Fairness: Liberal vs Conservative
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:04 pm
Although I am not directly quoting from Johathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion”, his book influenced my thoughts on this subject. I am sharing my understanding of his theory, with which I agree, and my own thoughts on the subject.
There are some very fundamental differences between the liberal and conservative mind. Conservatives tend to be more authoritarian and value tradition and purity more than liberals. Liberals tend to be more open-minded to new ideas. But they both value fairness. The trick is how they understand fairness may differ.
Conservatives emphasize the fairness of avoiding free-riders. This is why, despite the fact that a very small minority of people who pay no federal income tax are able-body adults who just don’t work, Republicans usually focus on that small minority, rather than focusing on the majority who do work, are students, the aged, soldiers, or disabled. We saw this in Romney’s 47% remark, which although he, for political expediency, tried to distance himself from, apparently accurately reflected his views on the subject, as adduced from his later remarks. And, of course, we have our own local conservatives who also demonstrate this tendency on this board.
Liberals emphasize fairness in a different way. Liberals know that there may be a minority of free-riders, but view that as an acceptable cost in order to help those whom our capitalist society would leave aside. It’s not “fair” that our capitalist society so heavily rewards some while at the same time heavily punishes others, often through no fault of their own. One important reason why some are so heavily benefited by capitalism is because we have worked together to create a society in which capitalist ventures can succeed in the first place. We have a safe society, generally speaking. We have an educated society, generally speaking. We have a primary infrastructure, and so on. These are things no one individual can create and maintain, and which are crucial for the success of any capitalist endeavor. So our society, as a whole, did contribute to the circumstance which allowed some to be so heavily rewarded. It’s “fair”, because of that, to help those who, through no fault of their own, will never be in such a situation. While liberals would rather there be no “free-rider” problem, liberals don’t view it as a sufficient cause to discard the whole system of social aide to the needy. Instead, liberals would prefer to address individual free-riders rather than punish the whole. (Of course, that requires adequate social-service staffing, which in the age of constant cut-backs, can’t happen.)
My personal experience helps me understand this problem. For almost thirty years, I have worked with children who struggle with reading. They are often, but not always, from underprivileged households, with parents who had similar struggles in school and have limited education. There are environment reasons for these struggles, but I also suspect biological forces are at play. Some of these children have been tested for learning disabilities and are labeled “slow learners”. What this means is that there is no discrepancy between ability and achievement which would result in a “learning disabled” label, and that the child’s IQ is in what we call the “borderline” range. The child’s IQ is not low enough to qualify as intellectually handicapped and the child can take care of him or herself, but the IQ is in the very lowest range right above intellectually handicapped. These are children who can learn, but learn at a much slower pace and need more repetition. They will likely always struggle with higher-level reasoning, and most likely would not be able to succeed in a college setting.
There is no magic wand that increases these children’s IQ when they become adults. We, as a society, seem able to recognize that some children are not able to achieve like others due to no fault of their own. It’s not due to laziness or lack of effort or care. It’s that they did not happen to be born with the “right” brain, in terms of being better equipped to succeed in a competitive society. So what do we expect happens to these children when they become adults?
In the past, these individuals had more hope of providing a decent level of support for any family they may have had by going into manual labor or manufacturing. However, those jobs have been disappearing. There just aren’t enough of them to go around. It doesn’t look like this situation is going to change anytime in the near future. So these people end up in low-paying service sector jobs. They are without health insurance, and often cannot pay their basic bills. In turn, their children are often not given the same advantages as children in higher-income families, and often start kindergarten already behind their peers. The cycle continues.
So what is “fair”? To the conservative, if government provides health care and/or financial aid to these people, those people are now “takers”, “free-riders”. The conservative has worked hard for his/her money, and if these people were just willing to work as hard, they wouldn’t need help. To the liberal, it’s fair that those that have more than they need be asked to help those who cannot meet their basic needs, particularly when the vast majority of the needy do work.
In my experience, most low-income workers do actually work quite hard. Many of them work two part-time jobs, or a full-time and part-time job. They often work in arduous, stressful settings for little pay and little respect. They often have to move around a lot because they get behind on their rent. This, in turn, negatively affects their children.
If we lived in a world where all human beings were born with equal ability and opportunities, maybe the “free rider” aversion would resonate with me more than it does now. But we don’t live in such a world. I’m surrounded, in my career, by parents and children who will never be able to complete a college education, and will never be able to be a successful entrepreneur – through no fault of their own. There are countries that are quite content to shuffle these sorts of people into dumps, to put together cardboard houses and beg on the streets. I doubt we are, or will ever be, that type of country, no matter how fervently some on this board would embrace that ideal.
There are some very fundamental differences between the liberal and conservative mind. Conservatives tend to be more authoritarian and value tradition and purity more than liberals. Liberals tend to be more open-minded to new ideas. But they both value fairness. The trick is how they understand fairness may differ.
Conservatives emphasize the fairness of avoiding free-riders. This is why, despite the fact that a very small minority of people who pay no federal income tax are able-body adults who just don’t work, Republicans usually focus on that small minority, rather than focusing on the majority who do work, are students, the aged, soldiers, or disabled. We saw this in Romney’s 47% remark, which although he, for political expediency, tried to distance himself from, apparently accurately reflected his views on the subject, as adduced from his later remarks. And, of course, we have our own local conservatives who also demonstrate this tendency on this board.
Liberals emphasize fairness in a different way. Liberals know that there may be a minority of free-riders, but view that as an acceptable cost in order to help those whom our capitalist society would leave aside. It’s not “fair” that our capitalist society so heavily rewards some while at the same time heavily punishes others, often through no fault of their own. One important reason why some are so heavily benefited by capitalism is because we have worked together to create a society in which capitalist ventures can succeed in the first place. We have a safe society, generally speaking. We have an educated society, generally speaking. We have a primary infrastructure, and so on. These are things no one individual can create and maintain, and which are crucial for the success of any capitalist endeavor. So our society, as a whole, did contribute to the circumstance which allowed some to be so heavily rewarded. It’s “fair”, because of that, to help those who, through no fault of their own, will never be in such a situation. While liberals would rather there be no “free-rider” problem, liberals don’t view it as a sufficient cause to discard the whole system of social aide to the needy. Instead, liberals would prefer to address individual free-riders rather than punish the whole. (Of course, that requires adequate social-service staffing, which in the age of constant cut-backs, can’t happen.)
My personal experience helps me understand this problem. For almost thirty years, I have worked with children who struggle with reading. They are often, but not always, from underprivileged households, with parents who had similar struggles in school and have limited education. There are environment reasons for these struggles, but I also suspect biological forces are at play. Some of these children have been tested for learning disabilities and are labeled “slow learners”. What this means is that there is no discrepancy between ability and achievement which would result in a “learning disabled” label, and that the child’s IQ is in what we call the “borderline” range. The child’s IQ is not low enough to qualify as intellectually handicapped and the child can take care of him or herself, but the IQ is in the very lowest range right above intellectually handicapped. These are children who can learn, but learn at a much slower pace and need more repetition. They will likely always struggle with higher-level reasoning, and most likely would not be able to succeed in a college setting.
There is no magic wand that increases these children’s IQ when they become adults. We, as a society, seem able to recognize that some children are not able to achieve like others due to no fault of their own. It’s not due to laziness or lack of effort or care. It’s that they did not happen to be born with the “right” brain, in terms of being better equipped to succeed in a competitive society. So what do we expect happens to these children when they become adults?
In the past, these individuals had more hope of providing a decent level of support for any family they may have had by going into manual labor or manufacturing. However, those jobs have been disappearing. There just aren’t enough of them to go around. It doesn’t look like this situation is going to change anytime in the near future. So these people end up in low-paying service sector jobs. They are without health insurance, and often cannot pay their basic bills. In turn, their children are often not given the same advantages as children in higher-income families, and often start kindergarten already behind their peers. The cycle continues.
So what is “fair”? To the conservative, if government provides health care and/or financial aid to these people, those people are now “takers”, “free-riders”. The conservative has worked hard for his/her money, and if these people were just willing to work as hard, they wouldn’t need help. To the liberal, it’s fair that those that have more than they need be asked to help those who cannot meet their basic needs, particularly when the vast majority of the needy do work.
In my experience, most low-income workers do actually work quite hard. Many of them work two part-time jobs, or a full-time and part-time job. They often work in arduous, stressful settings for little pay and little respect. They often have to move around a lot because they get behind on their rent. This, in turn, negatively affects their children.
If we lived in a world where all human beings were born with equal ability and opportunities, maybe the “free rider” aversion would resonate with me more than it does now. But we don’t live in such a world. I’m surrounded, in my career, by parents and children who will never be able to complete a college education, and will never be able to be a successful entrepreneur – through no fault of their own. There are countries that are quite content to shuffle these sorts of people into dumps, to put together cardboard houses and beg on the streets. I doubt we are, or will ever be, that type of country, no matter how fervently some on this board would embrace that ideal.