At some point, Americans will very likely come across those who speak of the rich with resentment and malice, as if each member of the "upper class" has personally trapped them in poverty as part of a sadistic game. This is associated with a subset of political liberals and may ironically come in the form of fierce condemnations of classism. In some cases, they do not stop at accusing every rich individual of being directly responsible for their lack of wealth, but they also express the desire for the rich to be poor and experience whatever unfair difficulties and stereotypes are currently faced by the poor.
To denounce neglect of the poor only to say that the rich should be made poor and forced to navigate poverty themselves is thoroughly hypocritical, as is any other attempt to combat illicit discrimination by means of the same kind of discrimination. The emotionalism of the liberals who embrace this contradiction--not all liberals do so--drives them to engage in the very things they would otherwise detest.
It keeps them from admitting that if it is wrong to belittle, stereotype, or ignore the poor, then it is by necessity wrong to do such things to a former member of the upper class even if they once mistreated the poor themselves. Moreover, if exploiting the poor is immoral, then it would not be any less so to make someone poor for the purpose of exploiting and dehumanizing them. An inherently immoral action does not become legitimized by circumstances.
As with sexism, racism, and nationalism, classism is irrational and unjust no matter which direction it goes in. If one truly wants to abolish assumptions and discrimination based upon the amount of wealth or social influence a person has, one must refuse to assume and discriminate against the lower, middle, and upper classes alike. To condemn classism in word but despise the wealthy for no reason other than that they have more wealth is to do nothing but live out a facade.
No comments:
Post a Comment