I’m reading a book by John Rawls called Political Liberalism [Columbia University Press, 1996]. The introduction offers this neat summary of the primary question we politicians (and that’s everyone in the democratic polis) must resolve when we start from the axiom that all people are free and equal:
…[T]he problem of political liberalism is: How is it possible that there may exist over time a stable and just society of free and equal citizens profoundly divided by reasonable though incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? Put another way: How is it possible that deeply opposed though reasonable comprehensive doctrines may live together and all affirm the political conception of a constitutional regime? What is the structure and content of a political conception that can gain the support of such an overlapping consensus? [Rawls, 1996, p. xx]
Note two distinct terms there, political conception and comprehensive doctrine. A political conception is how we agree to put together our community. A comprehensive doctrine is a whole worldview, the whole moral kit and kaboodle members of our community use to determine truth and goodness. There may be many competing doctrines; within a society dedicated to allowing free and equal citizens to think for themselves, Rawls says proliferation of diverse doctrines is inevitable (really? think about that: arm human beings with critical thinking, let them engage in free yet civil debate, and they won’t naturally converge to common conclusions about truth and goodness?).
Rawls says the trick to making a truly free and equal polis work is grounding our shared rules in that shared political conception, that place where all doctrines overlap. We can’t pass laws based on the unique tenets of just one worldview. We can’t say, Don’t build the pool; it’s the work of the Anti-Christ! (really, Sibby said this) because the idea of an Anti-Christ isn’t shared by everyone within the Christian doctrine, let alone folks hanging out in other doctrines. Glue political decisions to just one comprehensive doctrine, one that other citizens cannot reasonably accept, and you hurt everyone’s equality and freedom to think and believe as their reason leads them. Keeps those non-overlapping portions of doctrines separate from political decisions that affect all citizens, and you protect all citizens’ equal freedom to build, believe, and argue their worldviews.
Can we find and maintain that crucial overlap amidst competing and changing doctrines? Can people with different worldviews find practical common ground and put up with each other in a stable society?
Be careful: if you think the answer is no, you end up with Nazis:
If we take for granted as common knowledge that a just and well-ordered democratic society is impossible, then the quality and tone of those attitudes will reflect that knowledge. A cause of the fall of Weimar’s constitutional regime was that none of the traditional elites of Germany supported its constitution or were willing to cooperate to make it work. They no longer believed a decent liberal parliamentary regime was possible. Its time had past. The regime fell first to a series of authoritarian cabinet governments from 1930 to 1932. When those were increasingly weakened by their lack of popular support, President Hindenburg was finally persuaded to turn to Hitler, who had such support and whom conservatives thought they could control [Rawls, 1996, pp. lxi–lxii].
Nazis, history, entropy be damned, I believe a stable, just democracy is possible. So does Rawls. But he recognizes freedom and equality don’t exist in a philosophical vacuum. You can’t just write a constitution (or a 13th Amendment) that says, “Y’all are free!” and expect everyone to magically enjoy real liberty. Practical liberty—i.e., liberty you can practice—requires the following institutions:
- “Public financing of elections and ways of assuring the availability of public information on matters of policy” [Rick! Don! Dave! I’m not kidding—Rawls lists this first!].
- “A certain fair equality of opportunity, especially in education and training,” to allow everyone to participate usefully in discussions of policy.
- “A decent distribution of income and wealth” to ensure every citizen the means to “take intelligent and effective advantage of their basic freedoms” and prevent the wealthy from dominating politics.
- “Society as employer of last resort” to ensure no one goes without the kind of meaningful work that is essential to self-respect and a sense of connection to the community.
- “Basic health care assured all citizens” [Rawls, 1996, pp. lviii–lix].
A philosopher with a sense of the practical institutions necessary to enact his ideals—huh! You don’t see that every day.
Rawls may be laying out the political framework that I’ve been after all along: Believe what you want, neighbors, as long as we can sit down, talk without getting into fistfights, and come up with practical rules that we can all agree on, so that we can all live as free and equal citizens.
Is that political liberalism? It’s certainly my liberalism, in a nutshell.
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” – Plato
What a great list of policy objectives!
But doesn’t the word “compromise” come into play here Cory?
The far right wants no part of compromising. If a Republican compromises he or she is called a RINO.
I live in that little part of the circle’s union, Mr. Reitzel, yet people call me a Conservative with Common Sense. However, sometimes I play with madness just a little and venture to the fringe of my circle.
Excellent piece. Even though Republicans despise all five tenets and would work within any framework to destroy and deny them, as liberals we must include Conservatives in our political conception…even it they don’t have the Common Sense God gave a gopher.
I think Stephen Colbert is spot on in this interview about how money has corrupted the system and people just might have gotten enough of what that means. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FevhNRfULlU
but I thought, hitler, because no guns, …so the good “non-Nazi citizens” though well armed individually didn’t stand up to their obviously atrocious, evil big government, to protect the down-trodden and prevent government from coming to take “their” guns
My problem is that that conservative comprehensive doctrines have moved so far over to the right that they no longer have any overlap in that shared political conception area. What happens then? Can we deport them?
For example, I’ve heard conservatives say they don’t believe in one person, one vote. In fact, they say voting needs to be restricted to property owners, that Senators should be selected by the state legislatures (as they once were) and that women should never have been allowed to vote. They follow up with a laugh and a reluctant statement that, of course, that wouldn’t happen now, leaving it clear that this is a long-term goal. Needless to say, they support all the present and proposed voter ID and other measures to keep as many folks from voting as they can.
When you are against basic democratic values, is there anything else in that “shared political conception” that matters?
Mr. Pay,
Your assertions and questions carry much value. You ask, what happens if Republicans move so far outside the realm of overlap and are even against basic democratic values?
We have to welcome them into the conception, anyway. What they think about what’s right matters little until they become a majority. And, if they’ve become a majority then we liberals hold most of the blame for not educating the youth as to what’s best for all. Our Democratic Party is the party of the positive. The Republic Party is the party of the negative. That’s a fact and it’s easy to show the youth the benefits of liberalism. Conservatives only have “selfish” to sell and that won’t fly for long with thinking young people.
While politicians keep us occupied with their rants, we are not looking at what happened to us and why people are so pissed off in the first place. The American people are angry over the dysfunction and the complete ignoring of what took place and how it took their futures. Make no mistake, NOem and the rest of the party of NO are not as popular as they think they are. Here are the ones who did it to us, they got away clean and their laughing their asses off at how little we have paid attention to them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u79hDi6XBwQ I think the liberal challenge should be a lot more populism that puts these monkeys in handcuffs.
One addition that I’d make to the list would be to implement a legislative governing system that isn’t controlled–and screwed up–by political parties. The nonpartisan Nebraska Legislature has demonstrated for the last 80 years how one works, and the many policy benefits that it can create (one excellent example is the fact that Nebraska funds its education system about a 30% higher level, per capita, than South Dakota. As it happens, South Dakotans will have an opportunity to change our legislature into a nonpartisan body, as well, with the initiated measure, Amendment V, which I expect will be on the ballot in November. If you want to find out more (and help out!), visit: http://www.sdnonpartisandemocracy.com/
Mr. Samuelson, Nebraska and New Mexico elected losers like Pete Ricketts and Susana Martinez proving that no state has a lock on doing the right thing.
Look who made the Santa Fe paper:
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/medicaid-brawls-in-states-reflect-republican-split/article_d8e36ace-6c21-52f1-92df-7a19c02c906d.html
Someone has the idea that wingnuts are reasonable?
Leslie,
Your dissociative position is one of those far out circles lacking in the critical thinking written of in this article when you claim the disarmed Germans ( Gypsies, Homosexuals, Germans of Russian descent, Intellectuals, etc ) were ill prepared to stand against the Tyrannical Government that took their guns. The people who had guns to resist the Nazi Party, as it would (will) be in a disarmed America, were the Trumps, Feinsteins, Bushes, Schumers and friends. They were not negatively affected by the disarming and work camp incarceration of those who had no voice in governing, so they had nothing to fight against.
I know exactly how Feinstein and Schumer feel about people other than themselves having CCW’s. I feel the same about guns and cars: I trust them in the hands of no one except myself, but we have to accept risk in a free society. (or whatever it is promoted here)
for non-gun loving people like me I assume that means concealed carry weapon.
so high profile male and female democrats do. ok.
guns are dangerous. I would be less likely to shake diane or chuck’s hand. i’d be fine riding in most peoples’ car. carrying expresses fear. driving doesn’t. I am not interested in your fearful world.
i’m no Nazi student. would the holocaust have happened if they were carrying? broken glass would have.
some 2nd amendment proponents say they are ready w/protected stockpiles when tshtf; iow, when the government intrudes. other than a family diagnosis I fail to register you dissociative reference. unless you don’t like my lazy typing. understood.
my point: if Nazi govt was bad, but good people were armed, why didn’t they resist? so you wanna be like trump with a ccw as u suggest and stand around and watch while all other people are rounded up because you’ll not be negatively affected? live by the sword, die by the sword seems to be the way it happens.
just stay out of public places all the little non-ccw people LIVE in, so you don’t endanger us with your presence. hang w/ your “elite”. and don’t chase me and shoot me if I accidently cut u off in traffic as you dissociate from civility. here we promote democracy.
I don’t trust your judgment.
I note don kopp wrote a lte in rcj yesterday making a non-point. disagree as I do, at least he participated in the governing process. that is the solution, not guns.
Owen, Donald, and Porter run right to the heart of the chart, that tiny chunk of overlap, and ask if the conservative right is sliding away from that overlap with radical positions like the rejection of “one person, one vote.” That principle is a great example of the sort of position that every comprehensive doctrine ought to be able to agree on without shaking the foundations of their philosophy, as well as a position that is essential in a liberal scheme that believes every person is free and equal. You just can’t count one person’s vote less than another’s, or worse, discourage or outright disenfranchise any set of citizens from voting except as punishment for proven crime.
Owen, I’m just starting the book, but I’m not sure Rawls would agree that the central overlap involves compromise. Sure, we’re going to compromise on lots of specific policy issues (I want a $20K raise for teachers; Lana Greenfield wants zero, so we meet half way), but when we’re talking about basic constitutional issues, I think Rawls uses the word consensus to mean real consensus, everyone consenting, not just a majority saying “One person one vote!” and a minority saying “Well, we’ll put up with that for now, but the moment we get a plurality to elect Donald Trump, we’re issuing executive orders to take away voting rights from Muslims!”
I’ll keep reading with an eye toward what Rawls says about compromise.
Porter, way to speak up over at the earth hater blog.
I fight bullies, Kurtz. That’s what I do. More of them from over there are now over here but giving Powers a free ride to kick the poor is more than I can stand or more than Young Republicans need to see.
Good post and enjoyed the link to Blog Philosophy, but you have to find those who are curious and open. If they have a belief in dogma it’s gonna be a brief, circular discussion. Little circles don’t overlap much. I remember my English teachers railing against dogma. Maybe they knew somethin!!!
DWC used to be something, Porter; but, DFP has eclipsed that rag in so many positive ways. Cory enjoys thousands of hits per post while PP struggles to attract new readers and harasses guests like Steve Hickey with anonymous hate in the comment section.
Brief historical correction on the whole “Nazi’s taking guns” angle. In reality – gun controls were MORE STRICT under the Weimar Repub. than under the Nazis. The Nazis actually liberalized gun laws in Germany – for all but a few groups. So, reality is they didn’t “take away” guns from anyone that had them at all. Gun ownership actually INCREASED (for most Germans) under the Nazis. Just sayin’.
Good point Richard. In addition, who in his right mind could believe that German jews or other citizens, even if armed with semi-automatic weapons similar to an AK 47, could stop Panzer tanks or the other heavy artillery and bombers used by the Nazi’s, especially when the fully armed military forces of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway and Western Poland, were unable to stop the Nazis?
that would be barry, armed to the teeth in an upstairs paris hotel, sniping down at terrorists. got ’em! ewww, THAT person wasn’t a terrorist!
sorry for the snark bcb, but thank u gents for the elaboration.
So much of the hostility has been ginned up by Limbaugh, Hannity and the rest. The Republicans complained about liberal bias in the media and once the internet came into being, along with the hate radio, the right has established numerous sites dedicated to expressing a viciousness and hate for our President and by extension, every idea the left proposes to deal with problems. It seems that any example conservatives feel they find then justifies hate sites like WND, The Blaze and so many others that almost daily hit the highest hyperbolic arc of the ridiculous with unfounded speculation and false claims to denigrate the very idea of citizens sitting down and attempting to solve problems and generally governing ourselves. Our founders built a system where compromise was possible at so many points, but the conservative brain trust – Limbaugh and the rest – have convinced the listeners and most of the party that everything is now non-negotiable. My way or the Highway. Rush and the rest of the “ditto that” folks have convinced them that a stereotype of everyone on the left is how they should think. If they find the most bizarre quote from some Sociology department somewhere or extreme statements made somewhere or sometime and usually taken way out of context, then this is what all liberals, progressives or socialists believe, so in the spirit of conservative intellectual laziness they can use broad classifications and feel like they have dealt with the issues. I used to have discussions on which way to go with proposals in congress or the state legislature, but anymore it seems just having a feeling or intuiting the correct philosophy is enough – don’t trouble us with annoying details – where some conservatives were familiar with issues, now, more often than not, they just don’t want to have to deal with anything complicated.
I know that there are intellectual conservatives because I read a variety of pieces written by some very intelligent writers on issues and opinions, but what Republicans and Conservatives now have to deal with is that Rush has reduced all this to a very low point. There may be good ideas and some potentially OK leaders, but Bubba Trucknuts has become emboldened by all the tough guy talk and so the fortune Rush and his ilk have made has been at the expense of having a viable Conservatism instead of the mess it has become. We have been cheated because we need at least two strong parties to watch each other and compete for votes and solutions and ideas.
Polish Cavalry found out horses were no match for Panzers or even infantry armed with mausers. But,they rode to their deaths to attempt to stop the German wave.
DWC isn’t really a political blog. It’s an attempt to sell Power’s spin to the voters in the name of whomever naïve newby candidate thinks Powers can get them a win. That’s what a PoliSci degree from State will get you. I know how hard realtors work and I know how hard bail bondsman work so there’s plenty of time to be a political consultant. But if Thune runs unopposed there’s no money funnel to the WarSchool. PS … don’t use graphics to replace letters in your name if you’re composing a political campaign logo. It’s confusing to voters who don’t know you. Just a freebie from Pat the Anonymous.
Well said, Mr. Shaftoe. Hear, hear.
Jack, glad to have you. As Porter says, you make a good observation on how Limbaugh and Fox News have made maintaining that shared middle ground harder to find. As Hap notes, it’s hard to get overlap from small, closed circles. One of the most important things liberals like me can do is puncture those insular circles and remind the conservatives that liberals (Democrats, atheists, secular humanists, Greens, socialists, Muslims, pick your scapegoat of the moment) are not some completely alien and thus easily marginalizable outsiders; we are your neighbors. We live in the same community, and for the most part, we really do want a lot of the same things (liberty, security, good schools and roads, a chance to go fishing every now and then, and specials on pizza).
I wonder: will Rawls say (and will anyone here say) that if we encounter a “circle” that is too small, to insular, too resistant to overlap, that we can outlaw them, banish them from our pluralistic democracy? At what point does our toleration of difference amidst free and equal citizens end?
Thank you Porter Lansing and caheidelberger for the kind words. I am so glad some of my Facebook friends have shared articles from this place on the web – it’s how I found out about it. I have been made aware of things here that never seem to make it into our news in South Dakota. I have lived here since 1979 and had associations with the broadcast media and understand many of the dynamics of trying to cover things but, there is the ever present problem of losing ad dollars over things the dominant party finds offensive. I remember Gov. Janklow calling some journalists and yelling at them and threatening them for coverage they did. It is sometimes challenging. I am so glad to see the emergence of the internet and what it means as far as information – and, of course many other things as well. Wonderful job you do – Thank-you, it is much appreciated. I hope I will be able to add something constructive here from time to time.
Excellent- thank you.
Minor edit- passed, not past
Catherine! Good eye! Believe it or not, that’s how it’s spelled in the 1996 edition.
Jack, my thanks to your Facebook friends for hitting the Share button! I have yet to get a phone call from the Governor about my blogging. Obviously they don’t see me as a threat. :-)
Then someone tweets me this depressing article from Vox:
http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2015/12/18/9360663/is-democracy-in-trouble
Among the ugly news from this article:
Yikes. We cannot give up on democracy. We cannot give in to Trump’s authoritarianism. We cannot surrender our right to rule ourselves to the strong man who promises to chase all the bad guys away.
It appears to be impossible to break into the circle of “obtuse”. Some are not capable of abstract thought or empathy, so they degrade and call names.