Stephen B. Young, The Daily Record Newswire
The recent breakdown in civic leadership in Washington, DC — in which compromise fell victim to self-righteousness and the seduction of wanting to hold the upper hand — teaches many lessons about the dynamics of poor governance.
One important lesson is that ethics, more than rights, make for the common good.
Individual rights, to be sure, are the conceptual as well as the practical foundation for constitutional democracies. They prevent abuses of power by diffusing it widely. They promote human dignity and minimize discrimination by empowering individuals to live as they see fit for themselves. Without rights, culture, society and politics would be quite oppressive as outcomes would be driven by those with money and power and by those who are most extreme in their views.
Rights provide checks and balances against the freedom of others to use their rights. By necessity and by definition, rights are limited. No one can have rights that deny or trespass upon the rights of others. To abuse the rights of others is only to oppress them with power.
The continuing question for free societies is: Where do my rights end and yours begin? When should I yield to your right and when should you yield to mine?
In theory all these questions should be answered by the law, which exists to define both rights and their limits. But what would happen if my sense of entitlement goes beyond current law to seek future conditions that are more favorable to me than to you? If I frame my demands as an extension of my rights, I would give myself a trump card in politics over you, who can now be portrayed as unjustly standing in my way.
As seen in the recent confrontation in Washington, DC, rights when exercised with vigor lead to conflict and stalemate. Worse, advocacy of rights can lead to violence when others do not provide sufficient regard and respect for those with differing approaches. Law is designed to limit rights out of concern for the whole and out of respect for the rights of others. But extreme rights-consciousness will challenge the law itself for bias and corruption in favor of others, leading to lack of compromise, civil disobedience, and worse.
From an individual’s perspective, the limits of his or her personal and communal rights are set by selfish understandings that can be very expansive and intolerant of others. Rights are shaped by identity politics. We often demand as a right whatever makes us feel more self-confident, secure and powerful.
When rights are taken to their fullest extent, they always run the risk of trespassing on the rights of others who don’t think the way we do about ourselves and our claims on the world. The common good then melts away under pressure from factions and from individuals demanding special treatment. I push and you push back. Sometimes, push comes to shove. Then shove comes to shooting. The pendulum of public authority then begins to swing towards anarchy and rough justice; force and guile tend to prevail.
Such is the critique of brute free markets — where the struggle for market power among individuals asserting personal rights to property and profit does not guarantee the greatest good for the greatest number. Rights logic in free market conditions seeks to impose costs on others while obtaining benefits for the self alone. Raw self-interest conceptualized as personal right does not provide an invisible hand promoting the common weal.
If it is “my way or the highway,” usually we end up on the highway looking for a ride.
Self-restraint, then, is more likely to produce the common good than aggressive self-seeking and exploitation of claims of right. Self-restraint is ethics applied in action. With ethics, compromise becomes possible and overreaching brinksmanship avoided. Ethics, or the capacity to act with virtue, opens the door to higher levels of prosperity, civil order and happiness for a community.
Simply put, ethics arises out of concern for the consequences of our actions on others. Ethics places restraint on selfishness; it keeps us from going to the extreme.
Aristotle famously described ethics as moderation — keeping to the middle, avoiding extremes.
Buddhism teaches us the wisdom of following the middle path.
Taoism and the Confucian text The Doctrine of the Mean find justice in keeping to the Mean or the Tao, which never flows too far away from accommodation with natural law.
When imposing ethics on rights, the power given by the right must yield to the restraint demanded by ethics.
Compromise, then, is the path of ethics. In politics, one is not justified in demanding unconditional surrender from the other side. That would be war.
War, said Clausewitz, is an extension of politics that uses force and violence to break an opponent’s will. Might makes right, and victors get to write the laws. Not a happy prospect for any community, especially any community that has its eyes on justice.
War may vindicate principle if we stand our ground and refuse to compromise. On the other hand, we may lose the war. And while it continues, the war unleashes misery, death, destruction and economic retrogression. War is not conducive to human flourishing and is generally not advocated by thoughtful people under normal circumstances. It is to be the exception, not the rule, resorted to by those who are forced by evil intent to defend themselves and their rights.
No constitutional republic can be successful if it turns to civil war.
If we are to prevent politics from becoming war, ethics must constrain demands of right.
How is this to be done?
In the first place, by compromise — with the understanding that compromise today is not surrender of our rights or our values. It is a tactical measure to get our way through evolution of opinion. Politics is a series of compromises. Over time large changes can be made peacefully with majority support as others come to respect our positions.
Second, through the use of discourse. Ethics applied to politics implies that I try to convince you that I am “right.” I don’t stand on my rights but rather engage you in persuasive discourse, opening myself up to the possibility that you may convince me that you are “right.” Discourse implies give and take; I take but I also give, leading to mutuality, not enmity.
Third, office is a trust. Being president or speaker of the House of Representatives only gives power in trust to use for the common good. Ethics is infused into the job description. The job is not to impose one’s views but to advance the common good with reference to one’s views — not to dictate, but to find agreement.
A public trust is there for the benefit of the entire community, not just for a faction or an imperious person. Those who become intransigent in using the powers of their office remove themselves from doing their duty as a public official.
Those who make excessive demands should be rewarded with marginalization because the political center is usually where the public trust can best be protected. That is why failed states have no center, only extremes.
Ethics values the middle path, not the highhandedness of power.
