Liberal Principles - John Rawls

Wikipedia continues to amaze and enlighten.

I read the entry on Left-Right Politics - it's worth spending some time on to get an historical perspective. It's good to be reminded that our concepts of Left and Right have changed rather dramatically over time, as well as across geographies.

I hyperlinked to the entry on John Rawls after reading this sentence:

The contemporary left in the United States is usually understood as a category including New Deal liberals, Rawlsian liberals, social democrats, and civil libertarians, and is generally identified with the Democratic Party.

Rawls was an important developer of Liberal principles. His primary values appear to be fairness and justice - his principle of Justice as Fairness articulates principels that justify government intervention on behalf of the disadvantaged. 

First, each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others. 

Second, "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society."  

The first of these two principles is known as the liberty principle, while the second half, reflecting the idea that inequality is only justified if it is to the advantage of those who are less well-off, is known as the difference principle.

I'll need to read the primary text before I can adequately respond to these. However, my initial reaction is that it highlights two value trade-offs: fairness versus individual liberty, and fairness versus effectiveness. The Wikipedia entry noted that Rawls was worried about moral hazard in applying these principles to nations versus individuals - that is, unproductive nations would expect to be bailed out by productive nations. The entry is silent on whether worried about moral hazard for individuals, which was a driving principle for the centrist welfare reform of the 1990s. 

Principles, Beliefs, World Views, Priorities, Policies

As I scour the internet for political principles, it's clear that "principles" is a bigger tent including beliefs or truths, priorities and policies alongside what one might call principles. No doubt dictionary consultation will help, but fuzzy thinking is pervasive. Clarity without didacticism is the challenge.

As one example, principle one for the conservative list is really a belief:  "First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order."  Same for the social democrats:  "that the workers of all nations share more in economic interest with each other, than the workers of any nation share with the political and economic elites of their own nation."

Political credos and world views create principles.  Russell Kirk writes "Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity." This alliterative principle of action is derived from a world view that may be part belief, part an interpretation of human history:  "It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless." 

The Social Democrats mix in policy prescriptions - "We support the American Labor Movement" - with more general principles - "We oppose totalitarianism in its secular and religious forms." Then later they throw in some rants that are likely inspired by specific incidents, such as "we social democrats will never be cheerleaders for the slaughter of any group of people no matter what the ideology of those pursuing the massacre may be." Sorta sounds like the lady doth protest too much, trying to run away from previous support of Stalin perhaps? 

None of these tend towards policies, but I've seen some other discussion of "principles" get far more specific than I think a "principle" should. And nowhere have I seen a discussion of priorities, but that may be more tied to policy discussions.

In short, I'll need to think clearly about how narrowly to focus a list of principles - do they also integrate beliefs and world views? Maybe so. I don't think most people have thought through these fine distinctions, nor do they really care about them.