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.
Nice straw man you’re trying to build there, Dave.
Don’t hurt yourself with all that non-existent lifting.
Okay mike gets it, but makes the wrong conclusion, raff & gene are statist’s arguing for more govt. Mike law can be a very simple thing, aggression against another person or
his property, it needn’t be anything else. When you take it past this point what are you doing? Logically you are arguing for big brother gov’t, whether you think it is moral or not is simply irrelevant. It’s is no ones business to tell you what to do with you person or property, as long as you do not agress against another. The conclusion of allowing the govt to do any of what Raff or Gene argues is the totalitarian state, because govt does not relinquish power, it only seeks to expand it, unless violent revolution should demand otherwise. History is full of examples of men who want the all powerful state, and they all failed. For the sake of common sense and liberty this notion must be ended. If you let govt do what Romney & Obama(of which there is virtually no difference)do, then you consent to anything they do. Since both agree they can assassinate you, control your medical care, spy on you, steal your income.
Where does it end, I do not consent to these busy bodies and do gooder beauracrats who claim to dictate what I should think is morally necessary. It has no logical end except the complete state.
So limit govt in all ways except to defend freedom,
let people help people, not be told they have to because it’s some noble cause some busy body thinks you should endorse it.
Rep. Ron Paul questions value of federal flood aid for victims of Hurricane Sandy
By Pete Kasperowicz – 11/05/12 03:28 PM ET
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Monday that the billions of dollars in damage Hurricane Sandy caused in New York and New Jersey raises “uncomfortable questions” about whether taxpayers should continue to pay for the cleanup from natural disasters.
While many New York and New Jersey members are calling for billions in additional funds, Paul said on his website that the government will continue to lose money by insuring these sorts of events.
The former GOP presidential candidate said most of the funding to help with Sandy will come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). But he said these agencies will only put taxpayers deeper in debt by writing checks.
“Many think there is a need for the government to provide flood insurance of this kind,” Paul said. “After all, the market would never provide insurance in flood prone areas at an affordable price. But shouldn’t that tell us something?
“Shouldn’t that tell us that it is a losing proposition to insure homes in coastal areas and flood plains often threatened by severe and destructive weather patterns? And if it’s a losing proposition, should taxpayers subsidize the inevitable losses arising from federal flood insurance?”
Paul said the NFIP in particular creates a moral hazard by making it more affordable for people to keep building and rebuilding in flood prone areas.
“The obvious and expected outcome is more danger to life and limb when disaster strikes,” Paul wrote.
Regarding FEMA, Paul said that agency has a record of “mismanaged recovery and relief” efforts in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Ike. He said charities and private organizations are better equipped to help people that FEMA.
“Organizations such as the Red Cross and private companies like Home Depot and Duracell have already stepped in admirably to help those in need, and we can only hope FEMA has learned this time not to impede and frustrate private efforts as they have in the past,” Paul said. The Hill
Great link Swarthmore!
Kudos to Mike A. and Gene for their responses to Dave who does not believe in a social compact, if it impacts him negatively in any way. I think Dave just needs to buy an island someplace and live off the land. Of course, when you come to town to buy your supplies, the social compact will come into play.
Mike S., good points. I remember how bitter I felt toward the Democratic Party in 1968 when Humphrey won the nomination and Daley bloodied the streets of Chicago. It was my first opportunity to vote and Eugene McCarthy was my man. By the time election day rolled around, I was ready to swallow my wounded innocence and vote for Humphrey. Of course, he lost anyway.
“I remember how bitter I felt toward the Democratic Party in 1968 when Humphrey won the nomination and Daley bloodied the streets of Chicago.”
Mike A,
Well I remember my bitterness too, since I supported RFK and was devastated when he was murdered as I had just watched his California victory speech. I couldn’t sleep that night with my reddened eyes glued to the TV. I was very active in the Movement for social change at the time and while I was unhappy with Humphrey for his being LBJ’s VP, I remembered how much good he had done in fighting Democratic Party racism. I also remembered Nixon’s history and so I had to vote for and support Humphrey, despite Chicago.
Many of my associates in the movement thought me a fool and a traitor. Many of the purists on the left refused to support Humphrey, who only lost by a small margin. Nixon escalated the Viet Nam War precipitously, bombed Laos and Cambodia, directly leading to Pol Pot’s ascension in Cambodia. The issue today is only tangentially a war. The core issues are SCOTUS, Women’s Freedom and the suffering of the 99%. There is a clear choice to be made and those who refuse to realize it will have hands as bloody as was that of those Leftist purists back in 1968. The advantage of age is that you’ve lived through historic times most people alive can only read about.
Mike S, A lawyer friend sent it to me. I posted it because we have this discussion over and over again on this blog.
This is the beginning of the article SwM posted which I completely agree with:
“Within left politics in 2012, the big story has not been Occupy or any other social movement. It hasn’t been building on the Wisconsin protests to create long-lasting change. It’s been a discussion of this question: Has Obama been so horrible that we can’t vote for him?
I’m really disappointed in the left in this conversation.
I would like to think that we on the left actually do understand history. We do not. There is a clear path to change. Conservatives understand this. You take over the party structure. That’s what they did in the 1950s and 1960s when they were disgusted by the moderate Republicanism of Dwight Eisenhower, Earl Warren, and Nelson Rockefeller. They took over party structures and local offices and turned them into bastions of energized conservatism. Note that conservatives basically don’t run 3rd party campaigns. Libertarians might talk about doing this–but they almost all vote Republican in the end because they know that they are moving their agenda forward by doing so.
Any reading of history shows that change within the American political system does not come through third party campaigns. It comes through the hard work of organizing our communities to demand change. Eventually legal and political changes are necessary–but only after people are organized to demand them. Look at the major movements in the last century. The labor movement, African-American civil rights, the women’s movement, gay rights movement. Each of these movements spent decades (or a century) organizing for change. For each of them, there was a moment when it all came together and they could demand transformations of federal and state law, which for gay rights is happening right now.
Note that not a single one of these transformational social movements used a third party mechanism as an important strategy.”
Dave S: The problem with the notion that no one should be forced to pay for something they oppose is that a society adopting that principle would inevitably descend into anarchy. The function of voting is to provide guidance on what sorts of things society believes the government should be able to force me to do. I happen to believe in a number of libertarian policies on social issues and personal freedom. However, the limitation on government authority which you propose would produce mayhem in short order. Using the social contract analogy, your agreement would be terminable at will.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/11/thoughts-on-the-left-at-the-end-of-an-election-cycle Interesting take on the failure of third parties in the US and the absurdity of the telling people not to vote movement.
SwM,
Your lawyersgunsandmoneyblog.com link brilliantly summarizes my thinking much better than I could have done myself. Because many might not bother to actually read the article “Thoughts on the Left at the End of the Election Cycle”, which was a brilliant refutation of those one the Left who see no difference twixt Romney and Obama, I must post its ending summary:
“.1. Change happens outside the election cycles–elections are for institutionalizing the changes you have attempted to make in the past 4 years.
2. Every single U.S. president has blood on his hands. Voting in a presidential election is always a choice between two evils.
3. We need to think less about our own personal moral position in voting. It’s not about you. It’s about the community where you live. Even if you vote for Jill Stein, the blood of Pakistani babies killed in drone strikes is on your hands. You cannot wash off that blood without changing the system–something that 3rd parties have never done. You want clean hands–organize the American public around the issues you care about. It will take the rest of your life. That is the timeline of real change.
4. There actually are lessons from the past on these issues. There are lessons in how to organize. And there are lessons about what third parties do and do not do. When someone can tell me what value a third party has had to pushing the agenda to the left in the last 80 years, I’ll be real interested in hearing it.
5. We need a tougher and smarter left. The self-described left punditry and journalists in 2012 has been individualistic, holier than thou, disorganized, and narcissistic. The real story of the left this year is smart and tough–the Chicago Teachers Union. That’s how you demand and make change. Writing editorials obscuring the differences between Obama and Romney and encouraging well-meaning people to protest vote is worse than worthless–it’s mendacious and serves as a tool for conservatives to continue pushing this nation back to the Gilded Age.”
Who is advocating no govt? It is a neccessary evil, to enforce basic rights, and defend its borders, not to be lorded over by statists who think it is some noble cause to have a nanny state. I vote libertarian in the hope people will come to their senses and reduce the state.
I don’t know all your views Gene, from what I read you come off quite authoritarian. A social contract of birth doesn’t mean busy bodies off all stripes should devote their lives to making me pay for the state again for what they deem moral. There isn’t a lord of the flies theme, only that it isn’t your concern what I do with my person or property. That should be my concern as long as I’m not injuring others. Do you believe I should pay the govt money if I’m against abortion, for abortion? The end defense of all your lib and con arguments are govt force. When it should be for freedom, I’m not an anarchist, I believe law and order are quite neccessary, but not for busy bodies to twist law into every cause they feel is just in gov’t with or without my consent. The social contract is just justification for the nanny state, which is why I choose to argue the merits of strictly limited govt.
Go work in the private sector to pursue goals which you deem noble, don’t use force to make me go along with what you think is part of this contract.
“No I believe in property rights, liberty, contract rights but not the right of the majority to decide for me with government force which programs it deems moral. ”
Property rights and contractual obligations that would be meaningless without government enforcements and protections. Unless, of course, you’re the Randian Superman and the baddest ass on the planet capable of vanquishing all others who would take your property and rip you off on a contract.
Also, you should have simply said, “I believe in my right to property and to do whatever I please without consequence, but I don’t believe in democracy.” It would have been much cleaner.
“So I have would have to renounce my citizenship to avoid violence at the hands of the govt for what you deem is a social contract? But of a catch 22 wouldn’t you say? You would use govt force against others for what you justify as morally praiseworthy despite my objections? What social contract is this? And who would enter it other than statists?”
You enter into a social compact whenever and wherever you are born. The salient point is that our social compact is voluntary (unlike, for example, North Korea) and you are free to leave as you wish and no longer be subject to the domestic laws that are the trade off for mutually derived benefit of being in a society. There is no Catch 22. The door is that way and no one will try to stop you from leaving. As to your straw man about what I would or would not endorse as a proper use of governmental force? It’s not worthy of address. You have no idea what I think on that matter, Dave. However, force is necessary in any form of government to enforce compliance with the laws as set in that given society. Law without enforcement is a suggestion. As to your objections? Society is a cooperative act. Your specific objections may or may not be rational and they may or may not conform to what the rest of society deems appropriate. For example, that douche bag Alan Greenspan thinks that fraud shouldn’t be illegal, but fortunately the rest of society disagrees with him. You do have a remedy though if your objections as so strong as to make your life ethically untenable. You can leave. Good luck finding a place to live though where you won’t be subject to the social compact in one form or another. They are simply a part of any society with organized government whether you like it or not.
Also, statism – a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs – is only an issue of you endorse either anarchy (which doesn’t work) or some form of authoritarian/totalitarian regime. In a democracy, the power is vested in the decentralized People. If things aren’t going to your satisfaction and you don’t have the cajones to leave, then might I suggest participating in democracy and trying to reshape society to your liking. Given that you seem to endorse some kind of anarchist Lord of the Flies fantasy though, I doubt you’ll have much success on shaping anything at scale.
Have a day.
A little comic relief:
http://youtu.be/w2DJimmkfRY
No I believe in property rights, liberty, contract rights but not the right of the majority to decide for me with government force which programs it deems moral. It’s not for govt or liberal & conservative busy bodies to decide. There is no such thing as a social contract, only authoritarian’s justifying their positions via some greater good. These are abstract ideas, that in any real sense do not exist. Apple makes iPhones because it can make a profit, and generally speaking it benefits the greater good of those who willingly would like to pay for one. When statists use gov’t force to make me pay for things they want, like forcing me to buy an inferior phone, that I did not want to but have no choice because I could be imprisoned if I did not comply, what sociallly or morally is acceptable about this? People do things for their own benefit, for their friends and families and communities, this need for libs & cons to decide that we must needs to end.
If you can’t do better than Lord of the flies perhaps Mr. Turley should find a better writer for his blog.
“thinly veiled “social contract arguments to bash Romney are quite funny.” … “And to the so called social contact which you seem to imply we are all apart, well I nor you, or anyone else signed anything of the sort. ” (Dave S)
To the first point … there was nothing “thinly veiled” about the essay. It was up front and in your face.
As to the second point …
Apart (adv) separated by distance or time
A part(noun) a piece of something that forms the whole of something
Freudian?
Many people who deny the validity of the social contract can be defined as sociopaths, since they exhibit similar qualities, particularly their lack of empathy.
I meant “your”.
Dave S:
If you’re primary concern is that you be able to keep all your stuff, you may have to consider something along the lines of the “Lord of the Flies” model. But I think it’s pretty well accepted that that’s not a particularly effective form of governance.
So I have would have to renounce my citizenship to avoid violence at the hands of the govt for what you deem is a social contract? But of a catch 22 wouldn’t you say? You would use govt force against others for what you justify as morally praiseworthy despite my objections? What social contract is this? And who would enter it other than statists?
“well no one alive today signed any such contract, so how is it anyone’s right to decide what we must accept as a so called social contract?”
Well unlike some societies, your participation in the American social compact becomes entirely voluntary once you reach the age of majority. You are free to renounce your citizenship any time you like.
I am no Romney supporter, but thinly veiled “social contract arguments to bash Romney are quite funny. Romney is an interventionist every bit as much as Obama, why liberals try to draw these stark contrast’s between the two because of so called ideology I have no idea. What tangible differences are there between the men? Govt medicine, both pro, warfare and empire? Both pro, Medicare, corporatism, wall street bailouts? Both pro, central banking? Both pro!!!
Romney and Obama both endorse assassination of Americans on their say so, disqualifying both from office. These choices are frightening to say the least.
And to the so called social contact which you seem to imply we are all apart, well I nor you, or anyone else signed anything of the sort. So because you believe it’s the role of gov’t to take my dollars and steal from productive people, I’m not supposed to have a say in the matter? These collectivist ideologies need to be flushed. Accident of birth doesn’t entitle Trotskyites to dictate how or for whom my or others income should be confiscated ie stolen to help with their ideas of a social contract. Just because you believe like Romney & Obama in the nanny state and attempt to justify it through threat of the violence of govt how is this a social contract? It is outright tyranny for 51% to dictate how any society spend its money, be they liberal or conservative. Both sides endorse the all powerful state, and liberal and conservative blow hards continue to justify these massive intrusions into everyday life, as a social contract, well no one alive today signed any such contract, so how is it anyone’s right to decide what we must accept as a so called social contract?