How Are We Different? (And Does Difference Mean Better or Less?)

Long hard reform movements, both politically and scientifically based, established that people of all "races" and both genders have equal potential, and can (and do) make equal contributions to the betterment of our world and society. Of course, creating "an odd man out" has been a part of a rather cynical political ballgame for many centuries now, whether or not the strategic exclusionists playing it really believe what they claim. Whatever the case, the writer of this blog had been under the impression that the democratic revolutions of the past four centuries had been about establishing the fact that all people, rich and poor, had a right to equal access to political decision-making, judicial justice and the elements of happiness and well-being in this world. This was based on the reasoned argument that all people of all stations in life have potentially the same power to make a positive difference in improving our shared existence. But now we have these libertarians (I like to call them what they are: Social Darwinists), who argue that the only people who have an actual and practical right to make decisions about our world are those who are wealthy. This is based on the irrational idea that the ability to accrue wealth makes one intellectually superior to others. Yet it is not difficult to observe and learn about intelligent people who are not interested in devoting themselves to confiscating riches but would rather use their intelligence to make critical scientific discoveries, create artistic, musical or architectural wonders to inspire us, or find ways to bring social justice to the abused, the exploited and the neglected. If we reduce the politically and economically enfranchised element of our society in practical terms only to those who can successfully compete for wealth against others, we will not only create a truly philistine society and a highly unjust society, but also a terribly moronic one. Intelligent children are born to all socioeconomic brackets; it may be just as truthfully said that children of only average intelligence or less are also born to every strata of society. This doesn't require a sociological/educational study: you see it every day just rubbing shoulders with people. Just as it is stupid to raise only one genetic strain of an important food crop, or breed only a few genetic lineages of a certain kind of animal (because of the importance of genetic diversity in meeting the challenges of changing ecological conditions and the problem of inbreeding with troublesome recessive genes), so the same holds true for worsening the conditions of the middle and lower income earners. By supporting policies which remove safety nets and engage in cut-throat laissez-faire capitalism, the best do not get winnowed from the chaff as libertarians would claim. Just as many (if not more) people who might make (or might have made) important or at least positive contributions to society are neutralized (or worse), because of the unnecessary hardships incurred upon them. What is more, any society that abdicates a practical sense of moral obligation to all people regardless of income, status or intelligence level, is bound to self-destruct. Eliminating compassion for our fellow human beings (because it is deemed "inefficient") creates a society that will tear itself apart through its own cold-blooded selfishness. In short, a lack of compassion in political policy is the most irrational agenda of all.