That’s John Halpin’s question at Think Progress.
John takes the injustice of inequality for granted, and he
seems to think all progressives and maybe even most Americans do, too.
But this is questionable.
Matt Yglesias, well-known liberal blogger, once wrote that
he didn’t mind inequality.
He minds the people at the bottom of the totem pole not
getting enough.
And he minds when the wealth of the very wealthy corrupts
the political process.
Most ordinary Americans would likely agree with him on that
second point.
But the first is problematic.
Some people who accept it would give a much more generous
reading to “enough” than others who also accept it.
For some, “enough” covers the things progressives have since
the dawn of the 20th Century wanted to ensure were available to all
such as all levels and types of education, proper health care, a safe work
place with adequate time off, a good home, a decent retirement, and so on.
For others, “enough” is just the bare minimum you would have
to provide in the skimpiest of “safety nets.”
Emergency room medical care, for example, but nothing beyond
that. Education up through high school, but not higher or professional
education. And only the barest minimum, if anything, for retirement.
The bulk of Americans who consider themselves at all liberal
doubtless fall somewhere between the first group, the progressives, and the
second, the safety net liberals.
But some Americans would tell you straight out, if asked,
that they do not accept that the
government should ensure the people at the bottom get “enough” in any sense, even of some minimal list of
basic and vital goods or services.
Recall the Joe the Plumber incident and how embarrassed and
angered Democrats were by the recording of president’s “spread the wealth”
remarks.
Recall the bumper sticker, “Socialism is great until you run
out of other people’s money.”
Recall the popularity of libertarianism and Ayn Rand.
Recall that more Americans call themselves conservatives
than liberals, when asked.
No comments:
Post a Comment