Does Common Ground Require Agreeing on the Common Good?

/by

“What are the American ideals? They are the development of the individual for his own and the common good; the development of the individual through liberty; and the attainment of the common good through democracy and social justice.” – Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

The above quote is from the new book The Common Good by former Secretary of Labor and now professor and author Robert Reich.  While there is no doubt that Reich is an advocate for liberal and progressive thought, his latest book raises an interesting thesis that is worth discussing as it relates to the notion of how to achieve common ground?

Reich posits that America has for at least the last five decades under both Republican and Democrat and liberal and conservative majorities, been mired in a cycle that has swung far away from the common good and more towards the individual to the detriment of societal trust in government and other institutions. As such we no longer have a sense of what the common good is but rather we are now a nation of shareholders as opposed to stakeholders.  While the book is critical of the current majority, he is clear that today’s divisiveness did not just spring from this administration but has been fomenting for a very long time.

Much of his book focuses on using economic principles as a way to measure just how far we have strayed from understanding what we owe each other if anything as members of the same society.  His stated goal in writing the book is as he notes, to at least advance a discussion of the good that we have in common and provide a means for people with different views to debate.   As he also points out, the idea of the common good is not new.

He makes mention of the Eighteenth Century philosophers and the Founders who all advocated the idea of a public good as a means to civic virtue.  In fact the concept of the common good can be found in writings dating back to Plato and the idea of social harmony.  But as Reich also points out, we should not romanticize any of this because common good even when it was a goal was clearly not always inclusive.  However, Reich raises the idea that we cannot advance today and break the current cycle of polarization unless we get back to at least the goal of common good.

“The goal of the Common Ground Committee is to pursue initiatives which will reveal common ground for finding truth, clarity, understanding, and progress on issues of importance in a civil manner that does not require compromise of fundamental principles”.

We would ask whether or not agreement on the common good is necessary to achieve common ground? Do fundamental principles require a consensus on what is the common good for all or can each side of the aisle have a separate idea of what is the common good? Do you think that in a country as ideologically diverse as we have become we can be both shareholder and stakeholder to achieve what Justice Brandeis described as the American ideal? We welcome your thoughts?

State of the Union Address: Part 3 – Does it still matter? The rebuttal.

/by

So far we have focused on whether or not the annual State of the Union address has relevance to the idea of not just informing the nation about a current President’s views on how the nation is faring, but if it can be used as a tool to reaching common ground.  The same questions can be raised regarding the rebuttal exercise that the minority party follows the speech with each year.

This year the Democrats chose not one, not two but four ways to rebut the speech and two alternate responses cropped up as well.  These included three televised “formal” responses from Congressman Joe Kennedy (network and cable), Congresswoman Maxine Waters (on BET) and newly elected Virginia delegate Elizabeth Guzman (Telemundo, CNN en Espanol and Univision). Senator Bernie Sanders used his YouTube live stream honed during the recent election to provide the Progressive view. Two non-Democratic party Donna Edwards, a former Congresswoman now running for county executive in Maryland, responded on behalf of the Working Families Party (not technically a Democrat response) and president of NARAL-Pro-Choice America, Ilyse Hogue also spoke.

Keep in mind that Republicans responded to President  Obama four different ways  back in 2014 with Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers giving the official response, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., giving the Spanish-language version and  Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky both speaking for the Tea Party coalition.

Looking at relevance and impact, the history of the rebuttals has been fraught with unforced errors as rising stars are often selected to make the response and rather than focusing on their views get derailed by morning after gifs and memes about water bottles and Chapstick and if these up and comers withstood the pressure of a national audience.

This year, as well as using 2014 as an example, the evidence of unity on the party of the responding party was lacking.  Different wings and bases of the parties are given the chance to state their position.  Obviously consensus is missing.

Given the above, do the responses to the State of the Union contribute in any way to reaching common ground for the minority party?  If people are more focused on the cult of personalities and are fodder for the social media amusement, what benefit do we derive from the response? And in general regarding the response and the main address being rebutted, if people are using these speeches as material for their own variety hour, the question of whether or not any of the speeches matter probably has been answered for a segment of the population.

Where then do we go as a citizenry from here? In the next few days we will discuss that question.

State of the Union Address: Part 2 – Does it still matter? The aftermath.

/by

Today, in part two of our notes on the relevance of the State of the Union address, we focus on whether or not the speech given by President Trump last evening represented a method for presidents to help achieve common ground, or rather in today’s technologically driven world, is simply a political anachronism that time and technology have left behind.  Tomorrow, in part three we will put the same lens on the opposition rebuttals.

The fact is that the speech’s success or lack thereof is probably in the eye of the beholder depending on which side of the political aisle you may be sitting on.  The issues raised by the President last night are not new and have been matters of division for a long time.  Immigration has been a hot button for many years, global terrorism and in particular North Korea have been wrestled with by the last four presidents, economics and wage growth and the relationship to the stock market continue to be a conundrum.  As such, there should have been no expectation that one speech each year by any president or any political figure would solve these issues.  Whether or not you feel this President in this speech offered a roadmap to actually solving these problems is a matter for your personal opinion.

One commentator derided the ceremonial traditions that surround the speech making it seem almost monarchical as well as almost redundant.  Historically this was one of the primary reasons Thomas Jefferson did away with the tradition all together.

Another  commentator suggested that the speech in general no longer has relevance, especially for this President, because whereas in the past it was a moment that allowed a president to be presidential and “forced the presidency into action and helped coordinate the bureaucracy, the congressional agenda, and public attention.” However, with a president that communicates multiple times via Twitter on a daily basis, the speech might be obsolete because his words are no longer “finite.”

There is no doubt that this president has thrust the presidency into the social media morass for better or worse.  However, because of the fact that today’s news is presented in short bursts that do not always allow for  true analysis, perhaps a long form speech that lays out the issues is not necessarily a bad idea.  While the solutions presented might not be to one’s liking, the delineation of the issues can motivate a citizen to do some of their own fact checking and research.

Did you watch the speech? Did you see and hear ideas and issues that led you to either change your mind or at least want to know more?  Does this yearly speech represent a unifier or a chance for the President to simply reinforce a particular partisan stance? If the speech were no longer required, what method would you fashion to replace it?  However, the question at hand is what purpose this annual exercise serves in accordance with helping to achieve common ground in a divided nation?