I found this in my meanderings online, and really really liked what he said. Enjoy!
A New Paradigm
Equity vs. Equality
Imagine that you and Bill Gates enter into a poker tournament. Bill
is allowed to bring all of his money and you are allowed to bring all
of yours. What will be the result? Bill will make you go all in on
every hand and even if you win a few hands, Bill has enough resource
to eventually break you.
This is the scenario for the average American working class citizen
who is told that if he or she works hard, it is possible to rise
above the straights to which they were born and become a person of
affluence. Is it possible? Perhaps. Is it possible for you to succeed
in breaking Bill Gates in a poker game? Perhaps. Is it likely? No.
If you consider the lopsided distribution of wealth and power,
coupled with a culture of institutionalized racism, is it any wonder
why so many Americans feel disenfranchised?
"All men are created equal."
I have some issues with this statement. a) What about women? b)
Created implies that someone picked up a piece of clay and formed us.
Sorry, my religious God-believing friends; I don't buy it. c) People
are not all the same. Which is the what the word "equal" means.
This statement was written in another time and has served us well in
the past. But like all things, it's becoming a thing of the past and
of little use in a time when everyone being treated equally is an
institutionalized excuse for allowing the rich to get richer and the
poor to get poorer.
It is time for a paradigm shift towards equity.
What is the difference between being treated equally and being
treated equitably?
I have a deaf student in one of my classes (a very good student, by
the way). Because of her disability, there is a sign language
interpreter in the class. If she was being treated with equality,
there would be no sign language interpreter and she would be expected
to perform at the same level as everyone else. Remember, equal means
the same. But luckily, she is not being treated equally; she is being
treated equitably, which means she is getting the extra help she
needs to thrive and reach her full potential as a human being.
Equity, not equality.
So how do you find the best poker players?
The capitalist mindset would have you believe that if there is a big
enough carrot being dangled out there, the cream will naturally rise
to the top to nab it. The idea being that individuals in society will
follow Darwin's model and climb our culture's evolutionary ladder and
thrive if, and only if, they are the fittest.
But there are a couple of things wrong with this notion.
First of all, consider the human quality that is absolutely necessary
for a person to achieve a lofty position in our capitalistic
ecosystem. Is it kindness? No. Is it compassion? Hardly. Is it
generosity? Please, spare me. A person who reaches the highest of the
trophic levels of our economic system may not be devoid of these
qualities, but these are not the qualities that got them there.
Greed got them there-- the wish to have more, the desire that puts an
individual's needs and self-worth above all others, the driving force
that propels a person up the economic food chain, clawing and
clambering over the backs of others who are also fighting their way
to the top. I'm not talking about people who become doctors and
lawyers and such in order to achieve a comfortable living for
themselves. I'm talking about the two percent of the population that
controls 95 percent of the wealth.
Do we really want to live in a society/culture/economy that is built
on a negative human quality? I know I don't.
Besides, it is a flawed notion to begin with.
Evolution propelled dinosaurs to the top of the ladder, where they
stayed for millions of years. Mammals lived alongside the dinosaur,
but could not flourish because of the oppression of the dominant
species. It was not until a cataclysmic event killed off all of the
dinosaurs that the lesser species-- mammals-- could thrive and reach
their greater potential.
So in their infinite wisdom, those who hold poker tournaments require
that everyone enter the game with the same amount of cash. With
everyone starting on an even footing, chances are that those with the
greatest ability, not those with the greatest resource, will come out
on top. With a level playing field, it takes skill and ability to out
maneuver your opponents, as opposed to just having the resource to
overpower them, much like a brontosaurus steps on a fury rodent.
The wealth (and so, the power) in the U.S. has steadily, over the
last couple centuries, shifted into the hands of a relative few. When
the phrase "all men are created equal" was coined, the culture was
largely agrarian-- with tradesmen and shop keepers providing goods
and services. And the "men" in the phrase were just that-- excluding
women, excluding Black men, oh, and by the way, they only included
property holders. The original phrase was "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of property," not "happiness."
With this shift of resource and power to the relative few, it has
become increasingly difficult for the cream to rise to the top. Those
at the top are firmly in place; so firmly that when they screw up
royally and send our economy to its knees, as it has gone recently,
the government bails them out. The cream at the top no longer has any
accountability; this is how entrenched they are at the top. It is
tantamount to socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest of
us. The system is broken.
The fix, then is logically a redistribution of wealth. Level the
playing field so that those with real talent have a better chance of
attaining their dreams, even when they are born into one of the
oppressed classes. Remember the dinosaurs? Where would we be now if
dinosaurs still ruled the Earth? We would still be scurrying around
trying not to get stepped on. It is not until we have a system that
treats people equitably (as opposed to equally), giving everyone what
they need to thrive and reach their full potential, that we will, as
a culture, begin to move towards our greater potential.
Is this socialism? Sure it is. But socialism is not at odds with
democracy-- one is a political system and the other is an economic
system. We have been duped into thinking that socialism is
necessarily a bad thing. When socialism is paired with a
dictatorship, we call that communism (USSR, China, etc.). When
socialism is paired with fascism, that's Nazi Germany. Has anyone
tried pairing socialism with democracy? We tried once with the rise
of the unions and it was working out pretty well for most of the
people. When unions were strong, the economy was, for the most part,
stable. Those under a union's protection made a decent living. This
strengthened their buying power and so bolstered the overall economy.
But unions were attacked by those with power until former President
Ronald Reagan finally squashed the union system (and our economy)
back in the 80s. The economy has been relatively unstable, violently
bouncing up and down, ever since.
So, as the new administration under President-elect Barack Obama
begins its work and those who have power start their propaganda
machine and begin to rant about socialism, ask yourself where you
would be if dinosaurs still ruled the Earth. And do you really want
to let the dinosaurs continue to rule the U.S.?
Written by Mark Brosz
.
