Power & Responsibility to the People

If the Right demands freedom without invoices, the Left demands safety nets without expectations. Both sides want the benefit without the burden.

For decades, progressives have argued—often correctly—that individual outcomes are shaped by systems: by redlining, by unequal funding, or by discrimination baked into institutions. This insight has value. But it has calcified into a reflex that treats any mention of personal responsibility as victim-blaming, and any behavioral expectation as an act of cruelty. The result is a philosophy of collective obligation that flows in only one direction.

The Pandemic as Case Study

The pandemic revealed this contradiction with uncomfortable clarity. Progressives rightly insisted on collective responsibility: wear masks, get vaccinated, protect the vulnerable. These were framed as moral duties—your choices affect the herd, so you must act to protect the herd.

But there was a glaring asymmetry. COVID outcomes were importantly affected by metabolic health—conditions deeply influenced by lifestyle choices over time. Yet, while we were mandating masks, any suggestion that maintaining one’s physical health was also a form of collective responsibility was dismissed as moralizing or "shaming."

One set of choices (masking) was a civic imperative. The other (metabolic resilience) was off-limits for discussion.

If we are truly "all in this together," why does solidarity only apply to politically comfortable behaviors? The virus did not distinguish between the risks we like to discuss and those we don't. A burden on the healthcare system is a burden, regardless of its source.

The Soft Bigotry of No Expectations

This selective vision extends well beyond public health. Consider the resistance to attaching any reciprocal expectations to public assistance. Whether it is work requirements or basic financial literacy, the Left often treats these conditions as inherently illegitimate—as though asking anything of a beneficiary is an act of contempt.

Or consider education. We correctly identify systemic inequities in funding. But when the conversation turns to attendance, homework, or parental involvement—factors that indisputably shape outcomes—the response is often deflection. To mention them is to "blame the victim." The system is everything; the individual is nothing.

This articulation is its own kind of paternalism. It quietly communicates a devastating message: We don't believe your choices matter, so we won't ask you to make better ones. That is not compassion. It is condescension wearing a sympathetic face.

The Contradiction

You cannot demand that society absorb every consequence while insisting that individual choices are irrelevant to outcomes. You cannot invoke solidarity to compel some behaviors while declaring others beyond discussion. That is not moral consistency. It is selective accounting.

A true safety net is not a blank check. It is a reciprocal agreement: society will catch you when you fall, and in return, you will do what you reasonably can to stay upright. Remove the second clause, and you don't have solidarity. You have dependency, which serves no one's dignity.

The Arithmetic of Solidarity

This isn't a partisan argument; it's an accounting problem, viewed from the other side of the ledger.  Collective responsibility is real. But it must be a two-way street. If you want society to underwrite your risks, society can reasonably ask what you are doing to manage them.  Solidarity comes with expectations. If you are unwilling to meet them, you aren't a champion of the collective good. You’re just looking for a free ride.