"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people--I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do--let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work." -Rush Limbaugh (Radio show quoted in FRQ Fall/93)
Suffragettes were overwhelmingly socialist. It was the defenders of property rights that defended slavery. Civil rights was fought for by socialists like Martin Luther King, and was assisted by big government spenders like Eisenhower. Those who hated the federal government (Pro-"states-rights") were opposed. Conservatives still consider women "special" (ie unequal). What they think of gays is obvious. And the poor.
Not to say that they aren't indecisive. Now they tell us that "it's gone too far" - the idea being that they're now against inequality because it's no longer to their advantage. They're suddenly pro-equality when it comes to fighting affirmative action. That doesn't change that they're still trying to restrict the achievement of women and minorities - and that they're in favor of affirmative action for heterosexuals - by kicking out the competition."It's gone too far" is the slogan of every angry white male. "Politically incorrect" is their proud rank. Since when where angry white males of the side of feminism, black power, or not standing and staring at somebody in a wheelchair? Do they really think it's all reversed, that for the next 200 years all presidents and CEOs will be black women in wheelchairs? That we're not only going to give back the American continent to the natives, but give them the old world as well? Technically, that would not be "going too far" - as long as you don't believe in eye-for an eye, which so many angry white males do...In which case, it would only be going too far if we gave the natives antarctica too. Of course, progressives don't want this level of equality...Perhaps we should...But we don't.
A conservative could deny the above - but the main inequality of the right is in economics. They go on about meritocracy, while protecting inheritance. Conservatives like to claim that at least they treat all people the same. Did I mention that it's conservatives who don't want to spend money on wheelchair ramps? Like I said, they like to treat people the same. Pollution treats all people the same - it's not the polluters fault that the poor can't afford gas masks. (Okay, that's enough - stay in the mind set of a conservative too long and you'll never leave.)
Not to say that this covers subjects like corporate welfare, allowing the rich massive influence in politics, etc. etc.
In the earlier part of the century, when Klan membership was often almost a prerequisite for conservatives to get elected, socialists were pushing for the right for women to vote. Do conservatives have a history like this?
Equality is important. We are not only all created equal, we are created to remain as equals. If Americans were meant to consume 20 times as much as Indians, we'd have 40 arms and giant stomachs.
What's wrong with inequality?
According to the _British Medical Journal_ "what matters in determining mortality and health in a society is less the overall wealth of that society and more how evenly wealth is distributed. The more equally wealth is distributed the better the health of that society," [Vol. 312, April 20, 1996, p. 985]
Research in the USA found overwhelming evidence of this. George Kaplan and his colleagues measured inequality in the 50 US states and compared it to the age-adjusted death rate for all causes of death, and found a pattern: the more unequal the distribution of wealth (measured in income), the greater the death rate.(Early death, that is) In other words, it is the gap between rich and poor, and not the average income in each state, that best predicts the death rate in each state. ["Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways," British Medical Journal Vol. 312, April 20, 1996, pp. 999-1003]
Other effects were studied as well. The more unequal states also had more people in jail, higher murder and violent crime rates, less people with medical insurance, more babies born underweight, and higher per person costs for medical care and police protection. They spent less per person on education, had less books in their schools, and worse reading and math skills, and lower high school completion rates.
Remember, these aren't poorer states, they're just states with a bigger gap between rich and poor! While the poor have worse housing, food, and medical care, and live in areas with worse pollution, these problems are made worse, most likely by the psychological hardship of being low down on the social ladder. [see George Davey Smith, "Income inequality and mortality: why are they related?" British Medical Journal, Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pp. 987-988]
The poor are not the only victims of this system. Authoritarians must alienate themselves in order to keep their illusion of superiority ("it's lonely at the top"). Rich people are corrupted (read about the lives of Roman emperors and their families) and become spoiled and apathetic.
They respond to this boredom by trying to get more wealth than they can possibly use to make their lives more enjoyable. Eventually the excess money is spent on conspicuous consumption, like massive gilded mansions that are never visited, and end up cold and lonely.
One of the key ideas of democracy is that true wealth is in relationships, freedom, love etc. ("The best things in life are free"). Authoritarians don't like this, because they only profit if people work. They consider a miserable nation with skyscrapers superior to a happy one without - after all, they get profit when people make things, not when people actually enjoy themselves!
For this reason authoritarians try to artificially raise the value of objects, while destroying relationships and freedom, which they cannot profit from.