"The common good" is a staple of both political rhetoric and religious social thought. In the already-underway 2008 campaign, it is a frequent refrain on the stump and a potentially overarching frame for a progressive agenda. But what are the roots of "the common good," and what does it mean, both theologically and politically?
Discussing these questions are Nathan Newman, a widely published author and Policy Director for the Progressive States Network, a nonprofit that supports state legislative campaigns for economic and social justice; Sally Steenland, Senior Advisor to the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and co-editor of Pursuing The Global Common Good; James Salt, Director of Organizing at Catholics United, and former consultant to political campaigns involving Catholic strategy; and David Buckley, co-editor of Pursuing The Global Common Good and former Program Manager at Faith In Public Life.
Nathan Newman
Putting the idea of sacrifice at the center of the definition of the common good seems problematic to me. The first question is why average folks should be asked to sacrifice anything, when a tiny minority is doing so well for themselves at the expense of the many. If the common good has no room for reasonable questions of what we can call "class war" questions, I become skeptical that the common good will become an excuse to shield the economic elite from hard questions.
But the second problem with talk of sacrifice is the public versus private distinction I highlighted in my first post. Most average voters already ARE sacrificing, for their kids, for sick relatives, for their communities. Many look to government for relief from those sacrifices and are not necessarily going to be thrilled to be told by common good politicians that they need to sacrifice some more.
James, the John Kennedy quote came from a specific time-- after a decade or so when family wages had doubled and the issue of taking a little bit of that additional rise of standard of living to help others was an easier thing to contemplate. We are at a very different point where wages have largely stagnated for decades, health costs are driving many families into bankruptcy, and speculators and rising home prices have left many families seeing their homes at foreclosure auctions. This at the same time that they watch incredible wealth sloshing around the globe.
So a common good based on public sacrifice by ordinary voters seems a bad place to be.
But there is an alternative discussion of common good, one that first does acknowledge that the common good means that a few individuals should not be able to exploit the commons for extreme private profit. The first step is to return those unfair elite skimmings from the commons -- whether financial, environmental or social -- back to the public as a whole. Once that is done, we can have the real discussion of the common good, which is less about "sacrifice" -- which people feel more comfortable in their private lives -- than about understanding that there are many things we all benefit from that are done together than done separately.
Public infrastructure is the most obvious-- mass transit to save the environment can't be bought on the margins; it needs a public commitment to shift a whole set of development patterns to make the network work for everyone. But the end result is a better life and a better planet. Seeing that we need to invest in our communities so all benefit from the wealth thereby produced is a broad sense of the common good that we need more progressives to endorse, and not run away from the idea that the government does many things that the market just flat out fails at.
Ideologically, that's the real conflict here. Many believe all that is needed can be produced by market exchange, my individual act traded for your individual act. And if "sacrifice" is mentioned, they see individual charitable acts as all that is necessary.
But the progressive view of the common good is that individual markets and individual charity are not enough. We need to understand that society is more than the sum of its parts, that we create collectively what never gets produced through the accumulation of individual acts. That is the deep debate and if the word "common good" just obscures that debate over the debate between market versus public planning by government, than it will do a disservice to the real debate needed.
Nathan
David Buckley
hi all,
a quick response is below to sally's and james' latest posts. it's been a pleasure.
db
It's interesting that you took up the sacrifice angle, Sally. James and I ran into each other last night in the midst of the snow storm, and the idea of sacrifice was what came up right away when we started talking about the common good. I think you're right that leaders will have to be careful when asking for sacrifice from the American people, but I also think we as a nation are willing to give it if leaders clearly explain what principles call us to act and show that it will bring concrete results.
What makes me so sure we're willing to sacrifice? In response to the two most dramatic events of the Bush presidency (September 11 and Hurricane Katrina), overwhelming numbers of Americans contributed time, blood (literally) and money to alleviate the suffering of their neighbors. At the same time, our national leaders broke public trust, either by implying that sacrifice wasn't necessary (just go shopping after 9/11) or that the government couldn't really be expected to do a good job of channeling such sacrifices (gross FEMA incompetence around Katrina). So the will to sacrifice is there; progressives just need to show the blend of principle and pragmatism that it takes to move sacrifice into concrete results.
As for what sort of sacrifice the common good would entail in the international arena, a few things jump to mind. One is to build on the Bush Administration's foreign assistance programs (especially in Africa) to use a small share of America's blessings to alleviate the suffering of the world's poor and sick. Anyone who works in foreign assistance will tell you that there's still loads more good work that could be done with well-designed programs. A second idea is to promote individual sacrifice through expansion of international service programs. There's a personal side to working for the common good, a sense in which we as a society will do it most effectively when the work spreads from federal policy to individual action. The government could promote that sort of action with incentives for international study and service, especially for young adults.
There are other areas at the international level where we could talk about sacrifice of course, but that gives a sense of a couple of options. When explaining these sorts of policy decisions to the public, it will be important to be very clear about what "sacrifice" means. Yes, we will sacrifice some of our nation's treasure and some of our personal time on behalf of the common good. We do this because we refuse to sacrifice our deepest values and our nation's long-term security. Yes, we're giving things up as a nation, but in return we're maintaining our nation's moral standing and enhancing our security by building stability and goodwill in parts of the world that could produce future threats to our nation. This isn't to say that the common good is just enlightened self-interest, but the two aren't entirely disconnected either. Any thoughts on that?
Cheers,
db
James Salt
Sacrifice-
Thanks for the response Sally. I’d like to begin with the most popular political quote of the 20th century. You know the line. In his inaugural address, President Kennedy began his term in office by calling us to sacrifice for something greater than ourselves with these words: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
I bring this quote up because Kennedy’s words came at a moment that is similar in certain ways to where we are today. These words came at moment when Americans were uneasy about our place in the world and when societal norms were being challenged by a new generation. Kennedy asked us to face these challenges together, in part through shared sacrifice.
Your question regarding the political ramifications of sacrificing for the common good is an important one, and one that has been missed by political pollsters. The fact that the concept of sacrifice doesn’t poll well in issue-driven polls should come as no surprise. Polls tend to give us a pixilated view of opinion and often miss our deeper values and our sense of meaning. How do polls test intrinsic values of leadership, such as honesty, character and the ability to do the right thing despite the consequences?
I think the ability to talk straight to the American people about the problems we face and what sacrifices are required can be politically successful. I believe that this straight talk explains why McCain performed so well in the 2000 NH primary, why John Edward’s health care plan was widely praised, (it calls for greater responsibility in acquiring coverage) and why Obama received a bump after he suggested we should raise taxes to fix social security. Obama got credit not so much because people agreed with him, but because he was able to level with them by saying what may be politically unpopular.
The need for American sacrifice will come in many ways: increased energy costs related to carbon emissions, increased public investment in our school system to better prepare US citizens to compete in a global market, and the need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. All of these situations will require some sacrifice for our greater security. I believe this is not only politically possible, but a necessary component of successful leadership.
Sally Steenland
James, I like what you say about the common good. You say that “societies thrive when we are willing to serve and sacrifice for one another,” and I think that’s true. But let’s move from religion to politics. In religious teachings, sacrifice is what we’re called to do in order to live a meaningful life. But in politics, the word “sacrifice” tends to be a third rail—speak it and you die.
This is especially true when the specifics of sacrifice are spelled out and when it’s mandatory. People don’t want to be forced to give things up. We don’t want to live less comfortable lives. Some of this resistance might be selfish, but it also comes from genuine anxieties and concerns.
For instance, we don’t want to lose resources that we believe are needed to protect the well-being of our families and ourselves. We don’t want strangers deciding these things.
At the same time, we have sacrificed as a nation. During World War II, a combination of political leadership, community and religious spirit, federal regulations—and war—led to sacrifices large and small across the country, from school children to grandparents. More recently, in the terrible days after 9/11, the public seemed ready to sacrifice—eager, even, to demonstrate our solidarity of spirit. But George Bush told us to go shopping.
Does it take a crisis to commit us to sacrifice? Is national leadership essential? James, can you spell out what kinds of sacrifices you think are needed to have a thriving society? And how do we get there?
James Salt
The Common Good: A fundamental moral value
As a Catholic now working on behalf of justice and the common
good, I wanted to focus my comments on the grounding of the common good in
Catholic social teaching and then directly respond to John McKinnon's
November 23rd Wall Street Journal article on recent political efforts to
define the term.
Simply put, the common good is an element of Catholic moral theology that
describes how society can protect the dignity of life and promote the full
development of the human person. Dignity is the profound understanding that
each and every person has the presence of God within them. The intrinsic
nature of human dignity requires society to support the development of the
full potential of every human being. Therefore, Catholics define the
common good as the best way in which to order society in support of dignity
and full human development.
Unfortunately, as demonstrated in John McKinnon's article, the common good can be over simplified to the point of losing power and meaning. McKinnon reminds us that the common good has broad if not universal acceptance, but means many things to many people. The common good is not the same as finding common ground, nor is it placing the interests of the many above the interests of the few. The common good is a belief that societies thrive when we are willing to serve and sacrifice for one other. That is that I'm better off when my neighbor is better off. This concept links the interest of the self with the interest of the other. (For Christians, we call this the golden rule) Furthermore, the concept of
the common good has universal acceptance, as evidenced in the fact that few if any arguments exist against the necessity of roads, public schools or clean water.
Finally, I wish to add that the concept of the common good has immense power to transform our domestic and international policy debate. An unreported story of the 2004 election was the use of the common good by the Catholic Bishops to directly rebuke the politics of mere self interest. In the 2003 version of the Faithful Citizenship, the Bishops write: "The central question of politics should not be, 'Are you better off today than you were
four years ago?' The central question should be, 'How can we -- all of us, especially the weak and vulnerable -- be better off in the years ahead?'" A close observer will recognize that this quote is a direct response to Ronald
Reagan's political rhetoric while debating Jimmy Carter. (Too bad that wasn't the Catholic story coming out of the 04 election.)
A thorough pronouncement of the common good ethic from those seeking elected office has the potential to redefine the role of government in American society. This has been a point sorely absent from the post-New Deal left and despite the sloganeering, absent from the Presidential fields. (Obama and Huckabee come closest to articulating a vision of the common good but haven't fully developed the concept.) This absence has enabled Conservatives to completely frame the terms of the debate on government. Political realignment will occur when progressives (and authentic Conservatives) fully understand the power and universality of the common good as a fundament moral value and move past mere slogans.
js
Sally Steenland
I hate to say it, but I’m getting worried about the common good. Not the concept itself— it’s a rich moral precept with deep roots in our religious and civic history. But I worry that the phrase is in danger of being turned into a slogan, tacked onto whatever issue needs ethical pumping up, and stretched beyond its genuine meaning to give moral cover to whomever/whatever needs it. (You know the common good is in danger when oil companies are using it in their ad campaigns.)
As progressives and liberals—both religious and secular—we’re right to claim the common good as core to our identity. And it’s encouraging to see presidential candidates like Obama, Edwards and Clinton anchor their vision for our country in the common good and ground their plans for health care, the environment and poverty in its ethical tenets.
In so doing, they’re spelling out what the common good looks like. They’re wrestling with its tensions. And they’re blending religious faith with civic participation in an effective and time-honored way.
What’s got me worried, then? Because the common good has such strong appeal and resonance, I worry about the temptation, on all our parts, to shrink it to meet our particular needs—to “own” the common good as if it were a product brand. (Common good T-shirts, anyone?)
Instead of tailoring the common good to suit ourselves, we should challenge ourselves to embody its values of responsibility and service to others, stretching ourselves to live up to its important ideals.
In my view, this is not only the right thing to do, but makes good sense. We live in a very interdependent world where the actions of people far away affect us. Like it or not, we need each other. The common good recognizes this truth. And it calls us to be principled and pragmatic, to go beyond narrow self interest to find common ground with others.
Because I’m a Calvinist, I believe in a fallen world, which means the common good will probably never be perfectly realized on this earth. Even so, we need to keep striving for it, reaching beyond ourselves for something larger and better, calling others to join us on the journey.
David Buckley
Hi All,
Thanks, Nathan, for kicking us off in this discussion. I have to
admit that I was surprised (pleasantly so) to see you dive right into
the "why" question. Someone once said that we all agree about human
rights, so long as nobody asks why. That person had a point, and it
would be reasonable to say the same thing about the common good. So
"why" is a tough place to start, as you admit. I think you're right
that it's only by having those difficult conversations that we can
inspire the kind of pluralistic progressive movement we need to build
a more just country.
And the challenge doesn't stop there. The common good calls us not
only to craft domestic policies that promote human dignity and
economic justice, but also to craft international policy that promotes
those same values across the globe. If it's challenging to talk about
"why" between Nebraska and New York, it's downright daunting to dream
of a common good that stretches from Kansas to Khartoum.
Daunting, but maybe just the kind of goal America's leaders need to
set. The global common good could meet the greatest challenges facing
America and restore our standing in the global community. By
promoting effective multilateral engagement, it would aid in promoting
smart responses to global climate change. By restoring relationships
with allies, it would make us more successful in combatting
international terrorism. And by promoting compassionate foreign
assistance, it would bring relief to those suffering from disaster and
disease around the world.
I have the sense that the American people are waiting to hear this
kind of a message, both as it relates to domestic and international
policy. We want to believe in our nation and our capacity to do good
for our neighbors and for our world. We want to believe that politics
can be more about common interest than about individual power and
ambition. And we want to talk "why," even though we don't expect to
hear the same answers.
Cheers,
David
Nathan Newman
Secularism versus the Common Good
So I'm been asked to talk about the role of the Common Good from the "secular" perspective, except it's clearer to say I come at it from the atheist perspective, since in many ways I think I'm less of a "secularist" than many folks precisely because I think it's hard to have a real discussion of a "common good" when everyone is leaving their faith at the door of public discourse, at least the way many secularists think you should.
For most people, the discussion of aspirations in their own lives and what they want from the public sphere are not so distinct. The hard part is figuring out how we make accomodations to other people's diverging desires and beliefs in the public sphere compared to in our private lives. But then again, doing it in the private sphere is often quite hard, so why should any simple formula-- a la a how many menorahs are needed to allow a creche in the town square -- make it easy publicly?
An Atheist at Mass: I'm an atheist personally, but my recently born child was christened just two weeks ago at a Catholic Mass, and I was married by a Catholic priest, although, on his urging, he dropped the eucharist for the wedding since it wouldn't have been very inclusive for the Jewish parts of my family or many of the non-Catholic members of the wedding. He also threw in a mention of how marriage is itself sometimes alienating in a society that excludes some people from the institution. Yes, he was a cool priest, but that's why my wife, a believing Catholic with her own accommodations to her faith, had chosen him, and she had known he would find a way to have a ceremony that would make me comfortable. And I of course agreed to have the Catholic wedding and accommodate the christening because they were so important to my wife. And in raising our child, she'll go to church, and then I'll have my chance to explain why I don't believe God exists and the evidence against it.
Maybe this private accommodation of faith reflects my idea of what would encourage a better engagement with the public common good-- more compromise all around on the rituals we should be willing to share in the public space based on understanding that we should modify those that make others too uncomfortable or unhappy. Secularists shouldn't knock out rituals that they really don't care that much about one way or the other, while the more religious should recognize that rituals, like marriage, if they are going to be shared in the public sphere have to be modified to be more inclusive, with the obvious example now being inclusive of gays and lesbians.
Finding the "Why" of the Common Good: But the key is that the focus of all of these compromises are based fundamentally on caring together for the future, whether one's own child in a home or all the children of a nation when a President runs for office. All of the major Democratic candidates have been citing their own religious faith in tying it to why they want a minimum wage or health care or other policies to bind us more together in a just society-- and that is all to the good and the right approach, if that's how they feel. But in the long run, we need a broader dialogue not just about the "what" of the common good but how we continue the dialogue on the "why" and accommodating our different belief systems to agree on how to arrive at that "what."
Of course, it's is a sad reality that if any of the Presidential candidates said that belief was coming from an ethical atheistic position, they'd be out of the running, but then Mormons have some problems in the polling as well as a minority. I'm actually quite enthusiastic about Obama's occasional discussion of the problem of liberals in talking about religion, a point I made in this post at TPM Cafe. He argued that liberals avoided discussions of religion out of fear of offending anyone, and the net result was a distrust by the public that any real conversation on values was actually happening in the public sphere.
Finding Respect for Non-Belief: In a religious country, I don't expect a distrust of non-belief to change radically, but when we aren't even engaged in a real discussion, where Christians, Muslims and Jews can talk about how their faith motivates their political actions, how can people of faith even have a chance to hear what the ethical motivations of atheists are-- and whether they could consider one as a common good leader? My basic conviction is that only as a real religious engagement over values happens in the public sphere will atheists actually even have a chance to get respect within that sphere.
Counterintuitively, a secular public space, by cultivating more ignorance of each others' beliefs, has left less room for the less religious to be validated for their own values since the religious never engage with atheists in a meaningful social dialogue. We spend our time fighting over what to exclude from public debate instead of arguing over what we share based on the overlap in our values.
Of course, we have always as a society been able to discuss the concrete things we want from elected officials -- whether jobs, health care, schools etc. -- without having to reference the values that demand it, but any discussion of a Common Good and, frankly, a more progressive society which goes beyond an interest group aggregation of voting preferences, requires a deeper engagement in finding the "why" of what we all want. It's a less comfortable discussion than the secular one, but one that I actually think will lead to a more just society and actually more real respect -- as opposed to court-enforced silence -- for those who disagree with the Christian majority of our nation.
