I am an American citizen who absolutely, positively believes as a first principle that “all [people] are created equal.” Similarly, I believe in their endowment of “unalienable Rights,” among others unnamed, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I just as absolutely, positively believe that whatever makes us individuals also makes us unequal.
The apparent paradox is easy to resolve. The principle of equality prominently stated in The Declaration of Independence is a statement of political—I say again: political—equality and nothing more. It is certainly not a statement denying the facts about the numerous differences among individuals and groups of people. None of the Founding Fathers thought that people were equal in other respects, and no one whom I know thinks otherwise. They knew and we know that individuals differ in many ways. They knew and we know that factors like intelligence, aptitudes abilities, character, and morals are commonly associated with groups defined by race, gender, ethos, religion, nationality, class, or wealth. Thus, stereotypes: Jews greedy and duplicitous, Blacks unintelligent and lascivious, women weak and hysterical, etc.
However, when the Founding Fathers wrote The Constitution of the United States, they were not making a political declaration of rights but drafting a political definition of government power, federal and state. For whatever purposes—probably to maintain the unity of northern and southern states in the new country—, they did not assume, much less assert, that being “created” equal politically implies continuing equal politically, despite the peoples’ endowment by “their Creator” with “unalienable Rights.” They wrote as if they believed and thereby allowed others to believe that these factors as associated with groups justified restrictions on their rights. As a result, federal and state governments initially denied non-whites (slaves, Indians), whites with little property, women, Jews, and Catholics rights, among others, to vote and own property.
America’s first two foundational documents create an ambiguity about equality—is it universal as an inherent, enduring birthright common to all people or particular because of individual or group differences?—and thereby allows Americans to be egalitarian with justification or bigoted by rationalization. Egalitarian in respect for all others and in impartial comity in political and personal relationships; bigoted in a sense of superiority to and entitlement over those different by race, gender, ethos, religion, nationality, class, or wealth. America’s culture wars reflect this inherent ambiguity in its first foundational documents. Yet the distinction between egalitarians and bigots has never been a clear one. Most people are a mix of different inclinations, regarding some groups favorably, other groups unfavorably, with exceptions for known individuals. In general, race, then gender, then religion are primary factors in American reflections on equality.
The history of political equality in America has followed roughly parallel but opposed paths. In the majority, egalitarians have struggled to eliminate political barriers to full citizenship—in chronological order, wealth, religion, race, and gender—which have slowly been removed. In the minority, bigots have striven to reimpose, protect, or expand these barriers. Today, the political descendants of the one-third of the people who remained loyal to the British throne and crown are loyal to political inequality based on these barriers. No longer Tories supporting a monarch, they are Republicans pledging allegiance to an authoritarian. Unlike small-d democrats who at least in theory believe in the inherent political equality of all people, authoritarians, like Orwell’s pigs, resolutely believe in the inherent superiority of some people over others, some being more equal than others.
In this important sense, today’s Tories/Republicans are not only not any more “real Americans” than other Americans, but are Americans only by accidents of geography and birth (the Fourteenth Amendment protects their citizenship). Their efforts as conservatives trying to conserve inequalities identify them as less than “real Americans.” For what is “real” about “Americans” is a distinctive commitment to unqualified equality, which means that “we the people” are part of an experiment whether a government of all individuals equal under law is possible. It appears to be failing.
Today, in addition to the many well-known threats to democracy from the Right are the fewer, lesser-known threats from the Left. Its threats arise from a confusion of equality and equity, and a too precious, too partisan sense of individual entitlement. My example of the former is money. Almost no one believes that all Americans should have the same income and pay the same taxes—equality conceptually pure but practically impossible. Almost everyone believes that every American should have a fair shake and pay a fair share; inequalities would persist on a reduced scale, but inequities would gradually diminish and perhaps disappear.
My example of the latter is public education. Many people are concerned about the persistent gaps in academic test scores and advanced course enrollments. Some want to eliminate the gap in enrollments by eliminating advanced courses. Doing so eliminates the gap, without doing any real good and by doing much harm; this demand is mere cosmetics in the name of equality. The gap in abilities does not go away—no good done—and all of the talented students, whether whites or of color, suffer the deprivation of an enhanced education suitable to their needs—actual harm to them. (Advocates of this equality attack classes for good students, but they ignore classes for poor students.)
Any quest for equality beyond the political, even for reasons thought to be good, would pervert what it means to respect people for who and what they are, and would suppress non-political differences. To aspire to make people equal in any non-political sense of the word is to seek their uniformity. Such uniformity is not only undesirable, but also, fortunately, impossible to achieve. Any attempt is unpleasant except for those—that is, the aforementioned pigs—forcing it, because their position and function would exempt them from equality.
Moralist that I am, I must say it: For constitutional democracy to survive today and thrive tomorrow, its citizens must live by its inherent values. They must embrace decency, seek truth, do right, demand justice, and pursue peace—extraordinary but inescapable demands. The question is whether people can satisfy them in their daily living. Civility toward and respect for others cannot be a sometime thing for some people. My recent experience in Las Cruces—with its police, city attorney, city administration, City Council, and media—does not give a hopeful promise.
No comments:
Post a Comment