What happened to making the world a better place because it’s beneficial to everyone? Not everything has to be election politics game theory.
There's a fine line between elevating the opportunity and quality-of-life floor v. making everyone the same at the expense of individualism and all opportunity (i.e. in favor of "sameness") But basic quality of life improvements that require public funding are often lobbied against with arguments equating raising the floor with "sameness," which harms pretty much everyone.
Hence a dwindling middle class etc
I don't think that's the case, not at all. I do think it's easy to think you're doing the first when you're not, and I do think it's easy to make the first look like the second, particularly in scarcity-based circumstances, or by "counting the outcome" differently.
I'm interested in hearing why you think that's the case, tho.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the second (call it "forced equalization") can't or doesn't happen - I'm arguing against it being similar enough to opportunity elevation (good word choice btw!) that there's merely a fine line between them.
It's a good question, and in hindsight I can see why it wouldn't be obvious.
Basically: because the two are part of an equality gradient where one end is effectively an opportunity lottery with the worst odds and the other end is "sameness", and where a society draws the line (manifesting as parties with their positions, which of course means there can be more than one line to dice up the gradient a bit) depends on a whole host of factors. Culture, experiences, etc.
Your points above largely support the Gradient argument; it's easy to assume teal is blue, or perhaps green, or to convince some people blue is green (comically, some stoplights come to mind). I'm merely sharing my formula for how the line manifests.
I'm guessing we're on the same page and are debating a nuance. Lol