[Yes and No] Honestly, What Is Your Fairness?

Fairness is said to be the spirit of the times. Everyone who challenges the presidential election talks about fairness as their reason for running. They are likely influenced by the fairness discourse of the 2030 generation.

There are many analyses about why they emphasize fairness with content that is quite perplexing (from the perspective of the older generation). One of them is that, facing a future with no breakthroughs, the only thing to rely on is the ‘rules of the game’ that appear standardized and fair. If this analysis is correct, then the fairness discourse of the 2030 generation is actually nothing special. Anyone would adopt such an attitude in an environment where survival is threatened. If the 586 generation had faced as difficult employment and impossible home ownership as today when they were young, their spirit of the times would have been fairness as well.

A phenomenon supporting this perspective is the gender and class conflicts intertwined with the fairness discourse of the 2030 generation. The reason young people are divided and conflicted by gender or class within their own generation, rather than with anyone else, is because they are in a ‘competitive relationship’ where they have to fight over a small pie.

However, intervening in this conflict structure to argue what is right is politically very risky. The People Power Party, responding to claims of reverse discrimination by men, gained the votes of Idaenam (men in their 20s) but lost those of Idaenyeo (women in their 20s). Although presidential candidates repeatedly chant fairness, they either fail or refuse to present concrete solutions, or try to evade sharp questions vaguely. This seems to be due to political calculations of gains and losses.

Are women still a discriminated minority in our society? If so, presidential candidates should declare that expanding women’s rights is fairness. Is extreme feminism something to be overcome, or an inevitable process for social development? Do they agree with the fairness argument that if only the rules of the game were followed, the result justifies discrimination? Do they have the courage to sharply advise the 2030 generation, called ‘swing voters,’ that the world does not work that way? Just because the 2030 generation calls something fairness does not mean it is truth, yet the presidential candidates, as their seniors in life, only smile and repeat, ‘We will accept all your fairness.’

Are they silent out of fear of fierce attacks from Idaenyeo while seemingly agreeing with Idaenam’s claims of reverse discrimination? In response to an article about a woman collapsing in a public place with no one helping, Idaenam comment, “If you step forward and the woman says ‘he touched my body,’ you go to jail.” Their lives are influenced not by the vision of gender equality but by realities like the Gomtang restaurant incident. Is this childish victim mentality or rational situational awareness?

The only politician confronting this issue head-on is Lee Jun-seok. At least he does not avoid the real social phenomena. Whether his awareness of the problem and solutions are right or wrong is open to debate. However, a direct confrontation at least decides victory or defeat, while avoidance strategies change nothing. Lee Jun-seok’s meritocracy is also a frequent target of criticism. People question whether exams guarantee fairness, where that ability comes from, and whether it is truly fair. But if not Lee Jun-seok’s kind of ability, then what is the fair standard they envision? Criticizing Lee Jun-seok without proposing any fair rules of the game to replace exams is no different from saying they are satisfied with the world as it is.

The 2030 generation, armed with fairness discourse, should also ask themselves why they seek targets for attack within their own generation. Who pushed them into the brutal jungle of fairness? Could the silence of presidential candidates be because they fear that the 2030 generation, having finally awakened to the truth, will unite and turn their guns around?

Shin Beom-su, Chief of Political Affairs

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.