Why I'm a Liberal

One of the ethical principles underlying conservative political philosophy in the United States is that unequal distribution of power and wealth across individuals and groups is justified, because the market and the democratic system reward those who are the most skilled and hardworking. The cream rises to the top. There is an implied belief that, having eliminated De Jure discrimination against women, blacks, and (legally residing) hispanics, the playing field is now level, and inequality in the distribution of outcomes merely reflects some sort of inherent genetic justice.

In short, conservatives believe both that we should and also that, generally speaking, we do live in a meritocracy.

(There is a sister philosophy within conservatism that says that allowing the cream to rise to the top, regardless of why that happens, ends up being better for all groups...it's more of a utilitarian argument about free markets and whatnot...but we'll put that aside for another day).

One of the main reasons I'm a liberal is that I don't think we live in a meritocracy. Regardless of whether or not a meritocracy would really be the end all and be all of a good society, it's a moot point, because we're not even close to being there yet.

Imagine a regression equation explaining general life success (happiness, wealth...however you want to define it, this will still work). I think conservatives and liberals would agree that it would look something like this:

Success= B (natural skill) + B (hardwork) + B (individual Circumstances) + B
(macroeconomic conditions) + error

Life outcomes are generally a function of a person's natural skill (intelligence, artistic talent, hotness, etc), their ability to dedicate themselves to improving upon their natural abilities and to stay dedicated to work, and the circumstances into which they were born (are your parents rich or poor, in a good neighborhood or a bad neighborhood, crazy or uncrazy, etc), some role for the state of the macroeconomy, and finally some error term that captures random, unpredictable things, like maybe you won the lottery or got on a gameshow or something.

Conservatives tend to believe that the slopes on the first two variables are much larger than the slopes on the last two. Sure, people are born into vastly different situations, but if they're smart and hardworking, they still have an "equal opportunity" for success.

I think that this belief is, in the common parlance of our time, a gigantic steaming load of horseshit. I believe that the third and fourth variables above (one's life circumstances and the conditions of the macro-economy) have slopes* that are just as large and probably larger than the other variables.

Everybody knows a handful of successful people who overcame difficult circumstances to achieve success. I certainly do. I know a guy who worked extremely hard his whole life, who is now getting his ph.d., who was the first in his family to go to college, and whose brothers and sisters have been in and out of jail most of their lives. So, yes, these things do happen. But you know why they make for such inspiring movie plotlines?

Because they don't happen very fucking much. And because they don't happen very fucking much, I believe that the largest determinants of a person's life chances are entirely beyond their control. I don't like that. I don't think that's just. And it certainly isn't meritocratic.

In general, I'm sympathetic to the view that we SHOULD have a meritocracy (with some social safety nets for people who do not succeed, in recognition that they are people and have some basic claim to deserving to be alive). But we're not even close to being there yet. We still have a long way to go as a society before the slopes on the hard work and ability variables vastly outweigh the slopes on the circumstances and macroeconomy variables.

Here are a few things that have huge impacts on people's lives that they largely cannot control:

*Are you born into an area with a strong labor market?

*Are you born into a stable, loving family?

*Are you born with disabilities of any sort?

*Are you born with a penis or a vagina?

*Are you born into an area with good public schools?

*If not, can your parents afford to send you to private school?

*Are you born into a neighborhood that is safe and supportive?

*Does your neighborhood offer safe, fun, nurturing extra-curricular activities?

*Do your parents read to you? Are you and they part of a culture that values education?

*Do your parents have "connections"? Or are you forced to make your way without depending on their accumulated social capital?

*Was there a giant marcoeconomic meltdown that wiped out demand for labor in your chosen field?

*Was your profession made obsolete by advances in technology?

*Are you born with intrinsic intelligence and natural talent? (NOTE: this is ALSO something that is beyond a person's control...which is a good critique of meritocracy as a normative view).

*Are you born with dark skin?

*Were you born in the United States?

*Do your parents speak English? Do you speak English?

*Did you contract a debilitating disease or suffer a terrible injury?


Ok, you get the picture. I submit, for your consideration, that if your average stock broker, lawyer, or even teacher had grown up in East St. Louis, or even rural southern Indiana...about half of them would be a lot closer to food stamps than to a six figure salary.

Anyway...in large part, this is why I'm a liberal. If we ever reach the point where we achieve meritocracy, I'll reevaluate.


*Larger slopes means that changes in them have larger impacts on changes in success