To get Social Security through Congress, President Franklin Roosevelt thought about the language. He didn’t package it as a benefit for any class of people – it was for everyone. It wasn’t a benefit; it was insurance. And it didn’t require going to some welfare office; it went through the Post Office. Roosevelt understood that language matters. President Johnson’s War on Poverty was about poverty, and Appalachia, not race. But the Erie Canal, one of the most important projects in the history of America, got held up for forty years by what’s-in-it-for-me objections.
For this New Year, I’d like to talk about my wish list of hopes for better treatment of African-Americans, the homeless, immigrants, infrastructure, Native-Americans, women, not to mention dealing with education and China – but many will feel dissed because those aren’t “their” problems. There’s an advantage in repackaging benefits for everybody. I like to think about how my commentary will be received. I’m committed to equality for African-Americans and other minorities but I’m also committed to getting what’s right and good for America.
With problems of our own, many of us, understandably, ask why they should spend their scarce resources for someone else? To some extent it’s good that people prefer a universal language instead of pitting groups against each other.
Talk about equality for African-Americans or other minorities, sounds like the language of generosity – will you support doing this for them? Some people get upset – they’re having enough trouble; why should they give their scarce resources to someone else?
Many of us feel the obligation to help others very strongly. But I’m being selfish too. It makes sense for me to want equality for you because I want it for me. America’s promise of equality brought us all here. It’s the foundational promise we all grew up believing. And you can’t take it apart piece by piece without destroying the idea of equality.
But we can’t take it for granted either. We have to reinforce it by bringing out the many ways our interests interlock – safety, the warmth and comfort of our communities, the ability of everyone to contribute to our common well-being, and the benefit of living in a country which values equality, liberty and justice for all. What used to be called log-rolling was a way of saying that legislation works better when there’s something for everyone and it feels like a shared benefit.
“Deaths of despair” are perceived as a bigger problem among poor whites, many of whom switched to supporting Trump. Of course we can help. And shouldn’t we help everyone who needs help – from farm to factory and people of all backgrounds. Providing the help, support, training or education that poor whites need is important, and providing the help, support, training or education that minorities need is also important. Both support our general welfare. Can we act for everyone? Or are lists of the deserving better?
Speaking practically, I’m not sure, because we never got buy-in from segregationists, and divide and conquer has worked too well. With murders and lynching, segregationists were violent and anti-democratic even before the so-called Supreme Court’s gun-rights decisions and its refusal to act on voting abuses. I’m scared for our country, but I don’t expect buy-in from White Nationalists or shut-the-government-down extremists for whom the very idea of negotiating is a sell-out. So I think we have to go for broke. Perhaps the only way to teach the value of mutuality in democracy is to beat the mean spirits out of those who don’t want to share.
Steve Gottlieb’s latest book is Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts Court and The Breakdown of American Politics. He is the Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Albany Law School, served on the New York Civil Liberties Union board, on the New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and as a US Peace Corps Volunteer in Iran.
The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.