Fairness: Liberal vs Conservative

[_beastie]

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.

[_Res Ipsa]

Nice analysis, Beastie. I've always thought the point of departure was more fundamental. Conservatives tend to believe that fairness means applying the same rules to everyone. In other words, fairness means treating everyone the same. Fairness is a process that occurs in a factual vacuum -- neither context nor outcomes are relevant to determining when something is fair.

Liberals tend to believe that fairness means treating people in the same circumstances the same and treating differently situated people differently. The fairness of a process cannot be determined in a vacuum -- it must take into account the factual context in which the process occurs as well as the outcome of the process. Then tend to consider an unfair outcome to be an indication of an unfair rule.

[_beastie]

Nice analysis, Beastie. I've always thought the point of departure was more fundamental. Conservatives tend to believe that fairness means applying the same rules to everyone. In other words, fairness means treating everyone the same. Fairness is a process that occurs in a factual vacuum -- neither context nor outcomes are relevant to determining when something is fair.

Liberals tend to believe that fairness means treating people in the same circumstances the same and treating differently situated people differently. The fairness of a process cannot be determined in a vacuum -- it must take into account the factual context in which the process occurs as well as the outcome of the process. Then tend to consider an unfair outcome to be an indication of an unfair rule.

That's a good point, too.

It has often seemed to me that, in terms of assistance to the needy, conservatives either don't understand how circumstances, beyond the individual's control, can dramatically affect one's ability to succeed in a capitalist society, or they just don't care. I constantly worry about my students' futures and wonder how in the world they'll make it. I, and others, push them to achieve as much as they possibly can, but if/when their intelligence is borderline, there's only so much progress to be made. Are they the refuse of a capitalist society?

And, in connection with my personhood bill, how can some conservatives care so passionately about zygotes and care so little about those same beings when they develop into children/adults with borderline capacities? I know they'd protest that they do care, but that care seems to depend solely upon unreliable charity.

[_subgenius]

If we lived in a world where all human beings were born with equal ability and opportunities...

yet the presence of Obama as the president of the USA affirms this very notion - and because of that i can not validate or subscribe to your argument.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yep, one Harvard Law School grad with one black parent is elected president, and we can conclude that all human beings are born with equal ability and opportunities.

Pop quiz: Your logical fallacy is: _________.

[_Jason Bourne]

A couple thoughts off the cuff.

First you summarize the issue very well.

Second I have read the manual labor jobs such as welders, carpenters and other similar jobs are actually plentiful because there are not those skilled in this area to fill the jobs. This seems primarily due to the demise of trade schools post high school as well as vocational education in high school. I thought I wanted to be a welder and I had a vocational education program in my high school. When I graduated I was a certified welder and actually had two welding jobs right out of high school before my mission.

Also there are manufacturing jobs that cannot be filled because they require higher technical skills then many people have.

Next we now do have a beginning for health care for all. We will see how this will work.

Last of all while I do not want to see people suffer it does come down to economics. I think the European communities are now demonstrating there has to be some limit to social programs. How much can we as a nation afford? I think there has to be a focus on education, training people who may not be capable of higher skilled jobs in some arena they can work in and a focus on bringing more manufacturing work back to the USA.

[_beastie]

A couple thoughts off the cuff.

First you summarize the issue very well.

Second I have read the manual labor jobs such as welders, carpenters and other similar jobs are actually plentiful because there are not those skilled in this area to fill the jobs. This seems primarily due to the demise of trade schools post high school as well as vocational education in high school. I thought I wanted to be a welder and I had a vocational education program in my high school. When I graduated I was a certified welder and actually had two welding jobs right out of high school before my mission.

Also there are manufacturing jobs that cannot be filled because they require higher technical skills then many people have.

Next we now do have a beginning for health care for all. We will see how this will work.

Last of all while I do not want to see people suffer it does come down to economics. I think the European communities are now demonstrating there has to be some limit to social programs. How much can we as a nation afford? I think there has to be a focus on education, training people who may not be capable of higher skilled jobs in some arena they can work in and a focus on bringing more manufacturing work back to the USA.

You bring up a real problem in our current educational system. Our focus has seemingly turned completely to preparing students for college. Votech schools are not as popular as they once were. This is a huge mistake. It's time for us to admit that not all students are college-bound, and more responsibly help those students prepare for the future.

I also agree part of it is economics. Life expentancy has increased, and along with it an aging population with myriad health problems. In addition, as medical technology expands we all expect to be able to access all of it. This is a thorny issue, and one I have no idea of how to solve, other than to admit that health care costs are going to continue to increase for those reasons.

[_subgenius]

In other words, fairness means treating everyone the same. Fairness is a process that occurs in a factual vacuum -- neither context nor outcomes are relevant to determining when something is fair.

If you ran the Olympics you would have the poorer nations get head starts in every race. High jumpers would get extra credit for being shorter than their competitors, and swimming would be graded on a curve in accordance with how many pools were in each country.

Liberals tend to believe that fairness means treating people in the same circumstances the same and treating differently situated people differently. The fairness of a process cannot be determined in a vacuum -- it must take into account the factual context in which the process occurs as well as the outcome of the process. Then tend to consider an unfair outcome to be an indication of an unfair rule.

is not fairness simply being free of bias and prejudice? is this not the simplest and most accurate definition?
I think both conservatives and liberals recognize the circumstances which ultimately establish justice, or fairness. The idea that fairness is considered in a factual vacuum is nonsense.
It is neither a conservative view nor a liberal view that if a person steals bread then that person must go to jail.
It is neither a conservative view nor liberal view that if a person steals bread to feed a hungry child then that person must go free.

It is not a conservative view that is ok if a person steals bread and does not get caught.
It is not a liberal view that it is ok if every person should steal bread.

It is a conservative view, perhaps, that if a person simply earns bread then that person should receive bread. (whether by labor or barter)
It is a liberal view, perhaps, that if a person is simply hungry then that person should receive bread. (whether by helplessness or sloth)

It is Obama's view that the bread maker should be forced to give bread to anyone who asks for bread, in amounts determined by Pelosi, and with campaign donors receiving first dibs.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well it is all worthy of rational and patient discussion.

Some additional thoughts on vocational ed. When I talk to kids I see hardly any planning on anything other than college and some should not go. One friends son realized this and went the auto mechanic route attended a school on Ohio just for that. Auto mechanics can make up to $70K a year. Not sure what a welder makes now but in 1978 I was making $5 per hour as fitters helper. Good money for an 18 year old back then. My boss, the lead man in our area was at about $35k-$40k per year. Pretty good in 1978. Now I know there are not as many of these jobs around now. But they are there and many are unfilled.

And I personally as a buyer would love to by more made in America clothes, electronics, furniture, etc. And I would pay more to do it. Not everyone would I know but I would.

[_subgenius]

Yep, one Harvard Law School grad with one black parent is elected president, and we can conclude that all human beings are born with equal ability and opportunities.

Pop quiz: Your logical fallacy is: _________.

well, arguable mine was anecdotal....but it was fair since yours was no true scotsman

that being said...your original claim is unsubstantiated, unjustified, and unsupported.....or perhaps i should have just responded with - "CFR" (please)