Hard Choices Require Mutual Respect

A storm had thrown the Mayflower well off course- to the uninhabited west coast of the Cape Cod bay. The Pilgrims realized they had free reign in choosing how to structure their lives together in the New World. Their compact to one another – to which all subscribed – was to abide by the will of the majority as long as each had a say in voting on the Colonies laws. Their individual acceptances of majority will was facilitated by the recognition that all were in the same situation: there was no social or economic stratification among the Pilgrims. In short, there was no wealth to fight over.

Fast forward almost three hundred years. The United States had become the most powerful and richest nation in the world. It had evolved into a society where the distribution of income had become highly skewed, more so that at any time since the days of the robber barons of the late nineteenth century. Class struggle – long a scourge of any democracy- has moved front and center in public policy debates.

Paul Krugman speaks to this dynamic in his 13 January New York Times op-editorial –A Tale of Two Moralities. One side, he notes, believes strongly that “society’s winners” should be taxed to pay for a “social safety net” for all citizens. They effectively subscribe to the socialist tenants prevalent throughout Western Europe. Other Americans are equally strong in their conviction that citizens have the right to keep what they have worked hard to earn: they view “taxes and regulation” as “tyrannical impositions on their liberty”. Krugman points out, correctly, that there is no middle ground in this debate.

This class warfare was far less fractious in the past, in part, because the Republican Party was more moderate in its outlook than it is today. More importantly, past Administrations were able to simultaneously address needs of both factions. President Reagan substantially cut taxes without reducing the safety net: President George Bush cut taxes substantially while increasing Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Both did so by using America’s credit card to partially fund government operations. The consequence of this continued deficit spending has been the steady rise in U.S. indebtedness.

We can no longer have it both ways. The annual deficits from programs instituted but not funded during the Bush years have been exacerbated by the current Administration’s spending to first stem the economic downturn and subsequently to facilitate economic recovery. At this point America has effectively reached its credit limit. Although we probably cannot afford to constrain debt growth immediately, we must come to grips with disconnect between tax collections and government expenditures.

Our democracy is faced with making some fundamental choices regarding what we stand for as a nation. Unlike the past, there will be real winners and losers in the current debate. Those who cling to a relatively flat tax rate may be faced with absorbing substantially higher tax burdens. Those who believe in a central role for government in ensuring minimal levels of health care and personal income may be faced with substantial reductions in government support. Substantially cutting US defense and homeland security spending only mitigates this dilemma. Something and someone has to give.

Harsh choices require all of us to heed President Obama’s plea for an end to the vitriolic animosity that has become part and parcel of our national debate. The health of our democracy will depend, in no small measure, on the ability of the political ‘winners’ to be sensitive to the deep-seated values held by the ‘losers’. By analogy, those factions that do not get their way in public policy debates must accept that such losses are a natural outcome of the democratic process.
In our democracy, each citizen is equally entitled to their view of the proper role of government. This fundamental legitimacy should not be denigrated no matter how ‘irrational’ or ‘irresponsible’ their views may appear to others. Politicians espousing programs that go against one’s personal views are not ‘misguided’or a‘threat to the country’. They are simply representing the views of the electorate.

Failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of differing views threatens the vitality of a democracy that started some three-hundred years ago when one hundred and two men and women combined to form a government based on equal participation in decision making and the shared recognition that each individual owed their allegiance to those decisions that were agreed upon. A tenacious clash of values is part and parcel of the democratic process, but so too is the recognition that everyone is entitled to an equal say in the matter regardless of their views. Democracies are sustained, not by policy outcomes, but by the process by which these outcomes are reached.