Economic Success, America's Kryptonite?

In his recent post, Climbing the Ladder of Success (or Be Careful of What You Wish For), Stephen Mackquestions whether economic success is America’s kryptonite, leading to an inevitable threat to democracy. He writes:

Of all the threats to our democracy that we fear—terrorism, run away debt, economic decline, moral decay, could it be that the most lethal of them all is our economic success? Perhaps we should just eat the rich while we still have a knife and fork.

With all due respect, I disagree.

Mack quotes a review of the book that spurred this question:

It is economic inequality, not overall wealth or cultural differences, that fosters societal breakdown, they argue, by boosting insecurity and anxiety, which leads to divisive prejudice between the classes, rampant consumerism, and all manner of mental and physical suffering.

While I respect this notion, I think it is a misdiagnosis to blame economic success for economic inequality.

The source of this disagreement is illuminated by Mack’s comment regarding the American respect and valuing of equality:

And as for equality—well, that’s kind of a theoretical thing. It’s how we describe the “potential,” purchased by our opportunities—or our “metaphysical” condition (which is to say anything but our real life “physical” relationship with one another).

The difference I would like to consider is regarding the American conception of equality.

I agree with Mack that it is a potential, which we must choose to activate as individuals. However, I feel that economic inequality is the result of inequality of potential, rather than of success – many people simply do not have opportunities or the support needed to achieve various accomplishments provided to them.

I feel that to blame the rich is a generic statement that is just as prejudiced and myopic a statement as it is to say that all poor people are poor by choice. (This is not to say that the above is Mack’s claim, but to play devil’s advocate to disprove the converse argument). There will, of course, be cases in which the rich take advantage of the poor or disadvantaged because they can (i.e. as Simply Biological argued to legalize in the post Legalize Discrimination). But to attribute this fault to all people who achieve economic success is to discredit the hard work that made it possible.

This leads us to question how to fix this inequality, if the fault is not economic success. I do not personally believe in affirmative action (although I am a minority in more ways that one), although it is one effort that has been employed to rectify the economic inequality.

So I ask: Is there a way to solve the economic inequality in our country? Is it our government’s responsibility to make sure that every individual is supported and given the opportunity to succeed?

I personally think that this interpretation implies a government that is much too invasive, and a public that expects must too much of its government. The most basic purpose of our government is to protect its citizens from harm – I believe this only goes so far as to protect individuals from discrimination, and that it is not the government’s responsibility to baby-sit or parent its citizens. It is for this reason that I support the legalization of marijuana, as well as lowering the drinking age to the draft age. I see this as different from paternal law – the use of law to force citizens to protect themselves, such as seatbelt laws in cars and helmet laws for motorcyclists – which I respect.

What do you think?