It should offend no one for me to accuse politicians of having a propensity to stretch the truth. This is hardly regarded as a secret. But in an even more sinister tactic, distorting familiar words and phrases into politically charged talking points has become the status quo in today’s political culture. It seems the fewer words into which a side can condense its argument, the more persuasive it proves to be when repeated by the foaming mouths on cable news programs. The issue of equality of opportunity is a spectacular example to reduce political debates to nothing more than slogans. 
 Ironically, equality of opportunity is a phrase invoked by both sides of the political spectrum. The right declares it exists, while the left maintains that there is much work to be done to see it come to fruition. So beyond the rhetoric, what does it really mean? The key is understanding the two sides’ differing concepts of equality of opportunity.
 Conservatives contend that equal opportunity means equal protection under the law; that no one should be hindered by arbitrary obstacles from using his or her own talents and abilities to pursue his or her own happiness. If someone is denied a position, for which he or she is well qualified, because of their religion, sex, orientation or skin color, he or she is denied equal protection and, by the same token, equal opportunity. 
 When you hear President Obama speak of equality of opportunity, his understanding of the phrase finds its foundation in a desire to take from those who have more than their “fair share” and give to those with less.  The consequence being that under the guise of equality, your liberty is being eroded.
  In her essay “Man’s Rights,” 20th century philosopher Ayn Rand described it this way, “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be right.” 
  When the left calls for equality of opportunity he or she really argues for something closer to equality of outcome, an idea that is in obvious conflict with liberty.
   In 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville, famed French political philosopher, noted in his book “Democracy in America” that, “there exists in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”
  We can all agree that everyone shares an equal right to a fair trial, but none would argue that everyone has a right to an“innocent” verdict. Similarly, he or she has a right to the same opportunity to direct his or her talents, efforts and passions toward whatever pursuit he or she deems worthy, but not everyone is entitled to the same outcome of his or her pursuit. To guarantee uniform outcomes would be to weaken the successful, not lift the defeated. 
  The debate is not merely between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. It is also about the very definition of equality of opportunity. For the left, it requires the government to manufacture uniformity in outcomes. For the right, equal opportunity is to limit obstacles and clearing  impediments for individuals to make their own way. This difference allows both sides to claim the same song but sing entirely different tunes.