Conservatives and liberals both vehemently declare their support for equality of opportunity, a rare area of agreement between groups that struggle to find any common ground. This unity likely stems not only from people's intuitive feeling for what represents fairness, but it also reflects our collective sharing of the "American Dream" -- that anyone starting from whatever level of hardship can achieve greatness if they have sufficient talent and diligence.
Since it seems that all Americans feel united in wanting a society that has equality of opportunity, it is only natural to review some key facts and incomplete thoughts about America, inequality and meritocracy.
Fact 1: Americans have a greater belief that their country is a meritocracy than citizens of nearly every other country. For example, in World Values Surveys 60 percent of Americans believed that the poor could become rich if they tried hard enough, a rate that is more than double that of European countries. Additionally, Americans were far more likely than respondents from other countries to agree that "hard work brings success."
Fact 2: World Values Surveys also show that Americans are more tolerant of higher income inequalities than citizens of other countries.
Fact 3: America has higher degrees of income inequality and wealth inequality than citizens of other wealthy countries. Moreover, America generally has less social supports for the poor than other wealthy countries.
Fact 4: America has far less social mobility than other wealthy countries. Americans who are born poor are more likely to stay poor than citizens of other wealthy countries. Economic success in America is more dependent on the economic status of your parents than in other wealthy countries.
Let's see how these facts connect and where things fall apart. Fact 1 and Fact 2 seem perfectly linked. Because Americans believe that their country is a meritocracy, they are more accepting of the idea that those who are wealthy deserve their wealth and that the poor either lack talent or are lazy. Fact 3 flows from the previous two facts. Since Americans are more accepting of higher inequalities, it is perfectly logical that America spends less to help its poor than other wealthy countries. After all, how a nation spends its money is a reflection of national values.
Fact 4 is the disturbing fact that topples the logical applecart. The data show very clearly that America is less meritocratic, rather than more meritocratic, than other wealthy countries. This means that Fact 1 was a mistaken belief -- that is to say, Americans are mistaken in believing that their society rewards those with talent and effort more than other countries. Once Americans learn that that have misplaced confidence in their system being a meritocracy, this should lead to Americans becoming less tolerant of high inequality. This decreased tolerance of high inequality should lead to Americans calling for more social supports and to correct the issues that are leading to America's vast inequality of opportunity.
The logic is simple and, to some extent, is the logic expressed previously by the Occupy Wall Street movement and the We Are The 99% campaign. So what happened? Why did this logic fail? Why is it that Fact 4 hasn't prompted a sustained awareness campaign to disabuse people of their mistaken faith in American meritocracy (Fact 1), cause them to question their acceptance of high inequality (Fact 2) and drive greater movement to social supports (Fact 3) and a shift to a society that truly has more, not less, equality of opportunity?
Some blame the media for failing to raise America's awareness of the dismal facts regarding our limited social mobility and our inequality of opportunity. Some blame complacency of the American people and general apathy. Some blame our political process for having too much inertia to enable change. Some blame the organizers for failing to convey their protest messages clearly. Some blame the power structures for dampening the voices of the protesters.
Last year many Americans started to connect the dots regarding American inequality and the myth of American social mobility. This thought process was left incomplete. For the sake of America's future, I hope that America will reawaken its passion for equality of opportunity and that those who express support for this equality are not simply speaking empty words. The fight for equality of opportunity needs to be a major issue in the 2012 presidential campaign, rather than simply a minor footnote in American political history.
Follow Howard Steven Friedman's Facebook Fan Page
Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman
Andrew Rasiej: Let's Change the Ratio Once and for All
Ron Davis: To the Harvard Law Class of 2012 and Overachieving Graduates Everywhere
I remember a guy named Ross Perot who looked like Alfred E Newman from the Mad Magazine comic books and talked through his nose. He ran as a third party candidate against President Bush 41 and President Bill Clinton, that was 1992 and he got almost as many popular votes as either of the major party candidates. He had the right message but he was the wrong messenger. He was not attractive, and I sadly believe that a lot of the American people vote based upon looks more than intelligence or policy. He had a lot of graphs and charts to indicate his points. I remember him saying that "NAFTA will suck the remaining jobs out of the USA". He might have been the last chance to preserve US jobs, US industry and the US economy. He also said, "We need to keep the high tech jobs, it is better than being a nation of chicken farmers.”
I remember presidential candidate McCain stating something to the effect that he was not interested in economics during the first part of the 2008 presidential campaign shortly after he was nominated, so I voted for President Obama. I hold great respect for Senator John McCain, but he was no choice for the economy of this country at that time.
The US Government should stop creating any more new legislation (Free Trade Agreements) that ECONOMICALLY REQUIRES that US businesses relocate their manufacturing operations with their wealth creating abilities and those associated US jobs to foreign countries.
The US Government should repeal all of the other laws that they previously created that caused and ECONOMICALLY REQUIRED that US businesses with their wealth creating abilities and their US jobs to relocate to foreign nations.
The first FREE TRADE AGREEMENT with a third world nation that economically required that US businesses send their US jobs overseas was NAFTA which was signed by President Clinton.
Maybe the US Congress needs to create legislation to repeal President Clinton's NAFTA, GATT, WTO, MFN trade with China, Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, H-1b visas, and all of his other similar laws that ECONOMICALLY REQUIRED US businesses to relocate to foreign nations.
Maybe the US Congress needs to create legislation to repeal George W. Bush’s 14 additional FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS (with Jordan, Morocco, and other young democracies of Central America).
Maybe the US Congress needs to create legislation to repeal President Obama’s multiple new FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS with Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, Chile and Peru plus several other Asian and South American nations.
The USA needs re-industrialization by any means possible.
Re-industrialization would relieve unemployment
Re-industrialization would create more wealth in the USA that would SUBJECT TO TAXATION and/or CONFISCATION by the various governmental taxing authorities to collect money to spend for various government ACTIVITIES such as infrastructure improvements, and also to pay for government contracts that CONSUME THIS NATION’S EXISTING NATIONAL WEALTH rather than CREATE ANY NEW NATIONAL WEALTH.
Implicit is the assumption that if you take 500 poor people and 500 rich people and strip them of their wealth, that an equal number of the poor and the rich will climb their way back to the top in a few generations. Why would you assume this to be true?
Institutional poverty is self perpetuating.
You haven't proved we don't have a meritocracy, only that people tend not to improve their lot. These are two separate things.
FH
But since part of the American myth believes this strongly, we also believe if you haven't made it, its because you are lazy or sinful. Yes, there is a religious component to this. Therefore you deserve to be out on the street and hungry, hence our reluctance to provide a decent safety net.
It doesn't take long in a society for such "facts" to become more true than they really are. So it won't be long before we finally realize that "making it" in any society, even in the USA is very much a matter of luck and more often than not, who your parents are. That all people are not equal and even with a "equal" start, a few will rise, but most won't.
Maybe this country needs to crash and burn and wake up to the reality that is looming. That the rich are in charge, have all the money and own the government.
Maybe then we can fix things.
There are no lobbyists for those who need to land an equal opportunity to improve their life. No one in Washington works for the poor or working class or even the middle class, as they do for the defense industry, their ceo's waged war against cuts to their budgets. No one wages war for those at the bottom...the squeaky wheel gets the grease and seems most of us don't even have a wheel in the fight anymore...I don't see that changing anytime soon....
In a single word the political problems stem from this word and this word only - USURPING.
You first must understand that AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC and so is each separate State our Constitution was created to protect the smallest minority the sovereign individual from the majorities. We are not a DEMOCRACY.