Constitutional Law, Justice, Politics, Religion, Society

Hurricane Sandy and the Social Contract

Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger

The great storm that ravaged the east coast this past week brought into sharper focus than all of the presidential debates combined the central issue facing voters on Tuesday.  Those who continue to believe that we are all in this together applauded the non-partisan meetings between President Obama and New Jersey governor Christ Christie.  The ideologues on the right saw those same meetings as a cynical betrayal of conservative orthodoxy.  Alternatively, they approved the initial response of Rep. Steve King (R. Iowa), who subordinated concern over the needs of the storm’s victims to the question of  what budget cuts would need to be made before providing federal assistance.  These distinct responses accentuated the fact that the election is not about economic policy or religious freedom or the mess in the Middle East.  It is not about climate change or energy independence or immigration reform.  And it is not about abortion or same-sex marriage or the rights of public unions.  At its core, the election is a referendum on affirming or rescinding the social contract.  All the rest is committee work.

By “social contract” I mean the principles which I believe most strongly influenced the Founders, the theory of civil government expounded in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.  A civil society is formed, he wrote, “wherever any number of men, in the state of nature, enters into society to make one people one body politic, under one supreme government . . .  .  For hereby he authorizes the society . . . to make laws for him, as the public good of society shall require . . .  .  And this puts men out of a state of nature and into a commonwealth . . .  . “

In Locke’s view, the purpose and end of government is the preservation of property interests, which he broadly describes as “life, health, liberty and possessions.”  He describes civil government as the “proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature.”  Locke’s words are echoed in the Declaration of Independence with its references to the inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The Constitution incorporates Locke’s ideas in both the Preamble and in the division of government into separate legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The political debates over the past four years and the ideological opposition to the Obama presidency can be analyzed under many sub-headings, but taken as a whole, the arguments question the fundamental nature of government.  The following examples are illustrative:

A. The personal social contract. 

“It is not the public good that matters; it is the personal good.”

-Rep. Allen West (R. Fla.), CPAC conference, 2012

In Rep. West’s view, the social contract is unconcerned with common welfare beyond the requirements of the defense of individual interests.  The goal of government is limited to protecting one’s personal rights and, by extension, the independence of the country.  Therefore, government is a minimalist proposition.  It exists to maintain a strong national defense and the ability to prosecute and punish those who would harm one’s person or property.   The only obligation imposed upon the individual is to respect the same rights in others (or suffer the consequences) and to pay the taxes necessary for the common defense.  Although adherents to this view acknowledge the additional responsibilities of government described in the Constitution, they regard the social contract as essentially a private agreement between the individual and the state.

B. The exclusionary social contract.  

“If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.”

-Judson Phillips, president of the Tea Party Nation (quoted in Think Progress, November 30, 2010)

Although the Constitution does not address the right to vote, and the beliefs of the Founders were certainly a product of prevailing attitudes and values, the fact is that Locke considered consent an essential element of civil society. A commonwealth is formed, according to him, “by the consent of every individual.”

The history of this country has, until recently, been one of expansion of the right to vote, to propertyless citizens, to former slaves, to women and to all those deemed old enough to die in the nation’s wars.  Yet universal suffrage has been the subject of political and legislative attack in the last several years, largely, in my view, as a reaction to the election of a black president.  The lie that voter fraud compels the enactment of strict voter ID requirements has been too well debunked to warrant further comment.  The real motives are to be found in the language of the promoters of voter suppression legislation.  Florida State Senator Michael Bennett (R. Bradenton) has declared that voting is a privilege rather than a right.  “This is something people died for.  Why should we make it easier?” (quoted in the Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2011).  Writing in the American Thinker, Matthew Vadum criticized the efforts of Democrats to register the poor with the observation that “Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn’t about helping the poor.  It’s about helping the poor to help themselves to others’ money.”  Gov.  Romney’s now famous comment on the 47% is a variation on this theme.  Controversial New Hampshire House Speaker William O’Brien unsuccessfully pushed legislation which would have prohibited college students from registering to vote from their school addresses, candidly acknowledging that a college student will likely vote “as a liberal.” (quoted in Think Progress, December 1, 2011).  And the Republican mayor of Arlington, Tennessee, upset that President Obama’s Afghanistan speech had preempted a Peanuts Christmas special, expressed his annoyance on Facebook with the erroneous statement that  “Our forefathers had it written in the original Constitution that only property owners could vote.  It if had stayed there, things would be different.”  (quoted in The KC  Blue Blog, December 5, 2009).  True enough.

C. The corporatist social contract.

“Corporations are people too, my friend.” 

-Gov. Mitt Romney, at a campaign rally

Gov. Romney’s assertion has legal support in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, a case which more than any other has contributed to the dominance of wealth in the political conversation.  Of course, this definition of corporate personhood did not exist when Locke was alive.  Corporations were created solely by grant from the sovereign for specific purposes.  In the early years of the republic, corporations came into being through charters issued by the legislature.  Now they have been granted standing as persons under the Constitution, but without any of the obligations imposed upon private persons.  The notion of corporate free speech has enabled corporate interests to spend money without limitation, essentially controlling commercial political speech on the public airwaves.  And the message most prominently promoted is that the interests of capital are more important than the interests of labor, that income inequality is a function of personal resourcefulness rather than political power.

Gov. Romney approved this view when he described concern over income inequality as attributable to envy.  “You know, I think it’s about envy.  I think it’s about class warfare.  When you have a President encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent-and those people who have been the most successful will be in the one percent-you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the notion of one nation under God.” (quoted in The Economist,  January 12, 2012).

I confess to some confusion over the meaning of that statement, other than its implication that the wealthiest individuals in the world have earned a reserved seat  at the table of representative government.  In practical terms, it means that those who have most benefitted from favorable policies have no particular obligations to the commonweal.  It means that the rights of labor are subservient to the interests of capital.  It means that the elimination of unions, of pension plans and of health benefits may be justified solely on the basis of economic freedom.  It means that the accumulation of wealth is proof of civic and moral virtue.  It means that the economically powerful may continue to reduce the median income of the middle class if that is seen as  necessary to protect executive income and shareholder dividends.  And it lends support to the social darwinism perhaps best expressed by the comment of former South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer that government assistance to the poor is comparable to “feeding stray animals.” (quoted at bostonherald.com, January 24, 2010).  It confuses jealousy with the reasoned perception of unfairness.  It dismisses the argument that the growth of income inequality is primarily a result of the misallocation of the benefits of increased worker productivity.  Most importantly, it ignores the truth that the social contract cannot be fair if the parties lack equal bargaining power.  It  converts the social contract into a corporate contract of adhesion under the myth of “freedom of contract.”

D. The Christian social contract.

“The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise.  Those who refuse to submit publicly . . . must be denied citizenship.”

-Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (1989)

John Locke regarded civil government as a wholly secular institution.  His opinion was explained in A Letter Concerning Toleration, in which he wrote, “Civil interests I call life, liberty, health and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, land, houses, furniture and the like. . . . Now the whole jurisdiction of the magistrate reaches only to those civil concernments . . . it neither can be nor ought in any manner to be extended to the salvation of souls . . .  .”  This principle exists in the Constitution in the form of the First Amendment, which protects both religion and unbelief.  Nevertheless, the Christian right has attempted to redefine the Constitution as a Christian covenant borne of American exceptionalism, the idea of the nation as the “shining city on the hill.”  Thus the economic theory of capitalism becomes biblically compelled and the social contract becomes a Christian-only agreement, a covenant between the nation and a Christian God.

When the polls open Tuesday morning, those who have not already cast their ballots should understand that we are deciding between starkly different ideas of government and social cohesion.  Hurricane Sandy brought many of us to our knees.  But it will serve a positive end if it also brought us to our senses.

123 thoughts on “Hurricane Sandy and the Social Contract”

  1. Ryan Says Obama Policies Threaten ‘Judeo-Christian’ Values
    By TRIP GABRIEL
    Paul Ryan holds a rally at the Douglas County Fairgrounds in Castle Rock, Colo.Josh Haner/The New York Times Paul Ryan holds a rally at the Douglas County Fairgrounds in Castle Rock, Colo.

    CASTLE ROCK, Colo. — Representative Paul D. Ryan accused President Obama on Sunday of taking the country down a path that compromised Judeo-Christian values and the traditions of Western civilization.

    The remarks came in a conference call with evangelical Christians, sandwiched between public rallies in which he often spoke of the Romney-Ryan ticket’s promise to bridge partisan divides if elected.

    Mr. Ryan’s campaign plane touched down in Colorado late on Sunday, his fourth state in a hectic day of rallies meant to maximize turnout on Election Day, and he spoke by phone to the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a group founded by the conservative Christian strategist Ralph Reed.

    “It’s a dangerous path,” Mr. Ryan said, describing Mr. Obama’s policies. “It’s a path that grows government, restricts freedom and liberty and compromises those values, those Judeo-Christian, Western civilization values that made us such a great and exceptional nation in the first place.”’

    A spokesman for Mr. Ryan, Michael Steel, said, “He was talking about issues like religious liberty and Obamacare – topics he has mentioned frequently during the campaign.”

    Mr. Ryan has previously criticized the Affordable Care Act for requiring church-run charities and institutions to include contraception in insurance plans for employees, a criticism widely echoed by conservatives. But this was the first time Mr. Ryan had used such strong language on the issue.

  3. Mike,

    A masterful job and presentation!

    *****

    Swarthmore mom,

    A Case Study of Republicans vs. Democrats on FEMA
    By Kevin Drum
    Oct. 30, 2012
    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/fema-case-study-difference-between-democrats-and-republicans

    Mitt Romney apparently still thinks that downsizing and privatizing the functions of FEMA is a good idea. After all, everyone knows that federal bureaucracies are cesspools of incompetence.

    Except….it turns out that they’re only cesspools of incompetence during certain eras. See if you can spot the trend here:

    George H.W. Bush: Appoints Wallace Stickney, head of New Hampshire’s Department of Transportation, as head of FEMA. Stickney is a hapless choice and the agency is rapidly driven into the ditch: “Because FEMA had 10 times the proportion of political appointees of most other government agencies, the poorly chosen Bush appointees had a profound effect on the performance of the agency.”

    Bill Clinton: Appoints James Lee Witt, former head of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services, as head of FEMA. The agency is reborn as a professional operation: “As amazing as it sounds, Witt was the first FEMA head who came to the position with direct experience in emergency management….On Witt’s recommendation, Clinton filled most of the FEMA jobs reserved for political appointees with persons who had previous experience in natural disasters and intergovernmental relations.”

    George W. Bush: Appoints Joe Allbaugh, his 2000 campaign manager, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh explains that his role is to downsize FEMA and privatize its functions: “Expectations of when the federal government should be involved and the degree of involvement may have ballooned beyond what is an appropriate level. We must restore the predominant role of State and local response to most disasters.” Once again, the agency goes downhill: “[Allbaugh] showed little interest in its work or in the missions pursued by the departed Witt….Those of us in the business of dealing with emergencies find ourselves with no national leadership and no mentors. We are being forced to fend for ourselves.”

    Allbaugh quits after only two years and George W. Bush downgrades FEMA from a cabinet-level agency and appoints Allbaugh’s deputy, Michael Brown, former Commissioner of Judges and Stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association, as FEMA’s head. A former employer, Stephen Jones, is gobsmacked when he hears about it: “Brown was pleasant enough, if a bit opportunistic, Jones said, but he did not put enough time and energy into his job. ‘He would have been better suited to be a small city or county lawyer,’ he said.”

    Barack Obama: Appoints Craig Fugate, Florida’s state emergency management director, as head of FEMA. Fugate immediately revives FEMA, receiving widespread praise for the agency’s handling of the devastating tornadoes that ripped across seven Southern states last year: “Under Fugate’s leadership, an unimaginable natural disaster literally has paved the way for a textbook lesson in FEMA crisis management….Once the laughingstock of the federal bureaucracy after the bumbling, dithering tenure of director Michael Brown, FEMA under Fugate prepares for the worst and hopes for the best rather than the other way around.”

    The lesson here is simple. At a deep ideological level, Republicans believe that federal bureaucracies are inherently inept, so when Republicans occupy the White House they have no interest in making the federal bureaucracy work. And it doesn’t. Democrats, by contrast, take government services seriously and appoint people whose job is to make sure the federal bureaucracy does work. And it does.

  8. ” Like Mr. Clinton, President Obama restored FEMA’s professionalism, effectiveness, and reputation. But would Mitt Romney destroy the agency again? Yes, he would. As everyone now knows — despite the Romney campaign’s efforts to Etch A Sketch the issue away — during the primary Mr. Romney used language almost identical to Mr. Allbaugh’s, declaring that disaster relief should be turned back to the states and to the private sector.

    The best line on this, I have to admit, comes from Stephen Colbert: “Who better to respond to what’s going on inside its own borders than the state whose infrastructure has just been swept out to sea?”

    Look, Republicans love to quote Ronald Reagan’s old joke that the most dangerous words you can hear are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Of course they’ll do their best, whenever they’re in power, to destroy an agency whose job is to say exactly that. And yes, it’s hypocritical that the right-wing news media are now attacking Mr. Obama for, they say, not helping enough people.

    Back to the politics. Some Republicans have already started using Sandy as an excuse for a possible Romney defeat. It’s a weak argument: state-level polls have been signaling a clear and perhaps widening Obama advantage for weeks. But as I said, to the extent that the storm helps Mr. Obama, it’s well deserved.

    The fact is that if Mr. Romney had been president these past four years the federal response to disasters of all kinds would have been far weaker than it was. There would have been no auto bailout, because Mr. Romney opposed the federal financing that was crucial to the rescue. And FEMA would have remained mired in Bush-era incompetence.

    So this storm probably won’t swing the election — but if it does, it will do so for very good reasons.” Paul Krugman

  9. The word “convergence” comes to mind on this topic. I think it was John Kenneth Galbraith who coined the phrase and elucidated the concept. In plain language the commies get more like us and we get more like them. In this decade the Chinese capitalists get more like Romney and Romney gets more like the Chinese Communists with their control freak ways. But convergence between socialism and facism came together with Hitler and his National Socialist Party. Curley on the Three Stooges sums it up best when he lays eyes upon the Romneys of the world: Hotsie Totsie, I smell a Nazi.

  10. Mike A., a most excellent essay. I agree with the comments above that this is your best piece to date. Eloquent and accurate observations.

  11. Mike,

    My excitement rose as I read through your elegant and eloquent prose. You conceptualized the essence of this election and the ongoing struggle against the forces of Corporate Feudalism. You accomplished this via weaving together your narrative of what this country really should be about, with the words of those who would destroy our freedom, for want of shoring up their underserved egotism. Bravo, I am in awe and can only reply with a rousing AMEN!

  14. “At its core, the election is a referendum on affirming or rescinding the social contract. All the rest is committee work.” (Mike A.)

    YES!

    A mighty throwing down of the gauntlet. … let’s see who picks it up.

  17. Thunder, believe me, the civics I took in Jr high (9th grade) does not look like it is from the same country we are living in now! Can you believe, we actually had to learn about these really archaic and obsolete documents, called the Consitution and the Bill of Rights?

    Kids now don’t know what they are and don’t care. But why should they? the government stopped knowing and caring long ago . . .

  19. To form a contract there must be two willing parties who agree on the terms. To fulfill the contract there must be two willing, honest parties who can and will perform. At the present time in Amerika we have several parites who can not agree on what the terms are, who are not willing to perform, who are not honest, and who cannot perform. It is akin to a guy named Akin who goes to a cathouse in Amsterdam and can not get it up.

  20. I fear our friends in the USofA may have become way too polarised to step back from the brink this excellent post describes.

    Those advantaged by their interpretation of the founding ideals will not stop. I won’t hold my breath waiting for their fundamentalist zeal to wane.

    Do children still get civics lessons at all, or have the fundies inserted their version of the founding story there as well?

    If yes and if there is time for the US empire, two or three generations may pass before a “restoration”. Good luck with that.

Comments are closed.