What became of personal responsibility?

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 31, 1997 | by David C. Stolinsky

Something odd happened when I was born. Somehow I was enrolled in the Responsible Persons' Club. As a child I was expected to put my toys away. At school I was expected to turn in assignments promptly. As a Boy Scout I carried my pocketknife to school, but nobody minded because I was expected to act responsibly When I was drafted I went where they sent me and did what they told me. As a citizen I voted and paid my taxes. As a husband I remain married to my first wife.

Nevertheless, I am considering resigning from the club. You see, when I was young, everyone was expected to act this way. Those who did not were punished by a variety of social and legal sanctions, ranging from lack of trust and loss of esteem to fines and imprisonment. Slowly the legal sanctions have weakened and the social sanctions have all but vanished, until we have reached the point that positive behavior more likely is to be punished than rewarded, while the reverse is true for negative behavior.

Is this judgment too harsh? As a driver, I regularly must renew my license by paying a fee and taking a test. I must buy insurance, which costs more per month than gasoline. I must pass a smog check, which grows increasingly expensive and stringent. Recently I was rearended while stopped in traffic. It turned out that the other driver had no insurance, had a phony license with a fictitious name and address and had registration plates from a wrecked car. He disappeared, leaving me to pay the $500 deductible. Of course, in addition to saving the insurance premiums, he doesn't have to go through the trouble and expense of renewing A driver's license and car registration or getting smog checks. Even if a police officer had witnessed the accident and given him a citation, it would have been in a phony name at a nonexistent address. Where are his incentives to obey the law?

Some time ago a house nearby was undergoing renovation. The contractor appeared every Friday afternoon and paid the workers in cash. Often my driveway was blocked by trucks. Prior to making a complaint, I got my camera to take a photo. As I snapped the shutter, I realized that work had ceased -- the workers had vanished into the building. I reentered my home, and soon the hammering resumed. Apparently most of the workers were illegal aliens who feared I was going to show the photo to the immigration authorities. Of course, when I need work done on my home, I hire a reputable contractor who uses legal workers and pays appropriate taxes. His work may be better, but it costs more. The benefits of playing by the rules are in practical terms dubious while the costs are real.

This phenomenon extends to politics. George Bush broke his promise not to raise taxes and was denied reelection. Bill Clinton promised a tax cut and instead signed an increase; he was reelected. Bush was a decorated naval aviator who had been shot down over the Pacific -- clearly a club member. Clinton avoided military service -- clearly not a member.

In the 1996 election, a majority of citizens admitted they did not trust Clinton, yet they voted for him. My friends shrugged off evidence of his womanizing, contradictory statements, financial irregularities and improper collecting of personal files. On the other hand, they held Bob Dole to a higher standard, talking at length about the divorce from his first wife. In part, this was just politics -- most of my friends are Democrats. But it also was evidence of a deeper problem.

Where money is concerned, we all accept the concept of an account balance. If I make large deposits, I can write large checks. Yet when it comes to personal honor and credibility, we often use an opposite approach. If one is perceived to be an unreliable womanizer who says one thing and does another his misdeeds tend to be ignored or laughed off as amusing foibles. But if one is seen as a man who literally gave his right arm for his country, he immediately is assigned to the club. Now expectations are higher and each imperfection is seen as a major failing. Rather than having built up a large balance by his sacrifice and service, he is seen as merely having obligated himself to adhere to a higher standard. In effect, his balance was reduced.

To a degree this is understandable. We have a right to expect a higher standard of behavior from the clergy, for example. But when carried too far this mode of thinking becomes destructive. Why should anyone sacrifice for his country, when the principal result is that more sacrifice is demanded? And why should anyone avoid making false promises, if the chief result is that a looser standard is applied to what he says?

As older members die off or resign from the Responsible Persons' Club and fewer young members are recruited, how long will it be before the club ceases to function? When everyone is out ripping off his neighbor, who will mind the store? That's the good news. The bad news is that no one will be left to notice.

David C. Stolinsky writes about cultural issues from Los Angeles.