The Common Good, Part 2

By Mimikatz

In response to the article by Halpin and Teixeira that I discussed yesterday, once again, and rightly so, Digby has raised the place of individual rights:

I know it's unfashionable to talk about rights at this political moment and that we are supposed to pull together and submerge our individual needs for the common good. But I've got to say that I think without a robust defense of the Bill of Rights, there is no common good. They are what allow the minority to participate in the common good. They are what allow the people to be heard and the truth to be spoken so that we can even know what the common good is. They are what restrains government from using its awesome power to repress its citizens instead of using it to promote the common good. In my mind, if Democrats don't stand for the Bill of Rights then they stand for nothing. It's the foundation upon which everything else we do is built.

I think Digby is right to assert the importance of the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights is essential to our system.  It functions as a limitation on the power of government regardless of its motives.  It embodies what is sometimes called negative freedom, or "freedom from"--freedom from censorship or forced conversion,  from unreasonable searches, seizures and intrusions into private life, from arbitrary arrest and detention, from sham trials and undeserved or cruel and unusual punishment, and from uncompensated seizures of property.  These were of great importance to the Founders because of their fresh memory of tyrannical government.  They must be vigilantly maintained, and this is why the ACLU is not a special-interest group--it defends the rights of all persons, regardless of their views so that our system can function properly.

But the opposite of the common good is not individual rights.  "The common good" is a policy goal.  It answers the question "Why are we doing this?" not "How far can we go?"  It is a limitation on positive freedom, or "freedom to," on the individual's freedom to pursue wealth and power and other personal goals.  The opposite of the common good is not individual rights, but narrow, individual or partisan advantage or gain, or in a word, selfishness.  Both the common good and the rights of others function as limitations on the ability of individuals to exploit others, particularly through the use of government policies and power. 

What is so corrupt about the modern GOP is not only its glorification of individual selfishness ("greed is good").  That it has promoted materialism and consumerism as the highest ideals of citizenship is bad enough.  (Recall Bush's admonition to the populace to "go shopping" as a response to 9/11.)  What is worse is its wanton use of government power as an instrument of that selfishness for the advantage of a few.  The "common good" as a policy goal is intended as a corrective to these trends, as a call to something beyond narrow self-interest.

But there are two pitfalls in this enterprise.  One is Digby's admonition not to allow the pursuit of the common good to exclude or trample on vulnerable individuals and groups.  The other is the ability of the GOP to characterize measures to expand opportunity or limit exploitation as "special rights" or "caving in to special interests," thereby turning the common good on its head and identifying it with the status quo, that is to say with the perpetuation of entrenched power. 

So what are we to do?  In one of my first posts I discussed the need for politicians and activists to rise above selfishness and the individual desire for power and cultivate a degree of detachment and objectivity.  The problems we face are extremely complex and getting more entrenched by the day.  Acquiring the power to even begin to solve them is not going to be easy.  As Max Weber said, "Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.  It takes both passion and perspective."  We need both the passion to continue the fight and the ability to step back, to see the field clearly, to balance our interest in particular issues with the need to pursue the common good. 

Comments

[Mimikatz]

I think that "common good" arguments can be made in defense of the Bill of Rights. The Founders clearly believed that tyrannical, arbitrary government was inimical to both the individual and the common good, and that is why they threw off its yoke. They believed that strong government was also necessary for both, but only if it was checked by divisions of power and the limitations in the Bill of Rights, otherwise it could too easily move back toward tyranny. And because no one is infallible or has a monopoly on truth, if all voices, and especially dissenting voices are heard, we are all going to be better off in the long run. Recent history has also shown that individuals who are not constantly afraid of the secret police are happier, more productive and more creative, thus advancing the common good. The biggest obstacle to the copmmon good, other than ordinary selfishness, is not individual rights but individuals blinded by their own inner lights into thinking that they, and only they, understand and embody the common good.

[Crab Nebula]

And part of the subtext with the Bill of Rights is continuing to reclaim the territory of patriotism. Linking Democratic messaging to U.S. history and American historical values/mythology is a good move whatever form it takes. (i.e., no more merely tactical issue-of-the-moments-only national campaigns)

I've often thought that if nothing else, Kerry made some major strides for the party in reasserting that Democrats are patriots, can run as patriots, and should use the symbolism of patriotism.

[John Casper]

Excellent post Mimi. We all have a responsibility to fight terrorism. The best weapons we have against it are a free and open society where people feel comfortable going to the police with legitimate concerns. The "unintended consequences" of Bush's illegal wiretapping and other assaults on the Bill of Rights are that individuals will say in greater numbers , "that's not my job, I don't have a badge, and I'm afraid they will think I'm a terrorist, if I try to report suspicious activity." This may be especially true of Arab Americans. They may be among the first to see something suspicious, and understandably, the last to want to report it.

[4jkb4ia]

Hooray! He ran with what I was trying to tell him! Specifically, that if the freedoms in the Bill of Rights were not argued for as protecting the common good at the very beginning, there is no good in remaking the arguments now. The point about the government being irrational to take the side of one religion over another might have been less well argued. It may be ultimately rational to have some religion. But it is not ultimately rational necessarily to have one of the religions currently on offer. There must be some explanation around of why people choose one religion over another, but this decision-making process is probably very different from what we would like our government to have.

[4jkb4ia]

Good post, John.

[undeniable liberal]

Great theme: The Common Good. For everybody, not just a select few. Sadly, many people can't see that gov't has abandoned everybody except them that has.