The Imperative of Government Neutrality: Equality Under the Law
Much is said today in support of achieving equity in our modern culture. This is often portrayed as everyone being treated as equals in society, but the actual goal has been shown to be what has come to be called "equality of outcome." We've explored this concept in several articles, and so we will not address that directly here. Instead we are exploring the perspective of what the proper role of government should be in the general term of true equality among citizens.
In a democratic society and especially within a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the fundamental principle that government should always be neutral and balanced in all of its actions is the bedrock upon which the rule of law stands. Central to this principle is the concept that all laws should apply equally to all citizens. This ensures fairness, protects individual rights, and promotes a just and harmonious society. In this article, we will make the argument for government neutrality and examine counterarguments that challenge this core principle.
Government Neutrality: The Cornerstone of Equality
The often ignored reality is that our Constitution was written free of any bias or favoritism. We also addressed this in another article you can find on this site. The founders drafted our form of government so that no one, not even politicians, was to be treated any differently than anyone else. All are to be held to the same standards and all citizens' rights are to be equally protected. Here are some foundational principles that apply here:
Equality Before the Law: One of the primary arguments in favor of government neutrality is the principle of equality before the law. In a just society, the law must apply to everyone without discrimination or favoritism. This ensures that individuals are treated fairly and have the same opportunities and protections, regardless of their background, beliefs, or social status.
Protection of Individual Rights: Government neutrality is vital in safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. When the government remains neutral, it is less likely to infringe on the rights of any particular group or individual. This creates a society where citizens can express their views, practice their religion, and live their lives without undue interference or persecution.
Promotion of Social Cohesion: Government neutrality fosters social cohesion by reducing polarization and division. When people have confidence that the government treats all citizens equally, it fosters a sense of unity and trust among the populace. This, in turn, contributes to a stable and harmonious society.
It is when politicians at any level of government violate these ideals that problems arise within our country. Whether it is laws that favor large corporations over small businesses or laws that favor an organization over individuals or even laws that elevate crimes against individuals claiming membership in one group as more egregious that the same crimes against individuals who don't claim that same membership, favoritism erodes the very fabric of our nation.
Counterarguments and Responses
Counterargument 1: Protection of Vulnerable Groups
Some argue that government neutrality can perpetuate inequality because it does not account for existing disparities. They argue that it's the government's duty to address historical injustices and level the playing field.
Response: While addressing historical injustices committed by government is important, it can be achieved without violating the principle of government neutrality. Targeted policies can be used to redress inequalities while maintaining the fundamental principle of equality under the law. The amendments confirming voting rights regardless of ethnicity or sex are a good example. Government practice violated the Constitutional protections of all citizens, so legislation was passed that reinforced those protections explicitly. A balanced government can adopt measures to rectify past wrongs without favoring or disfavoring any other citizen's rights.
Counterargument 2: Economic Inequality
Critics claim that neutrality exacerbates economic inequality because it does not allow for wealth redistribution or progressive taxation.
Response: Such policies do not address the real causes of economic inequality. Indeed they exacerbate the issues. Corporate favoritism and theft by progressive taxation are just two such root causes of economic inequality. A balanced government should enact policies that treat all citizens the same. A flat tax, citizen fee, or even simple sales taxes would fund the government adequately while not punishing citizens unfairly and thus contribute to true economic equality. These and similar measures can be designed to promote economic fairness without deviating from the principle of equality under the law.
Counterarguement 3: Cultural Sensitivity
Opponents argue that cultural or religious practices should sometimes be exempt from certain laws to respect diversity and protect minority rights.
Response: Cultural sensitivity can be accommodated within the boundaries of government neutrality. Laws should be applied equally to all and include provisions consistent with the Constitution that protect cultural practices or religious freedoms, ensuring that no group is unfairly targeted or favored.
Counterargument 4: National Emergencies and Security Concerns
Critics contend that in times of national emergencies or security threats, the government may need to make exceptions to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens.
Response: While national emergencies may require temporary exceptional measures, these should always be subject to oversight, checks and balances, and judicial review to prevent abuse of power. Neutrality does not preclude the government from taking necessary steps to protect its citizens, as long as these actions are transparent, proportional, and temporary.
Politicians and Promises: The Source of Inequality
While government neutrality is a fundamental principle of a just society, it's important to recognize that politicians, in their pursuit of political power, often make promises that can create or perpetuate inequalities in our society. This is a challenge that all citizens should be aware of and resist, as it undermines the very essence of government neutrality and equal treatment for all.
The Peril of Political Promises: Politicians, especially during election campaigns, often resort to promises to win over voters. These promises can range from calls to tax the wealthy more or for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy to social programs that may unintentionally favor specific demographics or punish another. While these promises may be appealing to some, they inevitably lead to economic and social disparities.
The Cost of Selective Favoritism: Politicians sometimes make promises that selectively favor certain industries, corporations, or interest groups. These promises can distort economic and social landscapes, leading to uneven playing fields that hinder the pursuit of true equality. When politicians enact policies that prioritize big corporations over small businesses or particular industries over others, it can create an unfair advantage for some at the expense of others.
The Seduction of Selective Discrimination: Furthermore, some political promises may inadvertently discriminate against certain groups or individuals. For instance, if laws or policies are enacted that give preferential treatment to individuals or organizations based on their affiliations, this can lead to unequal opportunities and protection under the law. Such practices undermine the core principle of government neutrality and can perpetuate divisions within society.
The Responsibility of Informed Citizenship
To safeguard the principles of government neutrality and true equality, citizens must be vigilant and critically assess the promises made by politicians. It's crucial for the electorate to hold politicians accountable for their pledges, considering their potential consequences on equality and fairness. As citizens, we should demand transparency and consistency in policies and laws that affect our society.
Voting should not be a passive act but an informed and conscious decision. Before casting their votes, citizens should scrutinize the promises of political candidates, evaluating whether these pledges genuinely uphold the principles of equality before the law and government neutrality. By resisting the allure of promises that might create inequalities, citizens can contribute to a more just and balanced society.
In conclusion, government neutrality is the cornerstone of equality, but the promises politicians make in their pursuit of power can either reinforce or erode this foundation. It is the duty of all citizens to remain vigilant and hold politicians accountable for their commitments, ensuring that these promises align with the principles of equality before the law. By resisting promises that may create or perpetuate inequalities, we can collectively work to maintain a just and harmonious society, where government remains neutral and all citizens are treated equally under the law.
The principle that government should always be neutral and balanced in its actions, applying laws equally to all citizens, is crucial for a just and stable society. While there are counterarguments that emphasize the need for exceptions, these can be accommodated within the framework of government neutrality. In a democracy, the rule of law stands firm when the government remains unbiased, protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens without discrimination or favoritism. It is this principle that ensures that the foundations of justice and equality remain unshaken in the face of a diverse and dynamic society.