Some People Are More Equal Than Others

Today David Brooks said something dumb. The link there goes to Charlie Pierce's takedown of the article because you don't want to read the actual article. It's pretty much the normal Brooksian ravings about how the rich deserve our gratitude because they are our betters. But it is interesting only because it pretty much captures the way that these people really think.

I'd say today's meritocratic elites achieve and preserve their status not mainly by being corrupt but mainly by being ambitious and disciplined. They raise their kids in organized families. They spend enormous amounts of money and time on enrichment. They work much longer hours than people down the income scale, driving their kids to piano lessons and then taking part in conference calls from the waiting room.

The children of rich people don't get where they are because they were born into a better position than the kid born to a single mom or two blue collar working parents. Nooooo. It's that the rich parents are more ambitious and disciplined. They are more organized and can multi-task carpool and taking a meeting on the phone. If the poor people could just be more organized then they could work while also helping their kids with their homework and taking them to tutoring.

Yep, stupid poor people not being able to work the cash register at Wal-Mart from the waiting room of the piano teacher. Be more ambitious next time poor people!

Also, as someone who has worked in retail, a job that a lot of poor people have, and am not working as a lawyer...the law stuff is much easier. It was WAY easier being a secretary than a retail manager. One hour of retail is like 3 behind a desk. I would like Brooks to go work one day as a waiter or a retail associate and then say how much easier they have it.

I wish that I could say this was just David Brooks being himself, but I think it's actually a sentiment shared by others. Take for example this brilliant quote from conservative author Dinesh D'Souza about how unfair equal opportunity is:

Equal opportunity seems like a logical fulfillment of the equality principle in the Declaration of Independence. Yet it is an ideal that cannot and should not be realized through the actions of the government. Indeed, for the state to enforce equal opportunity would be to contravene the true meaning of the Declaration and to subvert the principle of a free society. Let me illustrate. I have a five-year-old daughter. Since she was born--actually, since she was conceived--my wife and I have gone to great lengths in the Great Yuppie Parenting Race. At one time we even played classical music while she was in the womb. Crazy us. Currently the little rogue is taking ballet lessons and swim lessons. My wife goes over her workbooks. I am teaching her chess.
Why are we doing these things? We are, of course, trying to develop her abilities so that she can get the most out of life. The practical effect of our actions, however, is that we are working to give our daughter an edge--that is, a better chance to succeed than everybody else's children. Even though we might be embarrassed to think of it this way, we are doing our utmost to undermine equal opportunity. So are all the other parents who are trying to get their children into the best schools, the best colleges, and in general give them the best possible upbringing and education. None of them believes in equal opportunity either!...

Now, to enforce equal opportunity, the government could do one of two things: it could try to pull my daughter down, or it could work to raise other people's children up. The first is clearly destructive and immoral, but the second is also unfair. The government is obliged to treat all citizens equally. Why should it work to undo the benefits that my wife and I have labored so hard to provide? Why should it offer more to children whose parents have not taken the trouble?

Yes, why should the government offer head start and public education and other programs that will help create a better society in total. Sure, maybe the next Bill Clinton or Clarence Thomas might be in the rural schoolroom. But fuck that. If you make sure that they have opportunities to reach their potential than it might mean that D'Souza's daughter will have to go to UPenn instead of Yale. The indignities!

Brooks and D'Souza would probably agree that parents who don't take their kids to summer programs or help them with their homework or all the rest are just lazy. I disagree. Maybe they don't have the money to afford music lessons. Maybe they lack the education to actually help with homework. Maybe they are so tired after a long day on their feet at work and making dinner that they just don't have the energy. But, even if these parents are lazy shiftless bastards, what the hell does that have to do with their children?

D'Souz asks "Why should it offer more to children whose parents have not taken the trouble?" Well, how about because you don't get to pick who your parents are and so you shouldn't be punished just because your parents suck. I come from a pretty hairy family background. My father was an alcoholic and drug addict. I was lucky that my Mom worked so that we grew up sort of solidly lower middle class. So, you know, not the best chances. But in spite of my rough start I have ended up in law school and in the top quarter of my class.

And yet, there are many times when the D'Souza Daughters of the world make me well aware that they don't think I belong here. They have been groomed for greatness since birth and they see it as totally unfair that someone like me can beat them. I've been battered and bullied so much in law school that I don't even notice it anymore. I can't actually do anything to even convince Brooks, or D'Souza, or Mitt "you should only get as much education as you can afford" Romney that I belong here just as much as the children of the elite. I can just kick their kids asses while telling them to kiss mine.

But this is the mentality that is out there. The rich are better than us. They deserve more than us. They work harder to get where they are. Don't believe it. We aren't in a meritocracy. The day when we have a system of full public education  that offers all children the ability to reach their potential, and when we make college affordable to everyone who qualifies, and when we stop giving out jobs based on networking over abilities...well then we will have a meritocracy and I'll listen to Brooks' arguments about how much better they are than the rest of the world. Until then you have Emperor's with no clothes trying to insist that we're all the ones who are naked.