What is decided to be "The common good". I don't want to sound like a troll, but the book "Animal Farm" is an exercise in "the common good" and how it can be manipulated.

I don't say this to cause drama, I really don't. But this statement scares me:

I believe that it is time for a politics of right and wrong instead of right and left and that this new politics will be based on the concept of the common good.

Imagine Pat Robertson saying this statement, and instead of Health Care and Living Wage, he is talking about Abortion and Homosexuality. As a gay man, I have heard statements like that, and I have been on the other side of "the common good."

What people percieve as the Common Good can be radically different, and hense WHY we have these types of cultural divisions, and for Mr. Perriello to say the issues of Health Care and Living Wage is a issue for the Common Good, he opens himself to people asking about Abortion, Death Penalty, Homosexuality, Stem Cell Research, and other culturally murky issues that cause deep divisions and destroys any goodwill he is trying to create.

I am really sorry for sounding harsh, but I figured I would say something.  

This is how it gets done in the 5th, Aaron.  Believe me you want Tom Perriello.  He is talking about the real Right.  There isn't a whole lot of nuance when it comes to what is wrong with Virgil Goode.  

when people are afraid of talking about the "common good."

The shifting definition of the "Common Good", and how easily it can shift depending on who you talk to.  

Get involved in helping to decide what is and is not the "common good." That's what Democracy is all about.  

the preamble refers to the COMMON defense and the GENERAL welfare, not the PRIVATE defense or the PRIVATE welfare.  

One more point, courtesy of Wikipedia, that I think helps explain where Tom Perriello is coming from:

The common good is a concept central to the Catholic Social Teaching tradition beginning with the foundational document, Rerum Novarum, a papal encyclical by Pope Leo XIII, issued in 1891 to combat the excesses of both laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and communism on the other. In this letter, Pope Leo guarantees the right to private property while insisting on the role of the state to require a living wage. The means of production were considered by the pope to be both private property requiring state protection and a dimension of the common good requiring state regulation.

Leo the Triangulator

When Tom Perriello talks about the common good, I hear something quite different than merely another politician giving us his vision of a perfect world.

I don't hear Tom saying he necessarily knows what is best for the common good -- perhaps he does, perhaps he does not. Rather, he seems to me to be talking about the politics of division and fear, the politics of Virgil Goode and George Bush and, yes, of John McCain, that says the social and economic fabric of America is a zero-sum game, that a civil right for you means less liberty for me, that a dollar in your pocket is one that is not in mine.

I fundamentally disagree with that view, and am glad to hear someone expressing it.

You say as a gay man you have heard statements like that and been on the other side of the "common good" argument. I would argue from that. You have been on the other side of appeals to selfishness disguised as common good arguments.

Virtually every argument again equal rights for gay people (marriage, adoption, choice of career, and so on) run specifically counter to the common good, and appeal to narrow interests and prejudices of interest groups.

One last point: Yes, there can be different ideas of what is in the common good, and this argument opens Tom up to answering questions about divisive issues, such as abortion, the death penalty, et al.

I say, it's about time. There are legitimate questions on each of these issues. But lets discuss them in the context of how each candidates position is in the interest of the common good, not how well a candidate can appeal to our fears.

I am a strong supporter of Tom Perriello's, but the fact is if his views don't reflect the views of a majority of people in this district, he ought not to win. I think when issues are seen from the perspective of how they affect the common good, then a huge majority of this District and America would find itself in the Progressive camp.

I'm not naive. I don't think we snap our fingers and a generation of dishonest and shallow poltiics magically changes. But lets start.

As progressives, we win if issues are honestly discussed. If we try to play conservative game of division, wedge issues, misinformation and appeals to selfishness, then, as we had been doing, we lose.

I guess for me, I am just hesitant when someone uses the "common good" because it is such a vague term. It is almost a Roschach test for the audience. What does "the common good" mean to you? Does it mean fair jobs and fair wages? Does it mean cultural and moral issues? Is it a christian senitment, or is it a secular sentiment? In this thread alone, we have three versions of "Common good" so I worry what using those words mean, andhow they are intrepeted by people.  

And I fully agree with you on the Gay Rights Arguments being the anthisis of Common Good... but that is not how many people see it. Homosexuality is the bane of civilization and will destroy us... the common good is to stop it at all cost. I have sat in churches that have advocated that, and people believe it, and any argument against it falls of deaf ears because they believe that the common good outweighs that of a few homosexuals.

It is often that the "Common Good" is used to the detriment of a select few, and I only bring it up because even though Mr. Perriello seems to me to be a kind, honest, and great person, there are others who are less savory, and use the same words he said in radically different ways.

I don't advocate the use of divison, wedge issues, misinfomration and the like to win elections. I abhor those, but in response, how do you keep those forces at bay. Speaking honestly and directly doesn't always work unfortunately, and the electorate can (and will be) easily swayed by fear and/or complacancy... you know what I mean?

I kinda like him from what I have read, and he is a whole lot better than Goode.

Here is a bumpersticker for you:
Let's do better than Goode: Perriello for Congress

who decides if my common good is more important than your common good  (i.e. what common good is more good :-p)

who pays for the common good

can the "common good" ever be reached?

what role should government even play in providing for the common good

That's what "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is all about.

It is the majority of the people who decide what is the common good. The common good often leaves the minorities out.

then it's not the "common good," pretty much by definition.

The "common good" must satisfy 100% of the population? How can we achieve that?

Lets use Hillary's Mandatory Health Care proposal:

Universal Healthcare is for the Common Good, everyone gets healthcare, and noone needs to worry about paying medical bills they cannot afford. So in order to mandate it, we will require everyone to pay into an insurance plan, if you do not comply, you will be fined. I don't care if you can't afford it, you need it and it is good for you.  

Lets use another example:

It is in the Common Good to outlaw abortion. It is morally unsound, and it brings us closer to Hell. I don't care if you were raped by your father or if your life is dependent on the abortion, Abortion is against God and His teachings, and therefore you must bear this child and it is good for both of you.

**********

My point here is that you can never, ever please 100% of the people 100% of the time. There will always be people who do not benefit from a "common good" approach. Even our founding fathers did not extend the basic rights of man to their slaves. The founding fathers did not allow non land owning White males from voting at first either. The common good is such a vague thing, and for any group of people to push for anything citing the "common good" can be scary.    

I'm saying that if you exclude minority groups from the "common good" in an egregious manner, such as with Jim Crow laws (or worse), then it's not really the "common good" for everyone.  Honestly, I don't think this is as complicated as you're making it out. In fact, I think the concept of "common good" is very basic and commonsensical. It also is one of the foundations of our constitution and our concept of government.

People can have different concepts of whether a particular policy is in the common good or not.

The issue is whether the benefits of a particular policy are debated in the context of whether it is for the common good, or whether the policy represents an appeal to a personal interest.

Let's take Jim Crow laws as an example. For most of the 20th century, these laws clearly had the support of a majority of white southerners (probably Yankees, too, but we need not debate that here). But in no way, shape or form cuold those laws be said to have been in the common interest.

One could argue that they "benefitted" a segment of the population in some ways (preserved jobs, provided cheap labor, conferred any number of legal advantages to whites), but even if you argue that these benefits accrued to a majority of the population, these laws still would not have been in the common interest.

Over time, these laws weakened the economy of the South. For example, they drove out many of the smartest people who saw them as morally offensive, so these folks took their intellectual capital and their artistic and business skills to other regions of the country. By denying equal rights to a large percentage of the population, Jim Crow skewed competition. And last, but by no means least, the hatred of these laws was morally, emotionally and mentally damaging to both the victims and the perpetrators.

Jim Crow laws are a perfect example of the kinds of counter-productive and destructive policies you get when you fail to pursue public policies aimed at the common good, but rather simply seek to convince enough people to vote out of their narrow and immediate self-interests.

That is why I say lets have the debate -- not just in the atmosphere of this and other blogs, where people tend to be very well informed and interested in issues, but out in the electorate at large.

Progressives win that debate every time.

I think the common good is best defined just as Perriello did -- a response to greed and selfishness, and an approach to governing where people look out for one another.

The term doesn't include specific positions on policies; rather, it asks us all to approach difficult issues with the wellbeing of ourselves and our neighbors in mind. In this sense, it rejects the politics of hatred and divisiveness.  

He should be the Democrats flagship Congrssional candidate for 2008. An international peacemaker and diplomat in a marginally red district who is going to help flip a previously red state to blue. He raises MAD money and is focusing his grassroots organizing efforts early and focusing on the working class rural part of the fifth district.

On top of all that, he is taking out a xenophobic, christian-supremacist, party-line Bush Republican Virgil Goode who is a TURNCOAT. Goode used to be a Democrat, and now he votes with Bush and the Republicans on everything.

Perriello all the way.

Courtesy of the Center for American Progress:

The common good, as both a philosophical ideal and approach to governing, has a rich history in the civic strands of American thought and in the values and principles of the U.S. Constitution. It is also a powerful theme in the social teachings of many major faith traditions. In both the civic and faith realms, a commitment to the common good means pursuing policies and community actions that benefit all individuals and balance self-interest with the needs of the entire society. It recognizes that government -- while not the only tool -- is essential for helping people pursue their dreams, and that the business, labor, faith and NGO communities play a critical role as well.

The common good approach to politics represents a clear break with the radical individualism, corruption and greed that define contemporary American life. It marks the end of a politics that leaves people to rise and fall on their own.

I really like this definition.  I'd also add that the "common good" involves dealing with "externalities" like environmental protection that are not valued properly -- or at all -- by the market system.