Why Are There Rich Liberals?
La Shawn Barber points us to this
excellent TCS article. The writer, Keith Burgess-Jackson, is a professor of philosophy, and it is evident from the painstaking way he assembles his argument.
A recurring theme in liberal thought is that wealth and poverty are undeserved. Where we end up in the social hierarchy, liberals say, depends far more on happenstance than on merit. Some people are born to advantage, others to disadvantage. But luck shouldn't play a role in people's fates, they say, so society must intervene -- coercively -- to equalize wealth, or at least move in that direction.
To be fair, liberals don't think that all is luck. They realize that effort, initiative, discipline, risk-taking, hard work, and sacrifice play a role in where individuals end up in the social hierarchy. But they think it's a small and insignificant role. By the same token, conservatives don't think that all is merit. They realize that luck plays a role in where individuals end up in the social hierarchy. But they think it's a small and insignificant role.
Conclusion:
Fortunately, most liberals grow out of liberalism by the time they reach middle age. I have. Several of my friends, family members, colleagues, and acquaintances have. But not all do. It's important to understand why some do not. I believe it's because there are degrees of guilt. The guiltiest of liberals -- those who worked least hard for what they have -- remain liberal the longest. Their guilt, which is unmitigated and intense, is projected indiscriminately and relentlessly onto everyone else. This is leveling with a vengeance. In this perverse way, liberals atone for their imagined sins.
Think of, say, Barbra Streisand. Fabulously wealthy and fabulously liberal. Now, don't get me wrong, I am sure Barbra worked hard to get to where she got to be. But I'm sure that she would also acknowledge the role of good fortune--she was lucky to be born with an excellent singing voice.
