The Insidious Organising Principle of ‘Equality'

By Olivia Pierson
[First published on Incite 15/5/19]

In 1990, during a British parliamentary debate on the unequal gap between rich and poor, the late Dame Margaret Thatcher formidably scolded liberal democrat, Simon Hughes: 

"They’d rather have the poor poorer, provided the rich were less rich!  So long as the gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer. "
[Dame Margaret Thatcher]

Socialists of every stripe wrong-headedly target the gap between the wealthy and the poor – as if the gap is indicative of gross inequality, itself a result of oppression from the white patriarchy. Former President Obama blithered on in this fashion whenever he made pejorative references to the “one percent” of America’s wealthy as he busily went about heavily taxing them.  It is amusing, as well as ironic, to have one of those “one percenters” now occupying the Whitehouse as President while average wages for the poor have steadily risen and unemployment rates have dramatically decreased across all sectors of society.

New Zealand PM, Jacinda Ardern, also holds the same view as Obama (of course):

"I was raised the daughter of a policeman, and was a product of the 1980s where New Zealand went through a rapid period or privatisation and economic liberalisation. We called it Rogernomics after our Finance Minister of the time, in America the same phenomenon was called Reaganomics, and the impact on working families was similar. Jobs were lost, manufacturing moved off shore, regulations removed and the gap between rich and poor rapidly expanded."
[PM Jacinda Ardern]

But “equality” is not just a focus for socialists in economics, they use the term more broadly as a kind of moral weapon to push for equality in all aspects of life, such as gender pay equity and female quotas across boardrooms, school and tertiary administrations, hospitals, sporting, media and industry jobs and almost all other public and private institutions. As well as so-called gender equity, they also give a lot of attention to the issue of diversity (ethnic and sexual) in these same institutions – another superficial yard-stick of virtue used to measure the levels of fairness and inclusivity operating within them.

Anybody living in a Western country in the last 100 years can expect equality before the law (the right of a citizen) and equality of opportunity (the right to pursue achievements based on individual merit).  But this cultural environment of corporate and institutional peer-pressure to feign an image of fairness, is a rank communist attitude, disguising itself as something virtuous, but it’s not.  It is insidious, as Dr. Jordan Peterson takes the time to point out in this article.

Where might it end?  

An adorable couple from China, John and Julia, lived with our family for two years while they waited to be granted political asylum in New Zealand, as the 1980s drew to a close.  I was then expecting my second child and John fussed over me like a devoted mother hen, always checking on my condition, often placing a gentle hand on my belly while saying, “You have good healthy baby inside! I know!”  And I did.  John had been a skilled surgeon and obstetrician living in Beijing throughout the rule of the communists.

In the name of “fairness” and “equality” in the hospital he had worked in, John was suddenly demoted to a janitor and the janitors were suddenly promoted to obstetricians and surgeons – and he had to stand in the room holding a mop while watching the horrific results. Their only son fled to Taiwan and tragically disappeared, which hastened John and Julia’s flight to New Zealand.  We were together watching the news on TV when Tank Man demonstrated in Tiananmen Square and I’ll never forget John shooting to his feet in tears of excitement and fear. They became much loved, extended members of our family, but sadly, their quest for asylum was not successful. John and Julia were deported back to China and we lost contact.

Hyper-vigilantly proportioning people round our work places is not a natural flow of talent being allocated where it’s duly deserved.  No.  This is a morbid obsession with equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity and it does not bode well for a society when ideologues meddle with one in such a way. 

If you enjoyed this article, please buy my book "Western Values Defended: A Primer" ​​​​​​​​​​

It’s only fair to share! :-)