What did it really mean?
When it was written it surely referred only to white men since women were not free to vote and people brought to our shores as slaves were certainly given only a very limited freedom with which to pursue happiness. Until the middle of the 19th century, slaves were still considered to be property. And surely American Indians were not considered equal nor were Chinese Coolies who were brought in to work on the rail system.
Well, now even though there is still discrimination based on race, gender or national origin, most Americans would say that they believe that all Americans and perhaps even all people are equally human and should receive equal opportunity to excel (as long as it does not interfere with our own ambitions and those of our loved ones).
But are we all created equal?
Do we all have equal parents, equal genes, equal intelligence, equal attractiveness, equal health, equal education, equal experiences, equal financial security, equal integrity, equal talent, equal perseverance or equal faith? Are all doctors, or athletes, or lawyers, or teachers, or parents equal? Are all of our sub-cultures equal at least relatively? Do we all have equal opportunity to succeed in whatever we attempt? Do we all enjoy life to the same degree or even close to the same degree?
Is the illegitimate child of a junkie living in the projects really equal in any of these respects to the child of a loving, well educated and well-to-do family that can send their child to the best schools and share the most enriching environments? Do children raised around the worst possible role models really have an equal chance at the future?
And when the children born of advantage manage to succeed, is that success and all that goes with it really theirs alone? Should they feel free to look down at those who were much less fortunate for not turning their lives around? Should the financially well-compensated resent having to give significant percentages of their generous incomes to help those who have not fared as well? Should they cite survival of the fittest as their battle cry against sharing the wealth?
I think that these questions are relevant because we are now forced to consider raising taxes very significantly on the rich in order to help those who have inadequate education, health insurance, housing, nutrition and/or opportunity. We must do it not only because it is the decent thing to do but because even if we do not really believe that each American citizen has an equal right to succeed, we each believe deep down that we are just as human as the next person.
We all have thoughts and feelings, we all have bodies that are mortal and vulnerable. We all need food, water and air to live, we all must sleep and eliminate our waste products and we all bleed when cut. We all feel pleasure and pain. We all want to survive and to live in relative comfort and security. We all want to love and be loved in return. We are all trying to maintain or improve our self-esteem - our reputation with ourselves.
I think that this is the cause of most crime. The inherent feeling in the criminal that he is somehow equal to those he preys upon even though their lives seem otherwise. The car thief may be thinking that he deserves that nice car just as much as its rightful owner does. The businessman who cheats his clients may believe deep down that they don’t really deserve to have their money as much as he does. The suicide bomber, so common now in the Middle East, may figure that if he can’t be equal in this lifetime, maybe he can get a leg up on the hereafter.
Not that this is any excuse for improper behavior, but it is an explanation.
Is it then our society’s responsibility to level the playing field so that people in our country can have some real hope for success in this land of presumed equality?
To this end, should those fortunate enough to be able to earn and control tremendous amounts of money be obliged to share more of their wealth with the less fortunate to make up for disadvantages in health care coverage, education, housing and nutrition access? Would this discourage hard work, creativity and risk-taking among the advantaged while only making the unfortunates more dependent and less likely to succeed on their own in the future? Should we let nature work its evolutionary magic on the future of our people? Or should we institute a caste system allowing a certain segment of our society to remain above the rest and another that will forever be at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid?
We could then say that we are all equal but that some are more so than others as they did in Animal Farm.
I think that I have an answer for these questions.
Today, in America, its 300 million citizens, be they male or female, young or old, black, white, yellow, brown or red, rich or poor should be able to pursue life, liberty and happiness to their maximum potential and no American should be homeless, hungry, ignorant or without medical attention when needed. Every American is at least equally deserving of these basic rights.
While each individual is responsible for his or her actions, it falls on society to seek concurrence about what the society should be like and what each member is expected to do toward that end. While parents must teach their children, the parents must have a guide, a lesson plan. That plan should come from the consensus and it should be taught in our schools and reinforced in the workplace and offices of government.
Without taking a nationwide poll, it is possible to come up with certain values that members of our society can agree on. We can agree that while business has the right to make a profit, it does not have a right to become greedy or gluttonous. The profit a business makes must be a result of completely honest business practices. Companies and individuals should be held accountable for maintaining high standards of integrity.
While we all can agree that some people deserve greater compensation for their work than others, the degree of difference must be within reason. One person’s work product may be worth ten or twenty times that of another, it should not be thousands of times greater as it is now for movie stars, super athletes, financiers, CEO’s and opinionators (like Glenn, Sean, Rush, Bill O. and Savage).
Could we realize that while we each are different, excelling in some areas but not in others, we each are here for a reason and we are necessary parts of an infinite whole? Just as the nose is better at smelling, the foot is better for walking and our eyes are better for seeing. Each part of the human body is different but necessary for the functioning of the entire body. Every part deserves to get blood and oxygen even though some parts seem to be bigger consumers than others.
In our human drama, it seems that even the people with the least to offer have an important role to play. If we were equal physically, there would be no cause for compassion. If we were all equally gifted, there would be no cause for kindness. If we all acted equally there would be no cause for tolerance.
Let us strive to ensure that all Americans receive at least the basic ingredients for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Surely we are all equal to that much human dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment