Technically Speaking, Most of Us are Disadvantaged
by John Reit (April 18, 2006)

The argument liberals use most often to justify socialist programs is that they want to help those who are disadvantaged. And it's important to remember that this refers to their definition of "disadvantaged" - a specific criteria they've determined to explain why a certain person or group of people is unable to enjoy the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the majority. These individuals are in need of special federally mandated privileges to make up for this embedded shortcoming and wipe away hundreds of years of unfairness. And as far as I'm concerned, there is still a lot of work to do. Indeed, they are keeping millions of "disadvantaged" people from realizing the American dream.

Black America is among their most popular charity cases. Liberals have spent much time and energy trying to make up for 300 years of slavery and government-imposed segregation. Though monetary reparations seem unlikely, scores of federal programs have been enacted to try to erase the sins of our white ancestors and craft us into a multi-cultural, racially harmonious Utopia - although you'd never know it by the way liberals continue to beat the racism drum. Our nation is apparently still not doing enough to make up for the mistakes of our history. And it's not only the descendants of former slaves who need legally enforced assistance. America is still so racist, according to our liberal brethren, that even a modern-day immigrant from Africa or the Caribbean are up against unfathomable odds because of our intolerant nation (makes you wonder why they would risk everything to come to such an abhorrent country).

This penchant for social correction doesn't stop at physical attributes. Upbringing is a major factor as to whether a person falls under the category of "disadvantaged." Maybe it's economics, or proper parental skills. How many times have we seen convicted criminals, many guilty of horrible crimes against humanity, walk away with a sentence of probation and four weeks of psychiatric therapy? The justification is that these poor souls grew up under such neglect and poverty, they had little choice in their own fate. Therefore, it is up to us as a society to correct their past and transform them into law-abiding citizens.

So, let's assume that factors like physical appearance and social development are factors in determining whether one is or is not "disadvantaged." Wouldn't most of us fall under that category by default?

If we can count skin color as a social obstacle, then why not aesthetic beauty? For instance, who among us would argue that Brad Pitt hasn't had an advantage throughout his life because of the way he looks? Though he's totally not without talent, I certainly wouldn't consider him one of the great thespians of our time. Does anyone think for one minute that Brad would be living in his posh California mansion and bedding Angelina Jolie every night if he had to rely solely on his acting ability?

Now, I don't consider myself ugly, but I'm nowhere nearly as attractive as Brad Pitt. Not so coincidentally, I'm not being offered $20 million to star in major motion pictures. According to liberal philosophy, the case could be made that if I had equal or greater beauty to that of Brad, I would be living a very similar lifestyle instead of living in a one-bedroom apartment in Pennsylvania. After all, it's his face that puts females in the theatres, not his talent. So where is the socialist program to put me on a level playing field with someone with astounding physical splendor?

For that matter, how many more of us are out there walking around not looking like Brad Pitt? How many of us are simply earning the median income, unable to enjoy the Hollywood lifestyle? Seems to me that we would at least have more options were I as attractive as Brad. Where's our compensation for being aesthetically disadvantaged?

OK. Before I start sounding like I have some sick obsession with Brad Pitt, let's talk about upbringing. My parents raised me without pushing me into or nurturing a love for music or sports. Thus, I was never really interested in either. Meanwhile, Earl Woods got his son Tiger out on the golf course every day when he was just three years old. Do you think a three-year-old child really has a choice of whether or not he wants to be a professional golfer? Or did Earl technically force his child into becoming one? Whatever you choose to believe, the fact remains that Tiger is now worth nearly $100 million because of his father's actions.

Would I be worth that much had my father dragged me out of bed every day and plopped me onto a driving range with a club in my hand? Couldn't the case be made that I am being denied at least a similar income because my father was not as relentless and demanding as Earl Woods? What about my lack of musical education? If my parents had made me take guitar or piano lessons, I might have become a rock star or a concert pianist, earning far more than I do now. Was I at a disadvantage from childhood because I was subject to an upbringing that didn't include an appreciation for music?

And where does it end? If we predetermine that certain economic, physical, or social attributes are considered social shortcomings, we can't realistically exclude anyone from the "disadvantaged" label.

As it is, there are those among us who think that they can classify someone as disadvantaged simply on the basis of characteristics like skin color. Isn't that the essence of racism? To automatically assume because a person is black, he must have lived a horrible life of poverty that continues today because bigoted white employers refuse to hire him is just as bad as considering him to be a lazy, drug-pushing thug.

Of course, the advantage of prejudging someone is that they don't need to go to the trouble of getting to know that person - discovering whether or not that person's social condition is the result making the proper life choices.

Liberals are never going to make this a perfect society through social engineering. To make us all the same, they're going to have to solve the problem at the genetic level, making us all equal in appearance, physical stature, intelligence, and ability to perform any physical or mental task. Until they're ready to do that, they might want to accept the fact that we are the sum of our choices rather than social mistakes that can be fixed with the right mixture of money and laws.

Or they could just give me my you're-not-as-good-looking-as-Brad-Pitt assistance check every month. Either one works for me.