Monday, January 23, 2012

The View From Here: Equality

Sometimes, in my rural setting on the leading edge of the 21st century, I delude myself into thinking that this country has achieved equality.  That assessment is incorrect.

As a conservative I am often blamed for that inequality.  I'm sorry, but I cannot confess to that crime.  I do not wish for anyone to have, or to be, less than I am.

So maybe the crime I am being blamed of is not one of commission; of holding other people back, of oppressing others, whoever they might be, whatever the reasons for our inequality might be.  Maybe it's a crime of omission; of not using my superior position to help raise others up to at least my level.

In the political realm, this debate inevitably comes down to one of economics.  Some people have more than other people.  There are those who have a simple formula for equality:

1)  Take everything of value and put it in a big pile.
2)  Divide the total value by the number of people.
3)  Distribute everything equally.

If it were this simple, I'd be all for it.  I have reason to believe that I'd come out ahead on the deal.  There are a lot of people who, when offered this option, think; "Hell, yeah!  Sign me up!"  And there are those horrified by the very thought, because they would come away with a lot, lot less.

I'm pulling this figure out of my sleep-deprived memory, but it seems to me I heard somewhere recently that the gross national product, the value of everything in the United States of America, is something like 14 trillion dollars.  Let's be generous and round that up to 15 trillion.  That's, 15,000,000,000,000; fifteen followed by twelve zeroes.  And there's 300 million people, roughly.  That's 300,000,000; three followed by eight zeroes.

For the purposes of this demonstration, the accuracy of those figures doesn't matter.  The point is that I'm trying to figure out how much the above formula would get everybody.  You could just as easily say that the GNP is X and the population is Y.  If you could convert everything of value in the country to cash, the above figures tell us that we would each come away with $50,000.  That's 50K for me, 50K more for my wife, and for each of my four kids, and for you, and so on down the line.  There it is.  Your cut.  We're equal now.

And therein lies the subtle problem.  We come back to the question of human nature.  For some, it's more money than they've ever seen in one place in their life!  Yeah, I told you this was a good idea!!  You can get a damn nice car for a lot less than that.  Put up in a fine hotel.  Ring up room service and order us some champagne, darlin'.  And how 'bout a little blow f'ya nose?

Other people would look at that paltry pile of cash, that small shoebox full of fives, and think; "What the flyin' heck am I supposed to do with this little bit?"  Once they accepted the reality of it, they would start opening their eyes and ears.  Pretty soon they would be drawn to our first contestant.  Oh, you're looking for a car?  I can make a car.  Champagne?  No problem.  Cocaine?  Let me get back to you on that.

Pretty soon one group of people would have nothing, and the other would have it all.  So the only way the grand formula for equality could work is if you keep on doing it.  As soon as one person was down to nothing you blow the whistle, collect it all back up, and do it again.  We'll continue to do everything communally.  We could call it . . . Communism!  Nah, too harsh.  How about Socialism?  Sounds more social. 

It wouldn't take long for the smarter people on all sides to decide that this sucked.  After all, who would be in charge of collection and distribution?  What's their cut?  How do we know they're honest?  And how can I tuck a little away in case I don't get what I'm expecting?  For that matter, how do I get in on being a collector and distributor?

It can't be that simple, and it will never really be that way.  Some people go into politics so they can nudge the country and the world in that direction, but it's a basically flawed ideal that will never see full fruition.  For one thing, there's too many people pulling in the opposite direction.  Let's cut out all the collection and distribution, and get down to brass tacks; you want something, I can get it for you.  Capitalism!

Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you."  So far, he's right, and it doesn't look like it's going to change any time soon.

Some say that economic inequality comes down to racism.  This belief is how I manage the occasional delusion I describe in my opening paragraph.  This country has set into law the illegality of discrimination, for reasons of race, of gender, and it's working on extending this for reasons of sexual orientation.  And most people in the country, at least in the first two cases, agree with this.  Racism and sexism are heinous.  It's ridiculous, and cruel, to think that any race is inherently superior to another.  And why shouldn't a woman make as much as a man for doing the same job? 

A lot of people think that we have a long way to go in this area, but in my lifetime we've already come a very long way indeed.  You tell a 21st-century schoolkid about Jim Crow laws, and they're shocked.  Shocked!  That the country they're growing up in could have ever had such laws on their books.  Sounds like aparthied, or Naziism.  And then when you tell them about slavery . . .

As I sit and write this, it's a little after three o'clock in the morning.  I just woke up from a dream that shook me to my core.  It won't let me go back to sleep, and I felt compelled to come downstairs and write this.  I've been thinking for the last week about what I want to say on the subject of equality, but that dream blew it all away.

I am writing this "The View From Here" series of essays because these are the basic values I grew up with, and still hold to.  I believe they are basic values that just about any intelligent person strives for.  I think anyone in possession of both a heart and a mind wants these things for themself and everybody else.  The political disagreements we have are more about how these things can be achieved.  As a young man, I thought liberal political leanings could achieve them.  Over the years, I have come to feel differently, and I'm writing these pieces to explain how that change took place.

Gone are the days when a man could stand on a busy streetcorner and espouse the belief that white people are better than black people.  He'd be lynched!  But in my own lifetime, that was not only possible, it was widely accepted as the truth.  He'd have surely had his detractors, but he'd have also drawn a crowd of like-minded people.  Go ahead and try it now, but be sure to notify the police in advance that you're doing performance art.

Anyway, in that dream I'm in a big high school or some similar kind of building, along with a large bunch of teenage kids of various races and backgrounds.  I don't know why we're there, but there's the kids, and a small group of adults, of which I'm one.  I'm wandering around the mostly empty halls when I come across a trail of blood droplets.  I follow it, and soon discover a young black man who is obviously the source.  I quickly decide that he's on his way to get help, so I turn and go the other way.

I have three such encounters; trail of blood, hurt black kid, turn and leave; before I realize what I'm doing.  In each instance, the kids turns and glances at me.  No expression, and they try to stand a little straighter and look like nothing's wrong.  They say nothing, I say nothing.  They keep going, I turn to leave.  I know that they are going to be with their own kind.  With people they trust, who they expect will do whatever they see fit to help them.  And I am doing the same.

I might be better equipped to help that young man, those young men.  I think now the logical thing would have been to follow them until they got to where they were going and offer my assistance.  They should have medical attention, and I should find out who harmed them and do something about it.  But I would have been one unarmed white man among a group of angry black kids.  My instincts told me that my odds of success were limited, and that my safety could be compromised.

And so I went to be with my people and report this.  Maybe my instinct was to assemble a group of benificent white people to go, as a group, to offer assistance.  The problem with that is, in the time it took to do it, the injured boys would be able to tell their stories to their trusted group.  When we showed up, we would fit the broad description of the people who inflicted the harm in the first place.  Our group might have even included some of those people.  We would go as a group to ensure our safety from a reaction our own appearance would have incited.

That's when I woke up.  Not when that all happened, but when I realized that's where my chosen path was leading.  And yet, I couldn't bring myself to turn back around and keep following the injured boys.  And so . . . I woke up.

I had an experience once when I was living in Sacramento, California that has never left me.  I was rooming with my pastor, who was another young white guy, in a mostly-black development.  Nice enough neighborhood, and the rent was cheap.  Relatively new buildings, nice lawns, and I don't think Sacramento has what you could really call slums.  Then again, I'm a country boy.  I wouldn't know a slum if I lived in it.

It was a nice day and I was sitting out on the lawn next to the sidewalk, writing in my journal with my new set of felt-tipped calligraphy pens.  Things written with calligraphy pens look cool.  So do bow ties and fezzes, but I digress.  A young black kid, maybe 10 or 12, came by and asked what I was doing, and I told him.  He sat down and watched for a moment, then asked if he could see my pen.  I hand it to him.  He looks it over, then drives the point into the cement sidewalk and grinds it to a frayed end.  Then he jumps up and runs away.  "Hey!" I yell after him.

Then he looked back, and he stopped.  I think he expected me to jump up and chase him, all mad an everything, but I didn't.  I told him he could have another one, and a piece of paper to draw on, if he promised not to wreck it.  To be honest, I don't remember if he took me up on my offer, or if he just left.  That was 1985.  That kid's probably around 40 now, and I often wonder about him.  I wonder if he graduated high school, if he stayed out of trouble, if he's married and has kids of his own.  I wonder if he told his mom about what he did, and the crazy white dude who offered him another pen to wreck.  Or if he even had a mom and dad.  I wonder if he remembers me.  I hope he's okay.

You could probably follow me for a few days and find clues that would convince you that I'm a racist, but I don't think I am.  I certainly don't want to be, and I think that is important.  I'm certainly not going to spend all my time worrying about every word I say and step I take and sweat whether or not it offends you.  And yet the fact remains that I have chosen to be where I am.  I could probably live cheaper in a different place, in a poorer neighborhood.  But to me it's worth the extra money to live someplace I'm more comfortable.  Around people who are more like me.

It's worth the mortgage and the property taxes and the heating bills, and so I have to find the best job I can in order to be able to afford them.  And I have to work hard and try and advance my position in order to make more money.  And I have to buy and maintain a car so I can get to a better job, that will pay me enough to get the car.  And then there's things I like to do in my spare time, like play music and type ridiculous things on a computer.

Maybe it would be better if I went to a poorer neighborhood and did these things.  It might be good for those people to get used to somebody different like me, and see me do the things I'm doing.  If more of them did these things, their neighborhood wouldn't be as poor.  Or, they could move.  On the down side, my family and I would not be as safe or comfortable.  But I still wonder, in my heart of hearts, if I'm wrong for not going.  I'm not trying to justify the choices I've made.  On the contrary, I seriously wonder if they're the right ones.

I want everybody to be equal.  I think just about everybody wants that, but they want it without wanting it to cost them anything.  Give 'til it hurts?  Just how hurt are we talking, here?  The Haves will never support a system that benefits the Have Nots at their expense.  They will not allow it.  They will group together and use their power to keep it from happening.  And if you Had, you would, too.  Be honest, now.  Because if you really Would do it, then you Can do it, but you're Not doing it, are you?  Think about that.

Is this racism?  Is this economic oppression?  Some think it is.  And some conservatives say that the poor are poor because they choose to be.  That's pretty harsh . . . but just for a minute why don't we consider the possibility that it might just be true?  I'll grant you, it might be more fair if we could, one time, go to a base figure that everybody has.  I still think the inevitable outcome would be a world greatly resembling the world we live in today.

Part of the political discourse I hear this year is about how those who Have need to be punished for it.  After all, if they have, they must have stolen it.  In a lot of cases, that's probably true.  But which cases?  If you know, and can prove it, aren't there courts?  And if you can't, then do we just punish everybody who Has?  Is it even possible for an honest person to achieve wealth?  I like to think it is, but having never been wealthy, I guess I wouldn't know.  And, maybe I'm not honest.  How would you know?

Still, to a lot of the world, I am wealthy.  I'm a white American male, one of the dominant demographics on the planet.  I have more opportunities than any other group of people, economically, spiritually . . . sexually . . . Our neighborhoods have more banks, churches, and hookers than any other.  Even our poor are richer than most other people's.  Okay, maybe not all that's entirely true, but I came out of the womb with certain advantages, let's face it.  I have majority status, in a wealthy country, and a penis.  Who could ask for anything more?

But what if I had none of those things?  Is Donald Trump bad, but Condoleeza Rice good?  Or is Condi bad because she worked for a conservative administration?  The point is, both are quite well off.  And both worked hard to achieve it.  Trump's "unfair advantage" was having a dad who made a small fortune in real estate.  But Trump, through hard work and ingenuity, turned that small fortune into a very, very large one.  As for Condi, she started literally as a poor black child and rose to head Stanford University, advise Presidents Reagan and Bush 1, and eventually served as Bush Jr.'s Secretary of State, after which she became a best-selling author.  At the peak of her career she was, literally, the most powerful woman in the world.

And nobody handed her a thing.  Yes, there are actually some people I've heard state she had an "unfair advantage" by being a black woman.  She may have actually gotten something from Affirmative Action, and maybe even some liberal soft-heartedness from some people above her on the socio-economic ladder, but that could only get you so far.  Her success is the direct result of her applying her intelligence and work ethic.  Just like Trump.

So, no, things aren't equal.  The playing field is not level.  But hating those who are doing better gets us nothing.  Yeah, sometimes I've expressed a certain dislike for some of the rich, but because they're assholes.  They'd be assholes if they were poor, they just couldn't afford to express it with quite so much vigor.  It's a personal dislike, not a socio-political one.  I think I wrote a piece about this, too.

The reason I lean conservative is not in spite of my desire for everyone to be equal, but because of it.  Less government intervention over our lives allows each person more opportunity to advance themselves.  Maybe we come into this world with certain advantages or disadvantages, but what we do with them is up to us.  Maybe that's why conservatism is so hard to sell.  It doesn't come with a secret toy surprise.  It comes with no guarantees, no safety net.  I would agree that there should be a safety net, but it should be carefully monitored against abuse by the lazy.  This is best done, I believe, on the most local level possible.  That's conservative, too.

The reason conservatism and small government are hard ideas to sell is because it's a system that rewards hard work and ingenuity, and punishes sloth.  Not out of a desire to punish, but simply by the fact that you don't get what you don't earn.  It's a lot closer to raw, ungoverned life.  You cannot, by rule of law, create equality.  Human nature will not allow it.  The people who now use capitalism for selfish gain will simply switch position and use communalism for selfish gain.

The important question is; what will you do?  Will you strive for selfish gain?  Or will you take some of what you've gained, and assist others?  Will you run to your own comfort zone before offering a hand?  Or worse, will you go there and barricade it against "those people?"  Or will you reach out and offer grace, without asking who needs to be punished?

Golda Meir, a woman who survived the holocaust to become the Premier of Israel, once said something to the effect that there would be war with the Palestinians as long as they hated the Jews more than they loved their own children.

1 comment:

John said...

Gotta hand you a whole bushel full of kudos on this post. If there was a Pulitzer prize for blogging I'd be nominating this one.

The only point I'd make, and this is one I've made before, is that, liberal or conservative, there is no viable movement in this country to drastically reduce the size and power of government. People here often call themselves conservative in the sole belief that they must be one in order to further the agenda of their church. I, as you know, would argue that involving the government in matters of religion is NOT conservative, but what the rest of the world would define as liberal (pro-change is the outside-of-USA definition, not leftist as our media defines it).

I'd not argue for any attempt to change our economic system which involves government redistribution, something no one can trust to be administered without corruption. I would, however be for doing something about those people who are off the scale rich because I feel that the labors of a single human being can not possibly be worthy of such an accumulation of wealth as we see among the top .00013% of the population. Donald Trump may have built a fortune, but he also STARTED with one, thus freeing him from such necessary toil that the majority of us have to spend time on for which we are NOT paid (cooking lunch, washing clothes, cleaning house, and all those things most of us can't afford to pay someone to do).

Did the ultra-wealthy have to become unhuman to get where they are today? I'd say no, they were born that way, or simply never developed a sense of humanity because they were never forced to by their socio-economic situation. That makes them the most efficient money makers. I'd doubt that someone like the Donald ever helped someone pack and move their stuff to a new home, helped a friend with some manual labor related to construction, or any of the kind-hearted things regular folk do every day for each other. In a world where society, and not law, was the dominant force, I believe, now that we are mostly all educated and have emerged from the middle ages, that people could not accumulate such wealth because it would be taboo.

If we want equality we need to give serious consideration to phasing out government power and replacing it with social power, not socialism.