*
**
***
Which do you want more?
1
"Okay now, would you like chocolate? or strawberry?"
"Both!"
This is the conversation one imagines with a four-year-old at an ice-cream stand on a hot summer day. And rather often in life, it seems that the right answer to "Which one?" is indeed "Both!" Should a business - for example - do what serves the customer best? or what most rewards the most effective employees? Well, the boss has to figure out how to do both, of course! And all too often it's not easy to achieve both.
The even harder fact of life is that very often good objectives - such as, health and happiness, compassion and high standards, the individual and general society, virtue and love, emotion and reason... - very often, a pair of good objectives find themselves in tension with each other. They are both good; we want... both!
So how do you decide - if you have to - which is more important?
2
Even in divisive times like today, Americans profess - and seem to actually believe - that the fundamental goals we should all value are equality, life, liberty, and happiness. Our most revered founding document tells us we should value these, and we don't seem to question its wisdom on this point. All of us are created equal, and among our inherent rights are the right to live, the right to be free, and the right to seek to achieve happiness or well-being.
But in our public discourse today, two of these do seem to be in tension with each other, or even in opposition to each other: Equality and Freedom. We usually refer to both the value of equality of opportunity for all and the value of individual freedom for everyone, or at least every citizen. Unfortunately, it seems painfully evident that we often have to choose between the two.
3
Freedom and Equality: believe it or not, the way we use these terms in public discourse today, both of these concepts are relative.
Take Freedom first.
Surely, just about everyone knows the often quoted Supreme Court Justice's saying that we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium. Except for those kinds of freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, one's freedom is limited by the freedom of others and by the need for social order. In general I am not free to harm someone else, I am not free to violate the rights of others, I am not free to break the law, I am not free to steal or destroy someone else's property, and so on and so forth.
In a tyrannical state, the absolute ruler may be absolutely free; she or he can do anything he or she wants. But in a democracy, no one's freedom is absolute.
4
And what about Equality?
"Equal" is a relative term by definition. My height is equal or not equal to yours, and when the Declaration of Independence says that all people are created equal, it means "equal to all other people." That goes without saying, doesn't it?
Even if we were to say, "All of those fence posts are equal" (in height), we would still be using a relative term and would mean "equal to each other." And if we were to say, "Those posts are absolutely equal," we would be using the word "absolutely" to mean "exactly" or "utterly," since there is no such thing - anywhere - as "absolute equality."
5
We hear a lot about freedom these days from angry people. "I value FREEDOM," one might say proudly or even defiantly, using the term more as a talisman or charm than as a meaningful concept. "Oh," the speaker expects his or her audience to think: "if that person values freedom, he must be a good person since freedom is good." That speaker is not using the word "freedom" meaningfully but rhetorically, to achieve a certain effect rather than to communicate.
A specific example today would be those claiming that our current health-care law "violates religious freedom," since the law says that church-affiliated universities and social service organizations must continue to offer coverage of birth control drugs in their employee health insurance plans. When someone says this, knowing that most Americans highly value religious freedom, she or he is not talking about everyone's freedom so much as trying to create the notion, "I'm a good person who values good things."
Someone else might say,"I want my freedom!" or "We have to take back America and restore our Freedom." Looked at more closely, it becomes clear that this angry person wants to be "free" to decide what everyone, including everyone else, will do. That is true as well of those claiming violations of religious freedom, since they want to impose their religious principles on their, possibly non-religious employees.
Another example is the group calling themselves New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, who have been working to have the law approving same-sex marriage thrown out. This is not really valuing freedom, but valuing one's own freedom to impose his or her will on others.
As a result, whenever a person says "I value FREEDOM," using one phrasing or another, we have to ask ourselves WHOSE freedom is being valued? Our country's founding documents say we should value everyone's freedom, as we say "liberty for all" when pledging allegiance to our flag.
6
There is ambiguity in the concept of equality, too.
I remember Mr. Johnson, my 11th grade American History teacher, explaining to us that "All men are created equal" does not really mean that everyone is equal - as in of equal ability or equal height or weight - but that we are all born with an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. "All men are created," he said, "with an equal opportunity to prove themselves unequal."
And since it is obvious that we are not all born with equal intelligence, health, emotional sensitivity, or physical strength, what Mr. Johnson said seems a fair way to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence. It's not the person that's equal to all others but the person's opportunity that's equal to the opportunity of all others.
So when people are being careful with their words, they may say that all living Americans have - or should have - freedom of speech and religion, of voting for their government representatives confidentially, and so on. But they do not say we all are - or should be - equal; they say we all have - or should have - equal opportunity.
7
We started by saying that sometimes it seems Freedom and Equality-of-opportunity are in tension with or in opposition to each other.
"Freedom is power," one often hears, but "power is Freedom" also. One person may have more power - more economic power, for instance, (meaning more money) or more political power - than another person, and that means having more freedom to do as one chooses than those less powerful. In other words, the less wealthy and the less politically "connected" have fewer opportunities to succeed than the more wealthy and politically influential.
On the other hand, the original Communists said that everyone should be equal; that is, everyone should receive what they need equitably and contribute as much as possible to the community. In other words, everyone would be held to an equal standard of work and an equal standard of compensation. But this situation - if it could ever be achieved - would significantly limit the individual's freedom to undertake personal initiatives; all initiatives would be designed to serve the community, not the individual.
In the capitalist system, of course, we know that limiting one's opportunity to "get ahead" also in practice limits the amount of material progress achieved in the community. Choosing to expect everyone to meet an equal standard - or to achieve "equality" - would come at the sacrifice of individual freedom.
We in America have learned together that suppressing individuals' freedom in order to achieve equality will not work and inhibits human progress. Following the assertions of our founding documents, we have also learned that suppressing some people's equality of opportunity in order to enhance the freedom of others is wrong and ineffective.
But we can see that in the practical world, as guides of our actions Freedom and Equality are in tension with each other in real and meaningful ways.
"Daddy" at the ice-cream stand could order his four-year-old one small scoop of strawberry and one small scoop of chocolate. In that case, a little of both alternatives could be achieved. That might be called a win-win situation in that little case, or it might be called a "compromise."
If "Daddy" were choosing for himself, he might want to consider the historical context. Maybe, for instance, two days ago he had chocolate ice cream... and maybe the time before that too. So he might say it's time to have his other favorite and order strawberry.
Politically or socially, these same two approaches should be possible: maybe at one time - such as, for instance, around 1900 (if not in 2012) - we might look around and say that we've been adopting laws and practices favoring higher and higher rewards to those at the wealthy and powerful end of the scale, freeing them to satisfy their every whim, but at the same time tending to overlook the legitimate need of others for more nearly equal opportunities to succeed. In such a situation, we might want to act in accord with our professed belief that both freedom and equality are important and to shift our focus more toward achieving "equal opportunity for all."
"Daddy's" compromise of ordering one small scoop of chocolate and one of strawberry is another approach to achieving "Both" equal opportunity across society and individual freedom: strive to achieve an appropriate balance between these two conflicting, fundamental American values.
When our laws and practices have created such a high degree of equality among all citizens that the zeal to initiate new ways of doing things is waning, then our nation would be out of balance on the "equal opportunity" side of the spectrum.
And when our laws and practices have created such a high degree of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few that a high percentage of the public is becoming disengaged from the political process, because of feeling dis-empowered, then our nation would be out of balance on the "freedom" side of the spectrum - at least the freedom of the wealthy few and of the large corporations.
We must ask ourselves today then, as the election season heats up, whether we are in either imbalanced situation. If we are, we must elect representatives and officials who will help us move back toward balance.
We will not survive as the America we say we want to be if we do not have an appropriate balance for all Americans between equal opportunity and freedom.
"Freedom is power," one often hears, but "power is Freedom" also. One person may have more power - more economic power, for instance, (meaning more money) or more political power - than another person, and that means having more freedom to do as one chooses than those less powerful. In other words, the less wealthy and the less politically "connected" have fewer opportunities to succeed than the more wealthy and politically influential.
On the other hand, the original Communists said that everyone should be equal; that is, everyone should receive what they need equitably and contribute as much as possible to the community. In other words, everyone would be held to an equal standard of work and an equal standard of compensation. But this situation - if it could ever be achieved - would significantly limit the individual's freedom to undertake personal initiatives; all initiatives would be designed to serve the community, not the individual.
In the capitalist system, of course, we know that limiting one's opportunity to "get ahead" also in practice limits the amount of material progress achieved in the community. Choosing to expect everyone to meet an equal standard - or to achieve "equality" - would come at the sacrifice of individual freedom.
We in America have learned together that suppressing individuals' freedom in order to achieve equality will not work and inhibits human progress. Following the assertions of our founding documents, we have also learned that suppressing some people's equality of opportunity in order to enhance the freedom of others is wrong and ineffective.
But we can see that in the practical world, as guides of our actions Freedom and Equality are in tension with each other in real and meaningful ways.
8
"Daddy" at the ice-cream stand could order his four-year-old one small scoop of strawberry and one small scoop of chocolate. In that case, a little of both alternatives could be achieved. That might be called a win-win situation in that little case, or it might be called a "compromise."
If "Daddy" were choosing for himself, he might want to consider the historical context. Maybe, for instance, two days ago he had chocolate ice cream... and maybe the time before that too. So he might say it's time to have his other favorite and order strawberry.
Politically or socially, these same two approaches should be possible: maybe at one time - such as, for instance, around 1900 (if not in 2012) - we might look around and say that we've been adopting laws and practices favoring higher and higher rewards to those at the wealthy and powerful end of the scale, freeing them to satisfy their every whim, but at the same time tending to overlook the legitimate need of others for more nearly equal opportunities to succeed. In such a situation, we might want to act in accord with our professed belief that both freedom and equality are important and to shift our focus more toward achieving "equal opportunity for all."
"Daddy's" compromise of ordering one small scoop of chocolate and one of strawberry is another approach to achieving "Both" equal opportunity across society and individual freedom: strive to achieve an appropriate balance between these two conflicting, fundamental American values.
When our laws and practices have created such a high degree of equality among all citizens that the zeal to initiate new ways of doing things is waning, then our nation would be out of balance on the "equal opportunity" side of the spectrum.
And when our laws and practices have created such a high degree of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few that a high percentage of the public is becoming disengaged from the political process, because of feeling dis-empowered, then our nation would be out of balance on the "freedom" side of the spectrum - at least the freedom of the wealthy few and of the large corporations.
We must ask ourselves today then, as the election season heats up, whether we are in either imbalanced situation. If we are, we must elect representatives and officials who will help us move back toward balance.
We will not survive as the America we say we want to be if we do not have an appropriate balance for all Americans between equal opportunity and freedom.
*
**
***
