The Value of Values
Why are values important in political discourse?
Values are central to political discussion. In fact, almost all public policy is the realization of our values in the social sphere. Candidates are pressed to identify and talk about their values, and are flayed in debate for not voicing them with clarity and conviction (recall, for example, Dukakis stumbling over the death penalty when applied to his wife’s hypothetical murder).
What are values?
Values are guiding principles. Some of these values have to do with conduct (integrity, discipline), some with communication (honesty, tact). Still others relate to basic beliefs about people (freedom, equality, worth). Some have to do with comparative treatment of others, with judgment or action in the distribution of resources or punishments (justice, equity).
Despite their centrality to discussions of public policy, and their importance in stirring the sympathy and support of the American electorate, what is meant by certain values can be unclear. There are often several possible meanings for a given value, and which reading is selected is a matter of context.
Take fairness, for example. We’ve been told since childhood that “life is not fair,” but what does that mean? Fairness has at least two very different meanings depending on your perspective, rooted in a contrast between allocation based on need and allocation based on merit. A prototypical conservative worldview would hold that supportive social policies are an unfair allocation of unearned resources, while in a prototypical progressive view, such programs are a critical step to creating a fair society. If the intended meaning is not clear from context, the audience can misinterpret the value and be led to a conclusion at odds with the intention.
Values and their connection to worldview
One of the most salient differences between the core conservative and progressive interpretation of political values is that the conservative view typically considers values with respect to the individual, while the progressive view typically sees them as fundamentally about relations among individuals.
This crucial insight explains why certain values are more central to one side of the political spectrum than the other. Most core conservative values (such as self-discipline, strength, independence) are typically guiding principles for individual actions, while central progressive values (like empathy, equality, diversity) address the way we relate to one another and how we structure our communities.
This difference originates in a divergence of underlying assumptions about how the world should, and does, work. The conservative worldview is organized around ideas like tradition, the moral order (the belief that society is organized in a natural and rightful hierarchy), the importance of authority, and the fundamental nature of property as private. Together, these concepts drive an understanding of the role of government as reinforcing and, when necessary, reinstating the moral order. The ideal government, in the conservative view, does not interfere in the lives of upstanding citizens: each is free to pursue his own self-interest, in what is imagined to be a self-regulating system. The state intervenes only in cases of threats to the moral order, such as criminal or immoral behavior or foreign attack. The overarching conservative prescription for the state is preservation of the moral order—hence, the “three strikes” law, marriage restrictions, and the PATRIOT Act.
The progressive worldview is organized around ideas like deep democracy (maximizing the engagement of all citizens in self-government), the commons (some resources are held collectively), diversity (difference as complementary), and progress (adaptive change). These concepts combine to create an understanding of government as a true expression of the will of the people, one that reinforces community and helps to redress inequality. While progressives recognize merit, they also know that no great achievements occur in true isolation. The overarching progressive prescription for the state is ensuring the common wealth for the common good—hence, public education, social security, and transportation infrastructure.
Understanding values in political discourse requires a clarification of the perceived role of the state. Is it simply the means by which a perceived moral order is maintained, or is it the instrument by which the commonwealth is used for the common good? Is it hands-off when it comes to the distribution of opportunities and resources, or is it actively engaged in guaranteeing certain rights for its citizens?
Values as contested ideas
Given this discord over the correct purpose of the state, it is not at all surprising that values central to the functioning of the state and society have differing meanings. Progressive values describe and assume a set of social goals; they are ideals that govern how one should behave given a group context, taking for granted the inherent interdependence of individuals. In contrast, conservative values focus on the individual and minimize the degree to which one is, or ever should be, dependent on another entity.
Opportunity, for example, is a matter of individual access for conservatives and a matter of engaged social endeavor for progressives. Opportunity is often expressed as acquiring a desired object (she grabbed the opportunity, we were given many chances). In a conservative worldview, opportunity has to do with individual initiative: opportunities are all around, and if an individual fails to achieve the desired goal, it is not for want of opportunity but for want of initiative and discipline.
For progressives, on the other hand, opportunity means opening paths for people to achieve their goals in life (you paved the way for my success, that job opened doors for me). This can mean providing education, ensuring health care, facilitating the means for people to have better lives. The accessibility of these paths is part of a dynamic system; conditions are subject to change, so accessibility must be actively maintained in the landscape. Inequalities built into the structure of society may be construed as obstacles in the path to a healthy and fulfilling life. Thus, for progressives, the existence of opportunity necessitates that the state use its power to help remove those obstacles when possible.
Returning to our original example of fairness, the dominant conservative understanding is within the context of merit: special effort or initiative in some individuals may mean that they deserve a larger reward. In a domain where all resources are distributed, this can translate into a bigger piece of the pie.
Fairness, in a progressive worldview, means enabling access to opportunities and resources. Since progressives see the role of the state as central in redressing inequality, fairness assumes that the government is active in enabling that access not only according to merit, but also to need.
Similarly, responsibility is understood mainly in terms of individual behavior on the conservative side and more in a sense of social engagement in the progressive worldview. The conservative view of responsibility is as a burden to carry (shoulder your burden, I took on more), reflecting the conservative resistance to imposed obligation, to anything that infringes on independence. For progressives, responsibility often means perceiving gaps—things that need to be done to help people—and filling them (he fulfilled his responsibilities, she filled our needs).
The application of these contested values results in a direct clash around the perceived role of government. The suggestion that the state should be involved in redistributing wealth in pursuit of fairness sets off alarm bells for conservatives, just as the notion that government working to increase opportunities for those who have too few strikes conservatives as taking from the upstanding in order to help the undisciplined obtain undeserved gains.
Talking about your values
In the context of these disputed ideas, the importance of linking values to fundamental beliefs becomes clear – as does the brilliance of seemingly innocuous phrases like “family values” that can be loaded with specific and strategic meaning. This phrase activates core conservative ideas like the moral order, authority, and traditional roles.
Just as conservatives have learned to invoke values strategically, we too need to be sure to articulate the link between policy and values. When you are advocating for your policies or arguing against the opposition, make sure not only to articulate the values from which your ideas stem but also to detail the specific framework into which they fit. You can describe the actual application of conservative values (“Your idea of fairness is letting millionaires escape any social responsibility”), or explicitly evoke your own progressive values (“Aid To Families With Dependent Children is about fairness because it recognizes the difficulties faced by poor families trying to get along”).
The way to respond to a conservative evocation of any particular value, then, is not to argue about the word but to address the underlying worldview. It is critical to expose the usage of a contested value when it is evoked in an overtly conservative sense. You can do this by substituting the referenced value with a different one more in accordance with your worldview (“This isn’t a question of individualism, it’s a question of fairness”). Or, you can accept the value being used to characterize the issue, but define it within the context of your view of the world (“My opponent is right, this is a question of fairness. What’s fair in this situation is for people not to be penalized for their life circumstances.”).
Because values are part of our everyday language of personal and social comportment, it is not surprising that they are evoked in discussions of the proper role of government. We often take the meaning of specific values for granted and assume that our interpretation is consistent with the views of others. In fact, the meaning of many values is highly contested, resulting in a wide variance in how they are understood. By uncovering disparities in the fundamental understanding of values, and promoting a definition that matches your worldview, you can talk about policy issues and your preferences in an honest and compelling manner.
