CommunIty

Last week I referenced George Will's takedown of Elizabeth Warren's tribute to the joys of liberalism:

Such an agenda's premise is that individualism is a chimera, that any individual's achievements should be considered entirely derivative from society, so the achievements need not be treated as belonging to the individual. Society is entitled to socialize — i.e., conscript — whatever portion it considers its share. It may, as an optional act of political grace, allow the individual the remainder of what is misleadingly called the individual's possession.

The collectivist agenda is antithetical to America's premise, which is: Government — including such public goods as roads, schools and police — is instituted to facilitate individual striving, a.k.a. the pursuit of happiness.

So now here is E.J.  Dionne's response to Will:

What Warren has done is to make a proper case for liberalism, which does not happen often enough. Liberals believe that the wealthy should pay more in taxes than “the rest of us” because the well-off have benefited the most from our social arrangements. This has nothing to do with treating citizens as if they were cows incapable of self-government. As for the regulatory state, our free and fully competent citizens have long endorsed a role for government in protecting consumers from dangerous products, including tainted beef.

Will, the philosopher, knows whereof Warren speaks because he has advanced arguments of his own that complement hers. In his thoughtful 1983 book “Statecraft as Soulcraft,” Will rightly lamented that America's sense of community had become “thin gruel” and chided fellow conservatives “caught in the web of their careless anti-government rhetoric.”

I much prefer Will's take, no big surprise given my philosophical predilections, but they both state their cases well. The argument has been given new life lately because of current politics, but how to define the proper roles of the individual and the group has always been the heart of political debate.

Jonah Goldlberg takes on Dionne:

The reason conservatives responded to Warren's “declaration” is simply that liberals were relentlessly hyping it. It didn't become a YouTube sensation among conservatives. It became YouTube sensation among liberals who were inspired by it and then conservatives responded to that.

It's an important distinction because to listen to liberals, Warren's argument strikes fear into the heart of the right because it's so powerful and super-terrific. It really doesn't and it really isn't. I'm sure Will wrote a column about it not to pay “enormous tribute” to her brilliant insight. Rather, it's because liberals wouldn't shut up about it.

And Glenn W. Smith weighs in against Will:

Warren had made the common sense observation that no one in America gets rich on their own. We all depend upon our shared investment in schools, roads, bridges, a legal system,  public safety etc. So, the wealthy should pay their fair share. After all, without our investments in America, they couldn't make a dime.

Will is outraged by this thought. And before he's done he's accused Warren and all liberals of being un-American collectivists out to destroy individual autonomy. Never mind that Warren said nothing like this and means nothing like this.