Context – the human condition
There are a surprising number of strongly disputed concepts important in politics that are hard to define or describe with precision, and almost always disputed in how to implement the ideas. Concepts like, democracy, the rule of law, fairness are all intractably disputed and probably will be forever. Strongly or even intractably disputed political concepts (essentially contested concepts) usually invoke (1) personal values or identity, (2) competing interpretations of reality and reasoning, and (3) high stakes that people care deeply about. Disagreements concern not just what a word means, but what deserves protection, what’s important, whose claims count, and what society ought to do, if anything.
Some disagreements over these concepts are reasonable. Others significantly or mostly rely on false claims, selective evidence, flawed motivated reasoning, or loyalty to a political tribe or ideology. Whether a concept is contested does not make that distinction go away. Well-informed, reasonable people of good will will disagree, but intellectual honesty at least helps identify, sometimes screen out, misguided or flawed choices or beliefs.
The public interest and service to the public interest are heavily disputed concepts
Source: Is it really that bad? Authoritarians want you to believe it
Describing either concept is very difficult. There is no authoritative description. Their meaning and application remain deeply disputed. That does not make them empty words. It makes honest disagreement about them unavoidable.
Thus, for some people, a set of core political morals could include most or all of (1) support for democracy with reasonable compromise, law, and civil liberties, (2) service to the public interest before service to special or elite interests, and (3) genuine respect for and acceptance of facts, well-supported conclusions and good faith, sound reasoning, including when they are inconvenient (psychologically discomforting or threatening). These are familiar, mainstream political ideals, not obscure or fringe crackpottery. Support for concepts like that are probably as close to general agreement about American politics as a person can get. Obviously, what those things are or entail are disputed. But at least those concepts are mainstream politics, not fringe crackpottery.
Anyway, a reasonable description of service to the public interest could be: Governing in the public interest means governance based on identifying an evidence-based, balance between serving public, individual and special or other interests to assess competing policy choices, while (1) being reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion, (2) protecting and growing the American economy, (4) fostering individual economic and personal growth opportunity, (5) defending personal freedoms and the American standard of living, (6) protecting national security and the environment, (7) increasing transparency, competition and efficiency in commerce when possible, and (8) fostering global peace, stability and prosperity whenever reasonably possible, all of which is constrained by (i) evidence-based fiscal sustainability that limits the scope and size of government and regulation to no more than what is needed* and (ii) genuine respect for the US constitution and the rule of law with a particular concern for limiting unwarranted legal complexity and ambiguity to limit opportunities to subvert the constitution or the law.
* Government and regulation should be no more or less extensive than needed to secure important ideals or goals including equal citizenship, distributive fairness, minority rights, long-term sustainability, and economic competitiveness.
Restraint is a virtue when it prevents overreach, but not when it’s an excuse for either failing the public, or being loyal to special interest influence, or any reality- or reason-distorting ideology or tribe.
Finally, service to the public interest as envisioned here does not mean whatever political competition happens to produce must be in the public interest. There have to be standards for criticizing those outcomes, e.g., concerns for everyone affected and for future generations.
Q1: Is it reasonable to support the idea that governing in the public interest means honestly assessing competing policy choices, considering everyone affected, and weighing individual and commercial interests according to their contribution to public welfare, with less deference to the money or political influence behind them?
Q2: Is this vision of politics so complicated that it asks too much of people to strive for, and if so, should we stay in a mode of politics as it is done now, with special interests and their money usually exerting more influence over policy than majority public wants, or is there another, better way forward?
Some info sources:
An old debate renewed: the politics of the public interest — It is always right to ask how the public interest may be promoted. But that is not a question that social scientists or philosophers or theologians can answer. The answer is worked out in the thrust and parry of political competition. Not better theory, but rather better practice, is the remedy for the ills that befall the body politic. (Comment: In tyrannies or dictatorships, there’s little to no thrust and parry of political competition. There’s just the person or people in power doing mostly what they want, almost always at the expense of the public interest, but always claimed to be for the benefit of the public interest.)
Why We Should Choose Science over Beliefs: Ideology needs to give way — Liberals and conservatives are motivated reasoners, too, of course, and not all libertarians deny science, but all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be. (Comments: That was written by a prominent libertarian who came to understand that his own ideology had unconsciously deceived and betrayed him. This essay is short and well worth reading.)
Source: Is this really when and how the Democratic Party blew up? A generation of conservative dominance, or conservative dominance followed by authoritarian kleptocratic dominance?
No comments:
Post a Comment