When I was growing up, people talked about the common
good. It meant that, as
individuals, we should act in a way that promoted the common good of the
communities we lived in – our town, our state, our country, and our world. It meant seeing ourselves as part of a
larger community. I don’t hear
many people talk about that very much these days. It seems that, for many people, the focus is on the
individual person. Some people act
as though they have made themselves everything they are. As though they didn’t have parents who
acted as models for them and taught them their basic values. As though they weren’t influenced by
the teachers they spent hours a day with for 12 or 16 or more years. As though they weren’t affected by the
friends who listened to them, argued with them, played sports or musical
instruments with them, supported them and hugged them when they needed it.
Our society and many of our leaders emphasize the
importance of each of us standing up for ourselves and taking care of our own
needs, instead of relying on others.
George W. Bush advocated for America to become an “ownership society”,
in which individual Americans would take more responsibility for themselves and
depend less on government programs.
One of the keystones of this “ownership society” would be people’s investment
of their money in the stock market for their retirement, instead of
contributing to the government-run Social Security system. Theoretically, it sounds good. But it can be a risky venture, as
recent years have shown. Ayn Rand,
the philosopher whose ideas Paul Ryan espouses, believes that people should act
on “rational self-interest.” She
believes that each of us has to act in our own best interests, that what we
achieve by our efforts is ours and that government’s role is to make sure no
one takes it away from us. Again,
this puts the focus on the individual, and doesn’t acknowledge the societal
supports we have throughout our lives.
The two examples I have given are of Republican politicians. But Democrats have been all too willing
to go along with emphasizing the responsibilities of the individual and cutting
programs that support those who have fallen on hard times.
The message is that each of needs to be
self-reliant. That we should not
depend on others and others should not depend on us. Does a society that emphasizes this message so much
encourage isolation of its citizens?
Does it make it more likely that individuals will feel they are
disconnected from others? Does it
make it more likely that an individual who could benefit from the support of
others will not see reaching out to others as a viable option?
How would it affect our country and our citizens if
the message coming from our leaders was that we are connected to one another,
that each of us is part of a community that cares about us? If that message permeated our society
and our lives, would it make our society a more supportive one and help prevent
the mass violence we saw in Old Bridge and Aurora and Oak Creek? I’ve been wondering …
