Continuing to think about European socialism-style equality vs. the U.S. narrative of equal opportunity and the pursuit of happiness. Our version makes more sense in some ways – everyone starts out equal, but then people who work the hardest, have the best ideas, or are willing to take risks get rewarded. This makes sense as an ideal – combine it with a safety net for those who don’t succeed through no fault of their own, and it could be a nice, practical vision. The main problem is that it is a narrative that can be twisted and co-opted by the rich and powerful to write the rules unfairly in their favor, ultimately creating the opposite of equal opportunity. Even darker, it can lead to a narrative where people who benefit from the rules being unfairly in their favor find ways to rationalize their success, convincing first others and then themselves that they had superior talents to being with. Here’s an article from Shelterforce that makes some of these arguments:

Upon closer scrutiny, however, the meritocratic ideal turns out to be quite pernicious.  Summarizing the conclusion of my recent article on the subject, I find that, while this ideal is highly unlikely to achieve its core objectives (except maybe on the margins), its pursuit nonetheless creates “a competitive individualist ‘rat race’ of a society, fundamentally anti-communal and anti-familial, where group solidarity is uncommon and compassion muted.” And, worst of all, it ends up legitimizing—and thus reinforcing—the very social and economic inequality it purports to rectify…

In particular, much of liberal urban policy focuses on what liberals see as a kind of “unholy trinity” of barriers, as I have labeled it, that stem from inadequate schooling, troubled families, and poverty-impacted neighborhoods. Yet there is a great body of evidence showing that efforts to break down these barriers yield only marginal results in promoting meritocratic social mobility for the urban poor, while at the same time imposing significant costs on the most vulnerable.

Mostly notably, we see various school reforms fail over and over, and even enhanced higher education produces surprisingly limited impacts. As a result, we end up blaming the educational system for the failures of the rest of society, which in turn opens the door to corporate-oriented policies designed to privatize and monetize public schools. At the same time, programs that intervene into family life, unless highly intensive, also produce only minimal results, and when such interventions are intensive, they tend to violate the liberty of poor parents to autonomously direct the development of their children. Likewise, efforts to reduce barriers arising from the effects of poor neighborhoods via housing dispersal policies or the creation of mixed-income communities also have been generally disappointing, while often disconnecting the vulnerable from crucial familial and communal bonds.

I still think we should talk about how to make equal opportunity, with an appropriate safety net, a reality in this country, as an alternative to the European socialist model, which is the main alternative. These are really the only two humane options. What could true equal opportunity look like? For the sake of argument, let’s say we had a 100% inheritance tax, with the proceeds distributed equally to all newborn babies. Universal tax-funded education, up to and including the highest level of education and/or practical skills training needed to succeed in the economy, including continuing education for adults to adapt as technology and economic conditions change. Universal and equal access to health care. Excellent public infrastructure serving and connecting all urban areas. Low barriers to changing jobs or starting a business. Now you have a platform where people can compete and cooperate to build wealth. Some will work harder, innovate more, take more chances and earn more financial rewards. Others will choose to play it safer, devote more time to family and leisure, or just enjoy life’s experiences with less material wealth. You would still need unemployment and disability insurance for those who fall through the cracks through no fault of their own.