There are voices which support socialism in general principle, but we shy away, historically, from the use of the word because (a) of its associations with communism and (b) it is seen as antipathetic to meritocracy and the sturdy spirit of individual ability which we cherish as a myth (and much less frequently as a fact). There is much to be said for individual perception and ability--it is the sole source of innovation and real progress. But at the same time we have to build a more perfect union, and that means a balanced set of workable agreements in law. The trick is to build a society that grants free range to individual ability to seek fame, fortune and change while at the same time preventing the steamrolling of those who are less nimble, less able, or less fortunate.

It's a tricky balance indeed; too many petty rules drain the lifeblood out of anyone, and hamper real advances that could otherwise be made. But it is also true that complete laissez-faire leaves the road wide open for a stampede of self-serving greedniks who don't mind trampling others to make their gains. When those who succeed in gathering large amounts of cash can then buy the playing field, the pendulum has swung too far to the right. When the social net gets so demanding as to prevent initiative and erase the incentive to win the game by making it too burdensome, it has swung too far to the left.

I believe in personal ability and in freeing up individual creativity to the greatest extent possible. But I also believe in people helping people and living by a code of decency that has ethical boundaries of conduct. I think this dichotomy is felt by most Americans, wherever they come down on the spectrum.