Opposing election opinions cry out for the Golden Rule

  • William Raspberry / Washington Post columnist
  • Monday, November 27, 2000 9:00pm
  • Opinion

WASHINGTON — Maybe John Rawls had it right in his 1971 book, "A Theory of Justice." Maybe we can’t really think straight about justice without thinking about how things would play out for us.

I’ve been thinking about Rawls as I consider both the public arguments and my private e-mail regarding what to do about Florida and the presidential election. What strikes me in particular is how seldom supporters of Al Gore can see justice in a straightforward application of law that would toss aside ballots improperly or incompletely executed, and how seldom supporters of George W. Bush can give any weight to the intention of the voter who cast one of these flawed ballots.

I’m not talking about the lawyers and professional "spinners" on either side of the controversy. I’m talking about people who see themselves as thoughtful, fair-minded Americans who want only to do the right thing. Yet nearly always, the right thing turns out to be the approach that tilts things in the direction of their political predisposition.

It’s not merely that they think they have reached an obviously correct conclusion; they also are convinced that those on the other side are driven entirely by the desire for a certain outcome, that their seemingly thoughtful analysis is nothing more than propaganda. Even when that seemingly thoughtful analysis appears under my byline.

I was shocked, for instance, at the number of Bush supporters who thought my recent call for some sort of shared governance during the next presidential term was just a die-hard Democrat’s desperate refusal to face up to electoral loss. They were certain that if Gore had been slightly ahead when I wrote that column, power sharing would have been far from my mind.

I’m no longer shocked. I’m starting to think that it is a natural imperative of human beings to ascribe good motives to themselves and more sinister ones to their opponents.

The burden of Rawls’ book was the problem of trying to establish principles and rules for a just society, given the divergent interests of those who make up that society. His conclusion is that we can think rationally about such principles only if we do not know how they would, in practice, affect our individual and group interests. We would have to consider each proposed rule as from behind a "veil of ignorance" as to our own position in the society.

It’s a little more complicated than the cake-sharing solution in which one child divides the treat but the other gets first choice. A quick illustration: You would certainly not support the idea of human slavery if you could not know whether your group would be slaves or masters. But what would be your position on pure test-determined "merit" for selecting police officers or judges if you couldn’t know whether your group would tend to have more such "merit" — if you could not know, for instance whether your child would be rich or poor, smart or average, or black, white or Puerto Rican?

To put the matter in electoral terms: What sort of election rules would you advocate — and what solution to the present controversy would you support — if a "veil of ignorance" kept you from knowing whether your proposals would benefit your candidate or his opponent?

The question, since we cannot impose such ignorance on ourselves, is whether we should simply admit that we’re all guided by selfish interest and do the best we can.

But even the question of self-interest varies from one person or circumstance to another. Is it in your self-interest for your group to amass all the political power and to pass laws to solidify that power? Or is it more in your self-interest to see that there is at least some power sharing — if only to promote civic tranquility and clear your conscience?

Is it merely naive to hope that we can arrive at a sense of justice that is largely independent of our own political, economic or social status? Is the cultivation of such a sense something we should strive for, or try to inculcate in others?

Soon, my "Race &amp Equity" students at Duke University will each submit two major papers — one a well-supported defense of affirmative action, the other an intellectually solid attempt to demolish it.

The point is not just to confuse these young minds, but to open them — to get them to consider the possibility of justice that is not utterly self-referential.

Maybe all I’m doing is overcomplicating a lesson first taught two millennia ago: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Everett mayor Cassie Franklin delivers her State of the City address on Friday, March 28 in Everett, Washington. (Will Geschke / The Herald)
Editorial: The state of Everett amid the state of play

In her state of the city speech, Mayor Cassie Franklin makes the case for optimism amid dark clouds.

Comment: An ‘impossible trinity’ of goals for Trump’s tariffs

Trump wants revenue, manufacturing and foreign policy wins; he can’t get all three, if any.

Arrest of Mahmoud Khalil: Protect freedom of speech for all

It’s been weeks since Mahmoud Khalil was abducted from his home in… Continue reading

Trump’s, Musk’s cuts to education are most damaging

In my long life of service to my community, I have never… Continue reading

Property owners abuse Perrinville Creek watershed

This case history of property owners ignoring the law for instant self-gratification… Continue reading

Douthat: Trump’s Signalgate denials not impressing non-MAGA

Even 60 percent of Republicans polled said the scandal was a serious one.

Genna Martin / The Herald
Piles of wires, motherboards and other electronic parts fill boxes at E-Waste Recycling Center, Thursday. 
Photo taken 1204014
Editorial: Right to repair win for consumers, shops, climate

Legislation now in the Senate would make it easier and cheaper to fix smartphones and other devices.

The WA Cares law is designed to give individuals access to a lifetime benefit amount that, should they need it, they can use on a wide range of long-term services and supports. (Washington State Department of Social and Health Services)
Editorial: Changes to WA Cares will honor voters’ confidence

State lawmakers are considering changes to improve the benefit’s access and long-term stability.

A press operator grabs a Herald newspaper to check over as the papers roll off the press in March 2022 in Everett. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald file photo)
Editorial: Keep journalism vital with state grant program

Legislation proposes a modest tax for some tech companies to help pay salaries of local journalists.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, March 31

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Hegseth isn’t unholding standards he vowed he would

Veterans are among the most critical of the Defense secretary for his lapse of security and protocol.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.