Professional politicians, especially in debate or for sound bites, and commentary pundits often employ the adage One Size Does Not Fit All (or its converse, One Size Fits All) as a folksy, puckish jab referring to some proposition, issue, or proposal. , A variant is presently in vogue as a critique of the President’s infrastructure proposal: throw everything against the wall to see what sticks. We may be prompted to address the variant at another date.
Despite its facial or superficial simplicity, the concept of “one size does not fit all” involves a complex and subtlety of connotations. For libertarians and conservatives, the epithet is a type of short-hand for individualism, rugged or otherwise. Two economic icons of the right – Milton Friedman and James Buchanan – argued that the ultimate failure of “one size” is found in the free market theory unbound by laws and regulations.
If these two icons had prevailed, each of us would be acceptably gifted to perform surgery or practice law without a qualifying education or credentials. George Mason University, Buchanan’s academic refuge, might never have had to create the Antonin Scalia School of Law. Too, GMU would be free of the rigid constraints of pedagogical principles in teaching science and math. The absence of a single size to fit all is liberating.
Folks who think about the “one size” idea usually do not accept its limitations as universal or even the credo of a majority. Science and scientific evidence and logic tend to corral other beliefs, e.g. religious, into one size. Aristotle characterized politics as the “master art” meaning the study of human dynamics and relationships, not the prediction of their interplay.
Such pure and absolute freedom to pursue only one’s own beliefs in society, unfortunately, might cause every individual to emulate Jeff Bezos, making for a dull, however wealthy, society. But, then, who would actually manufacture the goods or write the editorials for the Washington Post? Folks who think about the “one size” idea usually do not accept its limitations as universal or even the credo of a majority. Science and scientific evidence and logic tend to corral other beliefs, e.g. religious, into one size. Aristotle characterized politics as the “master art” meaning the study of human dynamics and relationships, not the prediction of their interplay.
While there are some today who would deny the Copernican theory of a heliocentric universe and argue the flatness of the planet, a significant number believe the 2020 election was won by the former president. For these folks, one size labels tend to have more traction and may be applied with universality, even immutability. There is, on the other hand, common sense and membership in society offering far more acceptable credos. Friedman and Buchanan disciples survive to carry on their intellectually titillating views in contrast to many social and political beliefs. The website of the Libertarian Party proclaims as a first principle:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Here, idealistic language that offers sanctuary from wearing masks during the pandemic is offered, among other things.
The National Conservative Party Platform (yes, there is one) expresses its individualism in more detailed planks in its platform, including repeal and replacement of the ACA; no unions for government workers; and requiring English as the official language of the nation. It’s difficult to escape a sense of being fit with a single size political policy, as these platform planks and principles seem to suggest.
On the other hand, there exist a number of social and political ideals that draw only modest criticism by radical ideologues, if any at all. One person, one vote; social security pensions; worker safety regulations and laws; freedom of speech and from religion, to name a few. The distinction between the ideologues’ notion of size and universal ideals rests in the definition of “fits” and “all.” Were Friedman and Buchanan to use the term “suits” to replace “fits” there might be more acceptance of rephrasing the concept as “one size suits most”, meaning that, while imperfect, a sufficiently large cohort of folks agree with the proposition. This iteration encompasses the political theory of majoritarian politics, whereby the greater good is served.
None of us would willingly submit to surgery by an unlicensed, untrained physician; nor employ an unlicensed, untrained attorney. While it is possible to conjure such as an intellectual exercise, common sense and practical experience dictate the dangers in such choices. Friedman’s and Buchanan’s singular and universal sizes are simply not acceptable.
None of us would willingly submit to surgery by an unlicensed, untrained physician; nor employ an unlicensed, untrained attorney. While it is possible to conjure such as an intellectual exercise, common sense and practical experience dictate the dangers in such choices. Friedman’s and Buchanan’s singular and universal sizes are simply not acceptable.
Candidates for political office and their parties often craft issue platforms to attract votes and compete for the minds and hearts of constituents. Not every concern of an electorate may be fit for a solution, but political life is not pure science. It is a process of evolution with respect to universal or near-universal acceptance of principle. When a candidate or party A announces a platform of X, opposed by candidate or party B supporting platform Y, it is a contest of ideas, not scientific truth. Notwithstanding, the success of one over the other, while at any point a relative measure, is a decision that permits the winner to pursue the victorious platform.
The political contest is well served by the critiques of libertarians and conservatives as an intellectual test of propositions in campaigns. Voters are pressed to think more deeply about the size and fit of an issue. Disagreements of opinion are the fodder in Aristotle’s master art of politics. Intellectually, we may all agree that “one size of a political solution” does not fit all, we can vote for the one that most approximates our personal beliefs and judgment that the size is for a larger benefit.
It is, after all, choice among competing propositions that underscores the dynamics of society. Individuals are no less individuals for having chosen or voted for an idea that is also chosen by others; this is true even when the choice is not in the majority.
Categories: Issues, National, politics, wealth inequality
Join the discussion!