A tale of two diginities. By Neomi Rao. The Daily Caller, January 24, 2013.
Rao:
Presidents
Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama both spoke of human dignity in their second
inaugural addresses. Yet what a difference the years have made — from the
dignity of individual liberty and smaller government to the dignity that comes
from government security and protection.
President
Reagan repeatedly sounded the theme of dignity in his speech. He spoke
resoundingly of reducing dependency, cutting back government, and ensuring that
“every American enjoys the fullness of freedom, dignity, and opportunity as our
birthright.” In the context of race relations, Reagan spoke of keeping us “on
the road to an America rich in dignity and abundant with opportunity for all
our citizens.” In foreign policy he would push aside “those in the world who
scorn our vision of human dignity and freedom.”
For
Reagan, dignity captured the inherent nobility of the individual. He linked the
value of each person to a natural yearning for freedom and peace — universal
values regardless of race or culture. As a practical matter, Reagan argued that
less government would best promote dignity because it would allow opportunity
for individual fulfillment and progress.
Obama
referred to dignity, but invoked a different, communitarian, and European
understanding of dignity. He explained that “every citizen deserves a basic
measure of security and dignity” and spoke of dignity in the context of health
care, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. His speech exalted the dignity
derived from the security of government programs.
Although
both presidents used the word “dignity” to convey an elevated idea, they
appealed to very different understandings of the relationship between the individual,
the community, and the government.
Reagan
channeled the traditional American understanding of human dignity implicit in
our Constitution. In the United States, dignity exists alongside classical
liberal values of freedom, liberty, and autonomy. As Reagan said, “Freedom is
one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People,
worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable
rights that make for human dignity and progress.” An individual’s dignity comes
from freedom and self-determination both in private and public life. Government
retains a role, but it must be a small one.
By
contrast, Obama channeled a view of dignity more commonly found across the
pond, where human dignity depends importantly on certain social-welfare goods,
of being part of a community effort in which such goods are provided to
everyone. It is the dignity of being provided for by the state.
Modern
constitutions in Europe link dignity and equality with the welfare state,
rather than with individual freedom. The Swedish Constitution, for example,
provides that “Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth
of all and the liberty and dignity of the private person. … In particular, it
shall be incumbent upon the public institutions to secure the right to health,
employment, housing and education, and to promote social care and social
security.” Dignity as a guarantee of communitarian security is the norm and the
ideal.
Obama
reaffirmed the equality of the Declaration of Independence, but his
understanding of dignity reflects newer American sources, such as President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 proposal for a “Second Bill of Rights.”
Roosevelt pressed that our Founders’ old-fashioned notions of individual freedom
were inadequate to the equal pursuit of happiness. Instead “true individual
freedom cannot exist without economic security.” Obama amplified this
connection between dignity and a collectivist security.
In
political life, these dignities have rarely provided a clear either/or. Reagan
acknowledges that sometimes government will be necessary and Obama acknowledges
some skepticism of central authority. Governing requires a balance between the
individual and community. Yet where the balance is struck will make all the
difference.
The
divergence in emphasis and belief here is clear. Obama’s speech celebrates
progress as the discovery of all of the things government can do. Reagan
celebrates progress as the march of individual liberty and political freedom.
The
different accounts of dignity, progress, and freedom are not easily compatible.
More government protection does not simply “enhance” our freedom by making us
more secure — rather government programs choose a particular dignity of
security and public protection, often at the expense of the dignity of the
individual and private choices.
