The Common Good: Theoretical Content, Practical Utility

William A. Galston

Abstract: Despite skepticism about the common good, the idea has both theoretical content and practical utility. It rests on important features of human life, such as inherently social goods, social linkages, and joint occupation of various commons. It reflects the outcome for bargaining for mutual advantage, Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/142/2/9/1830194/daed_a_00199.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 subject to a fairness test. And it is particularized through a community’s adherence to certain goods as objects of joint endeavor. In the context of the United States, these goods are set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution–in general language, subject to political contestation, for a people who have agreed to live together in a united political community. While the Preamble states the ends of the union, the body of the Constitution establishes the institutional means for achieving them. So these institutions are part of the common good as well. These are the enduring commonalities–the elements of a shared good– that ceaseless democratic conflict often obscures but that reemerge in times of crisis and civic ritual.

Many people who think of themselves as realists rather than cynics dismiss the common good as pious rhetoric. There is no shortage of leaders who have deployed the phrase in just that way. And there is evidence to support this skeptical view. Most societies are divided along lines of class, eth- nicity, and religion. Free societies with market economies proliferate what we have come to call interest groups, just as James Madison predicted. In the United States, partisan polarization has inten- si½ed in recent decades and has become inter- WILLIAM A. GALSTON, a Fellow twined with dueling ideologies whose views of the of the American Academy since proper ends and means of politics clash fundamen- 2004, is a Senior Fellow and the tally. Nonetheless, the idea of the common good is Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance neither vacuous nor futile. It has real content in Studies at the Brookings Institu- theory and real utility in practice. tion. His publications include Pub- I begin by examining three kinds of social facts lic Matters: Essays on Politics, Policy, that are easy to overlook because they are so ubiq- and Religion (2005), The Practice of Liberal Pluralism (2005), and Liberal uitous. Pluralism: The Implications of Value Inherently social goods. Some goods are inherently Pluralism for Political Theory and social. Telling a joke to oneself is virtually impossi- Practice (2002). ble, because humor requires surprise. It is barely

9 The possible to imagine a brain-damaged fectious. If an unvaccinated child gets Common individual who remembers jokes only in sick, the odds are that many of her class- Good: Theoretical the act of retelling them and forgets them mates will as well. Because we agree that Content, immediately. Such a person might be ca- health is an important good for each indi- Practical Utility pable of surprising himself. But the science- vidual, and because we understand that ½ction character of this example suggests the health of each individual is linked to how fanciful it is. the health of others, we can say that pub- Many games are inherently social goods lic health is an element of the common because the stimulation and satisfaction good. So conceived, the common good is they evoke require the interplay of two or anything but a demanding moral ideal. more independent minds and wills. Play- It is rather a matter of enlightened self- ing chess with oneself is possible as a interest. technical matter, but the experience is It is always tempting, however, to look Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/142/2/9/1830194/daed_a_00199.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 not the same. for ways around the interest-based logic Human life itself has inherently social of the common good–that is, for ways of dimensions. To survive infancy and devel- cutting the links that bind our fate to that op human attributes, we need what has of others. Before the development of mod- been called the social womb–the nurturing ern medicine, people of means tried to aid and companionship of other human put geographical distance between their beings. Once grown, we seek out the com- families and the epicenter of epidemics. pany of others, not only for speci½c bene- Those who could decamped for their coun- ½ts, but often because we feel isolated if try homes. Often the disease would follow we are alone too much or too long. We them, because some of those who fled differ among ourselves, of course. Some were already infected. of us ½nd solitude unbearable, while oth- In our own times, fortunate individuals ers experience ordinary social life as bur- have used a similar strategy of de-linkage densome. But even extreme introverts to escape the social version of public health crave the company of others–on their own hazards: violent crime. They use their terms. So we assemble in parks and malls wealth to live in forti½ed houses or well- and bars, often not for speci½c purposes, patrolled gated communities. When they but just to be with others. And when we travel, private armed guards accompany do, we enjoy a kind of good together that them. In some strati½ed societies, they we cannot enjoy alone. use guards and armored cars to protect Social linkages. In addition to these in- their children from being kidnapped on herently social activities, there are what I the way to school. call social linkages–aspects of our lives in These evasive measures are very costly, which the well-being of some people and not only in material terms. They mean affects the well-being of others. Mental living a life of constant fear, and they illness is a familiar example: if one family entail a considerable loss of liberty. At member is afflicted, it disrupts the lives of some point, most societies decide that it the others. Martin Luther King, Jr., made is better to address crime collectively–to much the same claim about segregation: make the investments in police and courts oppression damages the oppressors, not and prisons that a credible program of just their victims. criminal justice requires. As the residents The regime of public health rests on the of New York and many other U.S. cities fact of linkages. Societies mandate vacci- discovered during the past few decades, nations because so many diseases are in- an investment in crime control can pay

10 Dædalus, the Journal ofthe American Academy of Arts & Sciences huge dividends to society as a whole. leave both parties to the negotiation better William A. When people can walk without fear in off. This dyadic common good exists only Galston their neighborhoods, they enjoy more potentially; it takes cooperation to make freedom and more security. And besides, it actual. businesses move in, the local economy On some occasions there is only one grows, and property values increase. Once possible agreement, a single point of tan- we accept that social linkage is an in- gency between the most that A is willing escapable fact, we can act in ways that to offer and the least that B is willing to bene½t society as a whole. Here again, the accept. In the vast majority of cases, how- common good is enlightened self-interest. ever, there is a zone of overlap between The good of the commons. As social beings, the arrangements that could be acceptable we ½nd, create, and congregate in various to both. Most bargaining tactics, such as shared places. Some are constructed phys- bluf½ng, are designed to secure for oneself Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/142/2/9/1830194/daed_a_00199.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 ical spaces, such as streets, parks, and the largest possible share of the bene½ts public buildings. Others are technology- of cooperation. So the common good nei- based and virtual. Still others, such as the ther implies nor requires comprehensive air we breathe, are part of the natural en- harmony between the parties: there is vironment. Despite these differences, they almost always competition within the zone have a common attribute: how we behave of mutually bene½cial cooperation. in these places affects everyone’s ability In actual politics, this competition often to enjoy them over time. If we carelessly takes the form of arguments about allo- leave an unextinguished ½re in a camp- cating the costs of maintaining important ground, the entire facility may go up in communal activities. If we agree that edu- flames. If we fail to control emissions from cation is vital, whose taxes will make it vehicles that use fossil fuels, atmospheric possible? Does it make sense to rely as pollutants can increase the incidence of heavily as we now do on local communi- asthma and other ills. So the common ties, principally through property taxes? good includes the good of the commons. If we agree that it is important to main- While these three kinds of social facts tain a certain level of military capabilities, –intrinsically social goods, social linkages, who will participate in the armed forces, and shared places–are aspects of the how are they to be chosen and compen- common good, they hardly exhaust it. sated, and who will be asked to pay? If we As individuated beings, our separate exis- go to war, should there be a “war tax” to tences generate clashes of interests, and which everyone is asked to contribute? our liberty gives rise to competing con- The common good requires a balance be- ceptions of the good. These familiar dif- tween the bene½ts and burdens of social ferences are themselves social facts, and cooperation such that all (or nearly all) they challenge all but the most limited citizens believe that the contribution they understandings of the common good. In are called on to make leaves them with a the face of difference, the common good net surplus. If they cease to believe that, is an achievement, not a fact. they will try to lighten these burdens, either by evading some taxation or, in extreme The everyday activity of bargaining illu- cases, by leaving the community through minates some basic features of the achieved exit (for individuals) or secession (for common good. The animating reality of groups). this activity is the belief that relative to It turns out that the criterion of mutual the status quo, some agreement would advantage is only part of what makes bar-

142 (2) Spring 2013 11 The gains mutually acceptable. In a famous We cannot rule out the possibility that Common two-person experiment, one person is a workable conception of the global com- Good: Theoretical handed ten $1 bills and is asked to divide mon good will emerge from these discus- Content, them into two shares. If the other person sions. At present, however, the common Practical Utility agrees to the division, each receives his good is typically predicated on indepen- designated share; if not, neither gets any- dent political communities, the kinds of thing. One might imagine that the sec- entities represented in the United Nations. ond party would accept any division, These communities are not pre-given because even a small share leaves him natural facts, of course; they are in part better off. In practice, not so; beyond a human artifacts. Often one part of a com- certain point of inequality, a sense of un- munity will decide that a common good fairness trumps the potential gain from linking it to the rest of the community no the transaction. The need for mutual con- longer exists (if it ever did). Successful Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/142/2/9/1830194/daed_a_00199.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 sent establishes a kind of bedrock equality secessionist movements redraw the bound- between the parties that spills over into, aries of the communities within which the and delimits, the zone of acceptable agree- common good is pursued. And so, in ments. reverse, do successful efforts to integrate It is always possible that an agreement independent states into a single over- that meets the tests of fairness and mutual arching political community. advantage will work to the disadvantage of those not involved in the decision. In The U.S. Constitution begins with three many poor communities, for example, fateful words: We the people. It could have gentri½cation bene½ts both developers been (and, as dissidents such as Patrick and new incoming residents while pricing Henry argued, should have been) “We the current residents out of the market. Rent states.” Instead, the Constitution invoked increases can also make it impossible for –and to some extent called into being–a long-established “mom and pop” busi- united political community with a single nesses to survive. So third parties will often demos. appeal to a conception of the common There is a precondition of community: good broadened to include them, and they the people who form it must want to live will resort to nonmarket mechanisms, such together as a unity, and they must think as street protests and local governments, of themselves as sharing a common fate. to make sure their voices are heard. Communities fail when this condition is This raises a question fundamental to not or ceases to be satis½ed. In states such the theory and practice of the common as Iraq and Syria, the identities of different good: how are we to de½ne the limits of ethnic and religious groups contend with the community within which the principle –and may trump–their shared identity of commonality applies? Environmen- as members of the same political com- talists argue for a global de½nition: the munity. And once-successful communi- consumption of fossil fuels produces ex- ties can break down when disagreements ternalities that affect the entire human race. on fundamentals trump their shared his- (The long-running international negotia- tory. In Federalist No. 2, John Jay argued tions to produce a global compact on cli- that “Providence has been pleased to give mate change represent an effort–which this one connected country to one united may fail–to reframe a zero-sum conflict people–a people descended from the same between developed and developing nations ancestors, speaking the same language, as the quest for mutual advantage.) professing the same religion, attached to

12 Dædalus, the Journal ofthe American Academy of Arts & Sciences the same principles of government.” Note also that the Preamble de½nes the William A. Three quarters of a century later, Abra- common good in highly general terms. Galston ham Lincoln concluded his First Inaugu- We are free–indeed, invited–to argue ral with a desperate plea to the South: about what it means to establish justice or “We are not enemies, but friends. We to promote the general welfare. And the must not be enemies. Though passion “liberty” we are pledged to protect and may have strained, it must not break, our pass on to future generations is among the bonds of affection.” In the end, of course, most contestable terms in the political the “mystic chords of memory” to which lexicon. While the Preamble sets the terms Lincoln appealed proved weaker than did of debate about the American common differences of interest and principle, and good, it hardly prejudges the outcome of also the sentiments of anger and fear. The that discussion, and it leaves open the pos- United States barely survived the ensuing sibility that the prevailing understanding Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/142/2/9/1830194/daed_a_00199.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 ordeal; many communities do not, and of key terms may change over time. (His- their common good dissolves as an effec- tory suggests that this open-endedness is tive force. anything but a defect.) But in 1787, the dominant reality was One ½nal observation about the Pre- Jay’s, not Lincoln’s. Taking the presump- amble: it is limited geographically but not tion of one united people as granted, the chronologically. While only the individ- Preamble went on to sketch the content uals associated with a particular place– of the common good the Constitution was the United States–fall under the canopy created to foster. The words that follow of the Preamble’s promise, the founders “in order to” specify the key elements of sought to extend it beyond their own gen- that good: a more perfect union, justice, eration, to “our posterity.” To remain true domestic tranquility, the common defense, to the Constitution, no generation may the general welfare, and the blessings of seize for itself fleeting advantages that risk liberty. In principle, all were to share in leaving future generations with dimin- these goods, and all were to bene½t from ished shares of the goods that the founding them. (The gap between this principle charter places at the heart of our collec- and actual practice is one of the central tive enterprise. drivers of American history.) If the Preamble states the ends of the Note that the Preamble de½nes a dis- union, the body of the Constitution sets tinctive understanding of the common forth the institutional means for achiev- good for a speci½c society. Unlike some ing them. And these institutions are part other societies, America’s common good of the common good as well. They enable does not explicitly include theological not only collective decision-making but doctrines or a canon of the virtues. We also the capacity to implement decisions are free to argue (and throughout our his- once they are made. They make possible tory many have argued) that the common the peaceful resolution of disputes. They good we seek is unattainable without reli- are designed to ward off tyranny, whether gion and civic morality. George Washing- of individuals or of groups, and to offer ton and Alexis de Tocqueville are hardly a voice for all. They empower majorities alone in seeing just such connections. But while protecting minorities. And the Con- as citizens, we are free to disagree, and to stitution provides, as well, for processes draw practical inferences (for example, of amendment to improve its capacity to about the wisdom of public aid to paro- promote these ends when changing condi- chial schools) from our divergent views. tions make such improvements necessary.

142 (2) Spring 2013 13 The The common good, to repeat, is no guar- ty’s economic development. If develop- Common antee of social and political harmony. Our ment was designed to boost the commu- Good: Theoretical constitutional common good establishes nity’s overall production and wealth, it Content, a framework of ends and means about quali½ed as a public use that justi½ed the Practical Utility which, and within which, vigorous contes- taking of private property. This decision tation is inevitable. We disagree, of course, proved enormously controversial, in part about how different sectors of society are because it subjected what many regarded to divide the burden of maintaining a free as an individual right to a collective cal- and well-functioning political community. culation. The good of private property, But the debate can touch on even deeper argued many critics, is not something we issues. If the common good encompasses can determine simply by adding up the multiple goods, then some of its elements consequences of different patterns of prop- often stand in tension with one another. erty ownership for all affected individuals. Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/daed/article-pdf/142/2/9/1830194/daed_a_00199.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 A fair trial is an element of the common There is of course a continuum of con- good as we understand it; so is a free press. testation, from clashes that can trigger What should we do when they collide? civil war to the disputes that characterize Even when only one good is at stake, everyday political and social life. But even we disagree on what its general speci½- disagreements over public policy–should cation means in speci½c cases. The Fourth the federal government guarantee that no Amendment protects us from “unreason- citizen must go without health insur- able” search and seizure. But how do we ance?–can trigger fears that the commu- draw the line between what’s reasonable nity’s fundamental character is being trans- and what isn’t? Reasonable people often formed. The passions and divisions of the disagree about what it means to act rea- moment often lead to myopia, a blurring sonably in speci½c cases. of the vision that allows us to discern what Controversy over the common good we share despite our differences. It is the can even raise an issue on which moral role of statesmanship–always in short philosophers have long been divided: is supply–to remind us of the enduring com- the good of the community to be deter- monalities that we are forever in danger mined by aggregating the consequences of overlooking. of different courses of action for all members of the community? For example, while the right to acquire and hold private property is an important element of the common good in the United States, it is not absolute. The Fifth Amendment states that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.” We may leave aside the often contentious issue of when compensation is just and focus on the concept of public use. No one doubts that roads, post of½ces, and military bases fall under this concept. In 2005, however, a ½ve-member majority of the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the city of New London, Connecticut, to take private property to further the communi-

14 Dædalus, the Journal ofthe American Academy of Arts & Sciences