Equality of results precludes a happy quality of results. by Rimfrel
(libertarian)
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
I read an excellent article in National Review today, from the last issue I received. It was called, "The Descent of Liberalism", by Michael Knox Beran. The gist that I came away with is that, while progressivism used to be (e.g. early 20th century) somewhat tempered by classical liberal ideas (e.g. dating back to the Founders), the current mindset of Progressives is a dedication to centralized planning and the enshrinement of discrimination.
This is not the discrimination I grew up with in Virginia in the fifties and sixties, of treating blacks and women as second or lower class citizens. It is not merely punitive, but instead proactively bestows favor to selected groups. Couched more in terms of bestowing privilege than denying it, it is different only in perspective. If you proffer privilege to some, and it is a zero-sum game, then must you not deny it to others? Finite resources do not stretch infinitely.
This attitude seems to be applied by Progressives to every economic activity. Some people must be forced to give things up, as Goodwin Liu has suggested, so that others may have them. This is active discrimination against groups thought to be "too" favored, presented in the context of redressing historic wrongs. It does not end discrimination, it merely puts the shoe on a different foot. Just as blacks resent the long run of relative economic success enjoyed by whites, at the expense of blacks and others, so will whites resent the advantages to be conferred on blacks, Hispanics, or whomever, and with at least as much justification.
This is not the way to get rid of racial animosity or inequity. How can we ever move beyond race when our economic circumstances become legally defined by our ethnic heritage?
I begin to wonder if Progressives even care about the historical inequities among the races, except for the political advantage they can extract from salting as many wounds as possible, poking and prodding to open those wounds up. They certainly don't seem averse to using the same tactics for fomenting discord between the wealthy and the relatively impoverished, the conservatives and the liberals, youth and senior citizens, and any other distinction one can make. What could possibly be the intent other than to create an unruly mob that will tear down the existing social structure in hopes the new ones will be kinder to them?
Once the blacks, the poor, the youth have remade the society, will it be over? Or will Progressives simply start again, on the other side, eventually provoking more strife? There are always animosities, irritations, a suspicion that someone else has more than seems "fair". There will always be fertile ground for demagogues to agitate various groups to achieve "social justice". But I think actual social justice, rarely defined, is a mythical goal.
People are not identical and thus possess inherent inequities. One is taller, one has a faster metabolism, another is quicker to solve Sudoku puzzles. One wants to spend time dealing with other people and developing social bonds, while another wants to spend time composing music, and a third wants to make it easier for his mother to do laundry. One is black and male, one is second-generation Vietnamese and male, one is descended from American Indians and female.
People have different talents and different goals. Some want to be rich enough to built a dwelling on the order of the Biltmore Mansion. Some just want to be able to get out of the rain and cold, and not have to spend significant time doing housework. Some love fresh fruit and vegetables while others like fish and rice.
The idea of equality in the Constitution, as I understand it, is that all people are treated equally by the law and the government. If any of those example people commits murder, the punishment is the same. In the American justice system, there is a lot of influence from the idea of someone having an unhappy childhood or distressed financial circumstances, or having been living on Twinkies for the last two weeks. These have become ameliorating circumstances, encouraging people to game the system by finding some aspect of their life that MADE them commit murder. The irresistable impulse defense, I think. But the fundamental goal of the system was not to discriminate for or against anyone, but to determine whether the accused person was guilty of the alleged crime. Our system has become corrupted. Juries have shown mercy, usually a virtue, but in so doing have undermined the legal system.
People should not be denied the opportunity to succeed based on ethnic or gender considerations, but individual lack of interest in pursuing different paths should be respected. How will the Progressives juggle all of this? I don't think they can. It is not possible to enforce success, and it is unconscionable to enforce mediocrity.
We should operate in equality before the law, not enshrine the balkanization of different ethnic or other special interest groups to promote alleged equality of results, which would at best lead to inequality of happiness. Let us pursue happiness without the guarantee. Success will mean more to us when we earn it.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Rimfrel only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Rimfrel is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
