The end of sacrifice?

With the New Hampshire primary fast approaching, you may have noticed the presidential candidates avoiding a particular word – sacrifice.

Our democratic republic cannot function without shared sacrifice – the notion of each citizen giving up something for the common good. We might debate which sacrifices are appropriate and how much should be asked of different groups, but we cannot deny that some amount of pain and discomfort – whether paying taxes, carpooling to cut harmful emissions, or volunteering to take care of our neighbors – is both necessary and healthy.

{mosads}In today’s political climate, asking voters to engage in shared sacrifice has become taboo. But it was not long ago that public servants – liberals, independents, and conservatives – discussed sacrifice as part of a citizen’s duty. At the dawn of World War II, President Roosevelt warned Americans that sacrifices awaited them, although he wisely employed some reverse psychology by saying the “United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can . . . when the Nation is fighting for its existence.” President Kennedy famously asked Americans to ask themselves what they could do for their country. And President Reagan agreed to raise taxes to counter budget shortfalls.

 So why don’t politicians ask us to sacrifice? For one thing, a presidential campaign might be the wrong time to ask for voters to shoulder any burden. Candidates behave rationally when they avoid invoking the idea of shared sacrifice, saving painful decisions until after inauguration day. Voters do not demand a discussion of sacrifice, so politicians do not supply one. But the marketplace for sacrifice is dynamic. That is, the amount of time our leaders talk about sacrifice – and how they talk about it – affects the electorate’s appetite for sacrifice.

 Unfortunately, talking about shared civic pain has been out of fashion for decades. Perhaps the greed-is-good philosophy of the 1980’s is to blame. Or maybe we became complacent during the booming 1990s. That only a small fraction of Americans have served in the military since 9/11, and that we remain entrenched in controversial wars, further diminishes our interest in sacrifice.

Whatever the cause, we need a conversation about sacrifice soon. Collective sacrifices, regardless of scale, contribute mightily to American ideas of citizenship. Shying away from a discussion about sacrifice weakens our sense of common duty, and promotes atomistic individualism among citizens who are adept at being angry, but increasingly see each other as fanatics who are unwilling to revisit their own opinions or compromise any of their priorities.

The 2016 presidential contenders have provided plenty of ostensibly pain-free ‘solutions’ to our nation’s problems – carpet-bombing ISIS and raising taxes only on the rich, for example. But wishful thinking and clever sloganeering will not solve our numerous political challenges, which range from mitigating terrorism and climate change, to forging new job opportunities and criminal justice reform. Each challenge and many more will require tough choices and shared national sacrifice.

Creating an ethic of shared sacrifice depends in part on our willingness to reward politicians who ask us to put our collective nose to the grindstone. If we don’t reignite this conversation, we ultimately will face harder choices than those we face today. We therefore urge citizens of all political stripes to choose any issue, and ask how personal and collective sacrifice could be a part of the solution.

Only when our elected officials ask us to sacrifice, then and perhaps only then we will be able to understand the magnitude of the challenges that lie ahead of us, and be able to appreciate that making America great again will be difficult work, but work that is worth doing.

Eisinger is the dean of the Feinstein College of Arts and Sciences at Roger Williams University.  Brysacz practices law in San Francisco. The views expressed in this piece are solely those of the authors.