leans strongly Left in its reporting. So right off the bat, incredibly disingenuous! DEI requires discrimination. Only the tribalism of relying on statistical "disparities" rather than actual evidence can justify seeing DEI programs as an anti-discrimination tool.

  

Last week, the Department of Justice signaled it could criminally investigate companies engaged in what it called “illegal” race- and sex-based discrimination under the “guise” of DEI. 

Note the framing. DEI requires race- and sex-based discrimination to achieve its self-described “equitable” ends, which means eliminating statistical disparities. Yet, Jung prefaces its reporting with a “what it called ‘illegal’” preface, and followed it up by referring to DEI as a “guise”—to what end . . . to protect racism? Apparently:

Legal and workforce experts say it could have a “chilling” effect on programs meant to combat prejudice 

How do you combat prejudice through race- and sex-based discrimination? 

and to promote equitable working environments 

"Equitable" means fair and impartial. How does discrimination lead to that? Of course, to the Progressive/Woke Left, equitable means Egalitarianism, the enemy of fairness and merit. 

It is also not clear what criminal laws the Trump administration is citing, those experts say.

“I think that, yes, that is an effort to utilize the kind of mechanism of civil rights law, not in favor of the groups that have been historically served by those laws because they were the impetus for those laws, but instead to say, ‘We believe society has gone too far in the direction of protecting the interest of those groups,’” said Stacy Hawkins, a professor at Rutgers Law School.

Note what's missing from this diatribe—the individual. And the individual is who gets discriminated against—i.e., marginalized, if the Left's favorite term has any meaning—when "protecting the interest of those groups." Groups are made up of individuals. Those who erase the individual from any moral, social or political consideration are not defenders of any group, and the Civil Rights Laws do not and were never meant to protect groups, only individuals. The law should never favor or disfavor any group. It should universally secure and protect individual rights and equal protection of the law. 

In order to systematize sex and race based discrimination, the DEI crowd is totally misrepresenting the Civil Rights Laws. Certainly, the historical  discrimination against black Americans were “the impetus for those laws." But the Civil Rights laws were never a mechanism for reverse discrimination. They insert universal principles meant to protect all groups from the kind of discriminatory injustices that victimized the black group, through the mechanism—the principles—of individual rights.

Workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion and nationality. But Title VII is a civil law, not a criminal one.

This may be true. But whether civil or criminal, DEI requires precisely what Title VII prohibits—workplace discrimination based on gender, race, color, religion and nationality (Whether this provision should apply to private enterprise is another discussion).

This should be obvious to any objective person. I can’t believe Jung can’t see the blazing contradiction in his reporting. So, why DEI? 

“It is unconscionable that the Trump administration would coopt the language and vision of the civil rights movement in these executive orders as it attempts to send our nation back to an era of rampant, state-sanctioned discrimination [!!!]

 Which is exactly what DEI does. Biden's "whole of government approach" to systemitizing DEI is new era of rampant, state-sanctioned discrimination. This is exactly what Trump's policy is designed to save us from, as is obvious to anyone with any inkling of understanding capacity. By now, the absurdity and evasiveness of this article can not be hidden. Read on:

Ultimately, these measures drive us farther away from a future when health is no longer a privilege, but a right for all,” said Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a funder of NJ Spotlight News.)

There you have it. The ultimate goal of collectivist DEI. Totalitarian Socialism. Who would enforce this "right" to health? Slaves, that's who. If someone needs health care as a right, then those with the capability to provide it—the doctors and other health professionals—cannot refuse to provide it. Those who pay for it cannot refuse. The same goes for any economic "right"—a "right" to housing, education, food. Socialism is slavery, and totalitarian Socialism is the ultimate goal of anyone who preaches Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. After all, Socialism requires collectivism, and what better way to condition people to accept collectivism than by systematizing the easiest form of collectivism—racism.

Related Reading:

Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell

The Racism of “Diversity” by Peter Schwartz for Capitalism Magazine

Don’t Allow the Left to Own ‘Diversity’

SEC’s Boardroom ‘Diversity’ Rule Is Racist, Unnatural, and Politically Motivated

Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice—Craig Biddle

DelBarton Student’s 'Diversity' Initiative, Though Well-Meaning, is Based on Counter-Productive Premises

The Founding Fathers, Not ‘Diversity,’ is the Solution to ‘Our Racialized Society’

From 'Diversity Maps' to Forced Integration: Obama's Racist Housing Policy Masks the Real Problem—Lack of Free Markets

This is Rich—a ‘Diversity’ Exec Crying ‘Racism.’

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, the Fed, ‘Diversity’, and Racism