It is often among the early actions of a political election campaign to create a slogan or buzzword with which their principal candidate will be associated at every stage. This could be an acronym like MAGA – Make America Great Again – as used by Donald Trump’s team, or a concept whose meaning has been adapted to suit the politics of the candidate, like “equity” repeatedly plugged by Kamala Harris, which although most often used to describe the value of shares issued by a company is here intended to describe government action of elevating everyone to the same social and financial standard.
Since Harris became prominent, she concentrated on stamping the socialist meaning of equity – effectively, the redistribution of wealth – into the public consciousness while disparaging the concept of equality as harming the fabric of a fair society. Equality is understood to mean that each individual or group of people is given the same resources and opportunities, regardless of their circumstances.
The terms “equity” and “equality” are often confused because they appear to mean the same thing. They both are concerned with the treatment of people. Both are used in the field of government, law, economics, and social position, yet the implementation of one versus the other leads to dramatically different outcomes.
The difference between equity and equality
In a system of equality, public policy removes barriers to give everyone the same opportunities; while under equity, the governing authority imposes rules and regulations that aim to elevate everyone to the same social and economic level, regardless of their ability to contribute to the well-being of the society that they enjoy. We used to call that communism, or as Karl Marx put it: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Equality, on the other hand, is based on the political philosophy of upholding liberty as a core value by maximizing autonomy, political freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of choice. Voluntary agreement and minimizing official control are pillars of this libertarianism.
The extreme libertarian position is advocated by the Cato Institute in the United States, which supports and recommends a limited governmental role in domestic and, strangely, also in foreign affairs. Cato advocates for strong protection of civil liberties such as lowering taxes, opposition to the Federal Reserve system, as well as to the affordable care act. Cato recommends the privatization of numerous government agencies, including the US postal service. However, some of their programs go even beyond the concept of equality and, in my view, border on unacceptable anarchism.
Conversely, the political system of equity based on expanded government control, and presided over by Harris as president with her radically left-wing VP Tim Walz, would lead the country in the diametrically opposed direction while creating the illusion of democracy. In any case, what Harris has shown us so far is her personality rather than her policies. In foreign policy, she lacks experience, evidenced by her acceptance speech delivered with a forked tongue on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In a recent interview, Trump said: “Any Jewish person who votes Democrat needs to have their head examined.” While Trump makes himself freely available to be questioned on his policy wherever he is approached and by media of any stripe, Harris is hiding her policies from the people and avoids tough questions from any media for fear that her various extremist views, repeated upturns, inconsistencies, and downright lies will be made apparent to her enthusiastic but virtually blindfolded following. Those supporters find her style more youthful and enthusiastic than Joe Biden’s, hence her poll numbers have improved on his.
However, during the forthcoming debate with Trump on September 10, the full effect of her radical socialist policies will become transparent. Her legacy of public service as attorney-general in the sanctuary state of California left a trail of serious criminal prosecutions ending in a slap on the wrist of the offender and release into society. That, even without cash bail in line with the policy of equity, giving them “a leg up” and often financial support.
It is just like the failed policy of appeasement when the Obama regime supplied Iran with $400 million in cash, enabling financial support for the terrorist actions of Iran’s satellites – Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Those are not actions that show the firm resolve required to lead the free world.
By contrast, Trump’s record of his actions while he was president show a different picture. His foreign policy reinstated respect for the US in the world. His firm policy of sanctions brought Iran into a serious cash crisis, preventing much terrorist action and the threat of war against Israel.
Trump’s policy allowed Israel to receive the fullest support extended to an important ally. He instructed to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, and authorized the incorporation of the Golan Heights into the sovereign State of Israel. By that record, besides his declared internal strategy, Israel’s defensive actions would be less politically constrained if Trump would again be elected as US president on November 5. The choice of the American people will be between rule by the political principle of equitable enforcement, based on expanded government control, creating the illusion of democracy, or a life of private choice and equality of opportunity.■
The writer, now in his 101st year of life, holds Guinness records as the world’s oldest working journalist and oldest active radio host.