Equality is an Abused Word

“Equality” is the most unequally yoked of words in modern-day discourse.

For the Left, for hardened modern liberals, for statists of all sorts, equality is the banner under which every argument marches. Claiming that a gender gap exists in the work force, one based on discrimination, liberals will cry out “Equal pay for equal work!” In order to justify redefining marriage, liberal activists will charge that those who support the tradition definition of marriage as “one man and one woman” are discriminating. Progressives, liberals, left-leaning Democrats demand “Marriage equality.” Education unions and scholastic leaders also demand that the government spend more money on schools; “equality in funding” has become the catch-all for California Governor Jerry Brown.

---

And on a related note, the argument that every wealthy person should pay “their fair share” spins off this equality argument, too.

Are we discussing equality of opportunity, or equality of results?

First, what is equality? Are we discussing equality of opportunity, or equality of results? Do we contend that every person should follow the same path, as well? Totalitarian states are a must if a society wants a community based on equality of results. Even left-leaning instructors in our universities recognize that any deliberate force from the state to create equal outcomes ends up depriving people of their liberty. How do left-leaning politicians articulate inequality? When it comes to the gender gap in workforce pay, the argument rests on the aggregated understanding of all wages between men and women. In other words, if a statistician adds up all the wages of all women compared with all the money which men earn, ignoring every other factor, then the final average will manifest a distinct inequality. Yet if the same researchers visit a public school, for example, and compare a male and a female teacher with the same credentials, the same skills, the same background, they would find two people earning the same pay. If academics look not at gender, but rather economic strata, geography, class, the type of profession, the number of hours each person works, they will find a diversity of outcomes. A leading business lady further stated the plain reason for this “gender gap”: women are more likely to turn down promotions or hiring paying jobs which will negatively impact their families are harm their quality of life, whereas men will seek the next promotion and the next pay increase, even to the detriment of their health, happiness, and home-life. This distinction is cultural, not genetic, by the way. Two CEOs with the same drive and accolades will draw in a substantial income on parity, regardless of their gender. There is no gender gap, there is a perceived inequality based on mismanaged data. About marriage equality, no argument could be more vacuous. Marriage by tradition, by legacy, by law is not about equality, but a new identity based on mutual submission and respect. Right away, anyone who contends that marriage is a right, and thus should be made equally available to all regardless of sex, should consider whether our communities would tolerate an adult marrying a minor, or a mentally retarded individual, or an animal. Marriage requires mutual consent into a redefining relationship in which one both partners believe and choose to contribute more than the other, each preferring the other. Love invites this kind of reciprocal generosity. Regarding equality in education funding, there is no grosser manifestation of inequality in our country than in the public school system, better defined as “government schools”. Parents in poorer communities must send their children to impoverished, unaccountable schools. The funding is never distributed equitably, in terms of enriching the child’s education, since more of the money props up bloated bureaucracies or pays off lawsuits. Union power has also diminished teacher power and student empowerment. The rush for equality in public education has become a race to the bottom, especially in California, where the higher-performing schools are receiving less money than urban schools which do a substandard job of teaching their students. Returning the power of the money to the students with school choice and a voucher program will force local schools to spend their money wisely, and more equitably. As for rich paying “their fair share”, the definition of “rich”, like the definition of equality has endured radical redefining so many times, that the terms are almost meaningless. When pressed to define “fair”, most modern liberals are at a loss for words, since the standards belongs to those in power. How is this structure fair or equitable? Wealthy people, according to President Obama and his Democratic caucus in Washington, include small business owners who barely get by, making a profit but rarely maintaining a hefty profit margin. Billionaires like Warren Buffet have not problem buffeting for “rich pay their fair share” because he draws no income, but takes in his wealth from capital gains. Besides, the uber-wealthy like George Soros, Michael Moore, and other left-leaning corporate conglomerates channel their earnings into tax shelters with high-financed tax attorneys. Equality is an abused word in our political discourse, a charged word which should no longer prevent conservatives, classical liberals, and limited government advocates from fighting back.