154
PARTISAN REVIEW
action is a sufficient solution to our social problems, but their concrete
suggestions for social and political reform seem oddly tame, given the
urgency of our social ills, and they also seem oddly procedural, empha–
sizing as they do public "discourse" and debate, as if the process of talk–
ing could itself remedy the situation. For example, their proposals in–
clude "making political parties better able to
articulate
meaningful na–
tional programs," "the creation of policy institutes, or think tanks,
which would help parties
formulate
national platforms," "outlaw cam–
paign advertising on radio and television," thereby encouraging candi–
dates to "engage in substantive
debate."
They urge us not "to frame the
abortion
debate
only in terms of rights" because this has the effect of
"inhibiting realistic, morally engaged
debate
about the nature of abortion
. . . The language of rights cuts off
debate.
. . .
The courts respond to
the adversaries in cases brought before them rather than framing a
debate
about what is best for the common good." Just as these authors'
concept of the common good stresses the process of an open-ended
quest rather than a consensus about the common good, their prose sug–
gests that they similarly consider public discourse about our national
problems not just the means to an end but an end in itself.
Other social scientists also pose this fundamental question of whether
America is a vital discursive community, capable of reflecting about the
public welfare and capable of conducting an open ongoing quest for the
common good. But they are not all as optimistic as Bellah. In fact, one
of his coauthors, Richard Madsen, seems more pessimistic about the pos–
sibility of meaningful discourse about the common good. In an article
published in a different volume, he points out that in our society, each
interest group seeks favorable attention from the state. However, not
one of these groups would admit that it represents the particular interests
of the few. Instead, groups claim that their own side represents the pub–
lic good and that their opponent represents the private interests of the
selfish and greedy. Since people with fundamentally different positions
nevertheless assert the universal validity of the interests of their particular
group (which they invariably term a "community" brought together by
genuine moral aspirations and concern for the public good), Madsen
concludes that "the language of American politics is so flexible as to be
almost formless" and ultimately meaningless. The title of his essay,
"Contentless Consensus," expresses his sense that we are not a discursive
community capable of addressing the question of the common good. In
today's society any notion of the common good is an empty one be–
cause it is based on the interests of the few and not of the many.
