Does there exist in the U.S. at present a common conception of what is meant by "a lively sense of responsibility towards the welfare of the community" (Marshall,  p. 70)?  Is such a shared sense of social citizenship, a sense of ideals, necessary? (". . .[L]egislation, instead of being the decisive step that puts policy into immediate effect, acquires more and more the character of a declaration of policy that is hoped to put into effect some day"  (Marshall, p. 59).)

I was particularly struck by the sentence,  "Apparent inconsistencies are in fact a source of stability, achieved through compromise which is not dictated by logic" (Marshall, p. 84), because it seemed to me to be an appeal to a different plane of thought, one that was more "emotional" (if I may) than "rational."  Does Marshall appeal to some common humanity in the people to whom he is addressing his arguments, and are there inherent limitations to either his argument or the way he presents it (regarding race, gender, etc.)?

If so, are those limitations important?

Does anyone have any particular thoughts regarding Mead's and Fraser/Gordon's use of Marshall in their (rather different) arguments about social citizenship and welfare?