The Question of Equality

There was this short story Kurt Vonnegut published in 1961 called Harrison Bergeron. I first read when I was a freshman at Gonzaga University, back in 1998, and it kind of stuck with me since then.  It's short enough that you can read the whole thing in about five minutes (here's a link to the whole story), but a core element of the story is that it's set in a society where everybody has been made equal. Intelligent people wear earphones that broadcast distracting noises at regular intervals, attractive people wear ugly masks, strong people must constantly wear extra weights, and so on.  The reason for this was to discourage competition and make sure nobody had an advantage over anybody else.

So why am I talking about some fifty-year-old Vonnegut novella that I read about a long time ago? Well, because it's core theme of universal equality ties in to a bunch of centuries-old writings by some very smart and observant people. First, there was this French citizen named Alexis De Tocqueville.  Tocqueville spent some time in the United States a few decades after the Revolutionary War and the signing of the Constitution.  At the time of his journey, democracy was something of a new concept in the Western world, and France was one country still figuring out what it meant. Tocqueville found many things to praise about American democracy, but he also found some potential flaws.

One such problem was what Tocqueville called the "equality of conditions", a phenomenon which he felt could eventually lead to a lack of freedom.  His thinking was that the seeds of the problem were planted because democracies tend to grant significant authority to the citizens, giving them the impression that their opinions mattered just as much as anyone else's.  Tocqueville believed this could lead to the tyranny of the majority pretty quickly, as well as setting the stage for further problems.  First, he speculated that the fear of tyranny of the majority would cause some people to grow reluctant to voice their opinions, so they didn't land on the wrong side of the issue as the majority.  If you don't think that could happen, go read up on the Asch Experiments.

Tocqueville also worried that the fear of majority rule could lead to a backlash, where citizens developed a skewed version of individualism, one marked by increased materialism.  I don't fully understand Tocqueville's points here, but he seems to be saying that the materialism becomes a way for someone to reaffirm their individual significance: "Look at all the stuff I have! I matter!" This individualism would also lead to a breakdown in communal bonds (something Tocqueville considered important).  As people became more isolated, they turned to the government to provide goods and services which their communities once did.  Tocqueville called this condition of being overly reliant on the government "democratic despotism", which created a massive bureaucratic government that could easily enforce real despotism.  The Founders were really worried about that, remember?

(By the way, it's probably not a coincidence that Tocqueville is a fan of conservatives and libertarians, because of his remarks about "democratic despotism"; one site I visited while researching this piece tried to connect social safety programs to Tocqueville's despotism and socialism/communism.  Quite the slippery slope argument.)  

Tocqueville understood that there was an inverse relationship between equality and liberty, and so did the Founders.  This is pointed out in Federalist 10, one of the most well known Federalist writings, in a slightly roundabout way:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.  There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.  There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

I've been making a roundabout argument myself, but I'm referencing Vonnegut and Tocqueville to point out the parallels between Vonnegut's story and Tocqueville's observations.  Vonnegut was being somewhat satirical by taking the concept of equality to an absurd conclusion, but the dangers Tocqueville foresaw are real.  And to some degree, they have already happened: I think the 2016 election is a good example of what happens when a large number of people decide that their uninformed opinions are just as valid as the opinions of people who have done their research.  Tocqueville understood what Socrates taught several hundred years ago, regarding the dangers of democracy; and I think he'd also agree wholeheartedly with this awesome quote.

So am I against legislation like the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, the social safety net, a progressive income tax, and all the other programs that help make the playing field a little less uneven? Of course not.  I'm just pointing out the potential dangers of taking it too far.  There is also another type of equality I think is preferable: equality of opportunity.  I didn't get a chance to really look into it in-depth, but an easy analogy is a running race, where everybody takes off from the same starting line. This picture sums up what I think is an optimal solution to work toward.

 So, that is kind of a long one.  I guess I was making up for taking such a long break.  Anyway, enjoy.