Every political argument seems to whittle down to the evils of the division between haves and have-nots. Certainly some groups in society have gained (or inherited) a "haves" status through underhanded or plain immoral means. However, if you dig deep enough, you'll find that the crux of these arguments are not the specific ways in which we've divided class lines- it's the actual existence of class lines. We all live within them, yet the sheer majority of people- when facing challenges- seem to despise classism.

Classism is an easy target, but in reality, classism- when applied fairly- is the only thing that can create opportunity and success.

Now, its difficult to defend or angle into positive light an "ism". Its not that I don't trust you, the reader, to comprehend the subtleties between a base concept and its somewhat more flawed operation- even exploitation- in real life. Its just that we have built a culture that looks at the separation and inequalities between people in pure black and white. And I mean this from all sides.

Politicians, the media, and others trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator can not, in our culture, explicitly approve of any inequalities between people. (We like our talking heads to tell us we disserve as much as the next guy.) On the other hand, fringe groups and individuals always recognize inequalities- and, strangely enough, that fringe group always seems to come out on the bottom of said inequalities, and always for trite reasons. (We like to think that if we don't have as much as the next guy, that something unjust is happening).

We lump our "isms" together. Classism is, by our cultural definition, as short-sightedly evil as racism and sexism. Beyond that, most people who spout theories or enact policies of a classist nature are, in actuality, just trying to separate their individual selves from the masses- regardless of merit. Now that racism and sexism are (thankfully) no longer in vogue, classism is being bastardized as the new avenue of pseudo-intellectual intolerance.

Un-bastardized classism, however, is very different from any other attempt to separate people. I am not about to say classism is "right" or "wrong." Its actually neither. In an increasingly partisan culture, we tend to insist that every concept exist on a scale from very right to very wrong. We certainly accept that some concepts are in the middle (i.e. "no big deal"), but its become very anti-climatic to view any concept outside of this right-to-wrong scale.

I am also not about to opine on how classism should be actively pushed. Again, we live in a culture where every concept and theory should be either actively advocated or actively combated. Its anticlimactic to see things as a constant, under which we have no influence. Classism becomes bastardized- and therefore ineffective (at best) or inequitable (at worst) when actively pushed.

Un-bastardized (the key word here) classism assumes two things. The obvious one- that people are, indeed, unequal. This half of the concept is the crux of every economic and social system that has ever worked. Within fair and unforced inequality, individuals have both opportunity and a global set of scales in which judge themselves. The second half of classism is that this inequality is based on traits that all people posses the ability to achieve.