Bumper Sticker Wisdom on Freedom

I recently saw a bumper sticker, also sent out over the internet, saying:

"Free People are Not Equal and Equal People are Not Free,"

      It sounds cute, so it must be profound. It is a pretzel that takes some thinking, but if you untwist it you should see that it actually trumpets a total misunderstanding of Democracy in America. I take it as an announcement to persuade us that under normal circumstances the talented will naturally rise to the top and the poor and untalented will, of course, settle to the bottom. The statement infers that by the promotion of un-natural equality, the rich and well positioned people are denied their due by giving inappropriate equality to the undeserving poor and simple minded. If equality prevails, the genetically gifted and accomplished people become cheated of their earned blessings in the forced leveling.

      This pretzel-ed epigram would only be expressed by one who considers himself more than equal and is irked by the way the spread of equality cramps and devalues his natural superiority. It is a statement decrying how the less gifted folk flatten out the Bell Curve. Pasting this sticker on your car bumper would announce that you are in favor of turning democracy on its head, for the author of this mind bender puts our freedom-seeking Founding Fathers in the position of having fought for inequality.

      Proponents of this kind of quip try to slip its confounding sagacity into place by clothing the disadvantaged with the Halloween costume of "socialism."  I am continually amazed by how underneath it all the word "socialism" has been co-opted to serve the purposes of a political agenda that has nothing to do with governmental "socialism." The word was originally coined (and stands its ground in our dictionaries) meaning state government that takes control, 100 percent, of the production and commercial institutions, meaning government that runs the whole show. Such a scheme would truly be the enemy of our capitalistic system. Any good entrepreneur should fear this. But, for lack of trust in the virtues of democracy, these critics grab hold of the choicest fear mongering term--Communism--and reinvent the meaning of "socialism" to imply it is a synonym for this enemy. They cart forth socialism carrying the freight of "Communism" and all that that implies. (Recently Donald Trump could not resist adding this re-coining deception to his vocabulary.) Yes socialism in that "political sense" is an enemy to our democratic heritage and the energy that capitalistic freedom supplies. However, critics of whoever happens to be in power can't seem to be able to resist the temptation to apply the word "socialism" in this new meaning. They use it to criticize anything that has to do with social assistance. Anything "social" becomes "socialism" by this new coinage.

      This isn't just etymological evolution of word meaning, it is a ploy devised to deceive the politically untutored; even college educated people join the unlearned on this point. Also, it should be noticed that these investigators of "socialism" only mean to eliminate government assistance to the powerless. They use "capitalism" as a game to win and take home freedom's treasures, and proclaim how undeserving the losers are. The raw tools used in the new capitalist playoff game are competition by regulative legislation, tax advantages, lobbying influence, bailouts, etc. He who has the most money, with "proper" government assistance, determines who deserves the trophy. Cheating is redefined. Squirreling away the good food becomes the virtue, and those without are called the cheaters for clamoring for a share.

      Social "assistance" is not a political concept; it is a humanitarian and a Christian practice that, in America's colonial experience, was a model we have distorted or at least forgotten. Before our national system was set up with our new Constitution of 1787, social assistance to those disabled by illness, sudden loss, indigence, mental distress, or homelessness were assisted by town welfare, church involvement, neighborly pitching in. When there was a need, but "government" was not up to it, the need was handled, not despised. Now some would define proper government as letting the needy expire because of their unworthiness.

      To castigate “assistance” by calling it "socialism" is to throw poisoned darts at the Old Testament concept of "jubilee"---the scheduled, periodic forgiveness of debt by creditors and the return of property taken by capitalistic gain (to use a modern term). I recognize, though, that preaching this unappreciated biblical virtue is to call for a fresh revolutionary uprising by the "people" whom Lincoln named as the source of democratic government, in his famous phrase---of, by and for the people.

                                                                                                                                     Doug Good