I’m borrowing from Chelsea Handler for the title of this post.
Once upon a time in Democracy, we had an imperfect system of coexistence, but one that largely worked. This system recognized that society was composed of factions of people with different ideas, opinions and goals but that they would recognize these differences as valid, talk to and negotiate each other to achieve a common good, and coexist. The idea behind this was Pluralism.
Pluralism is defined in many ways, but here’s one, with subtext, from Oxford Languages:
Pluralism is “a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist; a political theory or system of power-sharing among a number of political parties; a theory or system of devolution and autonomy for individual bodies in preference to monolithic state control; a form of society in which the members of minority groups maintain their independent cultural traditions; and, in philosophy, a theory or system that recognizes more than one ultimate principle”.
The Views of Madison and Berlin
One early proponent of Pluralist thinking was James Madison who we know as a founding father of the U.S. and a key framer of the U.S. Constitution.
Madison, writing in The Federalist Papers (Hamilton fans, rejoice!) talked about factions, which he described as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”.
Madison worried about how these factions, organized around many different interests might disunite a fledgling republic and concluded that people could effectively counter “an overbearing majority” by exercising their rights to vote and therefore their representation in “a large and diverse republic”. That’s what we came to know as Federalism. It’s worth noting that that idea has critics now, as it did in Madison’s time.
Two hundred years later, Isaiah Berlin, writing in The New York Review of Books in 1998, expanded on Madison’s ideas and noted that “there is a plurality of ideals, as there is a plurality of cultures and of temperaments–if pluralism is a valid view, and respect between systems of values which are not necessarily hostile to each other is possible, then toleration and liberal consequences follow, as they do not either from monism (only one set of values is true, all the others are false) or from relativism (my values are mine, yours are yours, and if we clash, too bad, neither of us can claim to be right)”. The theme again, is tolerance of difference.
Pluralism and Politics
This idea- that we could retain our beliefs and self-interest, disagree with each other, organize under entities that represented our views, fight for the programs we believed in and with each other, and still reach solutions for the benefit of most (if not all) of us has underpinned political and social life for a very long time.
It’s one reason why, in a democracy, we have freedom of association; why we have multiple political parties to choose from; and, why we have had and do have groups that agitate for and represent the interests of fewer people to Madison’s “overbearing majority”.
The essential characteristics of pluralism- recognition of diversity of interest and goals, and the idea of a common good- governed much of the discourse between those in power and those in opposition within democracies.
Not so long ago, the U.S.A. optimized with it. Regardless of who was President, the Democrats and Republicans found a way to talk, negotiate and get things done for the common good. That pluralistic approach gave us Social Security (1935), Civil Rights (1964), Medicare (1965), the Nixon Impeachment (1974) and the Clinton Impeachment (1998).
And, even if it didn’t end well, pluralism also influenced industrial relations in the hyper-polarized, class-divided United Kingdom of the 1970’s and 1980’s- company management and trades unions committed to and performed collective bargaining to try to reach equitable solutions to problems. Please note that I’m not suggesting that the U.K. is no longer hyper-polarized or class-divided. Brexit, anyone?
Is Pluralism Dead?
Everything has changed now. We seem to be in an era defined by what Berlin called monism- ‘only one set of values is true, all the others are false’ and relativism- ‘my values are mine, yours are yours, and if we clash, too bad—‘.
The very thing Madison worried about- the rule of ‘overbearing majority’ over factions ‘united and actuated by some common impulse of passion—‘ now governs political and social discourse.
And this is true not just in the U.S., which is hopelessly divided on so many big issues along socio-economic, religious, racial, ethnic, gender, and geographical lines.
The wishes of that overbearing majority dictate policy and legislation all over the world:refugees in Europe, minorities in India, Buddhists in Tibet, Uighurs in China, tribes in Africa, indigenous peoples in Australia and New Zealand, among many others have all been subject to ‘overbearance’ by those we elect, even when they do not reflect the wishes of vast numbers- and sometimes the majority- of their people.
People will argue, as they have, that elections have consequences and we must live with their outcomes. They will also remind me that the Parliamentary system practiced in much of the world, which is also rooted in pluralism, has always been like this- you win, you get to set the goal posts for five years at a time, and enact stuff accordingly. I accept those arguments.
Rediscovering Pluralism
And yet. I think the real problem is the loss of the value at the apex of pluralism- that thing called the common good.
We certainly had it in World War I and World War II. There was unity of purpose, on both the winning and losing sides. We have had it since- in the socially progressive legislation passed from the 1960’s in the U.S. and elsewhere. We see it whenever there is a natural disaster and the people affected need help, monetarily and otherwise.
So it isn’t beyond us to define the common good as something that benefits people who have suffered and experienced injury, indignity and injustice we might personally be unfamiliar with. We can do that- because we have. But we do seem to have lost the plot with that thinking and it’s time to reclaim it.
Our way forward as a people doesn’t lie in factionalism and partisan ideology. It lies in pluralism.
Like any other idea or principle, pluralism is flawed- many see it as elitist and subject to manipulation by lobbyists and other deep pocketed entities. I accept that but see it as collateral damage for a good starting point.
Without it, we are left Balkanized, living with our red- blue confirmation biases and within our echo chambers; or, subject to the dictatorships of China, Russia, and North Korea, where the very best outcome of pluralist chatter and common good is hard time in a gulag.
With pluralism, we can return to talking to and with each other about the common good, in a way that addresses all our competing socio-economic, religious, racial, ethnic, gender, and geographical divisions- and factions. We can accommodate those divisions and factions when we engineer solutions. We can hold elected officials accountable to acting on those solutions.
Perhaps, in the U.S. anyway, we can start by remembering that before “In God We Trust” was adopted as the national motto in 1956, we had “E Pluribus Unum”: Out of Many, One. That’s what appeared on the Great Seal of the United States in 1782.
I really can’t think of a finer definition of common good than that: Out Of Many, One.
Writer: Deepak Kamlani
Image: Tim Mossholder, Unsplash
