TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/101491/1014109.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 6.2 KB | 128 lines

                                                                                NATION, Page 32

THE POLITICAL INTEREST

Who Owes What to Whom?


By Michael Kramer


    Having babies is not Darlene Johnson's problem. Raising
them is. Until recently, Johnson, 28, was in a California
prison for having beaten two of her four children with a belt
and an electric cord. What makes the Johnson case unusual is not
the nature of her crime, which is all too common, but the
choice offered her by the sentencing judge in Tulare County: the
chance to cut her jail time if she agreed to the surgical
implantation of Norplant, the new birth-control device that
prevents conception for up to five years. That choice, which
Johnson accepted and which many perceive as coercive, despite
the ease with which Norplant can be removed, highlights a
growing national debate about the proper balance between
competing interests: the desire to protect individual liberties
while recognizing a citizen's obligations to the community, and
society's interest in encouraging, and in some instances
forcing, responsible behavior.

    Bolstered by polls that show strong support for their
proposals, legislators in several states have introduced bills
that would require convicted female drug addicts to choose
between Norplant and jail.

    "Reproductive freedom is an important right," says Kansas
state representative Kerry Patrick, "but a child's right to be
born healthy is paramount over a woman's right to bear a
drug-impaired baby. And we, the community, have a right to be
spared unnecessary costs. Simply to provide welfare payments and
education from kindergarten through the 12th grade for a healthy
child costs $205,000 in Kansas, a figure that climbs
astronomically if that kid is born drugged."

    The same conflict arises in the controversy over testing
hospital patients for AIDS. Some people argue for mandatory
testing; others insist that it be voluntary. But both groups
seem concerned only with the patient's rights. "No one on either
side wonders if the patient has a responsibility to his fellow
human beings," says George Washington University sociologist
Amitai Etzioni. "The language focuses almost exclusively on
individual rights, which are quickly described as absolute and
which are then disconnected from societal obligations."

    To Etzioni and his followers, the question is how best to
promote responsibility before imposing it. "In the end, free
people are going to decide for themselves how to act," says
Roger Conner of the American Alliance for Rights &
Responsibilities, a bipartisan public-interest group. "How they
feel about a duty that may be imposed on them is crucial. Way
before something like Norplant is coerced, there has to be
serious education and the widespread availability of birth
control. If those conditions are met, there is a far greater
possibility that both the individual and society will accept
imposition. A regime that reaches for the penalty first is close
to being a police state."

    There is much to noodle here, and there soon may also be
the opportunity to see if these issues can support a
presidential campaign. The leading Democratic advocate of civic
obligation is Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, who announced his
candidacy last week. Beyond sharing the views of Etzioni and
Conner, Clinton has actually succeeded in having some of the
"responsibilities" philosophy codified in law. For example,
Arkansas parents who fail to attend parent-teacher conferences
can be fined, and students who drop out of school are denied
driver's licenses. "Not everything we do that is wrong is
illegal," says Clinton. "The trick is to provide the incentives
and disincentives that can curb such behavior."

    In Clinton's mind, the driver's-license question is simple
because driving is a privilege, not a right. "But there's even
more to it," he says. "If you drop out of school, your earnings
can be in free fall -- that is if you're lucky enough to get a
job in the first place. You end up dragging down the whole
society. You cost us more than you contribute. So obviously we
have the right to attach conditions designed to keep you in
school."

    Clinton acknowledges that some see parental fines as
clashing with the right to public education, which he concedes
is absolute. But, he observes, "everything has a context. It is
clear that too many parents and students believe that all kids
cannot learn or that their ability to learn is more a function
of genetic makeup than of how much effort you put in. I think
both those notions are wrong, so I believe anything society does
to strengthen family responsibilities and give schools the
chance to teach is acceptable. And given that parents are an
integral part of a child's education, I don't see anything at
all wrong in fining them for failing to do their part."

    Many of Clinton's ideas, which include instituting a
system of national service that would oblige youngsters to
perform various community-based tasks in exchange for college
assistance, are viewed by liberal Democrats as neo-Republican.
So his task is difficult. Clinton's views may well appeal to
voters in a general election, but they will surely be less
attractive to the more liberal electorate that has controlled
the Democratic Party's nominating process for 20 years.

    The politics aside, an activist like Clinton would be
better placed than a conservative to push the "responsibilities"
agenda. Most Republicans see government as "the problem"; their
views are "trapped by their antitax and antigovernment
rhetoric," says Conner. "When they talk about rights and
responsibilities, the red flags go up. People see them as being
demanding without being supportive, as wanting to take without
being willing to give." On the flip side, adds Conner, in an
analysis Clinton shares, "liberals are going to have to realize
that the only way to generate public support for expanding the
programs they see people needing is to accept linking that help
to some very tough disincentives, and even coercion, for those
who don't understand that along with government's help come
serious obligations."

    Exactly.