Carter Bundy

The confluence of health and budget debates occurring in Washington and Santa Fe lends itself to a simple philosophical, political and moral guideline developed by American philosopher John Rawls.

Rawls developed a formulation for just policy premised on the idea that if none of us knew what our place in the world would be before deciding on policy, we’d arrive at something that was fair, just and effective.

Policymakers should intentionally put themselves behind a “veil of ignorance,” as Rawls called it, about his or her gender, race, wealth, nationality, religion, language, orientation, physical assets, mental talents, parents, society, education, health, luck, everything.

Imagine if our founding fathers had used the veil of ignorance in deciding whether to grant freedom and full rights to slaves. Instead of seeing themselves as wealthy, white landowners, they would have approached the issue from an uncertainty about whether they themselves might be subject to slavery. We’d have had a very different, and much better, history.

The veil of ignorance in Washington (insert joke here)

In our capital right now, there is a debate as to whether we should create a rule that if you get sick in America, you get health care.

The sad reality of today’s system is that even if you have the best insurance, if you’re sick enough, unlucky enough, or your insurance company’s lawyers are slick enough, there is no guarantee of being treated when you’re sick.

Apply the veil of ignorance to health care: If you were setting policy without knowing if you’d live a completely healthy life, battle disease throughout your life, or live (as most of us do) with a mix of health and sickness, wouldn’t you want a guarantee of good care when you fell ill?

Alone in the entire developed world (well, maybe with South Africa), America doesn’t have that guarantee. If you didn’t know whether you’d be born into a situation where you had health care, even if you thought you had an 80 percent chance of being covered by insurance, wouldn’t you want that guarantee for yourself and your family? When presented like that, most of us would.

You’d favor that guarantee even more if you knew that even if you were technically covered, there was a chance you could be denied treatment if you fell prey to your insurance company’s small print.

That’s the central question of the health care debate: whether we make sure that every American, including those of us who currently have insurance, gets health care when they fall ill.

Hopefully our elected leaders in Washington will see health care not from the position of privileged, wealthy, powerful senators with excellent coverage, but from behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance. It’s hard to imagine anyone using that perspective and voting against reform.

The choice in Santa Fe

In Santa Fe, the policy choices are basically lining up like this: Would you rather have a system that consistently rewards millionaires with lower effective tax rates than the middle class? Or would you want a more progressive revenue system that resulted in the semblance of safety, education and health for everyone?

If you didn’t know who would be your eventual employer, would you want a system that allows big companies with hundreds of lawyers and accountants to pay a lower tax rate than small businesses? Or would you want corporate taxation to be equal for all companies?

If you didn’t know whether you would end up being a connected insider, would you want a system that took everyone’s taxes and paid a group of double dippers nearly twice the salary of everyone else? Or would you advocate for a fair system that allows for decent pay and good retirement, but not both at the same time?

It’s a near certainty our legislators would choose safety, education and health for all New Mexicans over lavishing millionaires, slick out-of-state businesses, and connected insiders with continued special treatment if legislators operated from behind the veil of ignorance.

The Golden Rule

The veil of ignorance doesn’t have to lead to traditionally “liberal” results. If you didn’t know your background or talents, most of us would still be attracted to the idea that if you work hard, have talent, or get lucky — or some combination — you’d be able to improve the material well being of yourself and your family.

That’s why even though the veil of ignorance leads most people to support comprehensive health, safety and education, it also leads to policies that reward effort, merit and achievement.

Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they’re complementary. You can’t have a real meritocracy without something approximating equal opportunity for all.

Rawls’ veil of ignorance is a philosophers’ way of giving us a practical tool to apply the Golden Rule to policy decisions both small and large. Do unto others as you would have done unto you simply means, in the policy world, creating rules that you’d want applied to you if you were in someone else’s situation.

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. It is reflects the best of America and the best of our religious traditions in the qualities it embraces: gratitude, sharing, love, family, equality, inclusion, opportunity and empathy. Yet it isn’t as limiting as some religious holidays, which by definition are more exclusive.

This Thanksgiving, as we all celebrate everything good in our lives, I hope our legislators in Santa Fe and Washington view policy choices from behind the veil of ignorance, unsure that they or their own families would be in the relatively fortunate circumstances enjoyed by almost everyone reading this site.

After all, being grateful means understanding that we’re all a bit lucky, and being gracious enough to extend the opportunities we’ve been afforded to everyone else.

Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.

Bundy bio │ Archives │ Feed