Big, Bad Book Club

Caroline Pope (Host): Hello to all our loyal listeners, and welcome back to our podcast! If
you’ve never listened to “Big, Bad Book Club” before, it is essentially adults getting in heated
discussions about a text that we have chosen for the week. It’s a good time! This week, we chose
“Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut; we asked our guests to consider what it means to be
“created equal” as they were reading. That’s enough from me, now for our three guests to
introduce themselves!
Stephens: Hello everyone, I’m Bret Stephens. I’m the former deputy editorial page editor for
The Wall Street Journal, and I recently wrote a satirical piece about equality from Kurt
Vonnegut’s perspective. I’m excited to spark some heated debates.
Hattenhauer: Hi book clubbers! I’m Darryl Hattenhauer, and I’m an Associate Professor of
American Studies and English at Arizona State University. I am assuming I’m here because of
my work “The Politics of Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘Harrison Bergeron.’” Just a wild guess.
Tatum: I guess that leaves me. Hi! I’m Dillon Stone Tatum, and I serve as the Associate
Professor of Political Science at Francis Marion University. I had never actually read “Harrison
Bergeron” before this, but it was a very interesting read in light of my research on Cold War
politics.
Pope: Well, a huge thanks to all three of you for being here today! I’m excited to hear all your
enlightened thoughts on such a controversial, multi-faceted piece. I think we should just go
ahead and go straight for the jugular: what does it mean to be equal?
Tatum: I was very glad that you raised this question as the center of our debate because
America’s fear of communism since the Cold War has very much shaped our country’s answer
to this question. During the 60s, American operated out of a “liberalism of fear” which worried
that any government suggesting totalitarianism and forced equality would threaten the ideas of
self-improvement and individuality that American liberals championed (Tatum, 2021, p. 86).
Hattenhauer: Yes, the fears of communism and socialism were so extreme and irrational. It’s
like people actually thought these parties wanted us to be in chains and masks, as demonstrated
in Vonnegut’s story, to achieve equality. Anyone who really understands the realities of these
ideologies would see the irony and satire in “Harrison Bergeron” immediately.
Stephens: Alright, I’m going to have to disagree with you there. I think Vonnegut is criticizing
ideas of total equality, not encouraging them. I mean, just look at socialists today! They would
probably love an “Unemployment Insurance is Forever Act” or a “De Blasio-Waxman CEO Pay
Act” (Stephens, 2014). These utopian aspirations of equality go against everything this country
stands for! We can’t keep asking the government to make all of these laws just so everyone can
have a fair chance. Some people are just more fortunate than others, and it’s unrealistic to believe
that the government has the power to change that. It’s just the way life works.
Hattenhauer: With all due respect, I think you’re the exact person that Vonnegut was making
fun of in his story. It is very clear that “the object of his satire is the popular misunderstanding of
what leveling and equality entail” (Hattenhauer, 1998, p. 387). He was a socialist sympathizer
himself, and I do not think his story was meant to criticize egalitarianism.
Tatum: There certainly must be a level of satire because when he was writing this story, “the
fear of the communist threat was a recurring theme in policy discourse” (Tatum, 2021, p. 90).
Vonnegut certainly heard speeches that used anti-communism as justification for violence.
Hattenhauer: Yes! I think the American anti-communism propaganda served as some of the
inspiration for his protagonist, Harrison. “Now watch me become what I can become!” is his
exclamation as he overthrows his own chains (Vonnegut, 1961). This echoes the idealism
outlined in the American dream that tries to convince citizens that, because of capitalism, we can
accomplish anything we desire. Even Vonnegut writing that Harrison and his ballerina exploding
into the air with “joy and grace” seems to mock the overly optimistic opinion that our own
country has of herself (Vonnegut, 1961).
Stephens: Ok, but Harrison is the only one who achieves freedom! He’s the only individual who
is brave enough to speak out against the unjust rule his society is experiencing. He legitimately
breaks out of jail to speak up for what he believes in. When they try to silence him--
Hattenhauer: No, no. I think you’re wrong. In fact, “those who hold Harrison up as a model of
freedom overlook the fact that he is a would-be dictator” (Hattenhauer, 1998, p. 391). He is
destroying his chains, yes, but he is attempting to establish a monarchy immediately afterward.
That’s why I think it’s so ironic! Those who detest socialism believe that Harrison is the poster
boy for capitalism, but he is literally declaring himself king after a grand show of violence. I
think this is Vonnegut’s way of poking fun at people like you who believe that complete equality
is a threat to our nation.
Stephens: Wow! That is quite the claim… I don’t think you understand that the chains and
masks on Vonnegut’s characters demonstrate how being equal isn’t what we should strive for.
Take Hollywood, for example. People complain about how they make so much more money than
everyone else, so imagine that we all made equal amounts. The government could establish the
“Bourne Equilibrium” and make sure that Matt Damon only gets paid as much as everyone else
does (Stephens, 2014). Then, there would be no competition. No reward for talent! Everyone
would just achieve sameness. What kind of country would that be? We see it in “Harrison
Bergeron” too! Do you really think people like Hazel should be rewarded for being completely
average by not having to carry any chains? And George, the obvious intellectual superior, should
be forced down to her level just to ensure equality?
Tatum: I guess I can see where you’re coming from with that analogy. There was definitely a
train of thought in the 60s that realized the government cannot guarantee the equality and
freedom of so many people. There must be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. I think you
would agree with the liberalists of the time who “focused on the limitation of government
interference” to achieve the individuality they believed would be lost in socialism (Tatum, 2021,
p. 96).
Stephens: I very much agree that the government should take its paws off.
Hattenhauer: That seems like a very privileged view of equality, though. Some people
desperately need the government’s help to achieve equality with their peers. Socialism is not
advocating for Matt Damon to make no money! Vonnegut is satirizing these very “notions of
equality” that people believe socialism is suggesting (Hattenhauer, 1998, p. 391).
Stephens: I just don’t believe that equality should be “due to bold new government action”
(Stephens). What makes America America is that everyone has a chance to achieve as much as
they can based on hard work and natural talent.
Hattenhauer: That’s where we fundamentally disagree, then. Just by looking at the breakdown
of wealth, it’s obvious that America believes “greatest good to the smallest number” is the way
we should run our country (Hattenhauer, 1998, p. 391). “The American myth is that only in a
class society can everyone have an equal chance for achieving greatest economic inequality”
(Hattenhauer, 1998, p. 391). Our society is actively working toward inequality!
Tatum: I think that’s why there was a “greater skepticism among liberals about the role of
government-directed aid programs” like you describe, Stephens (Tatum, 2021, p. 99). Our
country runs on competition, and any threat to that structure really scares people. For American
liberals like yourself, “Marxism was the nightmare” that haunted the long-standing structures of
capitalism that keep our country running (Tatum, 2021, p. 108).
Pope: Wow… this has been even more heated than I expected! Thank you all so much for your
insightful, informed comments on equality in “Harrison Bergeron.” It’s almost time for break, so
why don’t you all make your final closing statements? We’ll start with Bret Stephens.
Stephens: I believe that people rely too heavily on the government to make a bunch of laws that
will suddenly make us all equal. The chains and masks on the characters in “Harrison Bergeron”
are a warning to all socialists who believe that we can be made equal by making great people less
great. The imposition of government control is a threat to our society, and competition should be
allowed to continue. Equality is not something for which we need to strive.
Pope: Thank you! Darryl Hattenhauer?
Hattenhauer: I believe that Vonnegut is satirizing the misconceptions of equality that so many
Westerners have. Equality is not bad! It is a valuable cause that could be achieved through the
government making opportunities equal for all. People who fear equality are those same people
who benefit from inequality.
Pope: Last but not least, Dillon Stone Tatum.
Tatum: This conversation has echoed precisely the debates that occurred during the Cold War
era. It has been so interesting listening! I don’t think there’s one right answer. Some people are
always going to want complete equality, and others never will. All I know is that violence is
never the answer, and history repeats itself.
Pope: Thank you all so much! And thank you to all of our listeners. Today’s podcast was
generously sponsored by the NRA as well as the Socialist Labor Party of America. Don’t forget
to leave a review! See you next time.
 References
Hattenhauer, D. (1998). The politics of Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron.” Studies in Short
Fiction, 35(4), 387–392.
Stephens, B. (2014). Stephens: Kurt Vonnegut’s State of the Union. The Wall Street Journal,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023046919045
Tatum, D. S. (2021). Transformation and totalitarianism: Intervention and Cold War Liberalism.
In Liberalism and Transformation (pp. 86-109). University of Michigan Press.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11979108.8
Vonnegut, K. (1961). Harrison Bergeron. In R. Mills (Ed.). The Magazine of Fantasy and
Science Fiction. Mercury Press, Inc.