Throughout the history of the Republic American political thinking has struggled to reconcile the needs and desires of individuals with those of the community at large. Because classical liberalism which is grounded in individualism is at the core of our political thinking, most of our history has been characterized by an emphasis on the individual. Following a relatively brief period between the New Deal and the Great Society of concern for the welfare more broadly, the rhetoric of freedom, individual choice, and responsibility have again become wildly popular while any appeal to the greater good as administered by government has become increasingly suspect. It seems as if we are in a period similar to the late nineteenth century when most attempts to argue against the zeitgeist of that period (Social Darwinism) struggled to gain any traction whatsoever.

Consider by way of example the principle rhetorical strategy pursued by the Obama administration in the recent debate over healthcare reform. Despite the fact that roughly one-sixth of the population was without basic healthcare, the rhetorical path not taken was to argue that we are all in this together and have a basic responsibility to one another. Rather, the administration appealed to individual needs and desires by stressing such things as “bending the cost curve.”

Kent Greenfield focuses on the current conventional wisdom to the effect that we are presented with clear choices in all aspects of our lives and that we will ultimately choose better than will government. In America, we can be happy if we assume personal responsibility for our lives; and to the extent that government detracts from this, we are diminished as individuals, and the Republic is jeopardized.

Greenfield begins by considering the “myth” of choice. Here he argues quite persuasively that many of our choices are not freely made. Rather, our hard-wiring (brain function), cultural norms, power and authority, and even the market frequently function to curtail individual choice. These arguments, which may be familiar to academics, should be required reading for our students and the general public.

Brain-function research indicates that some portions of our brain are capable of the sort of higher-order, rational calculations assumed by those who praise the notion of choice. However, at the same time other areas of our brain encourage more emotional decision-making, including the so-called pleasure centers, where rationality may be disregarded in the face of females in bikinis or a 25-percent-off sale at Target. Cultural norms are so pervasive that we are hardly aware of their impact on the choices we make. For example, cultural norms concerning gender roles rather than choice account for the fact that prior to the 1970s females entered the workforce in relatively small numbers. There is a human tendency to be deferential to authority, which in turn can function to limit the choices we make. By way of example, Greenfield points to the well-known Milgram experiments and to submission to sexual advances by superiors in the workplace. As far as free markets are concerned, Greenfield points out that if you have few resources, you don't have many choices. Markets only provide a medium for exchange. Those with the most resources dictate the terms of the exchange.

In what is the most powerful portion of the book, Greenfield analyzes the notion of personal responsibility and how it relates to choice and to the role of government. Libertarian, free-market rhetoric would typically describe these connections as follows. We are surrounded by all kinds of choices; we can decide best on our own; the choosers must be held responsible for their choices. In terms reminiscent of the ideology of the Social Darwinists, over time, bad choices, and perhaps bad choosers as well, will be weeded out.

Greenfield begins his critique of this line of reasoning by pointing to its more global implications. First, it overlooks any sense of shared responsibility and essentially urges us not to care about our fellow citizens. It is simply another name for leaving people to their own devices, be they victims of Katrina who did not leave New Orleans, homeowners accepting risky mortgages, or those who do not have health insurance. Second, choice is the rhetoric of the powerful defenders of the status quo. It provides a ready-made and quite popular framework from which to oppose movements for, say, social justice, civil liberties, or economic rights. Existing behavior—poverty for example—is seen as reflecting poor life choices and nothing else. Opponents of the status quo are in the difficult situation of having to argue that people are not really making the choices they appear to be making or that those choices somehow do not reflect their true preferences. Today's popular political rhetoric would dismiss such arguments as yet another example of elite distrust of ordinary folks and the preference instead for the wisdom of the “nanny state.”

Greenfield then deconstructs the notion of personal responsibility and confronts its proponents on their own terms. He distinguishes between two understandings of personal responsibility. The first functions to provide a guide to behavior as it emphasizes the impact of different choices on both the chooser and the rest of the community. The responsible choice is thus the one that does not negatively effect the chooser or inflict significant costs on the community.

Greenfield observes that this is not what today's proponents of personal responsibility have in mind. Rather than providing a guide to behavior, the focus is purely on the choice element and the need for those doing the choosing to bear the consequences of their choice. As applied to healthcare, emergency-room care should not be provided to those who “choose,” for whatever reason, not to purchase health insurance. This would function presumably to teach these bad choosers a lesson and to insulate the rest of us from having to pay for their mistakes. Even here, however, Greenfield persuasively argues that there is a cost effectively imposed on those in the community who cannot abide a society that ignores the needy or even the stupid. Ironically, Greenfield points out that what is required in order to take personal responsibility in this situation is a government mandate to have health insurance in order to insulate the public from paying any costs associated with a bad choice.

Why was this argument not persuasive in the recent healthcare debate? Greenfield tells us that in large part it is because of the sorts of constraints on choice he discusses. The solution for Greenfield is to do proactively a variety of things to help people to be better choosers. Very generally the public needs to recognize the power of situation, acknowledge our irrationalities, be mindful of habits, and cultivate an awareness of cultural influence. Particularly helpful public policies include making sure that economic need is not a source of bad decisions and encouraging political and cultural dissent and diversity including a continuation, and perhaps even an extension, of affirmative-action programs.

These are worthwhile ideas for helping the people to be better choosers. However, Greenfield overlooks another important variable in the process—leadership. In a liberal democratic society we too often fall into the trap of blaming the people. While this perhaps makes sense in the abstract, the people do respond to the choices provided to them by the leaders of public and private institutions. One is reminded of the so-called echo chamber analogy offered over half a century ago by the political scientist V. O. Key. If families, churches, and public officials fail to articulate the idea that we are all in this together, then it is little wonder that the people do not choose this direction. In the face of failures of leadership, it is quite difficult for Americans to be better choosers.