Beyond Distributive Justice
or Contributive Justice?
By Dan Shatzer 1-17-2022
republished 8-2024
Consider this analysis of Sander’s book in the light of what you saw at the DNC. There were many calls for the faithful on the left to “Do Something!” How can we reflect what the people on the right can do to contribute to making themselves and our nation free thus emotionally detaching them from the “savior”?
Michael J. Sandel’s book, The Tyranny of Merit, offers an insightful explanation for why many working-class voters voted for Donald Trump in our last two presidential elections. Basically, Donald Trump understands what Sandel calls “the politics of humiliation”. Sandel then goes on to offer insights into how we got to this point and where we need to go from here.
“Four decades of market-driven globalization have hollowed out public discourse, disempowered ordinary citizens, and prompted a populist backlash that seeks to clothe the naked public square with an intolerant, vengeful nationalism.
To reinvigorate democratic politics, we need to find our way to a morally more robust discourse, one that takes seriously the corrosive effect of meritocratic striving on the social bonds that constitute our common life.” (p. 31)
Sandel’s main point is that the globalization of the American economy has largely taken away the ability of working-class Americans to benefit from the rewards of merit. He acknowledges that social movements have also played a role in advancing the backlash that is apparent against minorities and immigrants. But in his view, focusing on economic losses or cultural changes without explaining their effect on Trump populists misses the point. More fundamental than sheer anger, the Trump populists have lost the ability to feel worthwhile in the technocratic, globalized economy of today. Prior to Trump, they believed they had lost self-respect and their ability to influence the government. Trump helped them avoid further humiliation.
Prior to 1980, the Democratic Party was the home for industrial workers and farmers. They were the ones who largely became the Trump populists. When they were together, Democrats and the now Trump supporters, they fought the privileged in order to realize an America they loved and cared about. Especially during the latter years of Roosevelt and beyond, they perceived themselves as achieving success through merit. They advanced through hard work and others could do the same.
During the almost four decades starting with Reagan up until 2016, elites from both parties effectively advanced globalization. Morality in politics became centralized on the advancement of markets. Elites became largely concerned with GDP, free markets, and finance. To advance the public good, what they needed to do was make sure markets were open. Governance became technocratic. Economists and other experts were expected to manage our national wellbeing. Sandel described the effect of all of this as follows:
Conducting our public discourse as if it were possible to outsource moral and political judgment to markets, or to experts and technocrats, has emptied democratic argument of meaning and purpose. Such vacuums of public meaning are invariably filled by harsh, authoritarian forms of identity and belonging—whether in the form of religious fundamentalism or strident nationalism. (p. 31)
Presidents from Reagan to Obama were influenced by philosophers who revived the case for merit. Sandel argued that prior to Reagan, philosophers rejected the notion of America as a meritocracy believing what you earned was largely due to market forces. That changed in the 1980’s when an influential group of philosophers revived the notion of rewards due to merit. Reagan used the phrase “you deserve” more than the previous five presidents combined. Bill Clinton used it twice as often as Reagan. Obama used it three times more often. In his book, Sandel offered many more examples of what he described as the “rhetoric of rising” by Republican and Democratic presidents and other notables of the period. Most notably, Hillary Clinton used similar “rhetoric of rising” in her campaign for president. The following is among her quotes that he included in the book.
“Our campaign is about the fundamental belief that, in America, every person, no matter what you look like, who you are, who you love, you should have the chance to go as far as your hard work and dreams will take you.” (p. 71)
So what happened? In 2016, Hillary Clinton won decisively among voters with advanced degrees: the experts. Trump overwhelmingly won those without a college education: the working class. Clinton often spoke about opportunity and rising during her 2016 campaign. Trump rarely spoke about it. Sandel described Trump’s rhetoric as “…blunt talk of winners and losers, and promises to make America great again.” (p. 71)
What had the pre-Trump politicians of the era missed? They missed that the social bonds that had previously existed between the largely White working class and other Americans had been torn apart as the first group’s upward mobility came to a standstill. But it goes deeper. They lost self-esteem and felt outright despair.
In the eyes of Trump’s supporters, they had failed. They were victims of the politics of humiliation. It was bad that the government had failed them. It was more humiliating that they had failed themselves. Trump would at least not allow them to be humiliated any further.
Regarding the decline of upward mobility in the United States, Sandel offered the following:
In today’s economy, it is not easy to rise…. Of those [Americans] born in the bottom fifth of the income scale, only about one in twenty will make it to the top fifth; most will not even rise to the middle class. It is easier to rise from poverty in Canada or Germany, Denmark and other European countries than it is in the United States. (p. 23)
“In 1979, college graduates made about 40 percent more than high school graduates; by the 2000s, they made about 80 percent more…. From 1979 to 2016, the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States fell from 19.5 million to 12 million…. In the late 1970s, CEOs of major American companies made 30 times more than the average worker; by 2014, they made 300 times more…. Although per capita income has increased 85 percent since 1979, white men without a four-year college degree make less now, in real terms, than they did then.” (p. 197)
As far as evidence of the despair, Sandel described:
By 2014, for the first time, more people in this group were dying of drugs, alcohol, and suicide than from heart disease.
Among those who live at some distance from working-class communities, the crisis was barely noticed at first, the scale of loss obscured by the lack of public attention. But by 2016, more Americans were dying each year from drug overdose than died during the Vietnam War. (p.200)
Enter Trump. Trump supporters don’t focus on the problems of others because they have enough problems of their own. Not worrying about “others”, Trump said we would build a wall in order to shut them out. When in office, he withdrew us from treaties. What Trump said during his campaign and accomplished while in office, sent a message to his supporters. You are no longer going to be treated as suckers.
When the progressive news media threw up their hands and described what he spouted as nonsense, Trump’s followers thought they themselves were being insulted. They had previously lost their avenues for governance and now they had a champion. Today, some would rather die than get a vaccine that so-called “experts” tell them to get. Why not? It’s better than living through the further weakening of our country and deterioration of their lot.
Given that background, I’ve listed below the major categories summarizing Sandel’s prescriptions for reversing current political and social trends. I then offer my final thoughts.
Dismantling the Sorting Machine
--------------------------------------------------
Contributive Justice
The above trends that Sandel proposes need to be reversed are symptomatic of what globalization has done to the working-class American. I believe Sandel would argue that the fixes we’ve offered thus far, the infrastructure bill and Build Back Better, may win some converts in the short run to the side of democracy. But they are short-term and there could be skepticism about what they will achieve if even implemented. Their impact could be temporary.
But while recognizing the necessity of providing more “distributive justice”—access to economic success—more importantly Sandel suggests what Trump supporters want, and all Americans need, is more contributive justice. We all want the feeling that we contribute to the common good. We need to believe in and recognize our dependence on each other to succeed. We need paths for everyone to contribute and to feel their contributions are recognized and worthwhile.
Sandel drew from one of my favorite Americans when he offered the next passage near his conclusion. I think it captured the essence of his point regarding contributive justice. It’s from a speech by Robert F. Kennedy that he made less than three weeks prior to his assassination:
“Fellowship, community, shared patriotism—these essential values of our civilization do not come from just buying and consuming goods together…. [They come instead from] dignified employment at decent pay, the kind of employment that lets a man say to his community, to his family, to his country, and most important, to himself, ‘I helped to build this country. I am a participant in its great public ventures.” (p. 212)
Sandel correctly suggested that we don’t speak like this today. But this factual statement gets us to the heart of the matter. Instead of focusing on our problems or feeling like we are being offered a government handout, we need to feel and believe that we are contributing. We need to focus on building, recognizing, honoring, and promoting such efforts that contribute to the common good.
My final thoughts
Sandel doesn’t soft pedal the backlash by some that has been apparent against minorities and immigrants. He acknowledged that the benefits the working class once felt often came at an expense to others. But laying blame wasn’t his purpose in writing the book. He wanted to offer insights into how we can get out of this mess.
Trump took advantage of what he may have seen, or felt, as the loss of white privilege. But he misused his narrow insight. He offered some the ability to narrowly contribute through his many rallies and building a border wall. He offered big events and what seemed to be avenues for avoiding further humiliation—the aforementioned wall and breaking treaties. His followers didn’t even mind that he gave away billions more to the rich. He gave them purpose. Be a Trump supporter. He didn’t teach them how to help build this country. He taught them how to almost tear it apart.
As for the two bills that have been before Congress—one now law, I believe they have largely been presented in deference to distributive justice. President Biden, in his remarks at the White House prior to signing the infrastructure bill into law, stated the following:
“I’m going to be signing a law that is truly consequential because we made our democracy deliver for the American people.”
A few days earlier, in a written statement shortly after passage of the infrastructure bill, Transportation Secretary Buttigieg proclaimed:
“No matter where they live or who they voted for, all Americans deserve to have a transportation system that works for them.”
But more than distributive justice, I believe these bills could be presented in ways that bring to pass Robert F. Kennedy’s vision for us. We could be developing “fellowship, community, [and] shared patriotism…” as we bring these bills to life. And through their efforts, their contributions, Americans could be developing a greater sense of self-worth. Perhaps Build Back Better should be Build Back Together.
I’ve offered merely a sketch of how Sandel laid this all out. If you see any benefit or have just become curious, I encourage you to read his book. Sandel’s full argument is two-hundred and twenty-seven pages followed by forty-three pages of notes and index. Plus, it was written with an incredibly economical use of our language. From my viewpoint it would take several BND Papers, all written from a unique perspective, to begin to cover the full significance of his work. Given that admonition, I feel awakened by the experience. I feel as if I now have some understanding of what our country has gone through and look forward to considering Sandel’s prescriptions when evaluating policies and proposals for our future.