IS OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT UNRAVELING?

The past four years have shaken up what political scientists tend to refer to as the social contract between our government and its citizens. An implicit contract none of us was explicitly asked to opt in on, but a choice we assume to enjoy all the benefits that government provides, while implicitly agreeing to accept governmental authority. President Trump and his congressional supporters are gradually dismantling the vestiges of 20th century liberalism from 21st century America. They appear set on redefining the underlying social agreement between the healthy and the sick, between immigrants and native born, between men and women, between differing sexual orientations and religions, between rich and poor and between those who own capital and those who don’t. The privatization of FDR’s Social Security, Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid and Obama’s Affordable Care Act are in the ruling party’s sights. So much so that this year’s contender for the presidency, former Vice President Joe Biden, has considered that what is at stake is nothing less than the soul of America. While a social contract may be tacitly greed to in general, its constructs can become very explicit. Our Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of our social contract. It sets out what the government can and can’t do. Social contract is a theory or a model which originated during the Age of Enlightenment, an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries. The starting point for most social contract theories was an examination of the human condition prior to, or absent of any political order. Theorists sought to demonstrate why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their national freedom to obtain the benefits of political order. The most profound social contract theorists of the time were: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Thomas Hobbes’s theoretical basis was “the state of nature,” during which human life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the right to plunder, rape and murder. To avoid this, free men would engage in a contract to establish a civil society in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign. Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of the state of nature. The English philosopher John Locke came from quite a different starting point. He believed that human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance, even though it allowed people to be selfish. In a natural state, all people were equal and independent. Everyone had a natural right to defend his “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” The sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with the help from government in an organized state. He argued against the absolute monarchy and in favor of individual consent as the basis for political legitimacy. His ideas had a profound influence on our “Declaration of Independence” and “Constitution,” and can be found back in the written works of Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and others. The Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in 1762, became increasingly aware that the ordering in society was unjust. Rules were made by the rich to suit their own interests, not those of the common people. He argued that laws could only be binding if they were supported by the “general will” of the people. Today, most of us still believe that we live together in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Based on responses to polling, our American social contract suggests that we generally share a number of values: Everyone should have an equal chance to get ahead; No one should be discriminated against because of race, religion, gender or sexual preference; No one who works full time should have to live in poverty; People should take responsibility for themselves and their families, but deserve help if they need it through no fault of their own; And no one should have special privileges and power based on wealth and class. These values are anchored in moral teachings and democratic ideals that often predate the founding of our republic. We have veered away from all these principles. However, that does not make us less dedicated to them. A problem with social contract theory is that it could give governments too much power to make laws under the guise of protecting the public. Governments may use the cloak of the social contract to invoke the fear of a state of nature to warrant laws that are intrusive. Theo Wierdsma