Defending my stance

It's been well over a year since this blog has been updated, but I got struck with inspiration this week and needed to get my ideas out.

The election is a little over two weeks away, and the divide between our two most vocal and prominent political factions seems to grow each day. I feel this at home, where my mother and I are on complete opposite sides of the opinion spectrum on nearly every issue. This evokes a lot of emotions for me: frustration, confusion, disappointment. But it also led me to ask myself, "How would I explain my position if I had to?" Often, I fall back on women's reproductive issues, gay marriage, and other social issues. But my mom is a small business owner, so I feel the need to explain my position from a fiscal standpoint too.

I am not an economist. I am not "business-savvy," "money-minded," or entrepreneurial. Nor am I familiar with tax-related legislature of any kind. I am, I would assume, just as ignorant about complex economic issues as the average American. Don't be offended by that statement; if you are knowledgeable in any way, I commend you and I consider you to be above average.

But there is one phrase that I can lock onto: "redistribution of wealth." This seems to really fire up conservatives. To an extent, I agree with some of their claims. Redistribution of wealth is unfair. It is limiting to those at the top. It does have the potential to sap one's ambition to succeed. I can see all of those points. But redistribution of wealth is also what's best for our country.

The United States of America is not seen by others (including the thousands of immigrants who clamor to arrive here) as the Land of Opportunity because a few people can afford to own private jets. It's because nearly everyone here can afford to eat meat three times a day. Some people may emigrate here in the hopes of becoming a millionaire, but most people emigrate here in the hopes of having a comfortable, secure home, access to education and healthcare, and some creature comforts that seem like bare necessities to many Americans (perhaps a car, or indoor climate control, or the ability to take a small vacation, or hot water from the tap).

I know I'm generalizing here. Bear with me. My point is that the American Dream is the lure of middle-class living, not millionaire excess.

People who get really angry at the concept of wealth redistribution seem to want to have it both ways. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to personally benefit, without limit, from their hard work, but they also want the country to somehow benefit too.

Let's say a family is stranded on a desert island. One person in that family is good enough at hunting to kill a boar. The others aren't fast enough or strong enough. And that one person doesn't want to share her food with the others because, well, that's not fair. But she also doesn't want her family to die of starvation. She wants the rest of her family to simply get good enough at hunting to fend for themselves. That way, they can all survive, and it still happened fairly. Without breaking the rules. Without giving anyone what they didn't earn.

Now, redistribution of wealth isn't about life or death (OR IS IT??), but this is the analogy that seems to work best for me. Wealthy Americans who are doing well for themselves want to keep their profits, but they also want to keep America at the top. But America stays at the top because of how well everyone is doing, not how well a few people are doing. And for many, many reasons, everyone can't make it all by themselves. And regardless of those reasons--regardless of whether they opted to be unambitious, or they just had some bad luck, or they made foolish choices, or they were unexpectedly saddled with caring for someone else--is it worth it to keep all our resources separated, even for people who have a lot to spare, and allow America as a whole to founder, all in the name of fairness and capitalism?

I think that "redistribution of privilege" has the same problem. People believe in leveling the playing field in theory, but not giving up their edge in the college admissions process or the job market in reality. But that's another post for another day.

I'm sure that my ideas have a lot of holes in them. For example, they seem to stray toward socialism/communism, and I'm not smart enough to explain how wealth redistribution is a safe distance from socialism. But it seems like those opposed to redistribution are opposed on the basis of certain principles (fairness, bootstrapping), without proper regard to realistic consequences.

Readers, please educate me. Tell me what you think, explain the deeper issues, oppose my arguments.

*This post assumes that 1)everyone thinks America is "on top" and 2) being on top is a good thing for everyone. I know those premises are not given by all. Again, another post for another day.