Fair: Why Public Policy is Not.

In the light of recent public policy controversies (not only the 9/11 Victims' Compensation Fund, but some under scrutiny in today's administration), questions arise as to what makes any one policy "fair". In order to ask this, one must take at least two factors into account: the definition of "fairness", and who - in terms of the public at large - matters in the policy. Firstly, the dictionary defines the word "fair" to mean without bias, dishonesty, or injustice¹. With that foundation for discussion, we can apply the concept of fairness to policymaking. An unfair policy, then, would be described by this definition as any piece of legislation which gives an undue amount of preference to any group. The controversial factor in this definition, it would seem, is the notion of what is "due". Using the example of the 9/11 Victims' Compensation Fund, we see that Mr. Fineberg found the task of translating deserts (derived from malady) into monetary awards a rather daunting one. While most would agree that the horrific circumstances demanded some sort of compensation, in a much milder situation of the same nature, the argument that "life is not fair" would inevitably counter any such compensatory notions. We can see from this that no good deed goes unpunished, in that any attempt to apply fairness in a situation will illuminate any failure to do so, invoking complaint and criticism from those who are "wronged" by the unfair policy. Personally, I favor the obvious view that universal fairness will never be attained, and support this belief with the absolute evidence that it has never been attained. Secondly, if universal fairness is impossible to achieve, and no policy can serve everybody, who do the policymakers focus on serving? This question is a good deal more difficult to answer, as the conditions vary from one policy to another. Fairness, being unbiased by nature, does not adhere to the opinion of the majority of the population. Policymakers, by job description, have an incentive to maintain some level of popularity in order to retain their position as policymaker (eg. adhering to majority opinion). Therefore, logic dictates that fairness is only utilized in public policy when majority opinion favors it. This conclusion, however, is, itself, not a popular one. For this reason, I would argue, are cases such as the 9/11 Victims' Compensation Fund considered acceptable to implement. Such cases serve as Red Herrings to distract from the true impossibility of fairness in public policy. But hey, What can you do? ¹dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair