‘Common Good’ as Emerging Democrat Theme
In “Democrats Rework the Rhetoric”, John D. MCKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal about how a “Notion of the ‘Common Good’ Replaces Old-Style Bromides”
…many Democrats are embracing it as a new framework for expressing their vision of broader opportunity and equality. ie, leveling the economic playing field and backing strong unions and universal health care, shared duties and responsibilities, not only among classes but between the two parties…it as an effective way to talk about economic fairness — and reduce the Republicans’ big advantage in the linguistic arms race. eg “death tax” and “ownership society” that buttress Republicans’ probusiness, free-market views. This “has caught on, particularly among Catholic voters, and seems to be an appealing answer to Republican rhetoric.”
“The central question should not be, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ It should be, ‘How can we — all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable — be better off in the years ahead?’”
“…the common-good theme appealed to religious types, but wasn’t biblical-sounding, and so would be less likely to put off secular voters. Strategists also thought it sounded broad enough to appeal to moderates as well as liberals. A poll in 2006 by the liberal Center for American Progress showed 68% of Americans strongly agreeing that the “government should be committed to the common good and put the public’s interest above the privileges of the few.”
This is appealing to my sense of fairness and balance and I imagine resonates with the values of many in the GOP. The role I see for the GOP is to champion the most efficient and effective methods for achieving these aims; such as taxes and subsidies that are more wisely distributed among the citizens.
It seems to me that when a society lets its citizens suffer more than it is reasonable to justify there is an invitation for resentment to rise dangerously high; such as we see in Pakistan, or any right wing totalitarian state. Perhaps the path to harmony and stability is government that facilitate not only opportunity and freedom of expression, but a social safety net as well.
9 Responses to “‘Common Good’ as Emerging Democrat Theme”
Such a term is nonsense. It is right up there with using the term “government investment” to describe pork barrel spending.
Special interest groups will begin to call spending on them as being good for the common good while cutting others as also part of the common good.
Once again, the era of big government is back with a vengeance with the white middle class getting the worst of the screwing from it.
“Such a term is nonsense.”
No, it is not. There are such things as our nation, our society, our fellow citizens and the common good as it applies to them. We should not and cannot afford to be so limited as to think only of ourselves and those few that we come into close contact with in a nation of over 300 million individuals. If you expect a philosophy of the free market being adequate for all purposes and needs to appeal to those who the unfettered markets are letting down on a daily basis you are mistaken.
Common good leads to such things like busing: a failure of a program that ruined many public school while the elite in this country avoid it by sending their children to public schools. Common good leads to high taxes, massive numbers of government employees, and an enormous amount of pork barrel spending. Common good leads to open borders and unlimited immigration. Common good leads to public transportation that is unreliable while the elite ride in private cars. Private goods create goods and services that cannot be avoided no matter how bad they are (remember the post office before UPS and Fedex came along?)
The elite can implement the same concept as Common good by demonstrating leadership. When they move out of their mansions and put their children in public schools, then I will be convinced that they really care about the public and the common good.
When the elite in this country own multiple homes including mansions, fly in private jets, and send their children to elite, all white private schools, and employ private security then the rest of us can see how little they care about the common good.
There isn’t going to be a serious good faith effort to appeal to our sense of fairness and balance. Instead, there will be anguished mockery of the very idea of fairness, in (barely) coded language that (barely) provides a fig leaf of respectability for the fearful.
I wish it could be otherwise. Wishing won’t make it so, however.
sd,
You are stuck in the 1970s. The problems you associate with the 1970s-era welfare state don’t make sense in today’s world. If you want to gripe about consequences of the “common good,” then talk about nationalized health care or stronger environmental laws. But busing is as much a relic of the 1970s as is the pet rock.
The common good was a theme used by Clinton in the 90′s and was quite successful for the Democratic party because of its broad appeal. It would make sense to use it now because the GOP has narrowed their appeal to white Christians only.
elrod,
If you think that the Democratic Party does not want to bring busing back, you should look at John Edwards campaign homepage or look at how Kozol is invited to speak at every progressive meeting. Many core groups of the Democratic Party are trying to find a way to bus in the last of the middle class white kids into the inner city.
Also, the idea of reparations have not died but will get a new emphasis as the Republican Party fades. Look at how all of the Democratic groups supported social engineering in the Seattle and Louisville school systems.
the idea that the government will conduct environmental policy for the common good is laughable. The current NEPA system does not allow for the consideration of economic costs. Nimbyism will just redefine itself as Commom Good to protect elite whites (See wind generations in New England).
Also, I doubt that the elite in this country will give up their healthcare at the Mayo Clinic or Sloan-Kettering for the Common Good.
sd: “such a term is nonsense”
The problem with “common good” is that it begs definition, and in particular there is a bit of a Barnum effect. One might think something like an extra lane on the freeway might be common good – but it may require houses to moved or destroyed, so even if it increases the economic pie, some people are worse off.
There are, however, several more precise definitions of “common good” that are not so vague that are worth thinking about.
According to the latest neuroscience research, there *is* data to suggest that caring about others is hardwired – even seeing an image of a sad or worried face for a fraction of the time of an eyeblink can make us less upbeat, and less willing to take investment risks. (here) Moreover, envy seems to be somewhat hardwired as well. Thus for people on both sides of the inequality divide, too much inequality reduces their satisfaction.
A second definition is to look at inequality versus macroeconomic growth. It’s been awhile, but as I recall, the more broad-based economic growth is, the more sustainable and stronger it is. I.e. if a small elite getting rich is associated with lower overall economic growth rates than a large number of people getting somewhat richer, all other things being equal.
A third situation is the tragedy of the commons, where short-term individual gains may lead to long term societal collapse.
Finally, still another interesting example is social insurance schemes – retirement insurance and health care to name a couple.
If you are planning for your retirement, one key factor is how long you live. The problem is that you don’t know that with certainty. Suppose there are just two cases, in a world with no social safety net.
1. You live 20 more years with 90 percent probability.
2. You live 40 more years with 10 percent probability.
Unless you want to starve to death, you pretty much have to save for the 40 year case. The problem is that over a whole society, that would mean everyone would have to save twice as much as they need to 90 percent of the time. Obviously if you can pool your risk with enough other people (without them short changing you) than everyone can save enough for 22 extra years, a much more efficient outcome.
In other words, there are situations where you can achieve better outcomes than acting individually. That is not to say they must be government run schemes – they could be some sort of clever cooperative.
The ‘common good’ is music to my ears.
In the long term, no nation can last long and well unless individuals feel .they are part of a commom endeavor, that of the survival of their nation/society.
The nation’s self interest and the individual’s self interest must be linked, (although absolutely not made synonymous). When that linkage is broken, one sees all the unrest around the globe.
Economics is the tool, but the tool should not replace the goal. The psychological/sociological aspects must play an important role,
When globalization makes jobs disappear, it leads to disaffection with globalization. That’s a law of nature that has to be reckoned with, and unless it’s addressed, it will lead to a backlach rash of bad laws. Globalization can not bury the common good if it’s to be weathered.
When a pension fund ends up in the garbage of a business bankrupcy, but the CEO walks away with millions, that breaks the concept of the common good. The result is distrust of all business and warring societal classes.
When the market justifies what is clearly not perceived aa being in the interests of the common good, the bond that holds a nation together is broken.
How to repair that link is a big headache of a problem. The first step, at any rate, is to bring the necessity for the link out into the sunshine of recognition.
So, welcome back, ommon good.