When Joe Biden took possession of the Oval Office in January, his first executive order — of many to come — announced a “whole-of-government equity agenda.” Forget that old-school “All men are created equal” stuff — we’re talking about “equity” replacing equality. “Societal “leveling, as it were.
And in a 2020 presidential campaign ad, then-vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris lectured America on “the difference between equality and equity.” Equity, Harris argued, cannot coexist with equality, freedom, and justice, since those principles dear to America stand in the way of societal leveling.
Equality suggests, “oh everyone should get the same amount.”
The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me.
It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.
Complete illogical “logic,” on multiple levels — but a tenet of the far-left just the same.
Mensa-quality, ain’t she? Deep, too.
The “logic” on display by Harris doesn’t only apply to material wealth or status in life. Applied to the criminal justice system, leftist equity means verdicts should be meted out not according to the guilt or innocence of the defendant but according to the government or society’s view of what will produce a properly reordered society.
George Neumayr, a senior editor at The American Spectator, illustrated leftist equity and the rule of law after Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges last week. Specifically, Harris’s response to it.
After the jurors delivered their verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Kamala Harris ominously said:
“I’ve spent a majority of my career working to make our criminal justice system more equitable. It’s clear, there’s still a lot more work to do.”
In other words, Rittenhouse should have been subject to a trial not by law
Continue reading on RedState