The following story is brought to you courtesy of American Thinker. Click the link to visit their page and see more stories.
Equality means treating everyone with fairness. In a society governed by the principles of equality, every citizen has the same, or an equal, opportunity to achieve success regardless of age, gender, race, religion, political affiliation, or any other reason, save for the limitations of that individual’s qualifications and abilities. Laws are to be applied the same to individuals whether they happen to be rich or poor, black or white, or Republican or Democrat. Is the United States a fair society, where everyone has more or less an equal opportunity to achieve success? Yes and no. Only these two examples are necessary to prove that the United States provides equal opportunities for literally anyone with initiative: Barack Obama and Richard Montanez.
Of course, we all know that Barack Obama came from humble origins in Hawaii to become the first black president in U.S. history. In spite of only having a brief career as a community organizer and a longer stint as a politician, Obama has managed to rake in tens of millions of dollars for “writing” an absurd number of memoirs for a man who has accomplished remarkably little in his life.
But who the heck is Richard Montanez? The former janitor mopping the floors at the Frito Lay factory in Rancho Cucamonga, California was only earning four bucks an hour plus benefits when he pitched the idea of Flaming Hot Cheetos to Pepsi CEO Roger Enrico, a marketing concept that earned billions of dollars in profits. Obama received his juris doctor degree from Harvard, while Montanez jokes that he earned a PhD from being poor, hungry, and determined. By seizing his opportunity for success, Richard Montanez achieved the American dream and, in the process, earned a lot of equity from the new brand he helped create. His net worth today is estimated between $14 and $15 million dollars, and Montanez is currently CEO of the Cheetos brand. Not bad for a former janitor, right?
Is this a great country, or what?
The word equity simply means “ownership.” Consider this simplistic example as an illustration of how the concept of equity applies to a real-world scenario: If investor “A” and investor “B” decided to start a business together and each invested $1,000, each would own fifty percent of the equity in the company. But if “A” invested $1,000 and “B” only put in $100, in theory (and most likely reality) “B” would only own ten percent equity in the company. Isn’t that fair?
If “A” has more capital at stake, shouldn’t the percentage of ownership reflect the disproportionate risk “A” is taking in this new business? Of course, it’s fair, if everything else is equal. Nothing is stopping “B” from investing his or her time and labor to earn stock grants and increase the percentage of equity in the company, or to open his or her own business with other capital without using any money from “A.”
Please note that nothing in this scenario is being given for free: ownership in the company can either be bought or earned.
What is not fair is for investor “A” and investor “B” to put in equal amounts of capital and work for the company, and investor “B” to claim more than fifty percent ownership in the company simply because investor “A” and investor “B” happen to have differing degrees of melanin, or because “A” is a Republican and “B” is a Democrat.
That is discriminatory, and patently unfair. And why has the concept of equality versus equity suddenly become important?
Liberals are trying to exploit the fact that the words sound similar to push their agenda calling for the redistribution of wealth in an attempt to guarantee every American an equal outcome instead of ensuring they have an equal opportunity to succeed.
As proof, simply listen to what they say in these “educational” cartoon videos like this one from Maine’s Rising Tide Center and count how many times the word “give” is being used instead of “earned”, which isn’t mentioned at all. Nor is the word “merit.” The problem with this sort of gift exchange is the donor isn’t willing, and the recipient isn’t necessarily deserving. It’s all discriminatory and based on perceptions. If you want a haughty and much more verbose explanation using the same basic analogy of three kids standing on boxes to look over a fence, you might prefer this longer explanation from Carneades.org.
The problem with these examples is that they assume society as a whole ought to be giving these three kids trying to look over a fence to see a baseball game anything. What gives them the right to look over the fence without paying for the privilege? Why should they be allowed to watch the baseball game without buying a ticket? Why is it “fair” to take something of value from one individual without compensation so it can be given to another individual as a “free” gift?
If individual “A” gives his property to individual “B” by choice, it is called charity. If individual “B” takes the property of “A” by stealth or force, it is a crime either called theft or robbery. But to some liberals, the second scenario becomes perfectly legal when a group calling itself government robs or steals from individual “A”. The question then becomes, are government’s motives altruistic in nature, or self-serving?
The answer to that question can be found in a message from Joe Biden to a collection of black civil rights leaders in this leaked conference call from early December. Please, ignore the racist, incoherent nature of this rant beginning at 1:14 for a moment and think about what Joe is really trying to say:
“But my over-arching objective (is) if we cannot make significant progress on racial equity this country is doomed. It is doomed not just because of African Americans, but because by 2040 this country is going to be minority white European. You hear me? Minority white European. And you guys are going to have to start working more with Hispanics, who make up a larger portion of the population than y’all do in terms of raw numbers. We’re gonna have to be working with a whole group of people that are in fact the single most diverse democracy in American history and anywhere the world. And we’ve got to figure out how to unify this country. And you’ve been the leaders who are being able to do that. Not a joke.”
Joe claimed that the country is doomed, but what he really meant is that the Democratic Party’s strategy of divide-and-conquer identity politics is doomed because black liberals aren’t going to be able to blame white conservatives for their own lack of initiative forever. They only have until 2040 to figure out how to buy enough votes to win future elections.
Now Joe might be senile, but he isn’t stupid. He looked at the election returns from Florida and saw that Latino voters were repelled by Democratic plans for the redistribution of wealth. Joe may have offended Al Sharpton with his blunt assessment of reality, but his audience was largely comprised of people accustomed to receiving something for nothing, so mostly everyone stayed quiet and listened.
And they all heard Joe say the Democratic Party is running out of white people to rob.