Once we begin seeing people as members of groups rather than as individuals, we take a step away from freedom, and toward conformity and regimentation. And once we see groups as needing help, we inevitably see the government as Big Daddy, the only one who can help them. Then we take another step away from freedom.

Let us focus on two recent cases. At first glance, they show leftists ‒ who call themselves “progressives” ‒ as caring and compassionate. But on closer inspection, the picture is much less appealing.

• José Inés García Zárate had entered the United States illegally six times and been deported five times. Reentering after having been deported is a felony, so he committed five felonies before being arrested on drug charges in at least two states. Federal immigration authorities (ICE) put a hold on him, so that when he was released (yet again) from jail, he could be deported (yet again).

But San Francisco is a “sanctuary city,” which does not cooperate with ICE. So García Zárate was released to do as he pleased. It pleased him to shoot and kill 32-year-old Kathryn Michelle Steinle, who was walking at a tourist attraction with her father. Empathy for Kate Steinle? Oh no, there was none left for her. San Franciscans had used up all their empathy on García Zárate. How terribly unjust. But how typically leftist.

García Zárate first claimed he found the pistol and was shooting at sea lions, which is a federal crime that can result in a $100,000 fine and a year in prison. Then he claimed he picked up the pistol and it “went off.” He was charged with murder, but a jury found him not guilty of murder or manslaughter, but guilty merely of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to time served. But before he could be released (yet again), federal authorities issued an arrest warrant for weapons charges. As far as I can discover, he remains in jail.

It is an undisputed fact that he fired a pistol in a crowded area and killed Kate Steinle. It seems clear that this is a classic case of depraved indifference to human life, which is second-degree murder. So how could even a “progressive” jury find him not guilty?

I’ll tell you how. Defense attorneys claimed that the pistol had a “hair trigger” and just “went off.” In fact, the pistol was a SIG-Sauer P239. This pistol is issued by a wide variety of military and police agencies worldwide. It has a minimum trigger pull of about 6.5 pounds. Like all modern handguns, it cannot fire unless the trigger is pulled.

The defense attorneys did not offer an insanity or diminished-capacity defense. They did not claim García-Zárate had any mental impairment that would render him incapable of knowing what a gun was, or that pulling the trigger would cause it to fire. That is, they did not claim he had any mental impairment ‒ except for being a poor, stupid Mexican. No, of course they didn’t say that, but they implied it, and the jury bought it.

But, you object, how can you accuse the lawyers and jury of being racists? To answer, let me suggest the opposite. Suppose Kate Steinle found a pistol on the ground, picked it up, put her finger on the trigger, and then pulled the trigger ‒ and killed José Inés García Zárate. She would have been convicted of second-degree murder, or at least voluntary manslaughter with a hate-crime enhancement. Obviously, this “Anglo” medical-technology worker knew not to pull the trigger of a pistol in a crowded area. After all, she was “white,” so she should have known better.

But not García Zárate. Oh no, not him. He was just too stupid, too simple, too backward to know what a small child would know ‒ that a gun fires when you pull the trigger. Clearly, the “not guilty” verdict was unfair to Kate Steinle and to the people who will again be exposed to the killer. But the verdict was also unfair to García Zárate. The jury, and by extension the people of California, held him to a lower standard than it held “ordinary” people. It viewed him as a simple peasant, fit at most to be a farm worker, but not fit to participate in modern society or to handle dangerous objects. So he needs leftist Big Daddy to help and protect him.

If that’s not racism, what is?

• Stormy Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, needs no introduction, having become world famous. The stripper and porno film star claims she had a sexual tryst with Donald Trump in 2006, long before he went into politics. I can do no better than to quote Brent Bozell at Town Hall:

First, she was paid $5,000 by In Touch magazine in 2011 to claim that she had sex with Donald Trump (the story wasn’t published). Then, she was paid $130,000 in October 2016 to shut up and not claim to have had sex with Donald Trump. History turned to farce when Daniels appeared on “60 Minutes” to break her nondisclosure agreement and shamelessly claimed: “I have no reason to lie. You know, I’m not getting paid to be here.”

The cash payment for her silence is news. Granted, it does not cast light on whether (1) Trump’s lawyers contacted her to keep her silent about something that happened, or (2) Daniels contacted Trump’s lawyers about money to keep her silent about something that did (or did not) happen. The first is called hush money. It can get you goodies. The second is called blackmail, a form of extortion. It can get you a year in prison.

Daniels’ 2012 biography “Stormy” is available on Google Books. When interviewed before the current imbroglio, she was asked whether she had an affair with Trump. She replied, “If indeed I did have a relationship with Donald Trump, trust me, you wouldn’t be reading about it in the news, you would be reading about it in my book.” At some point, contradictions reach such a level that a shoulder shrug is the only appropriate reaction.

During the “60 Minutes” interview, Anderson Cooper asked embarrassing questions ‒ for example, whether Trump used a condom. But consider what Cooper did not ask. He did not ask whether Trump has a scar, or a tattoo, or a birthmark, or whether Trump is circumcised. That is, Cooper did not ask any question that might reveal Daniels’ story to be a fabrication. I wonder why.

Ms. Daniels clearly is a businesswoman who can take care of herself. By her own admission, she was not harassed or otherwise pressured by Trump. So the question is, if her story is true, does the one-night stand reflect badly enough on Trump to impair his ability to govern effectively?

But beyond this obvious question is another. A professional porno star and stripper apparently has sex with a rich, prominent man who runs a TV show. Perhaps she hoped it would get her on “The Apprentice.” Perhaps she merely wanted to be near a famous man. But as she made clear, sex (if it occurred) was consensual. So why does she need protection? From whom? On the contrary, one could argue that Donald Trump needed protection from her. Assuming the sex took place as she describes, who was the aggressor?

Despite Stormy Daniels’ successful career, despite her ability to make a living and take care of herself, despite her abundant self-assurance, and despite her cheerful denial that she is a victim, nevertheless “progressives” view her as someone who is weak and vulnerable, someone who needs help in making decisions, and someone who needs them ‒ the “progressives” ‒ to save her from herself when she is dealing with a man. In short, she needs leftist Big Daddy to help and protect her.

It that’s not sexism, what is?

•

Author’s Note:
I include the accents in the name of José Inés García Zárate. I tend to omit them when using the name of an American ‒ for example, the late actor Jose Ferrer. After all, English does not use accent marks. But I do include them in names of foreign citizens ‒ for example, former French President François Hollande. And García Zárate is about as far from being an American citizen as it is possible to get.

•

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com