Elizabeth Warren's Speech, Part 4

I'm sorry it has taken so long for me to complete this commentary. It has been a busy time of year, both personally and professionally. Please forgive me. For your assistance in understanding this Part 4, I am referring to a series of commentaries, Parts 1-3, which were published in A Moment's Pause in September 2011.

When I first read my nephew's response to the video of Ms. Warren's speech I was puzzled. I could not understand why he reacted with such vehemence to something which seemed to me to be so sensible and, frankly, not very controversial. I couldn't understand it.

My first thought was to go through his response line by line, correcting the factual errors. But, as I thought about it, I realized that it would take a long time to write a response correcting them all, and even after I did, that wasn't really the point. It was obvious that, even if his facts were correct, he'd still have the same opinion, and hold it just as strongly. The factual errors were irrelevant to his opinion.

My next thought was to write a response which would refute the logic of his opinion. I considered how to do that, but, without intending to be insulting or demeaning, it seemed pointless to try to refute something which on its face seemed so illogical. Sometimes the hardest argument to refute is the one which is logically farthest off the mark. The smaller the logical errors, the easier it is to dicuss them logically. The larger the logical errors, the more it becomes like nailing jello to the wall trying to refute them.

That set me to thinking more about his response. I finally realized that the key reason his response seemed so illogical and so extreme to me was found in this phrase: "And I don't remember signing a 'social contract' either."

We fundamentally disagreed on the nature of the social contract, but, even more concerning, we apparently fundamentally disagreed on whether there was a social contract!

Merriam-Webster defines "social contract" as "an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each." [Emphasis added.]

I have studied the concept of a "social contract" since grade school social studies. I read about it in connection with the philosophical ideas that supported the formation of the United States. I studied it in college and in some detail in law school.

I never, ever, heard anyone express the idea that a member of a society was not bound by that society's social contract unless they had signed it. Never have I heard the idea that the social contract could be signed. Never have I heard it expressed that a member of a society had any choice about agreeing to or disagreeing with that society's social contract.

The social contract simply exists. Every member of a society is bound by it. There are consequences for an individual if they do not abide by their society's social contract.

Frankly, it is frightening to think that otherwise reasonable, well-educated members of my society think they are not bound by the social contract. There lies anarchy.

Of course, even assuming that reasonable minds can agree that every member of a society is bound by that society's social contract, whether they want to be or not, there is still the question of what that social contract is. It is different for different societies, and has often been different for the same society at different times.

For example, I cannot know, but I have read that in ancient Japan any member of the Samurai class could kill any member of another class at any time, for any reason or no reason, without consequence.

Whether this is true or not, clearly, that is not the social contract of modern day U.S. society. It is something else, but what is it?

Very seldom does anyone discuss the terms of their society's social contract. It is merely assumed that, as a result of being reared within a society, the terms of the social contract are known. But, that may be an incorrect assumption, especially in today's world. Maybe we don't all just "know" the terms of our social contract. And, if we don't - if we are all operating under a different understanding of the terms of our social contract - then we must expect frequent, perhaps constant, conflict with other members of our society. And, if there are a sizable number of us within a society who think they have no obligation to abide by the social contract, regardless of what it may be, because they've never "signed" it, we are doomed to at least some of the anarchy which that forbodes.

As I thought about this, I realized that it was very difficult for me to articulate what I thought were the terms of my society's social contract. When I finally mentally stumbled on the phrase which I felt encapsulated the terms of my society's social contract, I was shocked to realize that, whatever my nephew's beliefs about whether he was obligated to follow those terms, he and I almost certainly did not agree on what those terms were.

You see, the phrase which I believe encapsulates the social contract of modern American society is: "I am my brother's keeper."

Remember from where this phrase derives. It comes from the Bible. Cain had killed his brother Abel, and when God asked Cain where his brother was, Cain responded that he did not know, and asked God, "Am I my brother's keeper?"

I have always believed that the question was spiritually rhetorical. Yes, Cain was his brother's keeper, because we are all our brothers' keepers. In God's eyes, we are all responsible for the welfare of our brothers. And, spiritually, the term "brother" is not limited to a familial relationship. All people are our spiritual brothers. In Christian theology, we are all responsible for the welfare of every other human being on the planet, no exceptions.

Imagine how stunned I was when I realized that, probably, my nephew did not believe those were the terms of our social contract. Probably, he believes that the terms of the social contract are "every man for himself." I speculate that this is true because I know something of my nephew's political beliefs, and I cannot account for those beliefs if he believes that he has a societal obligation for the welfare of every other individual in the society. I can only account for those beliefs if he believes he has no societal obligation for the welfare of his fellow countrymen.

I am pretty sure he believes that his favored political policies would result in the improvement of the society and its members generally, though some would, in his belief necessarily, be left behind. I don't think he consciously wants to hurt anyone else. But, I do not believe he feels he personally has any societally imposed obligation to help other members of his society if he doesn't want to.

He and I disagree. Strongly. Profoundly. Fundamentally. And, if I'm right, dangerously.