Newton Mayor Setti Warren announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate around the core theme of “shared responsibility”. His website’s intro states, “…through a shared sense of responsibility we can build a better future for our state and our country.”
Of course, you can see the statement as just the sort of throwaway line that politicians of all stripes use in describing their philosophy and not read much into it. But, as someone who believes “words matter”, I think the concept of responsibility has become a critical area of contested ground in American politics. I’m sure Mr. Warren does as well. If wielded skilfully, and connected to a coherent policy case, Democratic candidates can paint the Republicans, controlled as they are by Tea Party voters and Koch Brothers’ cash, as the irresponsible party. And if that tag can stick, Republicans lose a key piece of their allure.
Since the 60’s, it has usually been the Republicans turning the concept of responsibility against us – particularly in debating social policy. Democrats were cast as the party of “rights” (which is not something we should be ashamed of mind you) – and seen as more concerned with racial and gender equality then with responsibility. Republicans billed us as the party who wanted to give people something for nothing (e.g. welfare, affirmative action) and inflamed the electorate with their racially-tinged emphasis on “personal responsibility.”
But the GOP’s responsibility narrative also informed the GOP’s policy prescriptions in areas like health care. The individual mandate to purchase health care, which Bob Dole proposed as a response to Hillarycare in the 90’s, and Mitt Romney brought to the table here in Massachusetts, clearly fit Republican dogma that people should take responsibility for themselves – that individual rights (which we believe health care is) should be matched by responsibilities to purchase it for yourself.
Bill Clinton was probably the first Democrat to effectively engage Republicans around on the issue (although Carter tried). He accepted elements of GOP policy on personal responsibility (e.g. welfare reform and criminal sentencing policy) but matched it with a renewed appeal to collective or shared responsibility as well. It was Clinton (with a big assist from Ted Kennedy) who introduced the Americorps national service scheme, pushed symbolic policies like school uniforms and spoke often about the importance of civil society and community. Since that time, many successful Democrats, from Deval Patrick to Barack Obama, have made the idea of shared responsibility a central part of their political and personal narratives.
Governor Patrick always makes clear that his rise from the South Side of Chicago to the corner office, aided as it was by charities that afforded him a great education, requires him to give back and fight to provide others with the opportunities he benefitted from. President Obama chose community organising over the riches of corporate America when fresh out of school. Patrick prioritised community service by establishing the Commonwealth Corps during his first year in office. Upon entering the White House, one of President Obama’s first actions was to sign the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act to increase the size of the AmeriCorps.
Following on from the Clinton years, Democrats have also continued to accept what were once Republican social policies that emphasised personal responsibility (although there also is a good case to be made that the individual mandate supports shared responsibility by ensuring that no one can “free ride” off those who have purchased insurance). John Edwards and Hillary Clinton both made the Romney mandate central to their health plans in the 2008 campaign. Of course, President Obama signed the mandate into law.
Through these actions, Democrats have effectively planted their tanks on what many Republicans considered to be their soil. So how have the Republicans responded to this assault on their bastion? Not well. They have effectively abandoned it. They have run away from the individual mandate, thus betraying their belief that people have a responsibility to take care of themselves. Even so-called moderates like Maine’s Olympia Snowe, who once would have found common ground with Democrats around policies that promote service and responsibility, have declared the mandate unconstitutional. House Republicans of course also tried to gut AmeriCorps funding and community development programs in the recent budget fight. For the GOP, personal responsibility only seems to be important for poor people to demonstrate. Apply it more broadly and it is “anti-freedom”.
The notion that “we are all in this together” and “together we can” is increasingly lost on a Republican Party in thrall to the Tea Party’s incoherent but decidedly libertarian instincts (unless of course it is faith-based). The more Democrats talk about “shared responsibility” the more Republicans seem to speak only about “assaults on individual freedoms.” I think it increasingly makes the Republicans look out of touch and hysterical. Americans may want to protect personal freedoms, but we also recognise the importance of working together and giving back to one’s community.
This brings us back to Setti Warren (he of course being a veteran of both the Clinton White House and the Navy reserves) and the race against Scott Brown. In his announcement video, Warren, I thought, effectively critiqued Brown for supporting cuts to the very programs that Brown, as a disaffected youth, benefitted from. Warren was essentially calling him a hypocrite, as well as making the moral case for giving back after you have been given to – the case for shared responsibility. Can this be an effective argument to win an election? I think it can be, if hammered home relentlessly. It can be married to an argument about Republican recklessness – nearly shutting down the Government and bringing the country to default by not raising the debt ceiling to pursue their ideological vision – both instances which define irresponsibility.
Republicans like Brown will of course proclaim their fiscal conservatism as testament to their responsibility. But that argument can be undercut by their support for tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of benefit cuts for the elderly and vulnerable. Brown wants to keep his head down and play innocent (he should be known as “Head Down Scott Brown”) as Republicans make no effort to find common ground. But he needs to have his head pulled out of the sand to answer for his votes and ideology. Warren started to force that to happen. The more it does, I think it will show a man (and Party) both irresponsible and out of his (their) depth. We have a long time to go to November 2012, but the more Democrats talk about responsibility the more Republicans seem to run away from common sense
So we got…community service and school uniforms. Along with some speeches. Awesome.
That’s the problem with stuff like this. Sounds nice, but it means next to nothing, and leads to next to nothing. Tax cuts for the wealthy aren’t wrong because they are irresponsible. They’re wrong because they are unethical and unfair (which, incidentally, polls indicate most Americans get).
People get results when they fight for what they believe in. That’s the definition of being a citizen. It’s not about determining the right messaging to win an election. And right now, we need citizens, not an army of unpaid political consultants.
to get the good stuff done, you have to win. And to win, you have to get the citizens to show up. And many of them won’t unless they are persuaded that it’s worth their effort – after all, they do have jobs, kids, etc. that take up a lot of time. That’s why messaging is actually important.
Beyond that, I’m not 100% sure what your point is…
Tax cuts for the wealthy are unfair, but they are certainly irresponsible as well – as they force the country deeper into debt and force cuts to other programs with no added benefit the common good. Responsibility plays better than fairness as an argument that can win over more than just we liberals.
If Seti Warren or anyone wants to go to Washington to hold accountable those who conspired to violate federal laws against torture, I will go to the mattress for his candidacy.
Similarly for accountability for systematic pillaging of our economy and our kid’s future by speculators and thieves in the previous decade.
Do that and you will set the stage for all kinds of “responsibility.” Fail to do that and the moral vacuum will continue to suck all meaning from that word.
Sorry to go off like this lunago, but it is the only way I can make sense of your argument.
It means that we all have to do our part to contribute to the exhorbitant profit mongers that are waist deep into our government. When I hear that, I envision a finger pointing at me saying that I must pay my ridiculous health care premiums and fees in order that the money may be redistributed upward, as well as pay more in taxes so that the upper tiers may pay less. It means that the corporate pillagers are left harmless, because it our responsibility to clean up their disasters so that they may continue to provide less than adequate livelihoods to American workers. Honestly, the term does nothing for me except make me cringe, and I am highly likely to ignore anyone who uses the term in a big way during a campaign. If they want my interest, than can state that it’s time for corporate America and the top 2% to share in the responsibility of turning this country back into a country that works for everyone.
The premiums are so high, we are forced to pay them, then can’t afford the high deductibles and fees to get the care needed. This is shared responsibility in America:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2
When will the insurance companies, the oil companies, the big banks and all the other powerful interest start sharing in the responsibility?
When I saw this headline, I thought it was going to question the “responsibility” inherent in Warren’s decision to shaft his constituents before the ink was dry on his new letterhead. I like his platform, but his ambition is something else.