The Politics of Fairness
Essay by Matthew Steven Bracey and W. Jackson Watts
“[W]e are in the midst of a financial crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Great Depression.” These words were famously stated by business tycoon George Soros after the recent economic recession [1]. In its aftermath, many Americans found themselves without jobs and without money. Since then, a conversation has emerged in our nation concerning the economic disparities that exist among people in various income-brackets. Democrats offer one solution, Republicans another, and Independents still another. Citizens even have weighed in, as is evident by the emergence of the Tea Party, as well as the invectives launched by the now fading Occupy Wall Street Protests.
Yet behind the rhetoric and proposed policies is ideology. Some conservative, some moderate, and some liberal—the point is that these exist. “What policy and ideological assumptions,” we may ask, “exist behind our current political discourses?” We believe that justice and freedom lie at the heart of this question. These constitute the framework for understanding the current social and political climate, especially when it pertains to economics. Therefore, in order to walk faithfully as discerning citizens in these times, we must forge a basic understanding of these two important ideas—freedom and justice.
What Is Justice?
In speaking of justice, social commentators and government officials often point toward “fairness” as our real goal. While the language of fairness is attached primarily to fiscal concerns today, its origin is critical to understand if we are to walk wisely.
A long-time professor at Harvard University, John Rawls (1921-2002) is arguably the most important post-World War II moral and political philosopher. He articulated the “justice as fairness” view in his landmark work, A Theory of Justice (1971) [2]. Rawls sought to develop a method of moral evaluation as it pertains to social and political institutions. Though this perspective is rather nuanced, what follows is a brief sketch:
“Justice as fairness” means we set aside our desired position in society—status, abilities, conception of the good, and other ideological commitments. We then operate according to two principles [3]:
(1) Each person deserves equal rights to the widest array of basic liberties that is consistent with liberty for all; and
(2) Social and economic inequalities are to be adjusted so that they both (a) provide the greatest benefit for the least advantaged (while still saving for future generations), and (b) are extended to all under conditions of fair and equal opportunity.
Rawls’ general outlook then is this: All primary social goods—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally. That is, unless distributing some or all these goods differently benefits the least favored in society more [4].
Anyone perusing these remarks carefully can sense what Rawls is after. He wants us to disregard moral convictions, values, and personal claims. He wants for us simply to be the rational beings he assumes we are and pursue the principles of fairness as he states them. He argues that this is the most effective way to address questions of justice in the political and social order. Rawls therefore combines elements of Kantian thought with utilitarianism (“whatever works for the greatest number of people”) in order to satisfy the concern for distributive justice [5].
Hence, Rawls’ answer for a nation’s economic disparity, among other inequalities, is not interested in a just process by administering the law, but rather is about distributive justice, which focuses on the actual outcomes for society’s citizens. Under this paradigm, the focus is for all to have equal goods, such as money and education, rather than an equal opportunity to pursue wealth, education, and other goods. However, if this is correct, what implications does this have for America’s founding principle of freedom?
What Is Freedom?
Cries for justice cannot stand alone. They must be weighed against the American concept of freedom. Mere justice is a subjective standard. And freedom, not fairness, helps make sense of justice. After all, America was founded on this idea, evident in the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution.
In 1607, British merchants established the Jamestown Settlement. Thirteen years later the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony seeking religious liberty. These were Englishmen, and they considered themselves as such for nearly 150 years. Much had changed, however, by 1775. These Englishmen believed they were the victims of gross injustice by England. Their long list of grievances included Britain’s prohibition against westward expansion, taxation without representation, usurped rights, and others.
They were treated with injustice, and they confronted it. Their remedy was freedom and human responsibility. Feelings of independence, dissolution, and revolution followed. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) famously writes in the Declaration of Independence (1776):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Several observations: These men desired the freedom to pursue their own ends. They hoped to do so with minimal governmental interference—remember they’d experienced grave troubles with England. What is more, they believed that this freedom is God-given.
About a decade later, the founders embedded the Declaration’s spirit of God-given freedom into the Constitution [6]. Many doctrines were included to protect these freedoms. However, the separation of power, and checks and balances doctrines, illustrate the point well. By implementing three branches of government, the founders ensured that governmental power would not be concentrated too heavily in one branch. The founders were well-acquainted with the abuses associated with a single branch of government bearing excessive power. Additionally, these three branches serve as checks and balances toward one another [7].
Other examples include federalism, the rule of law, and representation. Federalism protects citizens’ freedom by ensuring a proper balance of power between the federal and state governments [8]. Second, because the founders had experienced abuse from a king who believed himself above the law, they also embedded the rule of law doctrine [9]. This protects freedom by ensuring that no individuals or groups of individuals stand above the law. Finally, representation protects citizens’ freedom by ensuring that their voices are heard. This, after all, is the very spirit of democracy [10].
The point: Freedom was the founder’s answer to the injustice they had experienced, and it should be ours as well. To put it simply, justice means we protect the freedom for people to choose their own paths. This is the bedrock of American Constitutionalism.
What Does This Mean for Us?
Concerns for social justice have prevailed for millennia—from the Hebrew prophets to the Greek philosophers even until today. But one need not be a philosopher to know that crying “injustice” presupposes a standard for judging an action just or unjust. This means that virtuous citizens must discern the view of justice driving any discussion. Only by doing this can we correctly evaluate policies and determine their merit.
What should concern us most about a Rawlsian justice is how subtly it is assumed in modern political thought and social discourse. Many absorb the “justice as fairness” ideology, but fail to acknowledge that it is inescapably ideological. Nevertheless, these assumptions often go unchecked because many of our own leaders call for the disarmament of ideology in the interest of “doing what works.”
In the meantime, public discourses often revert to impassioned monologues that fail to clarify what Americans should be considering. “What kind of society do we want to live in?” is a worthwhile question. But a more basic question is, “What kind of society would we have if our founding documents were allowed to forge our vision of equality?” After all, the “justice as fairness” rhetoric is ultimately concerned with equality. Yet we seldom define what kind of equality, and if it is entailed in the freedoms our Constitution protects.
Indeed, justice is not the equal distribution of goods under the auspices of “fairness.” Rather, it’s the preservations of freedoms. As Jefferson put it, “All men [and women] are created equal.” This means that God creates all people with an equal opportunity to pursue their hopes and dreams. This is justice. However, we must remember that with freedom comes responsibility. For example, equality of opportunity does not equate into equality of result or outcome—as “justice as fairness” would imply. Therefore, true justice in light of freedom and equal opportunity requires personal responsibility.
Conclusion
Justice must always be linked with freedom and responsibility. Yet, Christians still have another lens through which to assess these concepts—namely, the cross. True freedom comes ultimately through Christ, while God’s standards of justice are ultimately different than any human court’s assessment. Still, as citizens of this earthly kingdom, we can acknowledge the limits of human wisdom and the strengths of the American system. Is it perfect? Of course not. The struggle for fair laws, the preservation of personal liberties, and equal opportunity will continue—though Christians may participate in law, education, politics, and other countless vocational avenues to improve upon these struggles. Nevertheless, the assessments like the one presented here will hopefully give Christians in all stations of life some means to understand their public life amid clamor and conflict, peace and prosperity.
_______________________________________
[1] The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means (Philadelphia: PublicAffairs, 2008).
[2] This is the title of one of Rawls’ early articles that began to articulate his formative ideas on this subject. It was first published as, “Justice as Fairness” in Philosophical Review Vol. LXVII. 1958.
[3] The following quotations come from A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971), 301-303.
[4] By pointing to Rawls here, I am not suggesting that Rawls is a wholly original thinker. In many ways the seedlings for his perspective can be found in another philosophers and theorists in the western corpus. However, given Rawls’ historical and social location, particularly his lengthy tenure at Harvard during which he taught many leading political theorists and philosophers, I think it is fair to credit him for much of the thought implicit in political discourse.
[5] By Kantian thought here, I mean the “categorical imperative.”
[6] James Madison recounts this in The Federalist Papers, for example: “[I]t was by this irregular and assumed privilege of proposing to the people plans for their safety and happiness [Declaration], that the States were first united against the danger with which they were threatened by their ancient government; that committees and congresses were formed for concentrating their efforts and defending their rights; and that conventions were elected in the several States for establishing the constitutions under which they are now governed [Constitution]” (Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 40 (Sweetwater Press, 2006), p. 310).
[7] In his “Farewell Address,” George Washington proudly announced, “The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power by dividing and distributing it into different depositories …has been evinced” (George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore, Maryland: George & Henry S. Keatinge, 1796), p. 22).
[8] The doctrine of federalism describes a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and numerous constituent governing authorities. Power is thus shared between the two bodies. In the American context, this is the federal government and the states, represented by a bicameral Congress, consisting of a House and Senate (Constitution, Art. I, § 1). Additionally, the legislature’s powers are explicitly enumerated to ensure that they do not amass too much power (Constitution, Art. I, § 8; cf. Amendment 10). Other examples that fall under the doctrine of federalism include the dormant commerce clause, the supremacy clause, the preemption doctrine, the incorporation doctrine, substantive and procedural due process, as well as many more.
[9] For example, with the rule of law in place, neither the President nor the Congress may usurp citizens’ freedoms. So concerned were the founders about this that they even enacted a Bill of Rights in 1791. This document protects citizens’ freedoms for the free exercise of religion, free speech and press, peaceable assembly, petition, bearing arms, fair trial, and trial by jury. It also protects citizens’ freedoms against established religion, unreasonable searches and seizures, and self-incrimination (Constitution, Amendments 1-2, 4-5, 7). Through America’s history these freedoms have only expanded: for example, the freedom for black men, women, and eighteen year olds to vote—to name a few (Constitution, Amendments 13-15, 19, 26).
[10] There are many examples of representation in the Constitution. To cite just one, the legislature is the only branch in which Americans directly participate, and it is no coincidence that its article (Article I) is the longest. The House represents the power of the people, and the Senate represents the power of the states (Constitution, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, § 3, cl. 1). Congress is therefore a machine operated by the majority’s will (i.e., freedom). Congress is grounded in and represents the people, and for congressmen to act contrary to the will of their constituents is to forsake their duty.
March 7, 2012
This is true from an educational standpoint as well. In an effort to educate all equally, we have effectively educated all modestly, diminishing both the perceived importance and the practical benefit of a public education.
For the education system in this country to be fixed, I think we are going to have to dismiss the notion that all students must achieve the same level of proficiency. Equal opportunity for education? Sure. But not equality of outcome. This means developing better vocational schools and making tough decisions about leaving some children behind, but I’m afraid that may be one of the only ways to see significant improvement because when everyone has the same thing, that “thing” becomes less and less valuable.