(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Political Parties, Public Interest and the Common Good [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-06-06
There are large swaths of people who are thoroughly demoralized, fearful, and cynical about the prospects for this country’s short- and long-term future, and I admit that I am struggling to maintain sanguinity. “Optimism about democracy is today under a cloud,” wrote John Dewey almost a hundred years ago in his book, The Public and Its Problems. That observation remains apropos not only in the U.S. but also in many countries whose governments are democratic in one form or another.
Here in the United States, we seem to be caught in some kind of in-between stage in our historical evolution. On the one hand, we are no longer—in some ways for better, in other ways for worse— the nation that came of age in the twentieth century, but neither is it clear who we shall be as we go deeper into this new century; we are “no longer” but also “not yet.” Rather, we are fractured into factions polarized by issues of social and economic status, cultural and religious differences, race relations, gender and sexual orientation, climate change, and political ideology. Our inclination to tolerate or ignore those who are different, or who hold a different view, has devolved into the tendency to regard them with antipathy, antagonism, and hostility, in some ways an enemy against whom it is acceptable to commit violence. Our own government seems to be at war with us.
I have often heard political thinkers and media pundits speak of democracy as an ideal, with an emphasis on the principles of equality, freedom, and justice. Yes, all individuals have equal moral worth and the right to participate in the decision-making processes that affect their lives. Yes, a high value is placed on individual autonomy and the guarantee of basic civil and human rights. And yes, the ideal of democracy emphasizes the commitment to ensuring that laws and policies are created and applied equitably and uniformly. Moreover, the ideal upholds the principles that governments derive their authority and legitimacy by the consent of the governed, and that the interaction, involvement, and deliberation of persons from many diverse perspectives can lead not only to better decisions but also to more beneficial outcomes. Unfortunately, and tragically, people can and do affirm these principles without actually practicing them, which begs the question of whether they really believe and affirm them.
As an ideal, democracy exhibits the conditions required and the hopes upheld by a people who live together in shared spaces and public places and depend on each other for achieving what cannot be done alone. It empowers both individuals and communities by accentuating the need for both social and economic stability as well as adaptability to change.
On the other hand, when thinkers and pundits talk about democracy as an institution, they typically have in mind the structures and systems that operationalize the principles embedded in the democratic ideal, such as the system of elections, deliberations and actions of judicial and legislative bodies, the implementation and enforcement of laws and policies by the executive branch, and the political parties that represent different political ideologies and policy preferences and compete for the exercise of power in the democratic system. We ought not confuse or conflate the democratic ideal and democratic institutions. They are not the same.
To one degree or another, these systems are animated by the values, practices, and norms that emanate from the ideal of democracy. Or so we would like to think. The democratic ideal ought to inform the designs and function of democratic institutions, but we all know that institutions are often imperfect and fall short of the ideal. Yes, democratic institutions are intended to embody and promote the values of equality, freedom, and justice, but in practice they may be influenced by the struggle for political power and the interests of certain groups.
Frankly, I think we as a nation of diverse peoples have lost sight not only of the democratic ideal but also of the public interest that encompasses the collective welfare, concerns, and needs of the whole community, state, or nation. Public interest refers to the policies, decisions, and actions that prioritize and promote the well-being of society as a whole rather than the narrow interests of specific individuals or groups. Accordingly, it entails such matters as sustainable sources of energy, healthful environments, public safety and security, access to education, protection and enforcement of civil and consumer rights. As it now happens, these are matters of public policy dispute and political conflict. Too many of us seem more concerned about our own personal freedom and parochial interests and less so regarding the circumstances needed in place to make it possible for all to achieve well-being and the opportunity to thrive.
It seems to me that the public interest also bears upon ethical matters, especially those that touch matters of freedom, equality and justice. Religious freedom, social justice, environmental ethics, civic engagement and participation, and the ethical dimensions of political decision-making, government policies, and the behavior of political leaders ought naturally to evoke inquiry into how moral values and ethical principles inform political ideologies, decisions and actions.
Consider for a moment the U.S. legal system in which the “public interest” refers to the welfare or well-being of the general public and society as a whole. When courts and legislative bodies make decisions on principles and policy, they need always to be mindful of how those decisions affect the whole community. For example, laws and regulations that are designed to protect the environment are created and enforced in the public interest to ensure clean air and water for everyone. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer financial Protection Bureau regulate business practices to protect all consumers from unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent practices, and the public health and safety of all are in view when the Food and Drug Administration and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforce regulations. Much the same can be said of the interest the public has in civil and voting rights, access to justice, regulation of public utilities, education, and national security. These are policy and program areas that are in the public interest, i.e., they seek the well-being of all.
It is attention to the public interest and the willingness to promote the common good that brings about what former University of California sociologist Robert Bellah called the good society in his 1991 book of that title. For him, this phrase refers to a vision of a society where individuals are not only concerned with their personal interests and individuality, but also actively engaged in the well-being of the larger community. He argues that a healthy and functional society is characterized by a sense of shared values, civic responsibility, and a commitment to the common good. For Bellah, the good society involves a balance between individual autonomy and a collective sense of responsibility; individuals preoccupied with their own interests and well-being tend to neglect the community and the social bonds required to keep it healthy. The notion of a good society, for Bellah, is a society where individuals are morally and ethically engaged in the broader social fabric, contributing to the betterment of society as a whole.
The distinction between “public interest” and “private interest” is a fundamental and important concept to consider. Public interest refers to the welfare or well-being of the general public or society as a whole. As such it encompasses issues and actions that affect a broad community or society, aiming to promote the common good, public safety, and overall social welfare. Private interest, on the other hand, refers to the welfare or benefit of an individual or a specific group of individuals. It involves personal gains, benefits, or advantages that do not necessarily accrue to others or align with the broader public's welfare.
The beneficiaries of public interest are the general population of a society; policies related to public health, environmental protection, and national security, for example, are typically considered to be in the public interest. The beneficiaries of private interests are specific individuals or groups, and as such are peculiar to them; the interest one has, for example, in particular recreational activities or types of employment or schools to attend or places to live are all of a private nature.
Actions taken in the public interest are usually justified on moral or ethical grounds in the sense that their objective is the improvement of the overall quality of life for members of society. On the other hand, the pursuit of private interests, especially those that clearly do not involve or affect others, does not necessarily require moral or ethical justification. When and where there is regulation of private interests, it is generally for the purpose of ensuring no harm comes to the public interest and the welfare of others.
Nevertheless, there are gray areas in the encounter between public and private interests, and there can be significant conflict between them. The challenge in governance, law, and ethics is often to find a balance between these interests, ensuring that private pursuits do not unduly harm the public good, and that public policies do not unnecessarily infringe on legitimate private interests. To put it mildly, the public interest includes the commitment to maintain the stability, equilibrium, and fairness of private interests expressed in a community.
Given our current social and political climate in which we are intractably divided by political ideologies, social agenda, religious dissension, and economic stratification, I am beginning to believe that political parties are markedly not in the public interest or concerned for the common good. I can think of many reasons for this opinion.
Political parties prioritize their interests and promote partisanship, engendering an “us” versus “them” mentality and making it difficult to find common ground. In recent years, we have seen how parties cater to the more extreme elements of their base to maintain support, casting aside policies with moderate or consensus-driven solutions. This polarization accentuates the parties’ focus on winning elections and implementing partisan and extremist solutions rather than long-term policy solutions that address future challenges and sustainable development.
Parties in power are known to use their position to secure legislation or implement policies that privilege and reward supporters and special-interest groups, thus alienating significant segments of the larger society. Moreover, the incessant appetite for money to drive political activity tends toward dependence on wealthy private and corporate donors and special interest groups with the result that public policy is distorted in favor of narrow interests rather than the common good. The focus on winning and gaining a governing majority results in a form of tyranny of the majority, or the neglect—and occasionally oppression—of minority interests and marginalized groups who in fact are members of the society at large with equal and just claims on the common good.
The dominance of our two-party system limits voter choice by effectively eliminating representation of diverse points of view. Members of political parties who are elected to public office frequently are required to vote along party lines, even if it conflicts with the interests of their constituents. When different parties control different branches of government, it frequently leads to gridlock where little or no progress is made on important issues; opposition to policies proposed by the other party purely to undermine them frustrates the public and stalls needed reforms otherwise guided by public interest. This leads parties to blame each other for failures, making it difficult for the public to hold them accountable.
Political parties are proficient at manipulating public opinion. The use of propaganda and misinformation leads to poorly informed decisions by the electorate, especially when media outlets aligned with political ideologies and parties contribute to biased reporting that further entrenches divisions and misleads the public. The appeal to what is called identity politics to gain support eventuates in deepening societal divisions along racial, ethnic, gender, and religious lines.
When he wrote Federalist #10 in 1787, James Madison did not have our modern political parties in view, but he nevertheless had a clear understanding of the problem we now face. He used the word “factions” to refer to the phenomenon we now know and experience as modern political parties, and he warned against them for reasons that we now know to be antithetical to the public interest and the common good. He wrote:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Madison advocated for and believed that the proposed constitution which was ultimately adopted to form our government would in fact be the strongest barrier to the threat that factions represented to the health and vitality of the public interest and common good. It is unfortunately conceivable that Madison was wrong on that. We have become a nation of factions.
In the language of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, whether our democratic form of government can survive and approximate more fully its responsibility “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” will ultimately depend on a reformation that centralizes the public interest and the conditions necessary for all—all—to thrive and achieve well-being.
Toward that end, we need to rediscover and recommit to the common good, or the idea that there are shared values and goals—principles and practices that embody the democratic ideal—that engender and sustain the conditions, actions, and outcomes that benefit all members of a community or society collectively. The common good is common because it is shared by the whole community; it implies that these benefits are shared, not just by individuals but by the entire community, and that they contribute to the well-being and flourishing of society as a whole.
What I and others find notable in this political season is inattention to the public interest that touches all members of our society, calling into question any commitment to the common good that materializes the democratic ideal. We may be “no longer,” but what can be envisioned for the “not yet” is, at the moment, a very disturbing outcome. We all need to pay attention and commit.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/6/2324102/-Political-Parties-Public-Interest-and-the-Common-Good?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
