Reframing Inequity

It seems as though when the concept of inequality is discussed people on both sides of the political aisle immediately assume we are talking about equal outcomes, or lack of equal outcomes. We start the debate around the wrong topic, and therefore rather than solutions for how to address inequity, we squabble about the concept. Because we aren't able to reframe this conversation, we - on the right and left - talk about the unfairness of inequality: either the horrible conditions of poverty or the concept of redistribution of resources and class warfare.

Ultimately of course, we need more equal outcomes, but we can't start the conversation there. America isn't about equal outcomes, it is about equal opportunity. Reducing inequality will never happen by investing money on the back end and hoping that whatever program - food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, etc - will give their recipients a drastically higher quality of life. These programs are helpful, but they don't elevate people out of poverty, and they never will.

But if we invest in equal opportunities we can make a huge difference in creating equal outcomes. There will never be 100% equal outcomes, but we can certainly help reduce inequality by reducing the opportunity gap that is at the foundation of life outcomes.

There is no shortage of programs from which to pick that we should be investing in and strengthening: public education and universal access to public pre-kindergarten first and foremost. Job training programs and stronger community colleges and technical schools are important as well. We must make sure people have access to healthcare and the means to pay for it. If we empower people by investing in them and then step aside, we will free them up to make the decisions that are best for them. Our investment in equal opportunity - the foundation upon which our country is built - will reap more equal outcomes.

We should never strive for preordained equal outcomes. It is unfeasible, and in fact, some inequality is good. It drives the system. But good inequality is not extreme, and it does not mean there needs to be a large semi-permanent underclass. Strong social safety nets should be in place to help our neediest citizens, but there should be fewer needy citizens. We can make that a reality if we give people opportunities earlier in life and support in tough times, not by sending them meager checks each month.

As President Obama pointed out this week, extreme inequality is a problem. It is a moral problem, an economic problem, a social problem, and a political problem. People lose faith in systems in which they are not stakeholders. The promise of our system is a chance for everyone, and we haven't been delivering on that promise. Poverty is a moral blight, but it also rends the social fabric and sense of unity we need for our country to function. The fewer invested stakeholders, the less investment and effort, the more unrest and frustration. This cycle exacerbates other problems, and if we follow this road long enough we run into our friend Karl Marx. Let's not take that road.

The next time the President addresses inequality, I hope he talks about how we can really fix it, not with the same old battles, programs, and talking points both political parties awkwardly throw around because they lack fresh ideas, but with a concerted effort to empower Americans and let us continue to unleash our creativity and talents to make things better.