equal opportunism

Reactionaries love “equal opportunity” (at least rhetorically), but usually profess horror at the thought of “equality of outcome”. And the explanation is not hard to find.

The difference is, “opportunity” is about the future and is purely speculative. “Outcome” is about the present and is completely definable and measurable. Committing to definable and measurable goals requires actually conceding control over quantifiable resources. Merely speculating about future events is ethereal and metaphysical, and can be done from the comfort of a tastefully appointed salon, at no inconvenience whatsoever to the guests, and no fear of future contradiction or embarrassment.

Since no one has ever come up with a comprehensive definition of “equal opportunity”, and no one ever could, as it involves speculations about the future, one is free to adopt any definition one pleases. Mere “equality before the law” might be a reasonable one, for example. Perhaps leavened with various philanthropic gestures offering convenient and gracious tax advantages, social prestige, and other perks to the philanthropist.

Whereas “equality of outcome” makes more sense and is probably minimally necessary even for purposes of attaining “equality of opportunity” itself. It should require no explanation to anyone with an iota of common sense that reining in the rampant growth of social inequality is a bare minimum requirement for achieving almost any socially desirable goal imaginable, including “equality of opportunity”. And there is no one declaring the necessity of chopping off the legs of the able bodied to make us all “equal” to amputees and disabled people. So likewise there should be no danger of anyone believing that “equality of outcome” implies achieving perfect similitude between everybody. It's always a matter of degrees of difference, obviously.