The sweet enjoyment of partaking good laws under a free government

I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers. - The conclusion of George Washington's Farewell Address

Yesterday Matthew Yglesias wrote, of The Fast and the Furious franchise,

At no point in the films is there any suggestion that one ought to put an abstract ideological or ethical commitment above a specific obligation to family.
Sociologically speaking, this is a classic moral outlook of a low-trust society . . .

Yglesias describes this deficit of social capital:

The problem, of course, is that this sort of particularistic outlook is very dysfunctional on a social level.
As David Madland has written, the low-trust ethics it embodies are, in fact, typical of societies featuring a high and growing level of income inequality: 

One study of U.S. states measured the percentage of state residents who think “most people can be trusted”... It found that “a 10 percentage-point increase in trust increases the growth rate of GDP by 0.5 percentage points” over five years. 
Trust reduces transaction costs because less time and resources are spent verifying and policing. And trusting people see the world as full of opportunities. With higher levels of trust, people are more likely to innovate, seek out trade and new technologies, and generally take economically sound risks.

This, says Yglesias, is "a world where the system increasingly seems to be rigged." He speaks of the type of hero who "ultimately ends up violating his obligations to law and order to discharge a personal debt"—that is, someone for whom Washington's mutual cares of fellow-citizens—the public good—have become an unreal abstraction:

[This] outlook is increasingly appealing in an increasingly unequal America. But it's ultimately destructive of the social institutions needed to generate prosperity. And yet at a time when elites long ago stopped caring whether the gains of economic growth would be widely shared, and in recent years seem to have turned their backs on the unemployed altogether, then these are the heroes we'll turn to.

In Arguments for Liberalism, this blog noted that Former President Clinton, at the Democratic National Convention, drew our attention to the fact that: 

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics. Why? Because poverty, discrimination and ignorance restrict growth. When you stifle human potential, when you don’t invest in new ideas, it doesn’t just cut off the people who are affected; it hurts us all.

An increasingly callous, unjust and venal society seems, so far, oblivious to the decline which it is bringing upon itself. The Liberal Founding put it somewhat differently:

The underlying assumptions and working principles of the United States are liberal. The present tendency to use ‘liberal’ as a derogatory epithet suggests a fundamental problem for the working of our society.