You are here
Habits of the Heart II: Civic Membership and the Common Good (Summer Reading)
Tuesday, August 23rd, 2011
Robert Wechsler
Trust in government is a requirement for participation in
government, what the authors of Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life
refer to as "civic membership." This is strongest at the local
level, where we are most likely to get involved in person rather
than through phone calls, petitions, contributions, and voting.
Civic Membership
Our attitudes concerning civic membership affect the essential form of our government, behind the institutions we actually see, which can be no more than the bark of a decayed tree trunk. The authors note that a republican government is dependent on an establishment, as opposed to an oligarchy. “[An] establishment seeks its own good by working for the good of the whole society (noblesse oblige), whereas an oligarchy looks out for its own interests by exploiting the rest of society. … An establishment has a strong sense of civic membership while an oligarchy lacks one. One of the principal differences has to do with taxation: an oligarchy taxes itself least; an establishment taxes itself most.”
I saw this in my town a few years ago, when house prices were skyrocketing and commercial real estate prices were not. When it was time for revaluation, every member of the oligarchy that ruled the town opposed putting it off for a year and would not even mention the alternative of phasing it in over three years. Revaluating properties immediately meant a sharp increase in the property taxes of residents and a decrease in the property taxes of businesses. Postponing the increase for a year or, better, phasing it on over three years, would make the tax increase easier for homeowners to plan for, but would mean that businesses would have to put off getting a windfall from the relative changes in real estate prices.
Were the businesses part of a town establishment, they would have offered to make life easier for residents by trying to find a compromise that would be most fair to everyone. They would have encouraged open discussion of the issues and alternatives. They would not have tried to grab the windfall. By opposing any solution but an immediate windfall for businesses, the town's leaders showed that they were representing not an establishment, but rather an oligarchy of powerful people and associations that cared about nothing but their own short-term interests.
The Common Good
What is the common good the authors talk about? It's about means more than about ends. It's about trying to find a fair solution rather than imposing one that is unfair, hoping that people will be too uninvolved and uninformed to know things could have been more fair. One person the authors interviewed felt that the public good is based on the responsibility of one generation to the next. She believed that we need to limit our desires, and recognize our sense of social responsibility, rather than going after our own interests. It's about generosity of spirit, "the ability to acknowledge an interconnectedness — one’s 'debts to society' — that binds one to others." She felt that this generosity of spirit "gives meaning to the frustrations of political work."
The common good is closely related to our vision of government. Is government a contract agreed to long ago, or is it a participatory community we form on an ongoing basis? A contractual government would reasonably be one piece of a free market, where interests with power and resources contend. But is this really what anyone today has chosen? Did any of us decide that those who participate in government are those with something to gain from it, like those who participate in business? Is this vision of government even discussed, or simply accepted?
People who want to shrink government usually believe in this vision of contending interests. Opposing government usually does not take into account those who do not have the power or resources to get what they want, such as the homeowners in my town. In fact, they often take the side of the more powerful interests. The result is a common good that is anything but common.
Similarly, our campaign finance system, dominated by those with special interests that government can help, is too often simply accepted, and defended as consistent with First Amendment free speech. Campaign finance and public trust have an unusual relationship. The authors note that “making monetary contributions correlates highly with income and is the most unequal form of participation in our society." A participatory system in which money plays such a prominent role undermines the public's trust in government and, especially, in the value of participating in government and having any say. And yet many people oppose public financing of elections because they don't want to give public money to politicians they don't trust, even if public financing would give them more trustworthy politicians.
See the other posts on this book:
Citizen Participation and the Public Trust
The Obligations of Professionals in Local Government
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Civic Membership
Our attitudes concerning civic membership affect the essential form of our government, behind the institutions we actually see, which can be no more than the bark of a decayed tree trunk. The authors note that a republican government is dependent on an establishment, as opposed to an oligarchy. “[An] establishment seeks its own good by working for the good of the whole society (noblesse oblige), whereas an oligarchy looks out for its own interests by exploiting the rest of society. … An establishment has a strong sense of civic membership while an oligarchy lacks one. One of the principal differences has to do with taxation: an oligarchy taxes itself least; an establishment taxes itself most.”
I saw this in my town a few years ago, when house prices were skyrocketing and commercial real estate prices were not. When it was time for revaluation, every member of the oligarchy that ruled the town opposed putting it off for a year and would not even mention the alternative of phasing it in over three years. Revaluating properties immediately meant a sharp increase in the property taxes of residents and a decrease in the property taxes of businesses. Postponing the increase for a year or, better, phasing it on over three years, would make the tax increase easier for homeowners to plan for, but would mean that businesses would have to put off getting a windfall from the relative changes in real estate prices.
Were the businesses part of a town establishment, they would have offered to make life easier for residents by trying to find a compromise that would be most fair to everyone. They would have encouraged open discussion of the issues and alternatives. They would not have tried to grab the windfall. By opposing any solution but an immediate windfall for businesses, the town's leaders showed that they were representing not an establishment, but rather an oligarchy of powerful people and associations that cared about nothing but their own short-term interests.
The Common Good
What is the common good the authors talk about? It's about means more than about ends. It's about trying to find a fair solution rather than imposing one that is unfair, hoping that people will be too uninvolved and uninformed to know things could have been more fair. One person the authors interviewed felt that the public good is based on the responsibility of one generation to the next. She believed that we need to limit our desires, and recognize our sense of social responsibility, rather than going after our own interests. It's about generosity of spirit, "the ability to acknowledge an interconnectedness — one’s 'debts to society' — that binds one to others." She felt that this generosity of spirit "gives meaning to the frustrations of political work."
The common good is closely related to our vision of government. Is government a contract agreed to long ago, or is it a participatory community we form on an ongoing basis? A contractual government would reasonably be one piece of a free market, where interests with power and resources contend. But is this really what anyone today has chosen? Did any of us decide that those who participate in government are those with something to gain from it, like those who participate in business? Is this vision of government even discussed, or simply accepted?
People who want to shrink government usually believe in this vision of contending interests. Opposing government usually does not take into account those who do not have the power or resources to get what they want, such as the homeowners in my town. In fact, they often take the side of the more powerful interests. The result is a common good that is anything but common.
Similarly, our campaign finance system, dominated by those with special interests that government can help, is too often simply accepted, and defended as consistent with First Amendment free speech. Campaign finance and public trust have an unusual relationship. The authors note that “making monetary contributions correlates highly with income and is the most unequal form of participation in our society." A participatory system in which money plays such a prominent role undermines the public's trust in government and, especially, in the value of participating in government and having any say. And yet many people oppose public financing of elections because they don't want to give public money to politicians they don't trust, even if public financing would give them more trustworthy politicians.
See the other posts on this book:
Citizen Participation and the Public Trust
The Obligations of Professionals in Local Government
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
