I saw something recently, though I cannot give you chapter
and verse, which rehearsed unthinkingly the idea that our problem was not so
much with poverty as with “inequality”.
I have addressed this issue before. Christopher Snowdon
demolished Wilson and Picket, authors of a dreary pamphlet about inequality of
income and its allegedly pernicious effects. Snowdon does a good and necessary
job. I, on the other hand (not being a statistician, as he is), take a
different point of view. I take a moral point of view. I am a moralist and I hope
you are too. What society can survive unless its members take morality
seriously? There are moral giants: St Paul, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, C
S Lewis, for example. [BTW, I did try to think of a moral giant outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition; only Ghandi presented himself and I decided against him.] I
am not one of them; nor do I even hope to encounter one among my readers.
Inequality is a fact of life. I am taller than most other
worshippers at the 11:30 Mass at St Ann’s every Sunday. My niece is more
beautiful than your niece. Profound apologies for these inequalities.
Many of my schoolmates have been more successful
economically (and in other terms) than I. One is a Knight of the Realm. Another
has been President of the Bar. Another is a professor at Oxford. Facts of life. These three certainly worked harder
than me and were probably better endowed in the nous department.
The players in all divisions below the Premiership are not
as good at playing football as the guys at Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, etc.
Where is the breast beating over these facts of life?
Some people are better at making money than others. I am not
talking about those who are better at gaming the system but those whose
abilities and hard work have resulted in substantial (perhaps spectacular)
financial rewards. Suddenly, the breast beating becomes deafening. There is no
reason why this should be. It is simply a fact of life. Bill Gates is smarter
and harder working than me (and you).
Bizarrely, this last group are the only ones that the egalitarians go after. Nobody supposes that Rio
Ferdinand should be mutilated or prevented from training because he is so good
at kicking a ball.
The egalitarians do propose that we should artificially, by
means of the tax system, cut the money makers down to size.
Egalitarian-in-Chief, Barak Hussein Obama, wants to enforce high tax rates on “millionaires
and billionaires” in the name of “fairness”, regardless of whether it would
result in more tax revenue. He expresses contempt for the “millionaires and billionaires”,
asserting that “you did not build that”. We could turn his argument against
him: but for the corrupt Chicago machine, you would not even be an Illinois
Senator. Cheap. We don’t need to. America’s entrepreneurs of “the golden age” succeeded
in spite of government corruption. They helped to build the infrastructure
which BHO claims is the exclusive gift of government.
He is not only the worst US president ever (in practical economic
terms), but morally deficient. Regrettably, he is not alone.
Curiously enough,
being a crappy (the crappiest ever) president in practical economic terms,
chimes well with being (in the “progressive” tradition) the saboteur of moral
values among those whose well-being most demands a return to America’s core
values, thrift, hard work and honesty.
Last word: Charles Murray, who deserves a place in my list
of heroes, issues a heart-felt plea to educated, upper-class Americans: Preach
what you practice! These people marry, worship and defer gratification. They
succeed; they enjoy “earned success” and yet so many of them vote Democrat.
No comments:
Post a Comment