How did responsive communitarians compare Japan and the United States in their treatment of rights and the common good?

Responsive communitarians advocate for a balance between the common good and individual rights, arguing that societies should avoid tilting too far toward either extreme. In their view, nations often fail to maintain this equilibrium, necessitating a shift back toward the center.12

When comparing Japan and the United States, responsive communitarians observed the following:

• Japan: They viewed the country as being strongly dedicated to the common good but criticized it for being insufficiently committed to the rights of women, ethnic minorities, and the disabled.1
• United States: During the 1980s, they argued that the U.S. attached undue importance to individual rights at the expense of the common good. Following the September 11 attacks, however, they noted that the U.S. increasingly identified the common good with national security, leading to the curtailment of certain individual rights, such as habeas corpus.1

Ultimately, responsive communitarians maintain that neither the common good nor individual rights should take precedence over the other, as both are essential moral claims for a healthy society.12