Equality?

I found myself reading a WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703581204576033861522959234.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle) about the evils of progressive taxation and it got me to thinking about income inequality. Specifically the article stated that the US tax system was far more progressive than those of the Nordic countries since the rich pay a much higher proportion of their income in the US... OK, but look at the distribution of income in those countries. The Nordic countries lead the world in equality of wealth distribution. No matter how progressive their tax structures might be, most people end up paying at a substantially similar rate. In contrast, the income inequality in the US is more similar to a third world country than it is to a Western Democracy. Even with a flat tax where the rich pay the same proportion of their incomes, the rich would still pay most of the taxes.


Countries, as much as individuals, have self images that are sometimes out of touch with reality. America, for example, is the land of opportunity. Everyone knows that their own ancestors carved homesteads out of the wilderness and that a poor boy raised in a rustic cabin built of hand hewn logs could grow up to be president. Anyone, by dint of hard work and self sacrifice, can rise to the highest levels of society. There is some truth behind this national mythos, of course, but there is also a good deal of careful selection of facts. Much of this description of the American Dream can be found, already full-blown, in Crèvecoeur's description of colonial America and is supported by Ben Franklin's assertion that there were no poor people in America. It goes without saying that this vision of America ignored the condition of slaves and displaced native peoples. In fact, this instant rags-to-riches scenario was heavily dependent on having free, or nearly free, land and that is long gone. It has been a long time since America could grow without limits by wresting more land from displaced natives in order to give it to newly arrived European settlers. Over the past couple centuries the opportunity to rise above the socioeconomic class of one's birth has become increasingly rarer but still, there are exceptions. As long as we continue to believe that our country offers opportunity we can point to those exceptions and use them as proof that things are still as they always were.

The truth is that, today, economic inequality in the US is greater than it is in most developed countries and opportunities for upward mobility are less common than they are in much of Europe. For many generations the belief in the American dream provided incentive to work hard, to do the difficult now and the impossible in a short while. Today it is a political tool used to manipulate the poor into voting against their own self-interest. After all, if you or your children will someday be rich, shouldn't you try to provide a favorable environment?

Quite a few years ago, in the midst of an airline pilot’s strike, there was a letter written to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle by someone who complained that airline pilots were already making too much money. As evidence for his assertion he pointed out that there was one living in his own neighborhood in Danville. I had forgotten about that letter until Captain Sullenberger (of Danville) landed that plane in the Hudson… I wonder now, what sort of high prestige career the writer of that missive enjoyed… was he a banker I wonder?

What makes a banker a professional while a pilot is only a skilled worker? I’m reasonably certain that the banker does not undergo more rigorous training. He is not responsible for more human lives. He is not expected to live up to a higher ethical standard. I suppose you might say that his higher social status is derived from having access to more money but is that really all there is to it? Consider the lowest rung in the banking hierarchy, the bank teller. The teller makes considerably less money than an auto mechanic or a garbage collector and yet the teller is expected to dress appropriately for a business environment. Unlike the blue-collar workers who typically receive an allowance for their special uniforms, the teller has to pay for his own suits. The symbolism associated with the style of dress is unconnected with actually having or controlling money… except, perhaps, as a matter of sympathetic magic (Frazer’s Law of Contagion with money itself being seen as the sacred object?). It is the business itself that is associated with the higher social status.

I will certainly concede that the bankers’ perception of themselves as professionals, with their own style of speech and dress, is a necessary element in the distinction but it is clearly not sufficient. They would not have the higher social status if the rest of society did not buy into their self-identification.

Christianity is part of our history, language and culture. It's silly to imagine that we can eliminate Christian symbolism from public discourse. At the same time we have to understand that the US has never been dominated by a single variety of religion. We have freedom of religion simply because we do not allow our government to take a side in the conflicts among various sects. We do not believe that government agencies should dictate the forms of prayer nor should they funnel tax money to particular churches in preference to others. This separation of church and state is the basis of our religious freedom and is fundamental to what it means to be American. We, as individuals, have our own beliefs and cannot be neutral with regard to religion but, for us to live and work together, we must insist that our common government strive to be neutral. At the same time, for us to be a single people with shared values, we must respect others' right to their beliefs but that does not mean that we must share those beliefs. "We must respect the other fellow's religion," as H.L. Mencken once wrote, "but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." Civility may be required but not servility. We are not bound by our neighbor's beliefs. If our neighbor dresses oddly, speaks strangely or has some peculiarity of behavior on account of those beliefs we are not obligated to do the same. Just as our neighbors have a right to their beliefs, we have a right to our own. Tolerance must be mutual if it is to be meaningful at all.
Many sects, given the opportunity, would gladly impose their beliefs on the world. It seems to me that Fundamentalists, Christian and Muslim alike, would like nothing more than to receive special consideration, to dictate what others may believe and say. This special consideration must be repugnant to those whose values are rooted in American tradition and law. In principle, every individual is equal before the law. Every person, in the privacy of his own mind or of a community of like-minded people, has a right to express his own religious beliefs but, once those beliefs become public the rights of others come into play as well. Fair play requires that anyone who publicly states his religious belief should be prepared to listen as others state contrary beliefs. The free expression of opinion is another cornerstone of American ideals and it becomes meaningless if we have to avoid bruising the feelings of the intolerant.
I understand that Muslims are not permitted to portray the prophet and I think I even understand why but, to insist that others, not sharing their belief, also refrain from portraying the prophet is to insist that Islam be privileged above all other religions. This insistence is inconsistent with the mutual respect and fair play required of all those who live in a multi-cultural society. The idea that non-Muslims should abide by Islamic law is especially absurd in a country like the US where a majority of the population identifies, to some degree, with some variety of Christianity. After all, isn't the belief in the divinity of Christ tantamount to the belief that Mohammad was a false prophet?

I'm, frankly, tired of hearing people say that the only alternative to abusive TSA screening is having airplanes blown up by terrorists. The terrorists who hijacked those planes on 9/11 successfully captured those planes even though they were equipped with only minimal weapons because they assured the passengers that no one would be hurt as long as they cooperated. Some of the passengers were skeptical and, using their cell phones in flight (in violation of safety regulations), got the word out that something was up. By the time the fourth plane was hijacked the word had gotten out and that trick didn't work anymore. We have not seen an attempted hijacking of that nature again for the simple reason that it wouldn't work. It depended on people being ignorant but airline passengers are now very much aware of the danger. In fact, the two attempts that have been made since then, the shoe and the underwear bomber, were both foiled by alert passengers. TSA screening procedures do not protect us from the terrorists. They are intended to reassure us by giving us the impression that air travel is safe. The process is designed to be inconvenient because that deepens the impression, making it more difficult to ignore.