A Bridge Over Troubled Water

By Laura L. Knight, PhD

The headlines are dark and confusing as our (already) great county (USA) tries to find our way through the longstanding idealogical divide of partisan politics.Where is this path leading us? As a self-proclaimed Independent, I find myself on different sides, depending on the issue. I am somewhat uncomfortable with this fence-sitting, however, because my passions run deep for both environmental protection and economic development. I have had this duplicity since before I started my long academic career, so it was a strong obstacle in choosing a party when I undertook a one session learning stint as a registered lobbyist back in the beginning of "The Environmental Sustainability Movement".

I remember being asked if I was a registered Democrat or Republican. I had no idea how to respond because my professional persona was focused upon many Economic Development activities, but almost all my academic training had some kind of environmental angle. Now I had to pick one or the other. I wore a political party hat for a short while, but later found my centrist views were too much to the right for the Democrats and too much to the left for the Republicans! I never tried to "fit" a political party again, but rather, chose to seek common ground on which to relate with both parties. Now it seems there are few opportunities to bring the civility of compromise back to the mainstream without "unprecedented" drama (complete with alternate versions of the facts). The world I know has only one set of facts, but many versions of how those facts are perceived. The "normalized" view from radically different ideological viewpoints, unfortunately, does not portend moral justice.

Should moral justice comprise the underpinning fabric of our Republic, or should the moral issues be relegated to non-governmental institutions? This key component of the U.S. Constitutional quandary provides a very nebulous set of principles (read controversial) when “the separation of church and state” is taken to its most extreme interpretation. We have already chosen this path, so it seems logical to take the Constitutional conundrum to the next level by building bridges over these particularly troubled waters.

What would a Constitutional “bridge” actually look like? It would have to have provisions for all voters from all nationalities and economic strata to fit within the constraints of U.S. Constitutionality. This basic requirement seems to create the most strife because our nation does not fully recognize multiple nationalities until they are legally documented and gainfully contributing tax dollars into the national economy (with some tribal exceptions). 

The rub comes in when “the sick, hungry, tired and poor” are not able to contribute substantially enough to cover the associated costs of providing basic civil services to them individually. This shortfall forces a semi-collective mentality for the redistribution of some portion of the nation’s wealth so these individuals may have a fair shot at “The American Dream”. Specifically, some wealthy citizens seem to feel there is an outstretched hand taking their hard-earned dollars out of one pocket and redistributing them to the pockets of unknown recipients, whom may or may not “deserve” them. 

The bridge is the enduring idea of “moral justice” recognized in 1791, during the era of the Constitutional Founding Fathers. “Moral/social justice”, in this example, centered on the protected right to practice religious freedom, but caused controversy early on when there was also stated separation between church and state. Religious freedom was a moral right and separation of church and state was a governance and/or free market right (ex:no forced religious taxes). They were historically tied together, however, through the judicial system (oaths on the bible, protection of the disenfranchised, etc.), the monetary system (“In God We Trust”) and through other vestibules of governance. This seeming paradox made it hard to recognize a clear delineation of the duties assigned to each entity.

A modern-day vexing example of this confusion exists in our current healthcare dilemma. We collectively ask if protection of the poor or sick requires a government subsidy in one form or another from tax dollars? A forced “socialism” is arguably not what U.S. Founding Fathers meant, but arguments to the contrary are just as strong, after reviewing both Constitutional historic case law and moral justice responsibilities assigned to the state (ex: indigent legal defense). The United States Affordable Care Act (ACA) healthcare system is not the making of a “Welfare State” as long as there is inclusion of a realistic calculus for free market impacts on the value of the commons (including rivers, mineral and plant wealth from public lands, clean air and a host of other “free” goods and services). Current industry leaders know the free use of common goods is not really “free”. This cost may be paid through higher market contributions to compensatory restorative programs in progressive attempts to balance the teetering scales of social and economic justice.

It is evident that funding moral/social enterprises through tax dollars becomes a question of degree. This is where a “bridge” may serve. Bridges are by definition, a linkage between one entity to another. Imagine how the link between moral justice and free market forces might also extend to the protection of these “free”public goods and services. 

Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” addresses this recurring problem of governance, where every individual maximizes their own wealth at the expense of another. The limited governmental redistribution of income, therefore, is economically justified to the point where the market’s freedom to use common (shared public) goods and services mirrors the amount allocated for social redistribution. This concept is complicated by the just attribution of benefits to the same parties from which the common use/market value was taken. The challenge of fairness is a lofty goal regardless of the time frame or involved parties.

So how does a “bridge” work? If we assume the bridge has a stated capacity limit, then any engineer will suggest the desired load for that bridge include “a safety margin for error”. It is similarly incumbent upon our leaders to implement a safety margin in the development of numerical tolerances for the burden placed upon the the free market and tax base. The limited redistribution of income through healthcare “subsidies”, for example, equally demands our leaders accurately reflect the opportunity cost of lost goods and services from the commons. It is NOT an implied extra societal burden.

An example frequently in the news includes the “loss of use” value to Native American tribes whom may no longer enjoy their tribal lands in a culturally significant way, due to the placement of visual disturbances, or environmental disasters (in a worst case scenario). If these values are included in the associated cost/benefit analysis, there are theoretical matching dollars to be redistributed in the form of “subsidies” or other “social” programs to help cover the marginally higher healthcare/environmental burden that may ensue. The margin of error is incalculable for redistribution, however, when the loss of use or opportunity cost is heightened in cases where there is a trigger event to greater loss (ex: hydrocarbon contamination, cultural/archeological destruction, dam breaching, etc.), or other related subsequent environmental disasters.

Another potential problem with this approach lies in how to reward all the affected individuals. For example, a moral (social) justice bridge for the laying of pipelines may include plans for the distribution of compensation packages to affected communities. Losses in the present might be paired with additional forward-looking compensatory programs to include some estimated risk value for potential losses to future generations. It may also involve non-monetary compensation such as land-swapping if, for example, sacred sites are involved. The unwillingness of free markets to meet such policy challenges is the “tragedy of the commons”, but even the acknowledgment that something of value has been taken and must be replaced is a start for building bridges to attain sustainable economic development.

The bridge, therefore, must have comprehensive identification of the opportunity cost(s) associated with the desired benefit. Deciding how this benefit makes it back to affected parties infers federal, state and local governments have renewed responsibility to reach out to their affiliated communities in the establishment of mutually acceptable parameters. Town Hall meetings may provide taxpayers with a potentially beneficial forum (assuming respectful parties) to open communication lines for ongoing dialogue directly with public officials and their associates. The best bridges acknowledge shared costs and benefits derived through bi-partisan support for long-term sustainability.