Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, November 2, 2020
Yesterday, Democrat vice-presidential nominee Kamala Harris posted a cartoon that helpfully explained the “difference between equality and equity.” It’s worth watching.
There’s a big difference between equality and equity. pic.twitter.com/n3XfQyjLNe
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) November 1, 2020
“Classical liberalism” holds that everyone should have an equal opportunity, but that equal outcomes would require tyranny. “Equity,” as Miss Harris uses the word, would require overwhelming government power.
Andrew Sullivan, who supports the Biden/Harris ticket:
Why would a vice presidential candidate seemingly endorse full-on Marxism days before a general election? Does she believe government should enforce equality of outcome for everyone? Seriously?
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) November 1, 2020
The use of a brown figure and white figure is an implicit admission that even with equal legal status, the races will still not perform equally. There are two explanations for this. One is that groups are not equal and will never be equal. The other is “systemic racism,” the idea that all institutions in American society conspire to reward white people. The latter is political orthodoxy, which ignores Asian performance. Andrew Sullivan knows which explanation is correct. Joe Biden clearly does not.
This is our moment to root out systemic racism and build a nation true to our founding ideals. A nation where all men and women are not only created equal — but treated equally.
Here’s how we’ll advance racial economic equity: https://t.co/Tjgyn1gR2V
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 2, 2020
What Mr. Biden is calling “Equal treatment,” is as deceptive as calling for “equal employment opportunity” when it means racial preferences. It would mean intrusive government discrimination on the basis of race. It would reward poor performance and create tremendous resentment.
Accepting race realism would bring social peace. More programs mean only more failure. Egalitarians must then define “racism” ever more broadly. Decades after the Civil Rights Act, we have what may be our next president saying our entire society is racist and we must “root out” this flaw. It’s like saying we must “root out” differences between men and women — something that could “progressives” might yet try.
Conservatives know that in economics, if you subsidize something, you get more of it. If people get more for not assimilating and for claiming they are victims, that’s what they will do. We will see more “Rachel Dolezals;” more people “switching” races or faking their identities so they can cash in. President Trump should be denouncing this; instead; he’s already accepted the Left’s premise by promising special rewards to blacks (“The Platinum Plan”) and Hispanics (“the American Dream Plan”). Whites get nothing except the bill.
President Trump could lose the election because he appealed to blacks and Hispanics rather than to the working-class whites who delivered victory in 2016. It’s not clear they will turn out as they did last time. If the President offered them something, they would vote for him. Mr. Trump treats his base with benign neglect, but that’s better than Democrats who will treat it with contempt.