I appreciated this article as I had never considered the idea of unfairness vs inequality. It could definitely be one of the reasons so many people the Democrats consider "theirs" prefer the other party.
Personally, I am an angry centrist, disgusted by both the right and left extremes, which are propped up and celebrated by our polarized, whorish media. Talking to my millennial children about politics is an utterly depressing experience. One has already emigrated and the other wishes he could. They vote, but realize/believe they have no power in our utterly rigged system.
Also (because I have another comment here), the essay is all about how to arrange the Democratic platform so as to win elections. Isn't it more proper to set a platform according to what one thinks is best for the country and then try to convince people to vote for it? That certainly seems more appropriate to a site called "Persuasion".
Aristotle defines justice as fairness, understood as distribution (of goods, honors, etc.) that is proportional to merit. This is not egalitarianism in the sense of being equal distribution for all, which according to this understanding, would be unjust.
I submit that the author is correct in noting that Americans are NOT opposed to proportionality, as humans are acutely aware of differences in natural and acquired human talents as demonstrated in, for example, their love of competitive sports and the arts. Rather, Americans are opposed to incorrect assessment of true merit, as occurs, for example, with Ivy League legacy enrollment when a disproportionate share of admissions are given to alumni donor's children.
If this understanding is correct, then strict egalitarianism, understood as the elimination of meritocracy and identical outcomes for all, is contrary to human nature and the progressive mission to eliminate meritocracy is ill conceived and doomed to failure. True fairness will be achieved by true assessment of merit.
The hard part with the re-orientation from identity to class is that the overclass's status isn't at all threatened by identity issues. Far from it, identity is the fig leaf that class uses to disguise itself.
Think of the collapse of Occupy Wall Street and the corporate hostility it engendered given that its aim would have crippled the financial industries money making spigot, among other things.
Now think about the $24 Billion that have been pledged to BLM from corporations and foundations.......
I think the authors are either playing semantic games or they just don't understand what American Progressives stand for. If they're simply pointing out that terms like "wealth re-distribution" and "socialism" rub many Americans the wrong way, they may be correct, but rebranding them as "economic fairness" will not fool anyone. The authors betray their disingenuousness when they name their models: Canada, Australia, and "the Nordics." They are among the same largely socialist democracies that American Progressives point to as their models! So if they think rebranding old wine in new bottles with their ludicrously unoriginal "economic fairness" term will provide an epiphany to unite our deep divide, then they are sadly mistaken. I doubt that it will even help them sell books.
I do not really get this article. In all Nordic countries as Sweden, the populist parties and especially right-wing populist ones are getting 10-20 % of votes despite social mobility and a large welfare state. And also, the Swedish welfare state is already more beneficial for the middle-class while the far-right voters are from the middle class and already have jobs, education and housing https://glibe.substack.com/p/the-swedish-welfare-state-more-as
There is something to this. However the extreme concentration of wealth in the US, and the plutocracy engendered thereby, precludes the sort of policy changes that the authors have in mind.
I appreciated this article as I had never considered the idea of unfairness vs inequality. It could definitely be one of the reasons so many people the Democrats consider "theirs" prefer the other party.
Personally, I am an angry centrist, disgusted by both the right and left extremes, which are propped up and celebrated by our polarized, whorish media. Talking to my millennial children about politics is an utterly depressing experience. One has already emigrated and the other wishes he could. They vote, but realize/believe they have no power in our utterly rigged system.
Also (because I have another comment here), the essay is all about how to arrange the Democratic platform so as to win elections. Isn't it more proper to set a platform according to what one thinks is best for the country and then try to convince people to vote for it? That certainly seems more appropriate to a site called "Persuasion".
Aristotle defines justice as fairness, understood as distribution (of goods, honors, etc.) that is proportional to merit. This is not egalitarianism in the sense of being equal distribution for all, which according to this understanding, would be unjust.
I submit that the author is correct in noting that Americans are NOT opposed to proportionality, as humans are acutely aware of differences in natural and acquired human talents as demonstrated in, for example, their love of competitive sports and the arts. Rather, Americans are opposed to incorrect assessment of true merit, as occurs, for example, with Ivy League legacy enrollment when a disproportionate share of admissions are given to alumni donor's children.
If this understanding is correct, then strict egalitarianism, understood as the elimination of meritocracy and identical outcomes for all, is contrary to human nature and the progressive mission to eliminate meritocracy is ill conceived and doomed to failure. True fairness will be achieved by true assessment of merit.
I don't understand. If the Left moves from equality-of-outcome to equality-of-opportunity it'll just be the Right.
The hard part with the re-orientation from identity to class is that the overclass's status isn't at all threatened by identity issues. Far from it, identity is the fig leaf that class uses to disguise itself.
Think of the collapse of Occupy Wall Street and the corporate hostility it engendered given that its aim would have crippled the financial industries money making spigot, among other things.
Now think about the $24 Billion that have been pledged to BLM from corporations and foundations.......
I think the authors are either playing semantic games or they just don't understand what American Progressives stand for. If they're simply pointing out that terms like "wealth re-distribution" and "socialism" rub many Americans the wrong way, they may be correct, but rebranding them as "economic fairness" will not fool anyone. The authors betray their disingenuousness when they name their models: Canada, Australia, and "the Nordics." They are among the same largely socialist democracies that American Progressives point to as their models! So if they think rebranding old wine in new bottles with their ludicrously unoriginal "economic fairness" term will provide an epiphany to unite our deep divide, then they are sadly mistaken. I doubt that it will even help them sell books.
I do not really get this article. In all Nordic countries as Sweden, the populist parties and especially right-wing populist ones are getting 10-20 % of votes despite social mobility and a large welfare state. And also, the Swedish welfare state is already more beneficial for the middle-class while the far-right voters are from the middle class and already have jobs, education and housing https://glibe.substack.com/p/the-swedish-welfare-state-more-as
There is something to this. However the extreme concentration of wealth in the US, and the plutocracy engendered thereby, precludes the sort of policy changes that the authors have in mind.