52.1 F

Davis, California

Thursday, February 29, 2024

Column: Liberalism isn’t fair

Fairness is a stylish word in politics this year. The President has set the tone, calling for an economy where everyone gets a “fair shot,” pays a “fair share” and is regulated to ensure “fair play.” Indeed, the Obama campaign is building a narrative that depends on one essential tenet: If you aren’t a liberal Democrat, your vision for America is a deeply unfair one.

For the most part, Republicans have ceded this territory to Democrats. The word “fairness” is usually invoked in conjunction with ominous references to “millionaires and billionaires” or “income inequality.” But a closer examination indicates that fairness is a principle routinely trampled by the liberals who invoke it most. If there is one message that conservative Republicans should emphasize to voters this year, it is that true fairness is the province of the right.

To understand this, you have to understand the conservative philosophy of equality. At the heart of conservatism is the belief that equal opportunity is more important than equal outcomes. In an equal-opportunity world, good outcomes are produced by determination, hard work and a little luck. In contrast, a world that values equal outcomes will ensure that everyone has equal wealth, regardless of whether they worked hard for it.

This unfairness shows itself prominently in the debate about tax policy. Among liberal politicians, “fair share” has become a common euphemism for “higher taxes.” Conveniently, the President and his comrades on the left neglect to define what exactly a “fair share” is, but we are assured that the “wealthy” aren’t paying it. There’s only one problem with this assertion — it’s not true.

According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes while earning only 20 percent of all income. The top 10 percent paid 70 percent of all taxes while earning only 45 percent of all income. In contrast, the bottom 50 percent of income earners earned 13 percent of all income but paid less than 3 percent of federal income taxes.

In the supposedly “unfair” status quo described by Obama, the wealthy pay a disproportionately large percentage of the tax burden, while the less-wealthy pay a disproportionately small percentage. These numbers apparently don’t deter the left from proposing tax raises that would distort the balance even more. As noted conservative Arthur Brooks observed, “If you think spreading money around by force seems like an odd definition of fairness, you’re not alone.”

And then there’s debt. At $15.3 trillion, the national debt now exceeds the total GDP of the American economy. And the debt is growing. The government is taking in approximately $1 trillion less than it is spending every year. One would think that in fairness to the younger generations, the President would at least have a plan to stop the bleeding. Aside from platitudes about mutual contribution and shared burdens, Mr. Obama has offered little. His plan to raise taxes on the wealthy would, by the most charitable estimates, raise over $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue by 2020. By that time we’ll be another $9 trillion in debt — if we maintain current spending levels, which Democrats are loath to do.

It seems that liberals are so committed to fiscal profligacy that they refuse to even consider reform. But the welfare state as currently constituted is unsustainable. That means that our generation will pay to sustain a broken system a little longer, but will never see the benefits of that system. Fair? Hardly.

And the list goes on. Is it fair that liberals support amnesty for illegal immigrants, punishing legal immigrants who waited patiently in line? Is it fair for liberals to support minimum-wage laws that keep young workers unemployed? Is it fair for liberals to suppress students’ freedom to choose between schools while trumpeting a mother’s freedom to choose to kill her defenseless unborn child? And can it be fair for liberals to prioritize criminals over their victims by shackling law enforcement and politicizing the legal system? For the left, fairness is a slogan, not a conviction.

In contrast, conservatism’s core values of equal opportunity, meritocracy and justice are natural progenitors of fairness. In a conservative world, people keep more of their hard-earned money and national solvency is an obligation to future generations. Life itself is sometimes unfair, and so conservatives support private charities which can help the needy without creating the scourge of lifelong dependency.

Perhaps it is whimsical to expect Americans to accept the narrative of fairness on the right rather than the left. But behind the facade of liberal fairness lurks a fundamentally unfair philosophy that prioritizes politics over people. It’s up to conservatives to expose it.

SAM HOEL is a student at the UC Davis School of Law and can be reached at swhoel@ucdavis.edu.


  1. Not only do liberals have an odd and alternate definition of fairness, they also seem to have implicit faith in big government’s need for our money and the ability to spend it responsibly. It is rare for a liberal to consider or talk about the governments spending addiction. Rather than demand that the government stop spending so much, they continue enabling the addiction by lobbying for higher taxes. I think it would be fair if congress and the president would cut back government spending at least 30% since that is what most Americans have had to do in the last four years or so. For ordinary folks it looks like this: going camping rather than staying in a hotel; not going to the doctor unless you are in really bad shape; driving an old car, buying a used car; keeping your insurance at a minimum; not making contributions to retirement plans; shopping at Walmart; etc. For the government it might look like this: fewer staff members for congressman, presidents, senators, president’s wives, and czars; fewer people in presidential entourages on trips to foreign countries; less opulent dinners; more bare bones healthcare and retirement plans for government employees;fewer paid vacations;energy conservation in government buildings, e.g. turn off the heat and the air conditioning just as we ordinary folks have to do;hiring cheaper contractors, even non-union contractors, to do government work. Stop sending money to foreign countries to enable their spendthrift ways. Stop providing defense for Europe. Stop supporting people that refuse to work.Find ways to cut costs just as ordinary folks do. Streamline, cut back, scale down, go without… Is that unreasonable or is it fair? Just sayin…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here