I’ve been told that the concept of equality of outcome was created by conservatives to demonize the left, and that no one on the left would ever talk about equality of outcome unless forced to by a conservative. Apparently Larry Summers, former Treasury secretary under Clinton and former economic adviser to Obama, didn’t get the memo.
“The reality is that inequality is likely to continue to rise, even with all that can responsibly be done to increase tax burdens on those with high incomes and redistribute the proceeds… The global track record of populist policies motivated by inequality concerns is hardly encouraging. However, passivity in the face of dramatic economic change is equally unlikely to be viable. Perhaps the debate and policy focus needs to shift from inequality in outcomes, where attitudes divide sharply and there are limits to what can be done, to inequalities in opportunity.” [Emphasis mine]
-Larry Summers, 15-Jul-12 (Link)
Summers used to work for Obama as an advisor. Why are you criticizing his policies? You obviously don't like Summers just because he used to work for a black man. I cannot believe the racism that still exists in the Republican party.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was channeling my inner progressive and I had to get that crap OUT of me for good.
I thought maybe you'd gone over to the dark side. The rebuttal I was expecting was the No True Scotsman fallacy, namely that Summers isn't really on the left.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, it was he who said that boys and girls are different. Liberal heresy! Of course, they made him resign as president of Harvard as a result.
I take your point to be that Summers speaks in the terms you mention (equality/inequality of outcomes) when theoretically no left-liberal would voluntarily do that; therefore he is the exception that disproves the theory (assuming Summers belongs to the left-liberal group). Point well taken. So far, so good.
ReplyDeleteBut the quote itself seems to take him out of the left-liberal orbit, doesn't it? First he admits (in your highlighted statement) that the equality-of-outcomes approach has not changed outcomes. Then, after a brief transitional statement, he comes out flat-footed with a position most conservatives would agree with (or at least not oppose), which is equality of opportunity -- which I take to mean freedom of the individual to participate in commerce and politics -- and let the outcomes take care of themselves.
According to the theory you outlined at the top, Summers (if left-liberal) normally would not even discuss "equality of outcomes" as a frame of reference. But neither would he be expected to contradict the presumed left-liberal position that outcomes should be equal. Yet he does both. Obviously that combination should mark him as a heretic on the left. He's only one strike away from excommunication.
But that tends to support the opening theory. Actually he isn't batting with the left, so it remains a valid assumption that nobody on the left would discuss "equality of outcomes" unless baited into it by the oppositon.
This leaves open the possibility that he might be a liberal, but there's no way to call him a leftist liberal. In fact he sounds more like a classic liberal in the above passage. So maybe we should just welcome him into the fold. Adopt him. And let the lefties go nuts denouncing that. LOL.
The following comment on this post comes from John Myste, albeit posted at Fair and Unbalanced:
ReplyDelete"To be fair to Mr. Heathen, it was his contention, it would seem, that Larry Summers invented the conservative idea of "Equality of Outcome."
"While I think this conservative invention preceded Summers, I appreciate the try.
"The idea that all people should be paid equal wages and have identical standards of living is not a liberal idea; nor is it supported by any party.
"Mr. Heathen desperately grasps for someone he thinks lives on the left who believes this conservative invention so he can argue that the conservative-created concept is a tenet of liberalism.
"I would think one would instead try to prove his philosophy, which is more powerful than inventing a philosophy as a tenet of the left and then trying to refute your invention.
"He has devoted tons of time trying to disprove the idea that everyone should have identical standards of living, be paid identically, and rewarded identically, regardless of effort, motivation and skill on the part of the individual.
"He has been pretty successful arguing this, so it was time well spent. I am not sure why it took him so long, though; especially since he had tremendous trouble finding anyone who disagrees."
"To be fair to Mr. Heathen, it was his contention, it would seem, that Larry Summers invented the conservative idea of "Equality of Outcome. While I think this conservative invention preceded Summers, I appreciate the try."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how this is being fair since I do not contend that Summers invented the phrase "equality of outcome." I point out that people on the left use and understand the term, a term that you have claimed is an invention of the right. If it were an invention of the right, the left would not use it on their own.
"The idea that all people should be paid equal wages and have identical standards of living is not a liberal idea; nor is it supported by any party. Mr. Heathen desperately grasps for someone he thinks lives on the left who believes this conservative invention so he can argue that the conservative-created concept is a tenet of liberalism."
In fact, while the left will not say it in such explicit terms, the fact of inequal wages or non-identical standards of living are the left's proof of inequality. In other words, if an unequal outcome exists, then the world is unequal. It doesn't matter to the left if opportunities are equal and no discrimination takes place as long as the outcomes prove their point.
Larry Summers is on the left. He recognizes that the left's focus on equality of outcome is benefitting no one and he has come around (mostly) to the conservative way of thinking.
This doesn't mean he isn't still on the left, just that he is open to reason. It also means that the left understands "equality of outcome" and simply refuses to acknowledge it openly because they know how ridiculous it is.
In fact, while the left will not say it in such explicit terms, the fact of inequal wages or non-identical standards of living are the left's proof of inequality. In other words, if an unequal outcome exists, then the world is unequal. It doesn't matter to the left if opportunities are equal and no discrimination takes place as long as the outcomes prove their point.
ReplyDeleteYou made this up, Mr. Heathen. The left does not use this metric. They use the metric that if gross inequality of outcome exists, beyond rational expectation, there may be some indication of cause other than the quick conclusion that those who are less successful are simply inferior. For example, if "blacks" seem to commit an inordinate amount of crime, it may not mean that they are simply a morally bankrupt or otherwise inferior race. For example, oppressed people in general may commit more crime, and that is not because of race.
For you to assume that someone who tries to scientifically examine data must seek equality of outcome because the GOP says equality of outcome is all about inferiority is utterly unscientific, even absurd.
Also, the last comment Ryan made on Fair and Unbalance, where you disengaged, seemed pretty powerful.
I don't really believe that you believe that the left seeks equality of outcome, as there is no evidence to suggest this, and you would have to contort even the best confirmation bias into a thicketed pretzel to draw that conclusion. I think by pretending you think this, you are grossly exaggerating and reinventing a philosophy for the left in order to express your frustration with their different interpretation of "equality of opportunity," which we have discussed in some depth on both your site and mine in the past, back when you attempted to argue your philosophy philosophically.
"For you to assume that someone who tries to scientifically examine data must seek equality of outcome because the GOP says equality of outcome is all about inferiority is utterly unscientific, even absurd."
ReplyDeleteI make no such assumptions. You made this up.
"Also, the last comment Ryan made on Fair and Unbalance, where you disengaged, seemed pretty powerful."
I haven't disengaged, but Fair and Unbalanced doesn't send me an email when someone posts a new comment, so I have to remember to check back.
I enjoy the debates with Ryan and would not voluntarily disengage. He's as interesting as you used to be when you had the stomach for debate.
"I don't really believe that you believe that the left seeks equality of outcome, as there is no evidence to suggest this, and you would have to contort even the best confirmation bias into a thicketed pretzel to draw that conclusion."
Your past comments on this subject are all the proof anyone needs. While denying that you yourself believe in equality of outcome, you peppered your comments with outcome-based evidence. When a policy is clearly equal on its face, if outcomes differ, the left claims the policy is unequal, as measured by the outcomes alone.
"...back when you attempted to argue your philosophy philosophically."
If you think your repeated use of this attack makes any sense to me, you are wrong. I know you think something has changed around here and all of my posts are now partisan nonsense. But I continue to argue my philosophy the way I always have. I continue to mix in partisan posts with analytical posts and ideological posts. Nothing has changed.
If you are sincere in your criticism -- which I doubt -- why don't you provide me with some evidence of your charge. Show me in my recent posts how I have changed so dramatically from the posts you used to like.
Give HR a break, John! Heck he didn't even use charts in this particular post! :)
ReplyDelete"Also, the last comment Ryan made on Fair and Unbalance, where you disengaged, seemed pretty powerful."
ReplyDeleteSorry John, it looks like you're on your own here. Ryan and I actually agree.
I guess you'll have to make your own arguments instead of relying on Ryan to fight your battles.
Sorry John, it looks like you're on your own here. Ryan and I actually agree.
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy! You and I have fought this battle many times, including the commentary you ignored above.
Additionally, he said "OK, we agree," and then offered further disagreement. He stated that this "equality of outcome" was a result of historical discrimination. In other words, he noted that "equality of outcome" is not the liberal goal, but "lack of discrimination" is the liberal goal, which I also believe.
John, you're clearly only half paying attention.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I too have a goal of no discrimination. The problem is how the left defines discrimination and inequality, and Ryan and I agree that the left seeks out inequality, even when it doesn't exist, and they do it by using outcomes to define inequality.
Stop being so contentious and stop relying on others to make the arguments you want to make.
HR said: "The global track record of populist policies motivated by inequality concerns is hardly encouraging"
ReplyDeleteThat is an understatement. These policies are at the root of most of the worst atrocities and mass murders of all time. Most.
This type of idea was a big part of what drove Nazis. They demonized their perceived 1% and claimed to spoke for the people. This type of idea is at the root of Marxism, and is what drove Mao, Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, and their ilk.
In the US the damage is rather small, but you do so this thuggish ignorant "blame the other" greed in such situations as the WTO riots in Seattle, where anti-free-trade leftist blackshirts had their own Kristallnacht where they went around destroying small businesses. Or the "Occupy" movement and their squalid rape camps and threats of violence against those less lazy and more successful than themselves.