Progressivism
and Equality
“You
know, Julie, it appears that progressives’ knowledge of biology is comparable
to their knowledge of economics.
They seem to think that money grows on trees and that all people must be
compensated equally irrespective of abilities and accomplishments.”
“I’m
convinced that progressives tend to be spendthrifts, Curmudge, but what about
their views on biology?”
“Progressives
are clearly wrong. I’m living
proof of inequality. I’m not big
enough to play in the NFL or tall enough for the NBA. Let’s face it; inequality is endemic in the human race. However, progressives and conservatives
are pretty close on equal opportunity. They both feel that people should be
equal in their opportunity to get a basic education and live in an enriching
and productive environment. But in
addition, progressives believe that everyone should have an equal outcome in
life, as if they were stamped out of a machine as little widgets. That is, equal despite their inherent
differences in initiative, intellect, and a host of other conditions.”
“Gosh,
Old Guy, do progressives truly believe that that is possible?”
“Probably
not, Julie. I’m exaggerating, but
they seem determined to make the nation do everything feasible to meet their
vision. And they seem willing to
impoverish the country in the process.”
“So,
Professor, how does that translate into the ‘here’ and ‘now’ in America?”
“Progressivism
and politics are symbiotic, because the administrative state is essential in
applying progressive concepts. To
a politician, the greatest good that he or she can do for the country is get
re-elected. Thus to make that
happen, he/she will support progressive measures—often despite their cost—if
they seem popular. Consider
federal government food stamps. If
a politician supports expansion of that program, the recipient will support the
politician; he will not bite the hand that literally feeds him. This has been proven by the riots in
Europe that have erupted when governments considered reducing social programs
that people feel are their ‘entitlements.’ “
“I
get it, Curmudge. That’s why
Social Security is considered the ‘third rail’ of politics. And from my reading (1), the U.S.
deficit will increase by $40 trillion over the next 20 years, mostly due to
Social Security, health entitlements, and interest costs. The progressives don’t seem to show
much concern over tackling this problem.
Perhaps we should remind our readers—once again—just how big a number a
trillion is. If one counts
backward in time for one trillion seconds, the date would be 30,000 B.C.”
“Forty
trillion is indeed a mind-boggling price to pay for 20 years worth of mostly
social programs, Julie, but the progressives’ goal of equal outcomes would also
be a big hit to our culture and wellbeing. Suppose the government decided to
create universal equality by confiscatory taxation of all high earners and
achievers. The driving force for
generating new knowledge and developing new products would disappear. And with everyone equally poor, there
would be no support for symphony orchestras in small cities, college
scholarships, or charities. Life
would be harsh and drab—almost like the Middle Ages.”
“If that had been implemented when you were born in 1934,
Senior Citizen, we wouldn’t have had jet planes, transistors, computers, and
all the benefits of modern medicine.
And without college scholarships, you wouldn’t have met the future Mrs.
Curmudgeon. Here’s a quotation
from Winston Churchill about being equally poor. ‘The inherent vice of
capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of
miseries.’ “
“The
draconian costs of equality are also portrayed in an amusing but frightening
way in a short story by Kurt Vonnegut (2) recalled by Al, one of our
editors. ‘The year was 2081, and
everybody was finally equal.’
‘Nobody was smarter, better looking, stronger, or quicker than anybody
else.’ The new constitutional
amendments were enforced by The U.S. Handicapper General. Because there was no way to bring
people up to a higher performance level, those with physical talents had to
wear bags of lead shot to hold them down.
Those with the ability to think had noisemakers installed in their ears
to disturb any creative thoughts.
The story described ballerinas with masks to cover pretty faces and sash
weights to make them clumsy.”
“I
think I’m going to be sick again, Curmudge. If that were not fiction, the Handicapper General and staff
would be exceptionally dedicated progressives.”
“Any
system of government that suppresses or subjugates the people has to have
enforcers like the Handicapper General.
If the people are required to be equal in terms of outcome, the
enforcers must be a higher political class. That proves the impossibility of universal equality. Which brings us to another more
familiar lesson from fiction. It’s
George Orwell’s Animal Farm. ‘All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.’ I think that’s what we have in the Administrative
State.”
“Just
because the progressives view themselves as a higher political class, it
doesn’t mean that they are higher achievers. Consider, for example, the Affordable Care Act as observed
by Phil Gramm in The Wall Street Journal (3): ‘Judged by the deeply flawed roll out and the necessity for
endless illegal waivers, merely implementing the law as written seems to be far
beyond the capacity of the U.S. government.’ ”
“And in addition, Julie, the bureaucratic minions are led by political hacks with
inadequate management experience.”
“Here’s
my arm again, Curmudge. Put your
thumb on the anti-nausea acupressure point on my wrist.”
Kaizen
Curmudgeon
(1) Portman, Rob Heading
Off the Entitlement Meltdown The Wall Street Journal, 7/22/14, p. A9.
(2) Vonnegut, Kurt Harrison Bergeron in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science
Fiction (October, 1961).
(3) Gramm, Phil A
2014 Health-Care
Strategy: Freedom The Wall Street Journal 7/25/14, p. A13.
Link to posting from blog archives: Evidence-Based Medicine 5—10/21/10
No comments:
Post a Comment