Why is this so great? I hear it mostly from conservatives, and I’m not sure why level is so great. I have to admit that since I don’t care for sports, all sports analogies leave me cold.
But I know enough about sports that I think every one is independent of the levelness of the playing field. Presumably all playing fields were uneven back in the day, and so every sport has made that irrelevant. They change sides or flip coins or have toss ups to make everything even. Or else like golf, all players are facing the same unlevel ground anyway.
What am I missing here?
Well, on the face of it, if the field is unlevel, one side is playing/fighting uphill. Being on higher ground is emblematic for having an advantage.
Imagine a game of football played on a hill. The team whose goal line is at the top would surely be at a disadvantage.
It was apparently coined for the magazine American Banker, January 1979:
http://www.word-detective.com/030698.html
Well, reality has a little bit to do with it:
But mostly The Word Detective is right. It’s an obvious metaphor for giving everybody an equal chance, not having unfair rules and regulations that favor one side, being “on the level” so to speak.
But I’ve found here at the Dope that the number of people who simply don’t “get” metaphors is much larger than most metaphor-lovers suspect.
Another aspect to consider in its use, particularly in political discussions, is that it is often used in connection with affirmative action and other programs designed to benefit disadvantaged groups.
Where there are programs which give particular advantages to individuals who, because of race, gender or other factors which have historically hindered similar individuals there arises a question of whether giving such advantages is “fair”, particularly to those who do not get such advantages. For instance, under some affirmative action-type programs blacks will be hired or promoted where they received lower test or other scores than similarly situated whites. It is a matter of significant political debate (suitable for the Great Debates forum, not here) whether these types of programs are appropriate.
However, the “level playing field” metaphor is used, on the one hand, to suggest that those receiving such benefits are getting an inappropriate “leg up” to unfairly compete. On the other hand, the metaphor can be reversed to suggest that those not facing the burdens of discrimination come into the game with an unfair “leg up”.
The metaphor may be similarly applied to corporations or industries which receive government subsidies or other benefits by competitors which do not receive the same.
By the way, Prêt-à-Poster, I love the screen name.