View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Rachel Alexander |
March 29th, 2006
We've learned from history that forced equality does not work, and we know that marriage doesn't work without compromise, so why do some think forcing egalitarianism on society will work a second time around?
Perhaps the biggest lesson learned in the 20th century was that communism does not work. Forced equality is an oxymoron. As Francis Fukuyama wrote in "The End of History and the Last Man," the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 brought about the realization that liberal democracy had triumphed as the optimal form of government for civilization. Communism did not work and could not work, because human nature is inherently flawed. The communist ruling class itself was corrupt, and greed quickly supplanted any idealistic notion of creating equality for all people. In their desire to control the masses, communist leaders did not take into account human nature. Humans have an innate desire to be free, which includes the freedom to help others. Under communist rule this freedom was severely limited, leaving the common people unable to be creative and use initiative. They lacked the ability to prevent those around them from starving to death from a lack of sustainable work.
Yet less than 20 years after the fall of communism, egalitarianism is returning, unashamedly under the banner of communism and socialism in the former Soviet and eastern bloc countries, and more subtly in the West under the guise of multiculturalism, diversity, and secularization. As civilization becomes increasingly prosperous, people find less important things to complain about. The current trend is to dramatize differences in life experiences - no longer just disparities in wealth - and assert those differences as proof why government should pass laws to make society more egalitarian.
Superficially, being concerned about inequality sounds kindhearted and altruistic. History tells us, however, that it is naïve. Communism disguised as good intentions and feel good words is still communism.
The population under age 30 is too young to remember or were not around when the former Soviet Union fell. They never saw TV coverage of gaunt Russians in lines outside empty grocery stores, photos of dissidents wasting away in GULAG labor camps, or threats against the West like Khrushchev's "We will bury you."
What they can understand, however, is an analogy to marriage. In a marriage, both the husband and wife must make compromises for the marriage to work. In theory, although it sounds good to say that both spouses are completely equal in the marriage, it is impossible, no matter how progessive the marriage is. For example, if the wife prefers to watch politics, but the husband prefers to watch sports, unless they want to have separate living rooms and hang out alone, one or both of them is going to have to compromise.
Or, let's say the couple has a baby, and both parents work. When the baby wakes up at night, who is going to get up and console it? It is probably going to be the parent with the less demanding job, or the parent who needs less sleep. If it is the parent who needs less sleep, this is a physical difference between the two that cannot be resolved by treating both parents equally - if so, it would unfairly punish the parent who needs more sleep.
Similarly, egalitarianism today fails to take into account physical differences and the fact that human beings must compromise in order to live together. Let's look at a common form of equalization pushed today, language. In theory, it sounds fair that immigrants should be able to receive information in their native language, just like we receive information in English, and it seems kind to permit them to hear their country praised equally as much as we praise our own country. But practically, it is impossible. First, the cost is prohibitive. Providing translation into many different languages costs taxpayers millions of dollars.
Secondly, the results are ludicrous. If we were to truly be fair, we would include translation into every single language spoken in the U.S. - a total of 176 languages. Imagine walking into a government office where every notice on the wall is written in 176 languages. It is just not possible.
Finally, separating people by groups erodes their identification as a nation, resulting in balkanization and civil war. We learned that lesson from slavery, which separated people by race, almost splitting the country apart with the American Civil War, where between 600,000 and 700,000 lives were lost. Today that lesson is being learned in other parts of the world; in Africa between different races and different tribes, in the former Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries between different ethnicities, and in many other parts of the world where diverse groups value their own identity over the common good of the nation.
The solution to managing differences between groups in society is the same as it is in marriage; there must always be compromise in order to achieve the optimal situation of people getting along with each other. Furthermore, the compromise must provide an optimal situation for the largest number of people, not for a minority. Rarely will the interests of the minority outweigh the interests of the majority even when the interest of the majority may sometimes result in death for a minority.
In a free society, there is always going to be some risk of death in every conceivable action. In other words, no matter how many precautions are required, accidental deaths will occur. If we were to require everyone to walk around in blubber suits, and forbid them from driving cars or owning any weapons or prescription drugs, there would still be accidental deaths. Therefore, generally, other than situations more severe to the minority than a few accidental deaths, the compromise should benefit the majority. Let's call this modified version of majoritarian rule the "workajority."
One of the most disturbing areas today where egalitarianism is replacing the workajority is in the religious ambit. The optimal compromise, which should acknowledge Christianity as the prevailing religion permitting the majority to worship unimpeded, while tolerating other religions, is being displaced by a radical egalitarianism mandating that Christianity be permitted no more presence in society than other religions and even secularism. The absurdity of this tenet can be seen when it is considered that secularism means no religion. Since it is impossible to give both secularism and all the other hundreds of religions in the U.S. completely equal treatment, secularism has prevailed, resulting in the exclusion of virtually all religion from public life, as the secular minority rules under the guise of "egalitarianism."
Using words like "equality," "discrimination," and "tolerance," a divisive minority is fooling the majority into eroding the workajority optimal compromises that hold this country together. Using deceptive analogies, such as unrelated horrific events from past history, a hostile minority is able to frighten people into running from common sense.
Since almost half of today's population did not witness the fall of communism, maybe the way to reverse this trend is not to look to the past. Instead, put the word "diversity" on a poster of Serbs and Albanians slaughtering each other. Put the word "equality" on a poster of despondent Chinese religious dissidents languishing in prison. Transform the disingenuous words used by the egalitarians into reality. And paint a picture of marriage where both husband and wife spend excessive amounts of time ensuring that everything is done equally - each one's superior abilities in an area dumbed down to match the other's lesser ability. Even if one spouse is better at tracking the finances, or prefers to vacuum rather than shop for groceries, any division other than 50/50 is "unfair," "oppressive" and "unequal." Which leads to the question, is it fair if the husband drinks coke and the wife drinks pepsi?
rachel@intellectualconservative.com
Visit their website at: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/
Responses to "Creeping Egalitarianism"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Great post. I just wandered over here from a
friend's blog. I'm going to add this site to my blog
roll. I'm getting sick of liberals getting away
with the claim that they are the intellectuals.
(Which is hilarious to me since, quite a number
of followers of the left are moonbats and are at
best a source of entertainment, at worse a snap-
shot of a cross section of society who are devoid
of any ability of critical thinking on their part
and will follow anyone anywhere even if it
means the end of their freedom.)
The problem with egalatarianism is that it is
not possible. Everyone is not equal. Some
people are taller than others, some are more
physically attractive than others, some are
more artistic than others, even intellectual
capacity isn't the same. So, how in the world
can we ensure equality among everyone who
are each different from others with a
straight face?
Of course, the truth of the matter is, that
proponents aren't really being kind and
caring, they are being sneaky and using
the pretence of being charitable to erode
society and our form of government until
it is replaced with a socialist/communist
one.
Comment by Clay | March 29, 2006
[...] Rachel Alexander: Creeping Egalitarianism [...]
Pingback by MND BlogWonks » intellectualconservative.com | March 30, 2006
Unfortunately logic, reasoning, and reality have never meant much to the "feel-good" idealogues of the multi-cultural, anti-American liberal. As long as the group that is negatively affected or percieved is white and Christian, libs feel they are doing the right thing.
Comment by honker | March 30, 2006
Creeping??? We've been spoon fed this rubbish for decades!
Comment by rainwolf | March 30, 2006
Fascinating- you metion the word Common Sense. It seems to me that for
some reason there is little if any Common Sense left. That stupid yellow and
white sticker I see on some cars from time to time- the one that wants to force
equality. Nice thought, though no Common Sense behind the thought. In any
society one cannot force another to like, love, or even care about another. It
happens or it does not. No amount of regulation is going to make two people equal.
What confuses me, is that on both the right and left, particularily the left, there are programs that have been tried, and tried again that do not work, yet they are
constantly being recycled. To me that is insane, for you cannot do the same thing
over and over and expect a completely different result. A great article. Keep up the
good work.
Malcolm
Comment by Malcolm Davidson | March 30, 2006
"Perhaps the biggest lesson learned in the 20th century was that communism does not work. Forced equality is an oxymoron. As Francis Fukuyama wrote in "The End of History and the Last Man," the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 brought about the realization that liberal democracy had triumphed as the optimal form of government for civilization. Communism did not work and could not work, because human nature is inherently flawed."
Well it is certainly true that human nature is flawed. That is an article of faith among American conservatives and their historical ancestors, and it is based on the Christian concept of fallen man. But is not "liberal democracy" also guilty as was Communism of failing to recognize this. That is one of the major problems we are facing today. Liberal democracy is liberal, and it is democratic. "Optimal form of government?" Balderdash!
Liberal democracy is just as much a product of the liberal Enlightenment thinking that animated the French Revolution as is Communism. Liberal democracy has always been and forever will be the enemy of tradition, natural order, particularity, and the Church. The societies may prosper economically, but they are destroyed from within. The citizens become rich and prosperous God-denying hedonists who despise tradition and worship progress.
It is a start to declare that forced equality will not work, and I congratulate you for doing so. But we must also recognize and declare that "liberal democracy" is not the "optimal from of government for civilization." It is part of the problem.
(Note that America as originally founded, while unfortunately infected with a lot of liberal Enlightenment rhetoric, was not a liberal democracy, certainly not in the way that France became after their soon to follow Revolution. Under the Constitution, which is of course routinely ignored, it was a strictly limited federal republic. We certainly were not a liberal democracy under the Articles of Confederation which we should have stuck with, BTW. America did not become a modern style liberal democracy until after Lincoln invaded the Confederacy and remade the Constitution.)
Comment by Red Phillips | March 30, 2006
Red Phillips, what else would you propose? Feudalism or some such thing? Anyway, regarding the multi-culturalism and diversity stuff… At what point did we shift focus and begin to celebrate difference rather than the fact that we are united inspite of difference? That groups people by racial and ethnic stereotypes just as much as racism, though it's not as negative. I find it a bit disturbing. Where I go to college, the office of international programs employs a bunch of socialist weasels with Che Guevara crap all over their walls. These people think we should go abroad to "experience another culture," yet they don't think we should have one of our own. The French, Mexicans, Arabs, etc. should have a strong and well defined culture, but not us. The double standard is appalling. The article said it best when it said that as societies become more prosperous, they have less important things to complain about. Many of the movements seen in our country today are nothing but a way for middle and upper class young white beneficiaries of our system to get together and fantacize that they are oppressed. Ironically, they think we are the ones who do most of the oppressing abroad, when the socialists/communists they like are the champions of murder, torture, etc. So Mrs. Alexander, if you want the theory of a college student as to why his peers keep bashing their heads into the wall pushing failed ideas, I'd sum it up as an excuse to piss and moan about the imagined injustices in their relatively luxurious world.
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 30, 2006
Great article, by the way.
Comment by Shane Atwood | March 30, 2006
Very Good Point Red. The Civil War is such a tragedy to debate. Are the constitional issues of today more valueable than the possibility of the Confederacy allowing slavery for even one more day? No matter what side you take, your wrong. Far too many people believe the Civil War was strictly about slavery. Very few realize what it did to empower the federal government and limit states' rights, once the hallmark of this country. A debate for another day.
Comment by honker | March 31, 2006
"…the biggest lesson learned in the 20th century was that communism does not work."
Which is the biggest lesson learned in the 20th century is a toss-up between communism not working and appeasement not working.
Comment by G of Sedona | April 1, 2006
Kids do not understand communism or marriage these days. Communism is a feel good song Imagine.. Marriage is one of a half dozen options. I'm just sorting out what communism is all about by reading a David Horowitz book. I gather it is the idea that there is a beautiful rainbow social order just around the riverbend. The problem is that people justify mass-murder in order to follow that dream. As For Marriage, my husbaand and I model it for dozens of kids from broken homes who do not have a clue of the advantage of an intact family.
Comment by parsimonious mom | April 6, 2006
Hello Rachel,
I really liked this one. When will they understand? I went to a legal fraternity
convention last year and all they were trying to pass were anti-anti-discrimination
amendments to the organization's Constitution, combining pro-homosexuality
amendments attached to "diversity" language. They got sooo mad when I brought
up the fact the organization was founded on Christian and Natural Law ideals.
- Great piece this one..
Comment by WBJones | April 13, 2006
Wow, I thought this was going to be a polemic on the imposotion of liberalism in the middle east. Instead I found fascist rhetoric and open intolerance. What happened to the remnents of libertarianism and Burkean conservatism? What if Christians were in the minority? Would you still advocate religious intolerance?
"Normal people do not know that anything is possiblie…" -Adorned the first page of Arendt's "Totalitarianism"
Comment by euprattin | November 19, 2006
Do you vote? Have you ever used birth control? Do you wear pants (instead of a skirt/dress)? Have you been to college? If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are standing on the back of a woman who fought and suffered for you to have this right, you could call it "forced egalitarianism".
Comment by seabel | January 11, 2007