Leveling the Playing Field

(Preface – This post is an incomplete thought exercise of sorts, and is loaded with hypotheticals and speculation. But I thought I’d float it out there anyway for kicks. It may be edited further in the future should something more come to me.)

Many conservatives are quick to oppose social programs on the basis of a belief in some abstract form of human resolve and resiliency – humble backgrounds, pulling up by boot straps and all that.

Their idea seems to be that a requirement for hard work and perseverance is a natural “weeding out” mechanism, ensuring that only the best and brightest rise to the top.

In theory.

The issue is that, in an advanced society, that strict interpretation falls apart. For good reason, and in good ways.

Very, very few of the advocates of this “pull yourself up and make the most of yourself” philosophy actually started out at a disadvantage. They more likely achieved their success by starting out a few (or several) rungs up the ladder from most other people, which should nullify their concept. But that’s a lengthier discussion for another time.

I would counter their opposition by suggesting that social programs designed to raise the standards and raise the bar for everyone have a more profound effect, allowing the brightest among us to truly shine, and advancing society as a whole.

How so? As an example, education seems the most appropriate place to start. Surely the wealthier parents will be able to send their children to any school, to afford tutors and additional assistance where needed, to start their child out in school sooner, to pay outright the cost for a college or advanced education, etc. Therefore, the wealthier student (or student of higher means) has an advantage, and we should expect great things from that student. After all, they’re being started 3 rungs higher on the ladder.

The student without means, however, may actually excel further by their natural aptitude, provided they are given a nearly level starting point. That student could be the future researcher who cures cancer, or the tech-savvy upstart that launches an entirely new industry.

In simplest terms, let’s say a well-off student starts at a baseline of zero, and progresses to the number 5. And let’s say a student from a humbler background works just as much – roughly equivalent to the “5” that the well-off student put in. The difference is that the humbler student started their climb at the -2 marker (at a disadvantage in some way), rather than the baseline zero for our other student. Given the same potential then, the student from humble beginnings can only achieve a 3 even when applying the same amount of effort, resources, etc.

Now let’s say the student from a less affluent background actually had the potential to achieve not a 5, but a 7. Starting from their position at -2, they would arrive at the same level as the well-off student (second example in the chart). But if they started, in one respect or another, at the same baseline, the less advantaged student would actually arrive at a higher point on the chart (third example). Thus, “leveling the playing field” can actually reward natural aptitude and hard work.

Of course, this is a hypothetical exercise, and there’s no way to know what the outcome may be. But the possibility of a significant difference is there.

A second factor that separates our two examples here is motivation. Specifically, what is or what becomes the primary concern for these two theoretical students.

One could argue that the wealthier student is more inclined to work toward protecting that wealth. That becomes the goal, the drive and the purpose. Protecting something which has already been acquired or achieved, while a necessary motivation, can also result in limitations at the same time.

The student of lesser means is more inclined to aspire, and in so doing is perhaps more likely to work toward something new, something different, or something beneficial not only for themselves but for many, many people. This is because, rather than having to expend energy and effort to protect something, they are still motivated by the goal of achieving or acquiring something worthy of protection. Without already having something of the sort (wealth, etc.), they can devote the bulk of their energy to achievement.

Yes, I know that there are probably more holes here than Swiss cheese. And I certainly understand the limitations of this little thought exercise, as well as the occasional limitation of my own brain (or what’s left of it). Regardless, it’s something to ponder.

Understand also that I’m not proposing that we pour all of the money everyone has in to one big pot to make every school or student or teacher or person or situation equal. What I am saying is that opposition to certain social programs aimed at the greater good is, by definition of this example, opposition to progress and the betterment of society.