As a general rule, most progressive when they are asked about what their vision of a “better” future society reflecting progressive policies, will cite a desire for greater equality. However, it turns out that on inspection, the idea of equality is not a simple thing. What is more, there is, I think a direct link between Ann Romney’s hobby of dressage (training horses for shows) and the progressive vision of equality. To find out what the link is follow me below the fold.
There are three different senses in which equality can be used in a political discussion. The first is equality of opportunity. This is an ideal that emerged from the classical European liberalism. Where a society offers equality of opportunity, we can use the metaphor of a footrace. Every racer starts on the same line. Even conservatives (at least the sane, non-racist ones) will support the ideal of equality of opportunity. They, in fact, turn things around by claiming that progressives are perverting the ideal of equality by insisting upon equality of results.
This is the second sense where the term equality can figure in a political context. To return to our racing metaphor, with equality of results not only would everyone start on the same line, they will cross the finish line together. Of course, the very idea is absurd. Even when I was at my physical peak, I could never have beaten Usain Bolt in a 100 meter sprint. (I was a good enough swimmer that I might have taken him in a hundred meter freestyle.)
Beyond that, the idea of measuring equality in terms of a single human attribute is highly problematical. All people, to quote Walt Whitman, “embrace multitudes.” It says something quite profound about a society exactly what human attributes that society acknowledges and rewards. Current American society rewards such attributes as the ability to strike an approximately 2 inch diameter sphere with a 2 ½ ash wood cylinder, engage in a series of 10 second Sumo wrestling bouts, and buying companies to strip them of their assets. Of course the rewards for these activities are quite different than say those of an assembly line worker or a barista at Starbucks.
These vast differences in compensation are justified by the claim that they provide incentives for individuals to cultivate and display those attributes that are most valued by society. In theory, this incentive structure coupled with equality of opportunity will allow people to achieve their maximum productivity and happiness. This is the literal heart of the justification for a market economy. I actually have few reservations about this as a theoretical model of the functioning of the economy.
However, this is where the third, and I believe most relevant, meaning of equality comes to the fore, equality of condition. To revert to our metaphor of a race, suppose that everyone is lined up at a perfectly straight starting line. Now the judges come along and strap weight belts on every third individual at the starting line. Formal equality of opportunity is maintained since everyone has to run the same distance, but does anyone think that everyone’s chances of winning the race are now equal?
The simplest fact of the matter is that one generation’s outcomes have a huge role in defining the next generation’s opportunities. This starts before birth when differences in maternal nutrition, prenatal medical care, and exposure to environmental toxins can affect a fetus in the womb. These can impair physical and intellectual development drastically. Of course, it doesn’t get better after birth, where childhood exposures to lead based paints, inferior schools, and harassment from authorities can all lead to stifled development. Quite simply, formal equality of opportunity, i.e. having no laws to prevent people from trying to succeed, is not enough. For equality of opportunity to be meaningful, there must be substantial equality of condition. A child should not suffer a lifelong disability in the competitive race because of their parent’s failures. This is particularly the case where the parent’s failures are also related to systematic unfairness of outcomes.
Does this mean taxing the rich until their after tax income is equal to the average American family? Not at all, what it does imply is that conditions for the worst off in our society ought to be raised to a level where they can meaningfully participate in society with reasonable expectations of success.
OK, what about Ann Romney’s horses? Ann Romney practices a type of horsemanship known as dressage. This is an activity popular with both men and women of her class. It involves demonstrating the high level of training and obedience in a series of horse handling challenges. It is also quite an expensive sport to pursue at the highest level. The cost for equipment for the horses runs as high at $3-4,000. The requisite costumes for the riders can be almost equally expensive while the events themselves require the expenses of transporting rider and horse to and from, with room and board for both horse and rider in addition. We will leave out of the equation the cost of initially acquiring a horse entirely.
Of course, horses must eat and require regular veterinary care. This can run into thousands of dollars per month. And this is where we get back to equality of condition. I don’t have any desire to rob Ann Romney and her friends of the pleasure that they get from participating in dressage. I am also fully aware of the great pleasure that you can enjoy from an intimate relationship with an animal. But doesn’t it seem to you that until even the worst off American has access to medical care and nutrition at least as good as Ann Romney’s horses, something is seriously amiss?