Or, The Tango of Equality and Liberty

The main point I was trying to make in Part II – and which Chris was kind enough to back up with real-deal-holyfield research – was that my reaction came from the gut … or, that is, from the DNA. It was a violent and spontaneous response that spewed forth before I gave the situation any kind of cognitive thought. I also tried to argue in the comments that my reaction wasn’t inspired by my empathy or the wealthy woman’s callousness, but rather, a disruption of some arbitrary concept I obviously hold dearly: “equality.”

I have seen similar, impassioned reactions come from conservatives, but predictably, it has nothing to do with equality. Just bring up eminent domain with a rabid conservative and you will see their blood pressure double, fists will curl, immediately they’ll sit on the edge of their seats. In fact, any issue in which a state government exerts its authority over individuals or businesses is likely to result in sudden, stammering condemnation. The arbitrary concept held so dearly: “liberty.”

My main point is that these gut reactions are not based on our individual ideologies, but rather that our ideologies are formed by these gut reactions.

Taken to the extreme, such a fatalistic proposal suggests that we are born liberal or conservative. And to a degree, I have come to believe there is some truth in that, as do others. But of course, liberals become conservatives and conservatives becomes liberals. Does that show a triumph of rational thinking over our innate character? I’m doubtful. It’s a chicken and egg argument, but I’d be more inclined to believe that our personality changes first and our politics follow.

As it turned out, eminent domain was an issue being fiercely debated while we traveled through Southern Africa in 2001. It was the year after Robert Mugabe turned his land reform program up to full steam. With a short detour through Namibia and Botswana, we arrived in Victoria Falls, a tourist village that straddles the border of Zimbabwe and Zambia. One night, camped out on the Zambian side of the river, we encountered a white Zimbabwean farmer in a bar who was sure he would lose his land and livelihood because of Mugabe’s reform program (and in hindsight, I am sure that he did).

Like most of the world, he dubbed Mugabe a crook who wanted only to reward his cronies and himself. The despondent farmer also foretold of the food shortage that the reform program would create. As he put it, either too upset or too drunk to hide his racism: “the blacks of this country can work, but they can’t manage, they can’t run the farms. They’re just gonna starve themselves.”

The farmer tried his best to court our sympathy and some of the people we were traveling with were willing to give it. But my perspective was still influenced by the actions of the woman in the Cape Town BMW showroom and the powerlessness of the worker to respond. My reaction: who the hell cares if they’re booted from their land. And who cares if Zimbabwe as a whole is worse off for it. At least the resources will be more evenly divided. At least each family will have a plot of land to sow. At least the work they do will be done for themselves.

I had read a biography of Mugabe. I knew that he was a young idealist determined to fight for his country’s independence. He was a dedicated teacher, a voracious reader who earned several honorary degrees from his jail cell as a political prisoner. Raised a Roman Catholic, he wrote eloquently about the parallels of communism and christianity. He was a staunch supporter of Pan-Africanism and was a young member of the African National Congress.

That’s not to say that Mugabe isn’t a crook. Of course he is. He rewards those aligned with him. He is corrupt. He has stolen millions of dollars from Zimbabwe to buy mansions in other countries. He persecutes any attempts at opposition. And, he has driven his country to almost irreversible damage. In fact, I can’t think of another head of state of the last 50 years who has had a more destructive, sustained negative impact on his/her country.

Yet despite all of that horror, there is a teenie part in me, the smallest of gut feelings, that can’t help but feel sympathy for his intentions. Mugabe was instrumental in securing Zimbabwe’s independence from colonialism (by resorting to militant violence, I should add). And then, once in power, he decided to redress the wrongs of colonial rule in the most direct manner possible: by giving the land back to those it was taken from.

Expressing any sympathy at all for Mugabe (or, at least, his intentions) is just the sort of thing that drives conservatives livid with anger. Especially when it comes from a middle-class white boy living comfortably in San Diego. I am aware of that. I am aware of the context of my observations. But what it goes to show is that deep down, my gut instinct will always be biased toward equality, even when it comes at the expense of liberty. Others, I would argue, are inherently biased toward liberty even when it comes at the expense of equality. Surely, if we are able to better understand our own biases then we can form better policy that looks for ways to maximize both equality and liberty.

Next post in the series: the difficult task of actually defining “equality” and “liberty.” Then, a justification of why I tend towards equality over liberty. Then, everything expressed in a single graph. And finally, ‘I’m not a liberal, I’m not a conservative, I’m a tranparentist.’

And, always more important than politics, music: the Friday 10 has finally arrived and will be up early tomorrow.