Two Questions, One Answer

During Robert Kennedy’s 1968 campaign for the presidency of the United States, he would close his speeches with a quote from the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw. Speaking directly of the leadership quality of vision, Kennedy would deliver this line: “Most men look at things as they are and wonder ‘why?’. I dream of things that never were and ask: ‘Why not?’”

Why and why not? Human nature, that’s the why and that’s the why not. Societies have evolved because of our physical needs in a corporeal world while, at the same time, being sentient creatures. We need, we think. Rational minds soon realize that productivity is increased and security is enhanced by dividing tasks into specialties and working together as a group. We plant, we grow, and we harvest. We mine minerals, we process, and we manufacture. We log timber, we mill lumber, and we build. We invent, we produce, and we sell. We establish religions, we form governments, and we compete.

As we go about our business, the structures of our societies and the functions of our governments sift us and sort us. The talented, the industrious, and the ambitious rise to the top; the untalented, the lazy, and the non driven sink to the bottom. This is fair… for a single generation and to a finite degree.

Talent, industriousness, and ambition combine to create wealth. With wealth come power and advantage; and the power to maintain your advantage. With wealth comes the power to see your children begin their productive lives with an advantage they did not themselves strive to achieve. It is human nature to want to keep what you have gained. It is human nature to want the best for your children. Meanwhile, the children of the poor are more burdened by the circumstances and details of their lives than are the children of the wealthy. They must strive harder, work longer, and carry a greater burden of stress if they are to gain the financial independence to which the children of the wealthy are born.

As this social evolution continues, the gap between rich and poor widens. The vagaries of economic cycles and changing fiscal policies cause an ebb and flow in the wealth accumulating ability of individuals. Those that are already wealthy weather these cycles and changes more effortlessly than those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Fewer and fewer at the top accumulate a larger and larger share of the total wealth of a society, and more and more at the bottom begin to grow tired of struggling.

Enter the charismatic politician with a vision of a socialist utopia. Audiences of hoi polloi with lives of struggle and unfulfilled dreams cry, “Why is it this way?” The charismatic campaigner trumpets a vision of the way it can be and boldly proclaims, “Why not make the changes I propose and turn it into what it should be?” Should it be different? Can it be different?

Should people be compensated in proportion to their contribution to the society in which they live? Yes, it’s only fair. But, how much more should the Captain of an ocean liner earn than the boiler technicians that service the engines that drive her, or the cooks who feed the passengers? How much more should the boiler technicians make than the deck hands that do the grunt work or the cleaning help that takes care of the staterooms?

Resources are finite. The more wealth accumulated at the top, the less there is for the rest. Pure laissez-faire capitalism tips the balance too far toward greed and ambition. Pure socialism stifles creativity and effort. God help us find the middle ground where the best of us benefit justly and the least of us can still enjoy being alive.