Geo. Will; Income inequality Oct 20^th

The title of George Will’s column today is, “Is economic inequality really a moral imperative?” Rather predictably George claims that it isn’t; but then I’m not sure anyone ever said it was! (Moral imperative is a term derived from Kants’ categorical imperatives; ideas that are intrinsic to human consciousness and must be acted upon.) Kant’s philosophy aside, there has always been economic inequality, there will always be economic inequality; the issue is not “if there should be,” but how much should there be.

Will begins by taking a swipe at Roosevelt’s New Deal which he claims addressed “unequal social conditions.” Will was born in 1941 so his personal experience with the New Deal would have been well after the fact…and it shows. The depression was not so much about unequal economic opportunity as it was about many people having no economic opportunity at all; in 1933 the country’s unemployment rate was 25 percent; in 1940 when Will was a year old it was still at 15 percent.

Will rightly points out that, “Not even free universal public education can equalize the ability of people to add value to the economy.” Of course it can’t! People are not equally endowed with health, intellect or ambition. The government, however, should not involve itself in erecting barriers which increase the handicaps inherent in biological differences. Indeed the government in a civilized society should work to minimize the effect of its citizens’ biological inadequacies. Mr. Will and his friends on the right seem to want no part in that sort of equalization.

While differences in wealth accumulation are inevitable, as Will points out, it does not follow that extreme differences are a good thing. Forbes has estimated that in 2015 there were 5 thousand American households worth more than 100 million dollars, many of them much more. The leading Republican candidate for the Presidency has advanced a tax plan which allows the transfer of this wealth to survivors tax free. He is wildly popular of course and would be a major beneficiary of his own tax plan.

Will points to a Princeton philosophy professor’s claim that people should find satisfaction with economic sufficiency and not be envious of “the quantity of money that other people happen to have.” A portion of the money that other people “happen to have” would help improve our infrastructure and our employment picture. The philosopher says ignore that and just “cultivate your garden.”

Will claims that Sanders “focuses less on empathy for the poor than on stoking the discontent of those who are comfortable but envious.” The discontent that Will talks about is discontent for the plight of the poor not the envy that he and his philosopher friend discuses. As J wrote earlier, concern for others is the centerpiece of civilized society. Mr. Will and his philosopher friend might eventually get there.