The End of Equality

by Mickey Kaus

This inspiring book shows that the great unfinished business of American liberalism is not to equalize money but to limit the spheres in which money matters—to put money in its place.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

320 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 1992

Reviews

[Mara]

I feel bad that this interesting book from Mickey Kaus (a favorite Slate blogger of mine) probably disappeared soon after it was published in 1992 because it lamented the inability of Democrats to get elected. Anyone remember what happened in 1992? Anyway, it deserved to get a reading. Mickey is liberal Democrat wanting to revive his party ideals by putting to rest an unfortunate liberal trope: insisting on monetary equality in the U.S. Monetary equality is not possible under capitalism, he writes, because capitalism relies specifically on inequality to create opportunity and wealth. What Mickey wants to aim for is "social equality" instead, the kind of equality where, to paraphrase the founding fathers, "all men are created--and treated--equal" and intends to make his case for social welfare and national healthcare programs that will promote this more attainable type of equality.

[Joan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kaus is a very good writer.

I agree with him that our overarching political goal should be the opportunity for everyone to have a dignified, fulfilling life (as opposed to "income equality" or "wealth equality"). I also agree with him that, in a society with a capacious and well functioning public sphere, it's perfectly possible to live a dignified, fulfilling life without a lot of money. That's precisely what I did as a child in a lower-middle-class family: I took advantage of public libraries, public transportation, public parks, and other institutions of the social sphere to learn about the world. (I still take advantage of all of those things, even though I have a lot more money now.) We need to ensure that all American citizens continue to have those opportunities.

The problem with his argument is that achieving this goal will still come down to money. I don't share his optimism that American voters can be persuaded that we would all be better off if many billions of dollars of tax money were spent to ensure a capacious and well functioning public sphere. We don't even seem to be able to convince them that we'd all be better off if we had a well functioning, public, universal health-care system -- even though nothing could be more obvious, in my humble opinion. I hope I'm wrong.

[Peter]

Claims that welfare, overly progressive taxes, and other methods of equalizing income (Money Liberalism) have led Democrats down a dead end that has created a relatively permanent underclass. Instead, Kaus argues, we should rebuild our public sphere so that the rich and poor rub shoulders more often, increasing social equality, and guarantee a government job (at slightly less than minimum wage) and at least minimal health care to all. He suggests that the public sphere can be improved through reinstating the draft (rather than the all-volunteer, all-underclass army we have now), requiring a year or two of public service, offering public day care services, and making changes to the public school system.

[John Jankowski · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Welfare may not have been a sufficient condition for the growth of the underclass, but it's hard to see how contemporary liberals can deny that it was a necessary condition."