Whose common good?
Well, of course we're all in favor of the common good--and its appeal to sacrifice, citizenship, and all those progressive words. The hard part is explaining who counts as part of the "common," and exactly what is the "good." Going back to the common good of 1933? I don't think so. That leaves out almost everyone I know, including most of those I grew up with in southern Ohio.
Ruth Rosen is absolutely right that if the Dems can't figure out how to talk about family values, they're going to leave women cold--and (how often do we have to say this?) women are not a minority interest. But Ruth's post strikes me as focusing on a group of women who can get decently-paying, intellectually compelling jobs (much as the highly problematic Prospect article by Linda Hirschman did as well). That leaves out most women, and therefore most families.
Toward the goal of including more working women in the "common good": Here's my article covering the recent Supreme Court oral argument in Burlington Northern v. White, published--I will point out--in Tomasky's TAP Online.
But isn't this -- and the case you mention -- really a question of fairness rather than a question of the common good??
As I also argued here here, the overall issue is not to find one set of interests for everyone but rather to support ways or processes for balancing all the various interests in a way that's fair.
Granted there's a lot of room for discussion about what constitutes fair, which gets back to concepts of shared values rather than shared interests.
And in the case of shared values, in America, you have to go back to the Constitution, belief in individualism and self reliance, belief in equality of opportunity and other such values that are ingrained in America's founding and UNIQUE to American culture.
That's the only place where true commonality in this country can be unequivically found.
April 28, 2006 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll post a mixed but intrigued reaction to the common good theme elsewhere, but I think EJG is twisting the issues. The quote about a 1933 common good surely makes it sound reactionary or blind to predudice in a way that's quite unfair. I presume we can argue the relevance of a notion of the common good that might have been articulated by New Deal liberals and might be relevant in articulating a common good that is valid today. That's not in the least the same as insisting we inherit a 1933 society. If I appeal to the "I Have a Dream" speech for a vision of a more inclusive society, am I defending the status of race relations in King's time or indeed our own?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
April 28, 2006 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do democrats need to appeal to women voters through "family values"? Why can't they appeal to women voters the same way they appeal to men voters, with a coherent and fair foreign policy, sound, decent economics and good domestic decisions that are pragmatic and solution oriented.
Here's an idea - instead of ginning up some political gimmcrackery to "appeal" to different population segments, democrats start acting like democrats instead of republicans. Are we the party of trickle down or the rising tide?
April 28, 2006 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reason is that advocacy groups for minorities and women want it that way. For example, John Edwards can speak authentically about the problems faced by the poor, even though he's rich. But if he wants to speak about problems faced by African-Americans, first he has to "reach out" to them, and that is done by meeting in public with African-American leaders.
My guess is it goes something like this:
A white, male democrat seeking public office says in a speech:
Democrat: "I believe in solving the problems faced by women and minorities, because of my principles of justice/the common good!"
Minority organizations then say:
Minority: "You aren't black/hispanic/gay/a woman! What would you know about the needs of someone like me? You've enjoyed centuries of while male priviledge! Screw you and your principles!"
D: "Er... I'm sorry?"
M: "Well, you seem like a nice kid, so why don't you meet with the leadership of our organization to understand the needs of your minority constituents? Then we'll vote for you!"
So the Democrat does that, and then rewrites his speech to better reflect this new relationship:
D: "I believe in addressing the issues of women and minorities, but not because of my principles, because the importance of those issues has been communicated to me by the leaders of those minorities!"
Then the right-wingers come out of the woodwork:
Right-wing Crank: "Special interests! Pandering! See? He's got no principles and no leadership!"
And, in fact, Right-wing Crank is right. One thing that left-wing special interests and right-wing cranks agree on is that Democratic politicians don't speak authentically about minority issues. The left thinks its because the politicians are white males and its inappropriate for them to be leaders of women and minorities, and the right thinks its because they have no principles and are just pandering to get votes.
This viewpoint from left-wing special interests contributes to the perception that Democrats are disorganized, are bad leaders and have no unity. Arguably, the special interests are right. 57% of Kerry voters were women, but 80% of Democratic members of congress are men; 20% of Kerry voters were African-American but there's only 1 African American Senator; 8% of Kerry voters were Hispanic, but there's only 1 Hispanic Democratic senator. On the plus side, the breakdown of House Democrats very closely resemble the demographics of Kerry voters, other than the number of women.
April 28, 2006 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to you, E.J.--and not just from me. I am an attorney in the Labor Relations Department of the petitioner in the White case. While I didn't personally handle her case in its earliest stages, I am friends with the guy who did.
I sent your article around to him, the Law Department attorney who handled the initial stages of the discrimination case (both of whom also attended the oral argument) and my boss, our VP Labor Relations. All, myself included, agreed that your account was excellent and very fairly addressed all angles of the proceeding, while at the same time obviously advocating your position. That is what journalism at its best is supposed to and should more often be. Again, praise!
April 28, 2006 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The hard part is explaining who counts as part of the "common," and exactly what is the "good."
The common good is what the elected government says it is. That's the whole point of elected government. That its choices don't command universal approval is too damn bad. No choices will...and choices made by other means have, historically, been even less satisfactory.
April 29, 2006 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it never seems to occur to white upper income men that they are the very most special interest of them all.
April 30, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the middle and lower class are divided, the upper class wins. If you start trying to play a game of "more minority than thou" with everyone who complains, you will invariably discover that there's always someone poorer than you. Working class women in America have things bad. There are many workers in the world who have things far worse than they do.
The only hope for progress on this issue is that an injustice to a minority of Americans is considered an injustice to all Americans. In arguing for demographic group X, you should say "no American should be treated the way we are treating X". It's that national shame factor that motivates action--to treat someone with injustice is a disgrace to America, to dismiss the potential of an American is like burning the American flag. That's what, I think, the common good should be about.
April 30, 2006 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Common, meaning everyone.
Good, meaning good for people.
The common good then is something everyone wants and should have, things like respect, dignity, food, housing, clothing, adequate income, health care, you know, all the things that make life livable and decent.
Or, from the Preamble of the Constitution, "promote the general welfare."
I am as sick of the liberal idiots as I am of the conservative punkheads.
NeoLotus
********
- Making judgements without intellectual justification is prejudice.
- We do not act rightly because we have virture, we have virtue because we act rightly.
- To know a truth well, one must have fought it out.
April 30, 2006 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of statement, does lead one open to criticism, that they are pandering. However, having grasped the issues important to minorities, the candidate only has to include the principle issues in his speeches, not attribute them to any group. The candidate may not be able to do that, if he disagrees with the interests of the minority group, in principle, such that he disassociates himself from their interst by blatantly expressing the view in a pandering manner.
Bill Clinton, did not seem to have that problem, he was not accused of pandering to women nor any minority, whether it was gays, hispanics or blacks. What Clinton did was speak about their interests from his personal value system and beliefs. When you do that you do not get accused of pandering.
Perhaps that is the lesson that needs to be learned. John Edwards knew that, he did not speak of minority interest, he focused on poverty, blue collar jobs and the ability for the working class family to make a listen...he did not need to find a way to incorporate minority issues, since all of the above impacts them and their families. That is what is called addressing the needs of the majority of the populace as opposed to special interst group pandering.
The republicans cannot touch that type of message and they know it.
May 1, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink