Any normal person recoils at the idea that certain whole groups of people are in some way inferior to other whole groups of people. This presumption of equality is the obvious outcome of the centuries-long fight against racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
The converse ideal is that while whole groups of people cannot be characterized as better or worse than another, the same is not true of individuals. If an entrepreneur builds a successful business and makes a lot of money, this isn't seen as a crime - that is the American Dream! Obviously, that individual will have had to have out-competed others who were ultimately less successful, but that is the outcome of the game that everyone is playing.
Unfortunately, nowadays this idea is under attack on numerous fronts.
Previously I have commented on the distaste for political candidates that appear "elitist". In this case, the moniker is intended as a slur that implies that the candidate thinks he or she is better than those being governed. This characterization is usually refuted with an unseemly amount of blustering, etc. because it is true - only an egomaniac would become a politician! Politicians are obviously elitist - they feel that they are the only ones capable of leading The People.
Never mind for a second the unconscionable intrusion of government into our lives. Let's assume for a second that government was always benevolent and always acted in the best interests of The People. Why on earth would we not want the very best possible people handling that responsibility?
This applies to everything. If one of your beloved required a delicate surgery, wouldn't you want the very best surgeon you could find (and afford)? Of course.
How about if you were facing a life sentenced to prison, wouldn't you want the best lawyer around? Obviously.
If you are learning a new skill, wouldn't you want to learn from the individual whose skill is recognized to surpass that of everyone else? Naturally.
Flip this around: if one of your beloved required a delicate surgery, would you howl in protest if a surgeon obviously less experienced were substituted? What if the surgeon had a history of less-than-favorable outcomes? I don't need to go through more examples, since this is obvious once you actually think about it.
Clearly, when we discuss "equality", we do not mean that everyone should be treated equally in all situations. That is not what I mean when I use the term, nor what any normal person means.
Some (I call them "Equalists") feel implicitly that anything that discriminates against another individual for any reason is bad. This is the same line of thinking that now results in kids in school getting "participation" awards, even if they didn't win (so we don't damage their self-esteem!).
This is an hopelessly retarded world view. No matter what people would like, the world separates individuals into winners and losers. Some people are better than others at certain things, and there is nothing wrong with that! In fact, most people expect the world to work that way. Only the most foolish would willingly substitute an inferior surgeon for a crack one.
This does not mean that certain groups of people are better than others. I do not discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, or who they share their bed with, or what genitalia they were born with (or have acquired since birth). However, I definitely discriminate based on your merits. This does not even mean that you have to be "intelligent"! If my car is broken, as long as the mechanic that fixes it is a genius in his field, I don't care if he can discuss Proust or opine on the relative merits of string theory and M-theory - he's great at what he does, and that's all that matters to me!
Does it damage the self-esteem of my figurative mechanic for him to know that he stinks at theoretical physics? No! It just means he's not going to be working at CERN anytime soon. And if he aspires to work at CERN, he'd better get cracking! You only get to work there if you're tremendously adept at particle physics, even if you couldn't tell a carburetor from a radiator to save your life!
It's the idiotic conflation of "equality" and "self-esteem", and "merit" and "damaging to self-esteem" that really gets me. If a kid at school participates in some event, and isn't the best at it, that's too bad! He'd better work harder at it, or forget about doing it in the future.
If Little Johnny always wanted to be the quarterback, he'd better be good at the position. I don't want him playing for my team unless he's the best we've got! Same thing if Little Johnny wants to be a world-class brain surgeon, or lawyer, or mechanic, or President, or anything else.
LESSON: It's time to take back merit from the Equalists.
No comments:
Post a Comment