Don’t get side tracked on single issues.
During a “60 Minutes” interview in 2020, Kamala Harris was reminded she had been rated one of the most liberal senators in Washington — even more so than Bernie Sanders. You see, compared to other U.S. senators, the non-partisan GovTrack ranked Harris as “the most liberal” because she either voted for or co-sponsored the most leftist bills possible and was the least likely to join bipartisan bills.
You would think she would have been the least likely choice as Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020, insofar as Biden supposedly had his “whole soul” in uniting this country.
On the issues, for example, she opposes nearly all restrictions on abortion, co-sponsored a bill to replace private health insurers with a single-payer, government-run health care program, and endorses the Green New Deal — all of which is out of touch with the majority of Americans (including Democrats).
Sixty-six percent of Americans want restrictions on abortion, for example, “to limit abortions to the first trimester.” Only one in 10 registered voters want a single-payer, government-run health care program if it means abolishing
private health insurance plans. And the Green New Deal will cost each
household $36,000 (minimum) per year in new taxes or added debt — and
the majority of Americans say they don’t support paying the price tag.
But
setting aside any policy debate, more important is the philosophy
debate that is taking place more prominently than ever before in our
country: the idea that government should guarantee equal outcomes for
its people and not merely equal opportunities for them to succeed.
Kamala
Harris certainly believes this, and now she has one of the largest
platforms, as the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party, to advocate
for equal outcomes, not equal opportunity, which she says should be the
goal of public policy.
But
as Milton Friedman, Nobel prize-winning economist put it, “A society
that puts equality … ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality
nor freedom. … A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy
by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”
You see, for a government to create equal outcomes for us
all, the government would necessarily also require the power to violate
the rights of some to give more rights (or benefits) to others in the
name of “equality.”
Of
course, this violates the basic moral principle that all men are
created equal, as well as free. Our government has an obligation to
guarantee equality of opportunity to all because, without this equality,
freedom becomes only an illusion.
See,
we can’t get sidetracked too far on the issues. The issues are
important, no doubt, but the philosophy of our elected leaders matters
much more, as they influence beyond the headlines and threaten to erode
the foundational principles upon which our Constitution was written.
Is there inequality in our lives? Of course.
Unequal justice in our courts. Unequal education. Unequal pay. Unequal footing.
But
is inequality of outcomes inherently wrong? If you are a Christian, or
otherwise religious, you may remember Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents” in
Matthew 25. In this parable, each of the workers was given money to
manage, “according to their abilities,” and as the parable unfolds, the
results are different for each of them. So, if Jesus recognizes that we
all have different abilities, and therefore we will all have unequal
outcomes, then are we trying to make equality of outcomes into what it
never was, and never will be?
Consider
this: During the 19th century, and especially after the Civil War,
equality meant everyone should have the same opportunity to make what he
or she could of his or her capacities, regardless of race, religion,
belief or social class. But later, into the 20th century, this changed.
Equality became more about the idea that we should all be
equal in terms of income or living standard. In other words, more and
more folks began thinking that life should be arranged so everybody will
end at the finish line at the same time, instead of just making sure
everyone begins at the starting line at the same time.
But
can we remain a free people if we guarantee equal outcomes? I mean, if
we are all going to end up at the finish line at the same time, some
people will need to be held back after the race starts, because no two
of us are the same, and this raises a very serious problem for freedom.
That’s
the same reason why there’s no equal opportunity for me to play guard
alongside LeBron James with the Cleveland Cavaliers or co-star alongside
Harrison Ford in his next movie. The fact is, life is not fair, and I’m
OK with that because I’d rather it be free than fair.
You
only need to look at societies like China and Russia, where equality of
outcomes has been their basic goal, and you’ll see the tyranny foisted
upon their people in the absence of putting freedom above all else.
If
liberty is embodied in the creed, “all men are created equal,” does
that likewise mean that we shall all be kept equal as well? From
listening to Kamala Harris’ philosophy, if she’s elected as president,
that’s exactly what she’s intending to do.
Louis
R. Avallone is a Shreveport businessman, attorney and author of “Bright
Spots, Big Country, What Makes America Great.” He is also a former aide
to U.S. Representative Jim McCrery and editor of The Caddo Republican.
His columns have appeared regularly in 318 Forum since 2007. Follow him
on Facebook, on Twitter @louisravallone or by e-mail at [email protected], and on American Ground Radio at 101.7FM and 710 AM, weeknights from 6 - 7 p.m., and streaming live on keelnews.com.