Conservatives who argue that more and bigger government isn’t the solution to our problems are absolutely right: Government is just one agent of our will, with strengths and weaknesses that delimit the scope of its efficacy. Whether we address the challenges and opportunities which confront us through government, or churches, or civic organizations, or just individually, nothing supersedes the importance of personal responsibility.
But what is personal responsibility? We generally consider, for instance, not abandoning one’s children to be a personal responsibility. We consider obeying the laws, caring for one’s elderly parents, perhaps even taking adequate care of one’s home and property, all to be personal responsibilities. At the limit, some might use the term to refer to the need that each individual take care of him or herself, so that the rest of us won’t have to. All of these have one thing in common: They involve responsibilities to others. And we understand that those others bear reciprocal responsibilities in turn. Personal responsibility, in other words, is synonymous with mutual responsibility. It is a social obligation we owe to one another.
Something as vital to our collective welfare as mutual responsibility shouldn’t be treated as a casual wish, something we dearly want to see exhibited by others, but feel powerless to affect beyond meekly encouraging it. We should, instead, strive to cultivate it, to instill it in people, something we understandably implore parents to do. But imploring parents to instill it in their children is as weak and insufficient as imploring people to exercise it in the first place. We need, rather, to make the exercise and cultivation of mutual responsibility in people’s individual interest. We need to incentivize it. And, of course, we do.
There are four basic tools for incentivizing socially desirable behaviors: Hierarchies, markets, norms, and ideologies. In hierarchies, codified rules are officially enforced through formal rewards and punishments. Examples of this method of incentivizing behaviors are legal and penal systems, employment contracts, church leadership structures, and formal organizational frameworks in general. The strength of this method is that it facilitates the pursuit of intentionally formulated goals through very direct means. Its weakness involves the rapid accumulation of bargaining, monitoring, and enforcement costs as the goals become increasingly complex, the interests of the parties increasingly varied, and the population involved increasingly large.
Markets operate by facilitating multi-lateral mutually beneficial exchange. The easier it is for me to focus on one thing I do well that others require or desire, and offer it to others in return for the things they do well that I require or desire, the more organically and robustly we are each incentivized to act in one another’s interests. The strength of this method is that, for many purposes, it is the most efficient way to align individual and collective interests, and thus coordinate human efforts in mutually beneficial ways. The weaknesses largely revolve around transaction costs and externalities, creating problems such as the robust production of environmental pollution and depletion along with the robust production of wealth, and the ability of some to off-set certain costs of their enterprises by imposing them on others not involved in, or not profiting from, those enterprises, sometimes quite catastrophically.
Norms are unwritten rules diffusely and informally enforced through the social approval and disapproval of other people. They are particularly effective in small, permanent or long-enduring groups with a high-degree of interaction and interdependence, a low degree of anonymity, and when addressing visible or easily discoverable behaviors. Their weaknesses include that they become decreasingly effective as circumstances diverge from those described in the previous sentence, and that, when most effective, they tend (even more so than hierarchies) toward “overcontrol,” intruding more than necessary on individual autonomy and self-expression.
Ideologies, as I use the term here, refer to all cognitions: beliefs, values, thoughts, anything held to be true by the individual. In a sense, ideologies are norms internalized through socialization, rules that we enforce internally by the self-imposed reward of pride or the self-imposed punishment of shame. Their strength is that we can never hide from ourselves. Their weaknesses are that they generally form a relatively flimsy bulwark against the temptation to act in one’s own crude self-interest, and that, unless one is very careful in how their own ideology develops, they tend toward rigidity rather than forming a robust foundation for continuing cognitive growth.
One weakness shared, in different ways, by hierarchies, norms, and ideologies is that, while they generate in-group cooperation, they often do so in opposition to out-groups similarly organized and motivated, thus reinforcing lines of conflict on a larger scale even as they reinforce bonds of solidarity on a smaller one. Norms often accomplish this very locally, while hierarchies can accomplish it on scales of all sizes, ranging from the very small (such as a small but very formally organized business) to quite large (such as nation-states), though norms almost inevitably are more prevalent for very small scales of social organization. Ideologies, meanwhile, reinforce whatever levels and types of organization the individual most closely identifies with, from the absolute egocentrism of a sociopath to the all-inclusiveness of global humanism and environmentalism, and everything in between.
A particular variation of the in-group/out-group dynamic involves concentrations of power, which can implicate any and all of these institutional modalities in various combinations: Hierarchical control of the means of enforcing formal rules; economic control of vital resources; ideological control of “legitimate authority;” and disproportionate normative control in the hands of those most influential in the community (sometimes due to “charismatic authority,” sometimes to influence imported from other modalities). These can interact in self-reinforcing nuclei of political and social power or, in some circumstances, separate out to some extent into competing camps.
When examining the world through the lens of these social institutional modalities, it is crucial to understand the salience of their interactions. They are, in most situations, tightly intertwined, sometimes almost dissolved into a single solution. Hierarchical organizations, laced with embedded normative and ideological informal infrastructures, are major actors in market economies. Hierarchically organized churches compete in the marketplace of ideas (and sometimes the marketplace of profitable goods and services as well), often with a large moral, or ideological/normative, component to their mission. Families are largely normative, though can have traces of a not-completely-formalized hierarchical framework overlaying that normative structure.
One traditional focus in the debates between the right and the left is the relationship between hierarchies and markets, and what combinations of the two provide for optimal economic efficiency This also happens to be a major focus of Institutional Economics (and of Oliver Williamson, one of the 2009 Nobel Prize winners in Economics). But for a more complete understanding of the implications and potentials of different policy alternatives, one must also include norms and ideologies (and emotional reactions) in the mix, and consider how these too are tangled into the complex dynamics that comprise the field of human endeavors. (The inclusion of normative arrangments was the focus of the other 2009 Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Elinor Ostrom).
Understanding the nature of the human social field, to as great an extent as we are capable, is a necessary prerequisite to devising effective social policies, often by applying a light touch in particularly system-sensitive ways.
In conjunction with my campaign, I have two projects on the drawing board that seek to utilize, for the purposes of improving our collective existence (rather than simply for winning an election), the two somewhat neglected social institutional modalities: 1) the creation of a non-partisan, issue-centered, hostility-free (through moderation) political blog, which will seek out and provide the best analyses, from all perspectives, of the contentious and important social issues of the day; and 2) the creation of a network of non-partisan community organizations, from the block level on up, drawing on and augmenting all of the various kinds of community organizations that already exist, but dedicated to achieving a higher degree of inclusiveness. Anyone interested in either or both of these projects should please contact me.
The world we live in is complex and challenging. But simply agreeing to be reasonable people of good will doing the very best we can, with both humility and determination, would take us a long way forward in our on-going attempt to address that complexity and meet that challenge. As we’ve proven time and again, we’re capable of doing great things together, when we’re inspired to do so. Let’s keep inspiring one another to make this the most robust, sustainable, and fair society we are capable of making it: That’s a project worth getting excited about.
I am more focused on fundamental principles, systemic structure and dynamics, and, in general, overarching abstractions, than I am on the particular vessels and driftwood floating on their currents. This post is not about the hot events of the day, the battling candidates, the particular policy proposals in the pipeline, but rather about an overarching principle, one which we forget in the heat of our passions and the hunger of our will.
Process is, in a sense, everything. Three recent narratives drive this home with renewed vigor: My sojourn as a law student; the rancorous primary our party is undergoing in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race; and my own experiences in situations in which process was woefully deficient.
One of my law professors once said that the faction that gets to write the procedural provisions of a bill can kill it or make it work at will. In constitutional and criminal law, due process is everything. A well-designed and well-functioning legal system is less about the results than about how they are achieved, because otherwise it is not “rule of law”, but rather “the ends justify the means”. Many people find it intolerable that a person who we all think we know is guilty can go free; I would find it intolerable if we subordinated our legal processes instead to what we all think we know. The commitment to process is where the protection of civil rights resides.
One of the legal phrases that captures the failure to adhere to this commitment to process is “arbitrary and capricious”. What a lovely phrase! Nobody likes to be treated arbitrarily and capriciously. Everybody recognizes the injustice of that, though it still survives in many areas of our collective existence. Most of our procedural protections protect us against the government, not from one another. In most situations, those with power over others have vast legal lattitude to act arbitrarily and capriciously at the institutionally, socially, or personally weaker party’s expense.
And this fact should not be swept under the rug with “it’s their right!” Sure, people with such power, be they employers, spouses, or owners of a vital resource, have broad rights to dispose of as they please the desired thing they hold (or withhold) access to (e.g., employment, affection or support, the material or institutional resource), but that does not make it right to do so arbitrarily and capriciously. This, in fact, is one of the ways in which private ownership can run up against the public interest, to be considered in conjunction with the ways in which it served the public interest: The private ownership may have driven the extraction, production, or availability of the desired resource, but it may also turn it into a lever to be used by some over others, with which much mischief can be done. On all levels and in all spheres of life, rules that are not implemented, interpreted, and reviewed by some transparent process designed to ensure their fair and effective execution, are a mere sham, more pernicious than simply the admission of a commitment to arbitrary and capricious decision-making, because it combines that defect with the insidious pretense of not being infected by it.
There remain many spheres of life in which judgments can be executed with inadequte process, with impunity. That the right to do so exists does not make it right to do so. It does not make it something that serves the public interest. It does not make it admirable.
And being admirable counts. Serving the public interest counts. Doing what’s right counts. We are not just a nation of laws, but also a society of values, affected both by our own conscience and by the reactions of those around us. Such social approval and disapproval can often fill in the interstices, where law has not gone or cannot go. It can be informal (looking askance at someone who has done something highly objectionable) or it can be organized (boycotting a private enterprise that has done something highly objectionable). And it is a very powerful force, sometimes liberating, and sometimes oppressive.
How we make our marginal contribution to this powerful social force is one of our responsibilities to one another that we should take seriously. It doesn’t matter so much what the substance of our individual judgments are, as the process by which we discuss and debate them, the process by which we decide when to be tolerant and when to be intolerant. There is room for both: No one is suggesting that heinous and hateful acts and attitudes should be tolerated. But none of us are privy to the indisputable and absolute truth, neither concerning what political economic and moral doctrines best serve human welfare, nor the disputed details and interpretations in particular instances. We are all fallable, all muddling along in a complex and subtle world. Let’s do our best to muddle along as reasonable people of goodwill, working together to improve the quality of life for all of us.
For me, there is something a bit amiss when our political conversations become focused on individuals, and not on the purposes that they serve. There are really two fundamental questions all of our political discourse should be ultimately anchored in: What are we trying to accomplish? and, How can we best accomplish it?
The first one, in broad terms, should be fairly easy to answer: We’re trying to keep refining our social institutional landscape in ways which improve the quality of life, increasing 1) the robustness with which we produce the things (both material and non-material) that facilitate a higher quality of life, 2) the sustainability of our processes for producing them, and 3) the fairness with which opportunity to benefit from that production is extended ever more broadly.
This involves continuing to discover what “a higher quality of life” really means, and what it is that really does contribute to it. So, such considerations as work/life balance, opportunities for personal and spiritual growth (however one chooses to define them), and the aesthetic qualities of our shared space and the pleasantness of our shared existence, all figure into the mix.
Of course, many of our disputes, and our most fundamental ideological chasms, are defined by the relative weight we assign to these different components, and how we define what best contributes to a higher quality of life. But understanding that helps those who choose to be reasonable people of goodwill do a better job of more effectively addressing those differences and discussing them in productive ways.
The second question is far more difficult to answer, because it involves understanding the complex systemic dynamics of the world we live in. The obvious answers are rarely the most effective ones, and often particularly counterproductive due to the unintended consequences that had not been considered. But politics is not driven by systemic-understandings; rather, it is driven by successful marketing strategies.
More than any other thing we ever discuss, this is the fundamental obstacle we face. The ultimate challenge we must confront is: How do we most effectively liberate and mobilize our collective genius in service to the broad goals described in answer to question number one?
There are some clear answers concerning how not to do it:
1) Do not advocate for government by plebiscite. This aggravates rather than mitigates the problem of policy being captured by marketing strategies rather than guided by reason. As in any other information-intensive endeavor, the principal (which is the people, in this case) hires agents to dedicate themselves to those information intensive tasks. And in many others, the stakes for the principal are certainly comparable: After all, when you employ a surgeon to perform a life-or-death operation on your child, the stakes are as high as they get for you personally.
A representative democracy has two demands placed on it: a) to hold the agent accountable to the principal, so that the agent is acting in the principal’s interests. This is best accomplished by most effectively aligning their interests, such that the agent’s interests are as identical to the principal’s as possible. And, b) to ensure that the agent is not only motivated to act in the principal’s best interest, but is also equipped to do so effectively. This involves mobilizing the greatest degree of expertise possible in service to the agent’s mission.
2) Promote open-mindedness rather than ideological entrenchment. We benefit most from a robust discourse, fueled by a combination of humilty (after all, even the smartest of us recognizes how dumb we really are), and commitment (I may be dumb, but I sure want to keep dedicating myself to becoming less so, and to mobilizing what knowledge and understanding I do have to maximum public benefit).
We should not assume that what we think we know is the incontrovertable truth. That is the stuff of Crusades and Jihads, of theocracy and totalitarianism, not of progress. When we catch ourselves arguing implacably with others who are not arguing indefensible positions, then we are probably not contributing as well as we might to the discovery of wisdom. It is not the robust commitment to a position that is dysfunctional, but rather the inability to ever sway or be swayed.
Whatever good the debate itself might produce, there is no way to harvest it if no party can be moved. A court requires a judge or jury; the academy requires peer review; and the people require something that does more to settle the truth of our disputes, for our elections only settle the crude popularity of competing positions.
In other words, we need to work at better aligning what is popular with what is right, and that is something more, and more useful, than merely working to convince everyone else of our own positions.
This is a discussion I think we need to be having, including all who are willing to have it. It’s not really about whether Romanoff or Bennet is the more honest or more corrupt. It’s about seeking subtler understandings, and the means of implementing them, together.
Yes, of course, that’s not the way it is, and that’s not the way it is going to be. But that is what we should be moving toward, every time we try to move in the direction of progress.
