Many of the issues addressed in conversation on “The Front Porch” are framed by the tension that exists between the societal commitment to the concept of the community and the strong, deep respect for the rights of the individual.

Indeed, many historians have recognized these themes as highly significant throughout American history. Some see them as the major constructs of the American paradigm. There is much truth in this lens on the American scene, and it certainly applies in Maine.

I am reminded of this several times a week as I drive by the Brunswick Town Common on Route 123.

It is a wooded tract of land held “in common” by the town of Brunswick. It is currently used for recreational purposes – walking the dog, hiking, cross country skiing.

Historically, it was common land on which residents could graze their animals, harvest wood for heat in the cold winters and use for recreation. It was a visible, physical symbol, functioning in the daily lives of residents as a reminder that they were part of a larger whole to which they owe loyalty and support and from which they gain identity.

Brunswick is not unique in this. The New England “town common” is much in evidence in villages and towns around Maine – a reminder that we are part of something larger than ourselves, and that we have responsibilities “in common” to each other and to the larger community.

Balancing this concern for community is the tradition of individual liberties and rights.

This is perhaps the most distinctive quality of American life. European countries do not revel in a Bill of Rights that gives significant independent and dominant standing to the individual. The European tradition is more corporate in nature. Bodies, groups and classes take precedence over individuals.

It is not an accident that Americans hold tightly to the Bill of Rights as the foundation of American constitutional principle. It is at the heart of what Archibald MacLeish meant when he defined America as “an idea” to which people around the world are attracted (at least they used to be).

We cannot forget, however, that the Constitution also pledges us to “provide for the general welfare.” That is where the concept of “the common” is enshrined in the basic law of the land.

For me, it is the balanced tension between these two defining qualities – individual and community – that has produced some of the most difficult and most triumphant times in our history.

The dialectic between these sometimes competing notions plays out all over Maine almost every day.

Zoning issues are an interesting example. Zoning boards and planning boards try to adjudicate between individuals claiming the right to do what they wish with their property weighed against concerns for the larger community and the neighborhood (“the commons”). The dynamic is not often simple or straightforward.

Take, for example, the “big box” phenomenon of economic development in Maine in recent years. Wal-Mart, for example, acquires property and seeks to develop it. It claims it is exercising its individual rights, but it is also trying to bring benefit to the whole community. They are often pitted against a neighborhood or community group claiming that their individual liberties are being ignored and the “common” interests of the community are being sacrificed for the profit of an Arkansas company. Wal-Mart wins most of the time, but, as recently in the case in Bangor, the opponents occasionally score a victory.

As government tries to address the obligation to “provide for the general welfare,” it relies primarily on its taxing power to raise the resources to do so.

Tax funds build roads, provide for security, educate the young, support Social Security, provide a safety net for the most vulnerable among us and the list goes on.

One cannot read the papers or listen to the news today and not conclude that the balance between these notions of individual and community concern are out of whack.

We live in a wildly anti-tax environment. Taxes are never popular, but we are in a really crazy place now. On the federal level, we are so committed to cutting taxes that we have unsafe levels of debt in the federal government. Our grandchildren will pay for our irresponsibility.

As a result, the president’s budget calls for massive cuts in domestic programs, which were designed to “provide for the general welfare.” Education is under-funded. Housing is taking massive cuts. Veterans Affairs are being cut. Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan calls for cuts in Social Security. Environmental enforcement is short changed.

The list goes on, but we continue to push forward with tax cuts for individuals at the expense of our common life together.

On the state level, we struggle with some of the same issues. There is a tremendous move to cut taxes – especially property taxes. It is clear that property taxes represent too large a burden, but to cut them without creating other substantial sources of revenue risks our ability to meet our obligations to the residents of Maine.

The drive in this direction is so strong that the governor dare not consider substantial tax reform that might increase or create new taxes in some areas, so he is “forced” to recommend that we join Powerball as a way of increasing revenue. This is apparently true even if the net effect of real tax reform did not increase the burden on the state as a whole.

A creative tension between concern for the “common” and the individual can be quite productive. My sense is that the tension is out of balance – weighted dangerously heavily on the individual side on this issue of taxation.

It is probably time to remind ourselves that we are much more than taxpayers. We are citizens who have a constitutional responsibility to “provide for the general welfare.”

Jim Carignan is a retired educator who lives in Harpswell. His e-mail address is carignans@aol.com.

Copy the Story Link