We're All Communitarians Now

In his TAPPED post on the Obama speech (via Matt), Mark Schmitt argues:

in Obama [the communitarian correction to liberalism] can be quite substantive, as I thought was shown in Alec McGillis's comparison of Obama and Edwards in their approaches to poverty—for Edwards poverty is about not having enough money, and the solutions are economic, including helping people move to where jobs are, where Obama was attracted to comprehensive efforts to rebuild community, including the non-economic aspects of life.

I agree with Mark about Obama's communitarianism, but I also think Edwards has a strong communitarian streak. While Obama's communitarianism comes up in his discussion of urban poverty, Edwards hits similar communitarian notes with his College for Everyone plan—which, in classic communitarian style, provides a benefit in exchange for service. And I'd argue that Edwards anti-poverty plan—centering as it does around the idea of a "Working Society" in which "everyone who is able to work will be expected to work and rewarded for working"—is consistent with communitarianism in most respects. You'll find no McGovern-style "Demogrants" in Edwards' or any Democratic presidential candidate's platform these days.

More generally, in my mind, one can be a good communitarian and still view poverty and related issues as fundamentally economic ones. This kind of communitarianism—which has a lot in common with late 19th century populism and Jeffersonian agrarianism, as well as with certain contemporary public intellectuals like Jane Jacobs, Wendell Berry, Christopher Lasch, and others—sees community and economy as inextricably linked. According to this line of thinking, the type of economy one has (agrarian vs. manufacturing, "free labor" vs. wage labor, small shops vs. big chains, etc.) largely determines the type of community one lives in.

There are important differences in how communitarian liberals and, um, liberal liberals talk about economics. In distinguishing communitarian thinking about the economy from traditional liberal thinking, it's useful to ask how each would answer the question: What is an economy for? The traditional liberal answer is something like "individual prosperity" or "a chicken in every pot." Communitarians don't necessary disagree with this, but they'd also add something like "providing citizens with the civic virtues needed to govern themselves and participate in democratic society."

In Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, Michael Sandel captures this distinction when he notes:

... debates about economic policy have not always focused solely on the size and distribution of the national product. Throughout much of American history they have also addressed a different question, namely, what economic arrangements are most hospitable to self-government?

Thomas Jefferson, for example, in Notes on the State of Virginia, argued that only an agrarian economy would instill its citizens with the civic virtues needed for successful self-government. In the early 19th century, arguments were made against wage labor on a similar basis.

Getting back to Mark's argument, I also think it's possible to disagree with the idea that "poverty is [solely] about not having enough money" while continuing to see poverty primarily in economic terms. This is where a multi-dimensional and relative concept like social inclusion comes in handy—instead of reducing poverty to having cash income below a subsistence level, it recognizes that a variety of resources and opportunities are needed to participate fully in the life of one's community.

PS: Since both Matt and Mark mention John Rawls, I need to add an esoteric point. Rawls "difference principle"—which holds that inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society—is sometimes thought to require a right to a minimum guaranteed income for the "least advantaged", including able-bodied non-workers. But Samuel Freeman's terrific recent book on Rawls suggests it's rather more complicated than that. Freeman notes:

By least advantaged, Rawls means the least advantaged working person, as
measured by the income he/she obtains for gainful employment. .... Why does Rawls define "least advantaged" this way? Basically he conceives of society in terms of social cooperation, which he regards as productive and mutually beneficial, and which involves an idea of reciprocity or fair terms. ....

Reading Freeman's book, I've come away thinking that Rawls' theory of justice is much more interesting and rich (and radical) than the justification for 1960s-style welfare capitalism that it is often portrayed as.