The eternal conundrum: individual rights versus community needs

 

In a recent column, Janet Daley tried to put the great clash of modern politics into perspective.  She addresses it in the context of American versus European politics, but points out - correctly - that the socialized European model is preached in America too by the Democratic Party, particularly its left-wing progressive movement.  This "muddies the waters".

American voters ... are unabashed in their belief that the American way of life is based on an abiding principle: that individuals have an inalienable right to improve their circumstances in life by their own efforts. If they find that their aspiration and determination are frustrated by things that are beyond their control like inflation or competition for jobs from illegal migrants, they expect the government to act effectively on those problems. Traditionally in the United States, it has been believed that this was what government was for: to remove obstacles to individual achievement and progress.

Much more recently the European model of state intervention and the creation of a welfare state which is designed to protect the disadvantaged and to care for those who, it is believed, cannot succeed on their own, has been brought into the US electoral arena. It is espoused by Left liberals like Bernie Sanders and the new mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, who have gained a hearing but whose ideas are still considered exotic and profoundly at odds with mainstream discourse. It is important to appreciate this because, paradoxically, it could help to illuminate the identity crisis that European democracies are undergoing.

Americans who demand that the obstacles to individual success and personal advancement be removed – that it is, in fact, the most important function of government to remove them – do not see themselves as selfish or callous. On the contrary, they believe quite sincerely that they are upholding an important moral standard: individuals must fulfil their potential and make the effort to succeed as best they can in order to take responsibility for their own lives. Most importantly, to as great an extent as possible, they must see to it that their children will have greater opportunities for self-advancement than they did. That was, and still is, the great American promise.

. . .

This perfectly plausible moral view has been almost drowned out in European politics by generations of  class-based ideology. The very idea of a public morality based on individualism – generally termed “selfish individualism” – was attacked. Then there was the inviolable credo that those who appeared to fail, even if they refused to try, were not to blame. Their bad choices were determined by the misfortune of their circumstances which were out of their control.

In some cases, of course, this would be true – but as a general principle applied to the whole of a population it became an insidious vindictive force: all those who succeeded were guilty of stealing wealth and advantage from all those who failed. Allowing people to prosper and achieve the rewards of their own ingenuity or hard work could not be acceptable because their success created inequality and was, in effect, a form of theft from those who lacked those fortunate traits. The only decent political solution was to take some of that advantage away and hand it out to those who, through no fault of their own, had achieved less. Wealth redistribution or, as it came to be known, “social fairness”, relied on the idea that even your apparent virtues – self-reliance, responsible behaviour, determination – were actually unfair privileges.

If your actions are constructive and conducive to success, that is just the good luck with which you happened to be gifted at birth. The problem for contemporary democracy is that a great many people believe this too. In fact, it is probably the case that a majority of the populations of Western countries believe both of these arguments – that people should be rewarded for succeeding by their own efforts, and that they should be penalised by having to support those who have not made an effort. It has simply become impossible for societies to sustain this contradiction any longer.

There's more at the link.  I highly recommend following the link at the end of the excerpt to read more about how socialized policies are "destroying" the self-sufficient.

We're seeing this conflict of perspectives in America right now between "purists" who want to demolish the "nanny state", dismantle the "deep state", and restore the rights and freedoms of the individual over those of state overreach.  On the other hand, there are those who complain that they're economically less well off than they were, and want the government - any government - to "make them whole", support them financially and in other ways so that they're not as exposed to the vicissitudes of the free market.  I suspect that's at the root of why President Trump's popularity has decreased in recent months.  He's doing a pretty good job of tearing down State overreach, but in doing so he's exposing those who were sheltered by that overreach to greater economic uncertainty, even pain - and they don't like it.

It's a tough discussion, particularly in a world where there are too many people competing for too few resources.  It's all very well for free marketeers to proclaim that if only everyone were given unlimited opportunity, they'd all do better - because there are many who will not do better, either through laziness, or through corruption, or through too much competition for resources.  The free market doesn't have all the answers, but neither does socialism or any of its offshoots.

I find this conundrum personally taxing, if I could put it like that.  As a result of serving in a US government law enforcement function, I became permanently partially disabled, and have relied to some extent on the income that resulted from that disability.  To that extent, I'm dependent on the government.  Yet, I also see the point of those that say we as a society are too dependent on government, and should minimize that dependency wherever possible.  For able-bodied people, I certainly support that approach, and did my best to live that way during the years prior to my injury.  I'd find it very hard to do that today, but there are doubtless those who'd prefer me to "suck it up" and "tough it out".  Needless to say, I don't find that encouraging!

We'll never find an answer that satisfies everyone, I guess.

Peter