Equality of What?

There is an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I think of that when I think of the subprime loan problems that set off the current financial crisis. Subprime loans were created in the first place and encouraged through the years by liberals who wanted to help more minorities own their own homes, a laudable enough goal on the face of it. Liberals often talk about the need for more equality in America, but equality of what?

Certainly people aren’t inherently equal. Some earn graduate degrees and some never finish high school. Some have IQs in the 130 range and some in the 90 range. Some are healthy and some suffer from chronic disease. Some work hard and some are lazy. Some think clearly and some are delusional. The list of differences is endless.

I think we could agree that we would like a nation in which we were all equal before the law, even though we clearly don’t have that now. The rich, who can afford good lawyers, can get away with murder (even, sometimes, literally), while the poor too often suffer at the hands of ambitious prosecutors and overworked public defenders.

But do we really want economic equality? Do we really want a nation in which everyone owns their own home, whether they are willing to work hard enough for it or not? Do we really want a nation in which hard work and dedication earns one no more than laziness and apathy? Do we really want a nation in which being willing to work and study through years of graduate school or medical school provides no economic gain at all? Do we really want a nation in which innovation is not rewarded? I am reminded of Winston Churchill’s comment: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries"

At root the question is whether we seek equality of opportunity, or equity of outcomes. It seems to me too often the liberal political position is to support equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Tax the rich and give it to the poor. Lower the college entrance standards and grading standards for minorities so that everyone can earn a college degree (would you want to trust your life to an airline pilot or surgeon who got through school on a reduced grading standard because he/she was a minority?). Create subprime loans for people who really don’t have enough income to justify buying a house.

I don’t think this really makes sense. Despite their words, I doubt if the well-off liberals and well-paid politicians who support such ideas would really like to have their own income and net worth reduced to the national average. They would lose a great deal.

But if what one wanted was equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcomes, the programs would be much different than those proposed by liberals. We would be pushing and funding Head Start programs, better nutrition for children, better schools, charter schools and school vouchers, merit pay for teachers, better libraries, more adult education, more parenting classes, etc., etc. But of course equality of opportunity takes many years to implement, so it doesn’t produce votes for the politicians who would need to implement it, while programs directed at equality of outcome can garner votes today. And as George Bernard Shaw once remarked, "A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul".

We all believe in equality. But it seems to me we all need to think through more carefully exactly what we mean by that.