What is this "mandate" that America should largely stand for individualism, separatism, localism, autonomy, self-reliance, and so forth? Good values, to be sure. But the opposites are equally essential: Collectivism, union with others, the greater good of the commonweal, mutual interdependency.
Of course, the dialectic between these two poles is the eternal political question. The contrast between the right and the left, individualists and "socialists," conservatives and "progressives," the Tea Party and "liberals."
What troubles me is the presumption that the Tea Party, and conservatives long before them (Ronald Reagan, William Buckley, George Will, etc.) are more in touch with America’s true political soul than are their opponents. Quoting the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, they incessantly remind us that America was founded on such principles as the protection of strong local (e.g. states’) rights, and individual rights (most of the amendments). We are told that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights emphasize "negative" rights, i.e. things which the government may not do (deprive citizens of their freedoms), rather than affirmative rights, i.e. things which the government must do (e.g. provide every citizen with a minimum level of safety and a minimally adequate standard of living).
True enough. However, what is not true, is that America’s basic political soul is therefore located on the individualistic side of the political spectrum. After all, the country was founded on the principle of union for the greater good of all. Our name is the United States. The Civil War was fought in order to preserve the Union. Our motto is E Pluribus Unum. One of the bases of our political system is that we are our brother’s keeper, and that together we can accomplish far more than if we each go our separate ways.
Some of the current political debate reflects appalling ignorance. For example, the other day Chris Matthews was interviewing libertarian Ron Paul, asking him whether or not he agreed that the government has a responsibility to provide retirees with a minimum standard of living (through Social Security), or all citizens with health insurance. In sum, should there be a social compact?
To me, such a conversation is idiotic. It re-invents the wheel. These things were settled long ago. Has no one heard of John Locke or Thomas Hobbes? What about the Federalist Papers and Alexander Hamilton? The conversation has been taking place for centuries. While everything in life is a matter of degree, even so-called Jeffersonians agree that civilized society is only possible through the social contract. The question is not whether we should give up some of our individual rights and resources (e.g. submit to income taxes) in exchange for a better life for all, but how much.
The fact that America has been the most successful society in all of history is due, precisely, to the fact that it was able to unite a larger group with greater collective resources than any previous society. Is this what the Tea Party wishes to dismantle? leave comment here
7 comments:
In medical ethics, Tom Beauchamp tried to make patient "autonomy" the highest principle and had to back-pedal with each later edition of his text. It should have been obvious: a doctor cannot be forced to do what he/she sees as bad care or as a threat to the reputation and/or the integrity of the profession. What motivated such silliness?
Tom
Where are you? Why no comments on the failure of Europe's social democracy and social welfare? From the New York Times today:
Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits
PARIS — Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.
Payback Time
Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.
Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net. “The Europe that protects” is a slogan of the European Union.
But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead.
With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions.
The reaction so far to government efforts to cut spending has been pessimism and anger, with an understanding that the current system is unsustainable.
In Athens, Aris Iordanidis, 25, an economics graduate working in a bookstore, resents paying high taxes to finance Greece’s bloated state sector and its employees. “They sit there for years drinking coffee and chatting on the telephone and then retire at 50 with nice fat pensions,” he said. “As for us, the way things are going we’ll have to work until we’re 70.”
Changes have now become urgent. Europe’s population is aging quickly as birthrates decline. Unemployment has risen as traditional industries have shifted to Asia. And the region lacks competitiveness in world markets.
According to the European Commission, by 2050 the percentage of Europeans older than 65 will nearly double. In the 1950s there were seven workers for every retiree in advanced economies. By 2050, the ratio in the European Union will drop to 1.3 to 1.
“The easy days are over for countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain, but for us, too,” said Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, a French lawyer who did a study of Europe in the global economy for the French government. “A lot of Europeans would not like the issue cast in these terms, but that is the storm we’re facing. We can no longer afford the old social model, and there is a real need for structural reform.”
Figures show the severity of the problem. Gross public social expenditures in the European Union increased from 16 percent of gross domestic product in 1980 to 21 percent in 2005, compared with 15.9 percent in the United States. In France, the figure now is 31 percent, the highest in Europe, with state pensions making up more than 44 percent of the total and health care, 30 percent.
The challenge is particularly daunting in France, which has done less to reduce the state’s obligations than some of its neighbors. In Sweden and Switzerland, 7 of 10 people work past 50. In France, only half do. The legal retirement age in France is 60, while Germany recently raised it to 67 for those born after 1963.
With the retirement of the baby boomers, the number of pensioners will rise 47 percent in France between now and 2050, while the number under 60 will remain stagnant. The French call it “du baby boom au papy boom,” and the costs, if unchanged, are unsustainable. The French state pension system today is running a deficit of 11 billion euros, or about $13.8 billion; by 2050, it will be 103 billion euros, or $129.5 billion, about 2.6 percent of projected economic output.
Tom is in Hawaii, taking some time off from a harsh American capitalist lifestyle.
I am sure he will be commenting on the latest European crisis when he gets back.
Hi,
as Madeleine said, I was away. Here is my response to Anonymous:
Coincidentally, I had just read that New York Times article. Obviously, the entire Western World is in a deficit mode, and that's bad.
Europe now struggles with the "Greek" problem: i.e. that country is deeply in debt, and it is followed by others such as Portugal, Spain, Italy, etc, thus dragging all of Europe down.
One thing puzzles me: Here in America, all the pundits (Paul Krugman, etc.) say, "Gee, Greece and Europe are in trouble, and if we don't watch out, the US WILL be in similar trouble."
But our federal debt as % of our GDP is already at least as large as the Greek sovereign debt - well over 10% of GDP. So aren't we in as much doodoo as the Greeks? I dont get it.
I agree with you Tom that the idea of social compact as developed by Hobbes and Locke is an advance over the idea of absolute authority of a King. The real issue is confusion with what is called "levels of analysis." Many people are demanding states to do things that are much better done in communities or in the cultural or economic spheres.
For example, if a local community or church, in which there are face to face relations, takes responsibility to care for those who cannot care for themselves, the care is much more personalized and motivated to get the person on their feet, than in a bureaucracy where everyone is treated according to rules and often social agencies are motivated to keep people on their roles in order to get a larger budget.
Motivations have to be considered in solving problems of welfare. We simply cannot dump welfare on the state, thinking someone else will pay the taxes for it and get dependent people back on their feet.
When individual, communities and churches fail to provide welfare the state should be a safety net, but a liberal culture that commonly assumes that all social problems can be dumped on the state have proven faulty. When a state agency fails, people say "create another agency to help the failed agency." It is the ultimate failure of a culture of personal and community responsibility that heaps more and more on the bureaucratic state until its collapse. I think we are now reaching that point where maximum possible tax collection will not be able to pay the bill for this irresponsibility.
Gordon:
If states, churches or ‘communities’ take on the responsibility for those who cannot take care of themselves (instead of an overarching, national body), we would be at the mercy of those groups’ whims.
There must be a national mandate to protect the weak. If we leave it up to each state, there would be a mass exodus to those places where there would be more state revenue allocated for that purpose.
We have a responsibility to take care of our fellow-citizens, not as residents of Massachusetts, California or Texas, but as American citizens.
Incredible poiոts. Outtanding arguments. Ҡeep upp thе gгeat effort.
Alsо visit my website: cheap flights (webgarden.com)
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!