Don’t get side tracked on single issues.

During a “60 Minutes” interview in 2020, Kamala Harris was reminded she had been rated one of the most liberal senators in Washington — even more so than Bernie Sanders. You see, compared to other U.S. senators, the non-partisan GovTrack ranked Harris as “the most liberal” because she either voted for or co-sponsored the most leftist bills possible and was the least likely to join bipartisan bills.

You would think she would have been the least likely choice as Joe Biden’s running mate in 2020, insofar as Biden supposedly had his “whole soul” in uniting this country.

On the issues, for example, she opposes nearly all restrictions on abortion, co-sponsored a bill to replace private health insurers with a single-payer, government-run health care program, and endorses the Green New Deal — all of which is out of touch with the majority of Americans (including Democrats).

Sixty-six percent of Americans want restrictions on abortion, for example, “to limit abortions to the first trimester.” Only one in 10 registered voters want a single-payer, government-run health care program if it means abolishing private health insurance plans. And the Green New Deal will cost each household $36,000 (minimum) per year in new taxes or added debt — and the majority of Americans say they don’t support paying the price tag.

But setting aside any policy debate, more important is the philosophy debate that is taking place more prominently than ever before in our country: the idea that government should guarantee equal outcomes for its people and not merely equal opportunities for them to succeed.

Kamala Harris certainly believes this, and now she has one of the largest platforms, as the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party, to advocate for equal outcomes, not equal opportunity, which she says should be the goal of public policy.

But as Milton Friedman, Nobel prize-winning economist put it, “A society that puts equality … ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. … A society that puts freedom first will, as a happy by-product, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality.”

You see, for a government to create equal outcomes for us all, the government would necessarily also require the power to violate the rights of some to give more rights (or benefits) to others in the name of “equality.”

Of course, this violates the basic moral principle that all men are created equal, as well as free. Our government has an obligation to guarantee equality of opportunity to all because, without this equality, freedom becomes only an illusion.

See, we can’t get sidetracked too far on the issues. The issues are important, no doubt, but the philosophy of our elected leaders matters much more, as they influence beyond the headlines and threaten to erode the foundational principles upon which our Constitution was written.

Is there inequality in our lives? Of course.

Unequal justice in our courts. Unequal education. Unequal pay. Unequal footing.

But is inequality of outcomes inherently wrong? If you are a Christian, or otherwise religious, you may remember Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents” in Matthew 25. In this parable, each of the workers was given money to manage, “according to their abilities,” and as the parable unfolds, the results are different for each of them. So, if Jesus recognizes that we all have different abilities, and therefore we will all have unequal outcomes, then are we trying to make equality of outcomes into what it never was, and never will be?

Consider this: During the 19th century, and especially after the Civil War, equality meant everyone should have the same opportunity to make what he or she could of his or her capacities, regardless of race, religion, belief or social class. But later, into the 20th century, this changed.

Equality became more about the idea that we should all be equal in terms of income or living standard. In other words, more and more folks began thinking that life should be arranged so everybody will end at the finish line at the same time, instead of just making sure everyone begins at the starting line at the same time.

But can we remain a free people if we guarantee equal outcomes? I mean, if we are all going to end up at the finish line at the same time, some people will need to be held back after the race starts, because no two of us are the same, and this raises a very serious problem for freedom.

That’s the same reason why there’s no equal opportunity for me to play guard alongside LeBron James with the Cleveland Cavaliers or co-star alongside Harrison Ford in his next movie. The fact is, life is not fair, and I’m OK with that because I’d rather it be free than fair.

You only need to look at societies like China and Russia, where equality of outcomes has been their basic goal, and you’ll see the tyranny foisted upon their people in the absence of putting freedom above all else.

If liberty is embodied in the creed, “all men are created equal,” does that likewise mean that we shall all be kept equal as well? From listening to Kamala Harris’ philosophy, if she’s elected as president, that’s exactly what she’s intending to do.

Louis R. Avallone is a Shreveport businessman, attorney and author of “Bright Spots, Big Country, What Makes America Great.” He is also a former aide to U.S. Representative Jim McCrery and editor of The Caddo Republican. His columns have appeared regularly in 318 Forum since 2007. Follow him on Facebook, on Twitter @louisravallone or by e-mail at louisavallone@mac.com, and on American Ground Radio at 101.7FM and 710 AM, weeknights from 6 - 7 p.m., and streaming live on keelnews.com.