As a representative of its citizens our government has a role in articulating and promoting shared values. Our founding documents and the bill of rights are nothing less than our founders values codified into individual rights and made law. The government’s job is to ensure rights are not violated for all citizens.
On the topic of “promoting” shared values, a scant number of pubic figures jump to mind as promoting American values; certainly not in a powerful way. During the last 15 years the phrase “that’s not who we are” has been thrown around a lot, but only as a pejorative to divide us further. The lack of authentic promotion of shared values is a big issue in a tumultuous world.
Can we agree that the country’s shared values must come from congress since they are the only ones charged with representing the citizenry, not the executive or judicial branches of government? The fact that judges and the executive branch (especially unelected bureaucrats) are creating value impacting laws without representation from the citizens of our country is making things worse not better. Congress meanwhile is happy to keep its hand clean and abdicate to the other branches of government. Name any topic large or small and I would argue if Congress cannot successfully put a bill on the presidents desk then we are not talking about a shared value.
It is within this originalists view of Government I believe shared values flow from individual values. It is for this reason, attacks on personal values concerns me so much.
The evolution of shared values becomes a simpler discussion if we accept the model of cascading them forward into law via our representative form of government. It’s only hard because too many “value laws” do not come from representatives, and so the mechanism for change is hopelessly convoluted. Using Roe v Wade as an illustration; Americans (and Congress) were not originally “tested” on the question of abortion…congress has never passed a law on abortion.
As much as I hate and distrust Obamacare and the way it was moved through Congress; at least it was ultimately passed by Congress. In response Americans stood up and were heard by voting in congressional replacements who better match their personal values. (not that it helped)
The next question is which laws encroach on values and which ones are “just regulations”. This can be hard because my values might be just noise to someone else. But again, this is why personal values are attacked with such energy; to turn the tide on the cascading nature which is the foundation of lawmaking. Would you agree our founding documents, bill of rights, etc are a statement of our founding values? If so, new laws should be tested against that set as being consistent or deliberately evolutionary. Our history is rich with good examples of value based evolution, civil rights, voting rights, women’s rights, prohibition & its reversal, and countless other amendments. So maybe all laws deemed to encroach on values should be treated only as constitutional amendments? This by the way is why California’s proposition process is tricky…. mob rule (pure democracy, not representative rule) results in changes to the California constitution. The concept of propositions doesn’t bother me, just that they directly rewrite the state constitution.
Lastly, what is my responsibility towards shared values? I think the answer is complicated. I believe Obamacare is bad but my only options are to 0) follow the law 1) speak up and try to influence change, 2) vote, and 3) not encroach on the rights of others (another law). Is there a shared responsibility for wearing masks in public? I don’t think so. I think such behavior is based on either a personal value or a law. If this is right, more laws are needed when personal values are the weakest. So I think I am back to “personal values” being at the center of it all.