Friday, February 27, 2009



My definition of "Equalitism" is one person or a group of people who espouse the philosophy that a population of individuals should be relatively equal in income, equal in standard of living or, if not equal, tending toward equality. Espouse they might, but they can't really believe it. It might be the opposite of meritocracy. Equalitism is grabbag of political behaviors and speeches constituting this political idealogy, the term and definition coined by me (as far as I know). It identifies typically left-wing liberal pronouncements given with the aim of winning elections and gaining power by diminishing success and those who have achieved it. It reaches close but not quite all the way to socialism, in which everyone together owns everything communally, and thus are equal. But in practice both are essentially the same, describing everyone as equal, except, of course, those in power. Those in power dictate to those "governed" by them how to live and what to have. Equalitism's converse might be exceptualism, or differentialism, or, God forbid, Capitalism, where people are born with equal opportunity and freedom to pursue happiness as they individually define it for themselves. Equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

In case Democrats don't understand, most people are average. Read that again: most people are average. There's a bell -shaped population curve with those least-exceptional -- in ability and intelligence, for example -- at one end and those most-exceptional at the other end; everyone else is average...they are the vast majority. (Although it is probably understood even by liberals that everyone is differently-capable intellectually, physically, socially and in ambition, they rarely admit it.) Democrats have gained power by successfully convincing those in the middle that they should have more. Not by earning it but by simply by deserving it. [Democrats have used the same strategy for several generations to get African Americans' votes without providing them opportunity. Democrats, especially those with financial or power interests in the civil rights bureaucracies, have convinced African Americans that discrimination by white Americans (especially Republicans) have kept them down and brought for many a life of drugs, crime and fatherless families. This is the Democrats' contention of equality denied. Another Equalitism argument: in which citizens should have a right to equality (not opportunity) without effort but don't get it.] Equalitism does not reward achievement, but gives everything for simply being alive. A further argument by Democrats is that equality is a zero-sum game, where those who have, have taken it from those who don't have and who "need".

Democrats completely disregard the self-satisfaction one gets by sacrifice and the pride from accomplishment. Not to mention innovation and the creation of job-creating businesses by incentive. They do not seem to care about anything but power, absolute power for themselves and use Equalitism to get it. Obama promised us CHANGE and gave us CHAINS, the shackles held by the Chinese government. When our president rails against debt yet indebts our country several trillions of dollars, something is terribly wrong. And the reason: to get him and his Congress reelected in 2010 perhaps? Or to simply punish the successful? In any event, they have successfully used equalitism to get there. (Obama's 2009 deficit could reach $3 - 4,000,000,000,000 a sum over three-quarters of all the sovereign-wealth funds' assets, so maybe China won't hold the shackels, the U. S. will have to declare bankruptcy instead.)
Democratic/liberal dogma demands that in order to achieve equality, those less capable should be supported and elevated by government. And those more capable are deemed able to stand on their own. The question of whether this is better for society as a whole has never been openly debated because Democrats don't want Equalitism questioned. Does belief in Equalitism and its goal of pushing inward the edges of the bell-shaped curve, thus making the unexceptional and exceptional more average, yield a "better" society? Or does it simply buy votes of the average to gain and retain power?
I believe exceptualism should be encouraged, because the exceptional have always been the ones to invent, create, and take risk to better society as a whole as they better themselves. But the exceptional -- in ability and intellignce -- are always few in number, so they represent a small number of voters. Few could argue that the exceptional become the successful entrepreneurs and, yes, small business creators. While the "trickle-down" theory has been roundly discredited by liberals, it was said to be invented by a liberal, Will Rogers. It is a typical distortion of reality. Reality is: only businesses create lasting jobs. Only business creates wealth.
Equalitism tends to diminish wealth, jobs and society as a whole. But it elects Democrats.
In summary, in my view Equalitism is simply a vehicle by the use of which Democrats achieve power over others. If Republicans and conservatives are aware of this, they are afraid or otherwise unable to publicize it. We need to get back to having incentives to succeed, not just be alive. Government diminishes opportunity by diminishing achievement.
It might be like this:
(Bell-shaped Curve)
10% of population /80% of population/ /10% of population
Support their exceptualness /Leave alone/ /Assist their needs

No comments: