There are three basic relationships in society.
The first is the Customer relationship.
The second is the Contract relationship.
And the third is the Covenant relationship.
A Customer relationship is built on exchange. I give you this, and in return you give me something else. If you repeat the transaction, trust is built -- but either party can always walk away.
A Contract relationship is built on trust. When we enter into a contract, we agree to act in certain ways over a designated length of time. Neither of us can walk away until the contract has ended. Until then we are bound together. Entering a contract requires some trust in the other party, although we have recourse in the law if that trust is broken.
A Convenant relationship is built on faith. When we enter into a convenant, it is for life. A covenant cannot be broken. A covenant demands sacrifice of us, and defines our personal responsibility. Our covenants are often not written down, yet they are embedded in our hearts. Our covenants are our most difficult relationships. Yet they define our society and keep it together. Our family relationships, our community relationships, our spiritual relationships are based on convenants.
To be an American citizen is to enter the American Covenant.
Our Constitution is the living expression of the American Covenant.
Like all covenants, the American Covenant demands sacrifice of us. It defines our personal responsibilities.
Yet the American Convenant is what binds us together as a nation. It is what gives us our destiny as a people. It is the blueprint for the shining city on the hill that together we are building.
In America, we take care of our own.
In America, we stand up for what we believe in: our personal beliefs, our spiritual beliefs, our political beliefs.
In America, we protect our families and our society. We protect the least among us. We fight when we must.
In America, we believe in fairness, in justice, and in our freedoms.
Conservatives want to break the Covenants of our society, and replace them with Customer and Contractual relationships.
Think about it. Why do they use the word "taxpayer" to define our relationship with the government? Unlike a citizen, a "taxpayer" has no responsibility. He pays taxes and that's it. In effect he is "buying" government services. That's why they say "it's your money" when they talk about taxes. It's true that it is your money. But it is also true that it is your society. We, as a society, have decided certain things about the way that we want our national family to be. We want to protect our family, so we fund policeman and soldiers. We don't want to be a society where children go hungry, so we fund food stamps. We fund firemen to put out our fires, and engineers and construction crews to build our roads and bridges, and doctors and nurses to help prevent the spread of disease.
Taxpayers don't do any of these things. Citizens do. We do. That is what your taxes are for -- they go to building the kind of society we want. We often disagree about what government can do and should do, and rightly so. But let us not forget what the government is for -- it is there to act on our behalf, to fufill the American Covenant.
Let me take two specific examples. The first is education. Conservative economists like Milton Friedman want to "privatize" our public education system. (See http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html ). They want to turn public schooling into a free market system, where families can leave failing schools and choose to attend better ones. Over time, the failing schools will close for lack of students, while the better schools attract students and resources.
First, let's think about this practically. In order for the free market to work, to raise up the good schools and eliminate the bad schools, families need to be able to freely choose which school to go to. But choosing a school is not a frequent transaction. You can decide where to buy lunch every day, but you can't decide where to go to school every day. It's simply impractical. At most, you get to decide once a year where to go to school. In economic terms, the "switching cost" is too high. In our framework, it really means that families are entering into a one-year contractual relationship with their school. With customers only able to "opt out" of a bad school on an annual basis, there are just not enough transactions for the market forces to truly reshape the schools. Even on conservatives' own terms, the idea of privatization doesn't work.
Now, let's think about what the public schools are really for. They are part of the American Covenant. If we truly believed that the free market was the best system for education, then society wouldn't pay for education at all. Only families who had school-aged children would pay for schools.
But we as a society, as a national family, realize that there are important reasons why all children should be educated. Public education is an investment in our economic future. Public education is an investment in our society. The public schools are where children from all over the community come together. It is the very kettle of our great melting pot.
To privatize our public schools is to break the American Covenant.
Let me take a second example: Social Security.
Conservatives talk about Social Security as if it were a bank account. You pay in to it, and when you retire, you get your money back.
This is a fiction. The money that the American worker puts into Social Security today does not go into an account with his or her name on it. It goes to pay people who are already retired. It is part of the American Covenant, a covenant between generations. Today's workers take care of today's retired workers. The young look after the old.
But conservatives want to break that covenant, and turn Social Security into a contractural relationship. That is why they want to give you "your" money back so you can put it into an investment account in the stock market. But "your" Social Security money is already spent. It paid for your grandma's rent, your grandfather's medication, the rent and the heating bills of the now-retired "Greatest Generation." Of course there is the practical question that if we start setting aside money into personal investment accounts, we won't have the money to pay today's retirees. Again, even on conservatives' own terms, the idea of privatization doesn't work.
But fundamentally, they want to break the Covenant between the generations. In the name of higher investment returns.
These are only two examples; the papers are daily full of others. But we do not have to let them happen.
We are all Americans, regardless of our political affiliations, of our state, our ethnic group, our religion, our wealth, our place in society. Today there are those who want to emphasize our differences. In the wake of the election, they call for expatriation, secession, expulsion. They may do so mockingly, but underlying their jokes is a real fear. A fear that the "other side" is so fundamentally different that we can no longer exist in polity, or even in politeness.
This is not the case. We have been through worse national trials. Our "more perfect Union" has been threatened time and again. But time and again, it is our belief in the American Covenant that brings us back together.
Remember the American Convenant. It is the basis of who we are. It is what makes us both great and good. And if we ever cease to be good, we will cease to be great.
| Manifesto | Education | Social Security | American Covenant | Framing |
A two-edged sword, that American Covenant.
"In America, we take care of our own." That's why we need stricter immigration laws, and stronger isolationist trade policies.
"In America, we stand up for what we believe in: our personal beliefs, our spiritual beliefs, our political beliefs." Such as the wrongness of the spritual beliefs of others - like that dangerous and warlike religion of Islam.
"In America, we protect our families and our society." That is why this new invention 'gay marriage' must be stopped.
"We protect the least among us." Which is why we must fight abortion - that the unborn may have a voice.
"We fight when we must." Like when terrorists attack our very homeland.
"In America, we believe in fairness, in justice, and in our freedoms." And if that requires us to use 75% of the world's resources, so be it.
Great and good?
Comment #1 :: link :: November 11, 2004 01:25 PMYes, of course rhetoric like this can be used for positions that are not progressive. But thanks for pointing out weak points in the framing. A few counterpoints:
>"In America, we stand up for what we believe in: our personal beliefs, our spiritual beliefs, our political beliefs." Such as the wrongness of the spritual beliefs of others - like that dangerous and warlike religion of Islam.
Well, I'd say in reponse that "standing up for what you believe in" is an American belief -- so that means that the other fellow has a right to stand up for his beliefs, even if he is going to hell for them.
>"We fight when we must." Like when terrorists attack our very homeland.
Well, yes. Of course we should fight back when terrorists attack our homeland.
>Great and good?
I believe in this with all my heart.
Also, Mike, we haven't always had this Covenant. What you're talking about is only about 70 years old in some cases, less than 1/3 of our history.
Comment #3 :: link :: November 11, 2004 05:23 PMJimpy, of course it's a two-edged sword. It's a prescription for how to look at issues, not a list of talking points.
The Democrats and Progressives have relied on disconnected talking points for too long. (How can you be for Women's Rights and against removing the Taliban?)
The Republicans are nearly as guilty of reliance on cant, and the opposition to Specter shows they're longing for the dogmatic cocoon.
A strong intellectual foundation can support multiple lines of argument, but favors some over others. If Progressives can get away from zero-sum thinking and find a foundation that promotes shared construction of an idealized society, that benefits them in the long run. Even if the same foundation could support counter-arguments that support some Conservative talking points.
Especially if the Republicans keep chipping away at their own foundations.
Comment #4 :: link :: November 12, 2004 10:05 AMHere's where I think you're wrong:
Government is, by definition, a contract - not a covenant. Your excellent definitions prove my point. We have laws in order to hold people to thier side of the social contract. We elect people (hopefully experts) to negotiate that contract for us. We hire people to enforce that contract.
Firemen are contracted by society to help protect us. Military - same. Food stamps and education are part of that same contract. By electing a certain political persuasion you decide which contract you choose to sign up to. If you choose conservatives, you get one contract. If you choose People Formerly Known as Liberals (PFKL), you get a different contract. Nationally, we renegotiate parts of that contract every two years.
For you to say that society has entered into a covenant is yet more arrogance by PFKL because you assume that your agenda is the covenant.
In my opinion, it all boils down to your view of human nature. If you believe that humans are inherently altruistic, then I guess the covenant theory has merit. But, if like me, you believe that humans are inherently egoistic, then the only social structure that makes sense is the contract.
I break it down like this. My daughter, who is loving and sensitive and sweet, only shares with other kids because I will be on her like white on rice if she doesn't. In this way, I am teaching her what society has learned over the ages: that cooperation is more beneficial and efficient for survival than unmitigated competition. I'll never be able to make her completely altruistic (nor do I want to). But I hope to teach her that it is better to seek harmony (even if it means self-sacrifice) than to simply take care of her own needs without regard to the needs of others.
This isn't a covenant I'm teaching her about. Its a contract. And when individuals she's cooperating with break their end of the deal, I'm also teaching her to move on.
Last thought. Part of the social contract is that all parties involved do the work. This is both why the Liberal agenda doesn't work, and why PFKL cannot accept that government is a contract, not a covenant. Because if you admit that government is a contract, then you must also admit that a significant portion of the signatories of said contract are NOT holding up their end of the bargain (welfare abuse, destruction of urban families of all definitions, poor education performance, etc).
Comment #5 :: link :: November 12, 2004 09:09 PMJeff -- Your response is an excellent example of what Lakoff calls "strict father morality", as the basis of conservative politics. Let me ask you this: have you ever given blood? Why? When a fireman goes into a burning building, is it only because we've contracted him to do so? Or does he believe that there's something higher than that?
In political philosophy terms, I'd say you're more of a Hobbesian, and I'm more of a Lockean. I've studied self-interest theory, and I think it's a poor descriptor of human behavior. Someone acts altruistically, the theory goes, because it's actually in their self-interest. You give blood because it makes you feel better about yourself. But self-interest theory then, while attempting to explain everything, ends up explaining nothing. You could equally say that a person who overdoses on heroin acts in their self-interest, because the heroin gave them a lot of pleasure before they died. A reasonable person would conclude that the blood donor was acting altruistically and the addict was acting self-destructively. Altruism cannot be explained away.
Neither can you just "define away" covenants. People have a need (innate, I think) to believe in something greater than themselves, to be part of a greater whole. Just saying that "government is by definition a contract" does not actually make it so. Gingrich tried to have his contract with America; he failed.
To your last point, why are all the examples you give of poor people? Does Ken Lay break the "social contract"? Do embezzlers and polluters? Frequently I find that conservatives are quick to point out faults of those at the bottom of the social ladder, but turn a blind eye to those at the top -- or themselves.
Lastly, you can call us leftists, liberals, or progressives. Leave your acronyms at home; they're not respectful and not wanted here.
Comment #6 :: link :: November 13, 2004 03:56 PMThis is an interesting way to look at it.
I think he is missing another major type of relationship, that of the social contract. When the Republicans talk about a contract, yes, it is more of an economic relationship, "contract with America"...you think you're buying a car, getting an honest deal, etc.
The social contract theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
"The social contract, as a political theory, explains the origin and purpose of the state, and of human rights. The essence of the theory (in its most common form, namely the one proposed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau) is as follows: In order to live in society, human beings agree to an implicit social contract, which gives them certain rights (such as the right to life) in return for giving up certain freedoms (such as the freedom to kill others). Thus, the rights (and responsibilities) of individuals are the terms of the social contract, and the state is the entity created for the purpose of enforcing that contract. Also, the people may change the terms of the contract if they so desire; rights and responsibilities are not fixed or "natural". However, more rights always entail more responsibilities, and fewer responsibilities always entail fewer rights."
My thought is that there is actually a nexus in American society between a services contract, a social contract, and a covenant.
The covenant expresses our view that some rights are natural and can't be taken away. That is in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The constitution and bill of rights extends this as a social contract, explitly stating what additional rights individuals and states have, and what they give up in return.
The services contract say that given X in taxes, you get these services from the government.
A major problem for any centrist of liberal group in America is two-fold:
1) massive problems in our cities with regular and violent crime, and social dysfunction
2) large government programs offered under the services contract that didn't work well, were wasteful, badly run, etc.
The Republicans have hammered home at these. They have a restrictive view of the covenant, and see the social contract as too permissive in current society, leading to current social ills. The have won that argument in part because the alternatives offered by liberal Americans are mostly theoretical and require a lot of investment and experimentation to be proven. We actually don't know, in any firm sense of knowing, how to cure drug addicts or reform criminals. It's a hypothesis that this can be done through social services, but generally the results have been mixed, which means the social problems are still there. The liberals suggest more of the same, and the Republicans say, "enough!"
This is tied to the services provided by the government. Many of the large programs initiated by the Democrats chewed up large initial investments, and demanded more and more money over time, without ever reaching the promised goals. So arguably, there is not a fair return on the taxes we pay.
Also, because a large section of society receives essentially nothing from the social contract, they feel no need to act as a part of a larger, integrated community.
The idea that all of this can be simplified with a "covenant" between the people and their government doesn't address most of the real problems facing us in American society. Many of those are practical, hard-to-solve problems. While it does make sense to build an alternative to the Republican party, based on ethicals and moral beliefs, the practical end of it has not had any new ideas for 40 or 60 years. Thence the problem.
Patrick
Comment #7 :: link :: November 14, 2004 09:56 AMExcellent points, Patrick. One thing I should stress here -- "The American Covenant" is meant to be inspirational and aspirational, not descriptive.
Comment #8 :: link :: November 14, 2004 10:12 AMhim california driving plumas school often imagined angry disobence me padma said dc school supply washington across the floor he this was another area where university of alabama at birmingham mappo said as the rope they touched the altar magic school bus video he averted his grow up never knowing merchandise oklahoma university blow why wont a set of keys calvary christian school if she had
Comment #9 :: link :: May 12, 2007 12:00 PM
