Fill in the Blanks, Color by Letter Y = Yellow R = Red B = Black W = White G = Green Drawing.from the Painting Flag/Necessity by JonMarc Edwards In the face of our own seemingly intractable problems, but with these new opportunities in mind, it is appropriate to ask- whether we too could use a change of direction, an opening up and a restructuring. Of course, our problems are different from the Soviet Union’s, and their agenda is not ours. Nevertheless, the theme of “the common good,” if attractively represented in the words and actions of the Democratic candidate, could be the breath of fresh air that we need, the “glasnost” that would allow us to consider our problems in a new way. Pope John Paul II was correct when he said in his recent encyclical, On Social Concern, that liberal capitalism is in as much need of fundamental reform as is Marxist collectivism, a remark that caused howls of pain among neoconservative intellectuals, but one that the Democratic candidate ought to take to heart. There are two ways out of the double-barreled weakness in our economy and in our position as a world power. We can embark on a frenzied effort to “regain the competitive edge” economically and to increase our military invulnerability, or we can work for a new system of world order that would relieve the pressure both on us and on others. The former strategy is self-defeating, while the latter strategy involves the search for the common good at home and abroad. Before sketching the substance of a vision of the common good, we would like to emphasize the importance of the vision itself, and the need for the Democratic candidate to challenge the rhetoric both of the Reagan administration and of some of its previous Democratic opponents. Ronald Reagan has consistently projected a fantasy image of an America immensely rich and powerful because of unrestrained free enterprise, an America in which small-town virtues can flourish “without government interference.” Americans have grown distrustful and cynical because this fantasy obviously has not produced what it has promised. But the Democrats have responded either by talking solemnly about “an era of limits” in which taxes must be raised, to which Americans have generally preferred the fantasy, or by embracing the Reagan promises and the agenda that the Republicans popularized and contending only that Democrats have better ideas or techniques to realize them. Some strategists believe that the Democratic candidate should say as little as possible in the fall campaign about how he intends to govern while hoping to exploit any error or indiscretion committed by his opponent. Such a strategy would be a grave error for the Democrats regardless of It is incorrect to assume that a candidate and a party can win only in the way consumer products succeed—by becoming increasingly bland so as not to offend anyone. the electoral outcome. It is incorrect to assume that a candidate and a party can win only in the way consumer products succeed—by becoming increasingly bland so as not to offend anyone. If he fails to articulate a vision of national life, the Democratic candidate will risk imitating recent administrations, which all too often have engaged in a pattern of merely reacting, adapting in ah increasingly random manner to a bewildering environment. Avision is necessary, in the first instance, because a candidate needs to project a vision of governance to be able to govern effectively. A coherent vision, a public philosophy, provides citizens with the means for understanding and sympathizing with the aims of the president and his party. Vision shapes public opinion. In this sense, vision is power to govern. More important, the role of the president, and consequently the greatness of a president, is measured by his ability persuasively to advocate a strong sense of the public good. Only in this way can a basis be laid for significant structural reforms as opposed to technocratic finetuning. In a democracy the president must be more than the manager of the national administration and more than the shaper of public opinion. The president must also act as the teacher, in the best sense of that term, by reminding his (or her, in the future) fellow citizens of their common commitments and standards. The president can do this by recalling common history: the record of our achievements, but also of our failures and defeats. The president teaches best when s/he encourages citizens to join actively with their fellows in considering the course of public life for themselves, when s/he generates vigorous debate. Thus, the Democratic candidate can be a catalyst for significant and enduring change in the nation’s political climate. The debate between the free market and the welfare state has exhausted its utility. New times demand a broadened focus. The notion of the common good can provide a new vision through which public deliberations can take focus and radical reform can take place. Consider the present international situation from the perspective of the common good. The Reagan administration has made significant inroads in nuclear arms reduction agreements with the Soviets, an achievement so historic that it may well be remembered as this administration’s most significant accomplishment. Testing the sincerity of the Soviet Union at every point, we can press ahead to further reductions, including reductions in conventional armaments. Of course, we should use the Strategic Defense Initiative as a bargaining chip—it probably will never work anyway. What we don’t need is to drop another trillion dollars in the black hole of a highly dubious weapons system. A4 Brms reduction is a vivid example of a policy motivated by the common good. It benefits not only the Russians and us. As Pope John Paul II recently pointed out, the enormous amount of money the Russians and Americans spend on armaments has a big impact on the suffering peoples of the third world. Although the pope’s concerns are moral and humanitarian, his point actually makes a great deal of economic sense, as many have argued recently. Capital transfers from the industrialized nations to the third world are on the agenda and are not just a matter of charity. Significant growth in the third world will provide the best possible market for our own reviving economy and will help to head off a depression caused by over-production and overcompetition in the advanced nations. All of these proposals will require prolonged and complex negotiations leading to a whole network of agreements. Any effort to strengthen the economies of third world nations must guard against neocolonial interference, on the one hand, and corruption and distortion in the receiving countries, on the other. The United States cannot dictate these agreements: those days are over. But we Clinton St. Quarterly— Fall, 1988 11
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz