In my recent blog “Viewing American Politics in Three-Dimension”
I contrast two major emphases in American Politics—individual responsibility
and communal responsibility. Let me
state flat-out that neither approach has a lock on compassion.
Those who emphasize individual responsibility typically
hold three views. One view is that
government is most compassionate that creates an environment for free markets
to work. There are basically two markets—an
economic market and a compassion market.
We are all familiar with the economic market where supply and demand
resolve needs for goods and services based on a striking price. The compassion market is the supply and demand
apparatus developed to overcome the limitations of the economic market. The compassion market includes individual
acts of kindness as well as actions by non-profits to meet those needs unmet by
the economic market. Here, demand always seems to be greater than supply. Supply is determined not by demand but by
conscience and choice. This market so based seeks to appeal to individual responsibility.
The second view held is that government
though the legitimate regulator (referee) in society, government should be
minimalist in character. This means most
importantly that it should not seek to replace the compassion marketplace which replacement appears to directly undermine individual responsibility. It also means that the regulative nature of
government should be proportional.
Obviously a large complex society will require a bigger government than
a government for a small remote island.
Nevertheless, to use the referee analogy, never should marketplaces be
confounded by too many referees. While
for the sake of the game no one wants to see weak referees, no one wants to see a football game where
the referees outnumber the players. Thirdly,
those who emphasize individual responsibility rile at the suggestion that they
lack in compassion. They consider such a
charge unfair and a cheap shot.
Those who emphasize communal responsibility
typically hold three views. While
appreciative of the economic market and the compassion market, they hold that free
markets alone cannot sufficiently meet the needs of the community. The economic market must be regulated to
maintain a market unfettered by monopolies and trusts and not driven to reduce
cost at the expense of the health and welfare of society. In other words, they maintain that public
goods are inevitably affected by the consumption of private goods. They view the compassion market as highly
unpredictable in providing goods and services since it always depends upon the willingness
of individuals to give based upon conscience and intangible benefits. Second, they hold that compassion recipients should
share with others a level of dignity and independence like that provided by
Social Security and Medicare. They hold
the independence thus provided beneficial to the elderly, for example, as well
as their families and communities. Thirdly,
they rile at the suggestion that because of their emphasis on communal responsibility
that they are socialist or communist.
These evil systems maintain that government should usurp the creative
role of the private sector. Those with a communal responsibility bias deny seeking government ownership of
production.
Since reality is ambiguous and political theory in
the end remains political theory, there will always be an element of defensiveness
in political discussions. Each side knows
only too well that they cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt the rectitude of
their particular perspective. The right
mix of individual responsibility and communal responsibility can only be met in
public debate, discussion, and negotiation.
