Solidarity, Pluralism, and the Common Good
(Part 6 of the essay)
What might Solidarity require?
The temptation as always is to look for simplistic answers -- ones usually based on unspoken ideological commitments -- rather than to be open-minded and data-driven. This is why policy matters -- not only the actual policies enacted but the process itself of crafting policy. A good idea may be implemented poorly. And the Devil of course is found in the details. While careful policy is not a panacea, it is necessary. (75)
I have neither the space nor the relevant expertise to do more than gesture here. Yet I believe the following observations and principles are relevant and reasonable in crafting policy aimed at building solidarity.
First, as we have seen, welfare liberalism entails a robust axiology -- a moral and political system of value -- which should guide us. The following points are pertinent:
Second, it is important to identify non sequiturs and red herrings:
Third, the features of American laissez-faire “capitalism” which aren’t genuinely capitalist should be ruthlessly excised.
Fourth and finally, here are some concrete things to focus on: (80)
The temptation as always is to look for simplistic answers -- ones usually based on unspoken ideological commitments -- rather than to be open-minded and data-driven. This is why policy matters -- not only the actual policies enacted but the process itself of crafting policy. A good idea may be implemented poorly. And the Devil of course is found in the details. While careful policy is not a panacea, it is necessary. (75)
I have neither the space nor the relevant expertise to do more than gesture here. Yet I believe the following observations and principles are relevant and reasonable in crafting policy aimed at building solidarity.
First, as we have seen, welfare liberalism entails a robust axiology -- a moral and political system of value -- which should guide us. The following points are pertinent:
- To not proactively seek the prosperity of all citizens -- especially those most in need -- is a bona fide act of omission. In the language of welfare liberalism, such an act is an imposition on the liberty of those in need.
- Because coercive institutions like the state are justified by their promotion of liberty, it follows that the state should actively engage in policies designed to help the disadvantaged -- even at the expense of the wealthy. The coercion involved in taxation is what it means for people with wealth to live in a just society.
- As is now widely acknowledged, equity demands a great deal more than does equality of external conditions alone. Equity means seeing a person in their full humanness -- that is, their individual, social, and historical dimensions -- and tailoring policy responses accordingly. (76)
- It is common to distinguish between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. While the guiding intuition here -- that justice requires everyone to get a fair shake regardless of their background -- makes sense, some have (not unreasonably) claimed that it is conceptually muddled and practically unworkable. (77) However that may be, the aspiration that each individual should have the opportunity to live up to their full potential is a worthy one. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the notion of “potential” is freighted and hard to evaluate and that even those who are not living thusly still have legitimate needs.
- Structural privilege is real. The advantages conveyed to a person like myself (White, middle class, male, American, inter alia) simply in virtue of my birth, relative to others from different groups, are evident. I didn’t work for these advantages; I got them, as it were, for free. This goes some way to countering the common, if tacit, belief that outcome is determined solely by an individual’s own effort. (77A)
- A liberal state cannot dictate what “the good life” looks like for an individual. So too it must structure its laws to be agnostic to the subjective intentions of its citizens. These things said, wealth is not an ultimate good. It is a means to good things conducive to human flourishing. Leaders seeking a just society must govern with these moral facts in mind.
Second, it is important to identify non sequiturs and red herrings:
- From the fact that poverty, lack of opportunity, and inequality have always been a reality, it does not follow that it is “utopian” to seek to resolve them. (Call this the “The poor you will always have with you” gambit.) (78) It would be utopian to think that these would ever be ultimately and finally resolved. It would show a lack of moral nerve not to try.
- Any intervention by the state can have unintended consequences. Thoughtful policy considers these and adjusts as possible. (Is there a risk of creating a “culture of dependency” via aid to the poor? Yes, in the same way that bailing out banks and businesses creates “moral hazard.” Yet both responses may be warranted by the state.)
- Welfare liberalism is emphatically not committed to achieving “social justice” via a massive redistribution of wealth. It is instead committed to building and maintaining a robust social safety net and to creating as many opportunities for as many people as possible.
- Neither is this liberalism committed to “leftwing social engineering,” a sort of soft Marxism which has the goal of erasing the middle class or the wealthy. The goal is to lift as many as possible -- but especially the least advantaged.
Third, the features of American laissez-faire “capitalism” which aren’t genuinely capitalist should be ruthlessly excised.
- Competition is the beating heart of capitalism. Yet the American system is glutted with features and actors which are anti-competitive. Few things would do more to improve economic justice than hacking back at various forms of anti-competition and state capture.
- The various “breaks” that the wealthy, the middle class, and the corporate extract from the state should be recognized for what they are: subsidization of these groups at the expense of those less advantaged (or to the common good).
- The same goes for how these groups shape policy via the influence they have on the political class (by money, lobbying, and votes).
- The adage “It takes money to make money” is true. So too is: “If you’ve got lots of money, it’s easy to make even more of it!” Not only is the level of wealth inequality in American inherently obscene. The super rich and the corporate -- like massive planets that pull other objects (heedless) into their gravity -- distort the economy.
Fourth and finally, here are some concrete things to focus on: (80)
- Provide a guaranteed social minimum for each citizen. The nature and shape of such must lie with the policymakers, though it should guarantee basic parameters of health, nutrition, physical security, and education. (A suggestion is to take the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals and (their successor) Sustainable Development Goals and to relativize them to an advanced economy like America’s.) (81)
- Aggressively address wealth inequality in America. The motivation is not to punish the wealthy nor is it merely to redistribute. It is rather to acknowledge that neither justice nor competition nor social stability are served when so much is owned by so few. (82)
- Fight the baleful influence of money within the political sphere.
Welfare Liberalism, Catholic Social Teaching, and the Common Good
Welfare liberalism in a democratic context, as I have outlined it, has a strong congruence with what is known as Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Whereas my moral argument for welfare liberalism turned on the question of our obligations to each other, CST is a theologico-philosophical view that starts from related-though-distinct premises to reach similar conclusions. Though grounded in the Christian tradition, its guiding ideas are not inconsistent with other religious and philosophical traditions.
While space prevents a full accounting of CST, here are key themes of particular relevance to this essay. (83)
How welfare liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching are mutually illuminating -- in particular for persons of faith -- should be evident. This is a reason why this essay’s title includes the phrase ‘common good’.
Welfare liberalism in a democratic context, as I have outlined it, has a strong congruence with what is known as Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Whereas my moral argument for welfare liberalism turned on the question of our obligations to each other, CST is a theologico-philosophical view that starts from related-though-distinct premises to reach similar conclusions. Though grounded in the Christian tradition, its guiding ideas are not inconsistent with other religious and philosophical traditions.
While space prevents a full accounting of CST, here are key themes of particular relevance to this essay. (83)
- The dignity of the human person. “[E]ach person possesses a basic dignity that comes from God ... The test therefore of every institution or policy is whether it enhances or threatens human dignity and indeed human life itself.” (84)
- A deep concern for the poor, the so-called “preferential option for the poor.” (85)
- The recognition that humans are social beings. “Communities are brought into being by the participation of individual men and women, responding to this divine impulse towards social relationships - essentially, the impulse to love and to be loved - which was implanted by the God who created them.” (86)
- The recognition that no political system is ever actually non-value-laden. “There are .... ways of structuring society which facilitate true human development and correspond to moral principles and demands. Such structures can enable people to realise their dignity and achieve their rights.” (87)
- The principle of subsidiarity, the idea that power should flow to the societal level most suited to exercise it (with particular regard for the family). (88)
- The principle of solidarity, understood as “the willingness to see others as another ‘self’, and so to regard injustice committed against another as no less serious than an injustice against oneself.” (89)
- The notion of the common good. Rather than reflecting a collectivist mindset, CST sees “the common good as a guarantor of individual rights, and as the necessary public context in which conflicts of individual rights and interests can be adjudicated or reconciled.” The common good “implies that every individual, no matter how high or low, has a duty to share in promoting the welfare of the community as well as a right to benefit from that welfare ... If any section of the population is in fact excluded from participation in the life of the community, even at a minimal level, then that is a contradiction to the concept of the common good and calls for rectification.” Indeed, “[i]f that exclusion comes about from poverty, even if only ‘relative poverty’, then that poverty demands attention.” (90)
How welfare liberalism and Catholic Social Teaching are mutually illuminating -- in particular for persons of faith -- should be evident. This is a reason why this essay’s title includes the phrase ‘common good’.
Final Reflections: Common Good Liberalism and Pluralism
A key feature of Liberalism as a political theory is its commitment to -- as far as possible -- give people the freedom to live their lives and think their thoughts with as little coercion or guidance from the state as possible. That is to say, Liberalism is committed to an ethic of tolerance. (92)
A key feature of Liberalism as a political theory is its commitment to -- as far as possible -- give people the freedom to live their lives and think their thoughts with as little coercion or guidance from the state as possible. That is to say, Liberalism is committed to an ethic of tolerance. (92)
Footnotes:
(75) All the more lamentable that the Right has mostly given up on policy-making per se. The GOP didn’t even bother to adopt a formal platform for their 2020 presidential convention. Instead, it simply endorsed a cult of personality.
(76) There are many great resources on this topic, as a simple web search will reveal. A wonderful example of a policy that’s actually improved equity is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Features of the built environment -- e.g., door handles, bathrooms fixtures, wheelchair ramps, parking spaces -- which must be thoughtfully attended to create physical equity can serve as analogies to other sorts of equity.
For example, if one were to put the question of equity for an African American into physical terms, not only would (say) the door (now, in the present) not have the appropriate handle or be at the necessary width. But in their and their forebears' (past) journey up to the door, there would have been all manner of barriers intentionally and maliciously thrown up in their path. This is as good a picture of what historic and (consequently) systemic racism means as I know.
(77) As Dylan Matthews argues in Vox in his excellent piece, “The case against equality of opportunity” (September 21, 2015). (https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity)
(77A) I owe this point to my friend Philip Spradlin.
(78) The statement is by Jesus of Nazareth in Matthew 26:11. To claim, as many conservative Christians do, that Jesus intended this to state an immutable economic fact goes far beyond what the text can support. Moreover, the New Testament -- including the Gospels -- says quite a lot in fact about helping the poor.
(79) “Moral hazard” is “lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g. by insurance.” (Google Dictionary) Again, it is remarkable how quickly the propertied classes lose their scruples about state aid when it is they who need it. As a great example of how well-crafted policy can lift the truly poor, consider the “conditional cash transfer” scheme of the Bolsa Família program in Brazil. (https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/bolsa-familia-in-brazil/)
(80) I could provide a fifth heading about how the welfare liberal / welfare liberalism operates: Welfare liberalism has great flexibility as to how it might be implemented. It is non-ideological insofar as it is not beholden to the false totems of radical libertarianism on the one side or socialism on the other. It is, in this way, centrist, moderate, pragmatic, and data-driven. The welfare liberal realizes that there are ditches on either side of the road and that both are to be avoided. She rejects the false hope of “revolution” and is content with a dogged incrementalism. She sees that there are no always-and-forever or one-size-fits-all answers in terms of policy responses to particular societal needs. She is constantly balancing risks: an inadequate social safety net on the one hand versus over-dependency on the state on the other; mitigation of life’s contingencies versus moral hazard; wealth inequality versus growth in national income; the sin of greed versus that of sloth; and so on. She realizes that governance is hard work; that there are no easy answers; that wise policy requires careful thought.
(81) These goals may be found here: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
(82) The data now show, quite manifestly, that American is no longer the mythic place where a person can pull himself by his bootstraps and rise to the top of the heap. Income and wealth inequality are at their highest in decades; the amount held by the top 0.1% of the population compared to the lowest deciles is quite shocking. (See the various books by the economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz for the details here.) Beyond the questions of whether such distortions are just (they’re not) or good for growing everyone’s piece of the pie (they’re not) or of whether these rich folk need less taxes (they don’t), the fact is that a child born in the lower deciles has vastly diminished opportunities for a good life than those of a child born in the upper deciles. This is a moral catastrophe to which the failed libertarian policy of “trickle-down economics” cannot speak.
(83) There are many excellent resources on Catholic Social Teaching. A thorough-yet-accessible introduction is The Common Good and the Catholic Church’s Social Teaching: A statement by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (1996). It may be accessed here: http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/THE-COMMON-GOOD-AND-THE-CATHOLIC-CHURCH_1996.pdf My unpacking of key themes largely draws from this document. (Incidentally, I am not Catholic.)
(84) The Common Good and The Catholic Church’s Social Teaching, 9.
(85) Ibid., 10.
(86) Ibid.
(87) Ibid., 11.
(88) Ibid.
(89) Ibid.
(90) Ibid., 19. The critique the authors make relative to wealth inequality and to (something like) “trickle-down” economics are incisive.
(91) Political Conservatives take great delight in pointing out the hypocrisy of Liberals who are intolerant in their enforcement of “political correctness” and “speech codes.” They even have a clever move of turning the virtue of tolerance on its head: “You Liberals are supposedly all about ‘tolerance’ as long as it suits. As soon as someone is ‘intolerant’ about something -- by, say, having a conservative view on gay marriage or abortion -- you become quite ‘intolerant of their intolerance.’ Hypocrite!” This is silly: Liberals aren’t making tolerance an ultimate ethical standard, an end in itself. They are arguing for a general mindset -- a prima facie starting point -- that peoples’ freedoms, life choices, and ideas should be permitted unless some overriding reason counters. Parents do this all the time with children: “You all have broad freedom to play, to have fun, to romp even. But as soon as I hear you arguing amongst yourselves, the game is up!”
As to those who advocate for speech codes and political correctness as ends in themselves, they are not genuine Liberals. That said, it is my observation that many who argue for such codes and correctnesses are trying to put tangible parameters in place to prevent real harm. It is also my observation that those loudest in their opposition against them are either insensitive to how words and behavior may hurt or simply want to thumb their nose at anyone telling them how to act. Love has to find a way to work through these things. Operating from a place of tolerance is a good default.
(92)
Images:
"Bridge." Image by Siggy Nowak from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/bridge-morlaix-bretague-brittany-1087035/
"York Minster Cathedral." Image by F. E. Greene from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/yorkminster-york-england-yorkshire-2797690/
"Original proposed design for the Great Seal of the United States." By Pierre Eugene du Simitiere.
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7948286
Original 1/1/21.
(75) All the more lamentable that the Right has mostly given up on policy-making per se. The GOP didn’t even bother to adopt a formal platform for their 2020 presidential convention. Instead, it simply endorsed a cult of personality.
(76) There are many great resources on this topic, as a simple web search will reveal. A wonderful example of a policy that’s actually improved equity is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Features of the built environment -- e.g., door handles, bathrooms fixtures, wheelchair ramps, parking spaces -- which must be thoughtfully attended to create physical equity can serve as analogies to other sorts of equity.
For example, if one were to put the question of equity for an African American into physical terms, not only would (say) the door (now, in the present) not have the appropriate handle or be at the necessary width. But in their and their forebears' (past) journey up to the door, there would have been all manner of barriers intentionally and maliciously thrown up in their path. This is as good a picture of what historic and (consequently) systemic racism means as I know.
(77) As Dylan Matthews argues in Vox in his excellent piece, “The case against equality of opportunity” (September 21, 2015). (https://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity)
(77A) I owe this point to my friend Philip Spradlin.
(78) The statement is by Jesus of Nazareth in Matthew 26:11. To claim, as many conservative Christians do, that Jesus intended this to state an immutable economic fact goes far beyond what the text can support. Moreover, the New Testament -- including the Gospels -- says quite a lot in fact about helping the poor.
(79) “Moral hazard” is “lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g. by insurance.” (Google Dictionary) Again, it is remarkable how quickly the propertied classes lose their scruples about state aid when it is they who need it. As a great example of how well-crafted policy can lift the truly poor, consider the “conditional cash transfer” scheme of the Bolsa Família program in Brazil. (https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/bolsa-familia-in-brazil/)
(80) I could provide a fifth heading about how the welfare liberal / welfare liberalism operates: Welfare liberalism has great flexibility as to how it might be implemented. It is non-ideological insofar as it is not beholden to the false totems of radical libertarianism on the one side or socialism on the other. It is, in this way, centrist, moderate, pragmatic, and data-driven. The welfare liberal realizes that there are ditches on either side of the road and that both are to be avoided. She rejects the false hope of “revolution” and is content with a dogged incrementalism. She sees that there are no always-and-forever or one-size-fits-all answers in terms of policy responses to particular societal needs. She is constantly balancing risks: an inadequate social safety net on the one hand versus over-dependency on the state on the other; mitigation of life’s contingencies versus moral hazard; wealth inequality versus growth in national income; the sin of greed versus that of sloth; and so on. She realizes that governance is hard work; that there are no easy answers; that wise policy requires careful thought.
(81) These goals may be found here: https://sdgs.un.org/goals
(82) The data now show, quite manifestly, that American is no longer the mythic place where a person can pull himself by his bootstraps and rise to the top of the heap. Income and wealth inequality are at their highest in decades; the amount held by the top 0.1% of the population compared to the lowest deciles is quite shocking. (See the various books by the economist and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz for the details here.) Beyond the questions of whether such distortions are just (they’re not) or good for growing everyone’s piece of the pie (they’re not) or of whether these rich folk need less taxes (they don’t), the fact is that a child born in the lower deciles has vastly diminished opportunities for a good life than those of a child born in the upper deciles. This is a moral catastrophe to which the failed libertarian policy of “trickle-down economics” cannot speak.
(83) There are many excellent resources on Catholic Social Teaching. A thorough-yet-accessible introduction is The Common Good and the Catholic Church’s Social Teaching: A statement by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales (1996). It may be accessed here: http://www.catholicsocialteaching.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/THE-COMMON-GOOD-AND-THE-CATHOLIC-CHURCH_1996.pdf My unpacking of key themes largely draws from this document. (Incidentally, I am not Catholic.)
(84) The Common Good and The Catholic Church’s Social Teaching, 9.
(85) Ibid., 10.
(86) Ibid.
(87) Ibid., 11.
(88) Ibid.
(89) Ibid.
(90) Ibid., 19. The critique the authors make relative to wealth inequality and to (something like) “trickle-down” economics are incisive.
(91) Political Conservatives take great delight in pointing out the hypocrisy of Liberals who are intolerant in their enforcement of “political correctness” and “speech codes.” They even have a clever move of turning the virtue of tolerance on its head: “You Liberals are supposedly all about ‘tolerance’ as long as it suits. As soon as someone is ‘intolerant’ about something -- by, say, having a conservative view on gay marriage or abortion -- you become quite ‘intolerant of their intolerance.’ Hypocrite!” This is silly: Liberals aren’t making tolerance an ultimate ethical standard, an end in itself. They are arguing for a general mindset -- a prima facie starting point -- that peoples’ freedoms, life choices, and ideas should be permitted unless some overriding reason counters. Parents do this all the time with children: “You all have broad freedom to play, to have fun, to romp even. But as soon as I hear you arguing amongst yourselves, the game is up!”
As to those who advocate for speech codes and political correctness as ends in themselves, they are not genuine Liberals. That said, it is my observation that many who argue for such codes and correctnesses are trying to put tangible parameters in place to prevent real harm. It is also my observation that those loudest in their opposition against them are either insensitive to how words and behavior may hurt or simply want to thumb their nose at anyone telling them how to act. Love has to find a way to work through these things. Operating from a place of tolerance is a good default.
(92)
Images:
"Bridge." Image by Siggy Nowak from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/bridge-morlaix-bretague-brittany-1087035/
"York Minster Cathedral." Image by F. E. Greene from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/yorkminster-york-england-yorkshire-2797690/
"Original proposed design for the Great Seal of the United States." By Pierre Eugene du Simitiere.
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7948286
Original 1/1/21.