Concern For The Collective

For whatever reason, I am one of those people with a deeply ingrained sense of fair play that recognizes we are more than simply individuals 'doing our own thing' in isolation and with no regard to others; I happily acknowledge that we are part of a larger agglomeration that we name 'society.'

So yes, I readily admit to being one of those who counts the number of groceries in the basket of the person ahead of me in the express checkout at the grocery store; I am also someone who uses highway passing lanes for their intended purpose and not as my personal conduit or as a semi-permanent solution to avoiding merging traffic while driving at a speed that shows no regard for cars behind me. I also get outraged if a page is defaced or torn out of a library book.

In my mind, all of the above are serious crimes against the collective, selfish refusals to consider others as worthy of our respect and co-operation as we live out our lives.

And yet it is an attitude that seems all too common today, as governments and cultural imperatives urge us to be self-absorbed consumers whose highest values spring from the dictates of the marketplace, not our consciences, values, spiritual beliefs or regard for the common good.

It was therefore refreshing to read in today's Star an article entitled Harvard professor Michael Sandel examines ‘moral limits of markets’ in new book. In it, Sandel, a highly regarded Harvard professor of political philosophy, asks questions that we seem to have become reluctant to ask today:

Sandel says that we are increasingly reluctant to talk about what kind of society we want. We are reluctant to allow moral and spiritual concerns into public debate. Instead, we’ve come to rely on the market to assign value.

“Part of the appeal of markets,” he writes in the book, “is that they don’t pass judgment on the preferences they satisfy. They don’t ask whether some ways of valuing goods are higher or worthier than others.”

The market is only interested in efficiently matching buyers and sellers. It is not interested in what is being distributed, or whether it is fair — let alone whether some things should be distributed at all.

Sandel talks as well about the growing inequality gap that essentially has us living on different worlds, something that seems so very evident when we look at the direction the Harper regime is taking us in Canada:

By putting a price on just about everything, by having things of great value up for sale, we end up widening the gap between those with money and those without. “At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives,” Sandel writes. “We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools. . . It’s not good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live.”

He does not oppose inequality everywhere, but believes that too much of it is dangerous. “Democracy does not require perfect equality,” he writes, “but it does require that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another, and bump up against one another, in the course of everyday life. For this is how we learn to negotiate and abide our differences, and how we come to care for the common good.”

In a world that encourages lazy thinking, reactionary rather than thoughtful responses, and the embrace of absolutisms, Sandel is a refreshing and much-needed voice of reason and reflection. For those who are especially interested, he also has a 12-part television series available on the Internet that explores many of these questions.

Taxpayers Versus Citizens

It probably doesn't take a genius to understand the basic philosophical and fiscal difference between the moderate and the right-wing is that the moderate recognizes the needs of the collective, i.e., the entire society, while the right-wing gives precedence to, indeed exalts, the individual.

The traditional moderate's view on taxation accepts the progressive model, whereby the amount of taxes we pay escalates with our economic standing; by contrast, the right talks only of low taxes so that the individual can decide how to spend his or her hard-earned money. The latter, of course, totally ignores the fact that “no man (woman) is an island,” that we are all part of a larger community, with both collective rights and collective responsibilities.

Yesterday's Star had an excellent column by Edmund Pries, a professor at Wilfrid Laurier University on this distinction. Entitled Taxpayers vs. citizens, it is well worth a few minutes of your time today.

My Political Philosophy

When I was teaching, I used to tell my students that one of the first things they should try to determine when evaluating a piece of non-fiction, whether a biography, autobiography, or essay, was the bias of the writer. Sometimes that bias can be inferred from the content of the piece, but other times it can be helpful to know something about the writer or the organization upon whose behalf he or she is writing.

For example, when reading an advocacy piece from the C.D. Howe Institute or The Fraser Institute, or an editorial from the National Post, it is fairly safe to conclude that the material reflects a very conservative, right-wing bias. Similarly, if reading something by Jim Stanford, an economist employed by the Canadian Auto Works, one Canada's preeminent unions, it is reasonable to infer a liberal, left-of-centre bias. Why are these distinctions important? They simply provide another tool with which we can evaluate material.

So to help anyone who may read this blog, I would like to articulate my own bias. As accurately as I can express it, I would have to say that in my political outlook is essentially middle of the road, or at the centre of the political spectrum, a position that at one time was very respectable, but now, unfortunately, owing to the polarization of politics that has accelerated under the Harper Conservative Government, has become the equivalent of being either 'wishy-washy' or leftist, perhaps too-polite terms if you read some of the labels that are regularly used on The globe and Mail website's Readers' Comments' section. I was initially going to say 'fair and balanced,' but unfortunately Fox News has given that phrase a very specific and odious connotation.

So what does being at the centre of the spectrum mean? For me, it means having a respect for each side's views, as long as neither is extreme. It means respecting the labour side of the equation, as well as the owners' side, i.e., the capitalist model. I draw the line, however, with unbalanced and extremist applications of either perspective. It is as anathema to me to say that all owners are simply fat capitalist exploiters of the workers as it is to tell me that the union model is dead, having outlived its usefulness. Both positions bespeak a kind of faith-based belief that permits no reasoned discourse in opposition to to their arguments/rants. In other words, I really don't have time for the kind of simplistic thinking that so often attaches to those platforms.

The question that has dogged me for so long, related to the above discussion, is: Why can there never seem to be moderation in contemporary politics and discourse? Why does one side so often seem to want to “win it all”? For example, if we study the history of the labour movement, the major impetus toward unionization was the frequently inhumane and dangerous conditions and hours of work under which people laboured. But why, other than thinking they could get away with it, did the owners seek to extract the maximum profit out of each employee at the expense of his health and life outside of work? Why could they not have been satisfied with reasonable profits from their investments? The obvious answer is that capitalism is all about the maximization of profit in order to promote even more entrepreneurship and investment; however, those making the decision to send five-year-olds into the coal mines were not principles, they were human beings. What is it then, that makes humans enslaved to a principle or belief, no matter the cost?

Or, on a related matter, why is reasoned discussion in our society so often trumped by cheap emotion, where demagoguery, if engineered sufficiently skillfully, can carry the day?

Are we really such flawed human beings?