Responsibility for the Common Good: Tomasky
John Dewey's pragmatic vision of democracy, discussed below, touched upon a principle of reciprocity in democratic political philosophy. There is, in this vision, a latent expectation of an exchange: the democratic social group provides the freedom and opportunity for the growth of the individual; in exchange, the individual is expected to contribute back whatever he or she is capable of contributing to the social group, for the sake of the common good.
Michael Tomasky of The American Prospect spoke of this in a recent article, "Party in Search of a Notion." I think the following excerpts give you the gist of his argument:
"For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.
....
"The Democrats need to become [again] the party of the common good."
....
"There are potential dangers here and they should be noted. A too-aggressive common-good framework can discard liberty and rights; after all, Bush uses a conservative kind of common-good rhetoric to defend his spying program (he’s protecting us from attack). Democrats have to guard against this; a common good that isn’t balanced by concern for liberty can be quasi-authoritarian (“coercive,” as the political philosophers call it). Common-good rhetoric and action must be tethered to progressive ends and must operate within the constitutional framework of individual liberty against state encroachment."
But how and where do we draw the line between the demands of liberty and of the common good? I'm working on that post now.
Michael Tomasky of The American Prospect spoke of this in a recent article, "Party in Search of a Notion." I think the following excerpts give you the gist of his argument:
"For many years -- during their years of dominance and success, the period of the New Deal up through the first part of the Great Society -- the Democrats practiced a brand of liberalism quite different from today’s. Yes, it certainly sought to expand both rights and prosperity. But it did something more: That liberalism was built around the idea -- the philosophical principle -- that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest.
....
"The Democrats need to become [again] the party of the common good."
....
"There are potential dangers here and they should be noted. A too-aggressive common-good framework can discard liberty and rights; after all, Bush uses a conservative kind of common-good rhetoric to defend his spying program (he’s protecting us from attack). Democrats have to guard against this; a common good that isn’t balanced by concern for liberty can be quasi-authoritarian (“coercive,” as the political philosophers call it). Common-good rhetoric and action must be tethered to progressive ends and must operate within the constitutional framework of individual liberty against state encroachment."
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11424
But how and where do we draw the line between the demands of liberty and of the common good? I'm working on that post now.
posted by Alex Budarin | 9:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home