I’ve been following some of the brouhaha about the president’s apparently unscripted “you didn’t build that” comments at a Virginia campaign stop. In another context, a writer for The Economist commented that the president doesn’t appreciate and understand the private sector as much as the public sector, and Republicans have latched onto that remark as proof that the president doesn’t grasp our economic problems. (If our political system allowed for honest political soul-searching instead of winner-take-all oneupsmanship, we might get to the bottom of the ways those economic problems have arisen and what might be suitable solutions---but that’s just not the reality at the moment.)
In an effort to uphold the goodness of personal and private enterprise (which are, of course, wonderful and and laudable and motivating things), conservative political rhetoric has sometimes discounted (or omitted) the benefits of government in order to push smaller and less intrusive government. I happened to listen to this story on NPR this week, which mentions two companies, spotlighted by the Romney campaign as examples of private and family enterprise, which (and they’re good companies) actually did benefit from tax exempt revenue bonds as well contracts with the military and business with the federal government: http://www.npr.org/2012/07/25/157382546/romney-targets-obama-on-you-didnt-build-that The NPR story goes on to point out how American business benefits from aspects of a healthy society---in Obama's words, like investment “in education and training, roads and bridges, research and technology.”
I become distressed at this kind of thing, not just because I hate the quality of political rhetoric these days. (See the hilarious rant by comic Lewis Black, where he yells that we hold Nutella to a higher standard of truth than our political leaders: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-july-24-2012/back-in-black---campaign-fibs) As a willing taxpayer who contributes to United Way and other charitable agencies, and who counts among my acquaintances both politicians and community-involved businesspersons, I struggle to find a philosophy that embraces the contributions of government, public sector, and private enterprise, within a strong sense of the deep interdependence of persons in society. I want us all to think more deeply about ways God has created us to be together and reciprocal, and to make that vision very formative for our opinions about social challenges.
Obama expressed it poorly and off the cuff, but he’s correct: any individual and any business depends upon aspects of society like education, transportation systems, funded research, and other things that are supported in part by government. If we one-sidedly uphold of the sacredness of individual freedom and initiative, we lost a sense of covenant and interdependence within our society---a sense that we’re all in this together.
The balance between individual freedom and the needs of a community are always up for debate, if we could stop the rage and spin. Gun rights have been a big issue lately, in the wake of the Aurora, CO shootings: I can’t shoot a person at will, but can I have a gun to protect my home? I’m “forced” to have automobile insurance, but should I be required to have health insurance, too? I’m concerned about the plight of the poor, but should my business suffer because of high taxes that fund anti-poverty programs? Should I expect people to give up their pensions in order to balance a state budget (thus sounding heartless and unconcerned about the crucial needs of real people)? But then again, how can a state govern properly while billions of dollars in debt?
As many people know, what has been called “welfare liberalism” was a response to the Great Depression, allowing government to intervene in the economy in order to promote economic growth and greater opportunity. The problem, of course, is that government intervention can go too far and hurt private and corporate enterprise for the sake of providing opportunities for the sake of fairness. These philosophies, too, need to be debated in factual ways that aim at improving the common good, and there are no easy answers to discovering that balance. Welfare liberalism has its difficulties and individualistic aspects the same as neocapitalism.(1)
(The Chick-Fil-a controversy is a different kind of issue, but one where many of us Christians one-sidedly embrace our individual freedoms and forget---to quote a former student on Facebook this morning--- that our choices do matter and the things we do impact others. If I say, “No one’s going to deny me my right to eat that chicken sandwich,” we reduce LGBT persons to an “issue”---certain “values” that we disagree with---and assert that our own individualistic desires take precedence over anyone else’s. We don’t take the time to understand how a company’s actions hurt LGBT persons who are not “an issue” but persons deserving of respect, rights, and freedoms. To me---to turn from the Chick-Fil-a controversy specifically to our attitudes generally---reading 1 Corinthians carefully can give us a different way of looking at life. We are obliged to love and uphold one another, take care of one another; we are interdependent; we hold one another accountable mutually; we act on the principle that love is more important than being right and taking sides. None of those things are easy, but we always rely upon God's undeserved grace.)(2)
Here is a long quote from Eric Mount’s wonderful book Covenant, Community, and the Common Good: An Interpretation of Christian Ethics (Pilgrim Press, 1999). I think it gets to the heart of what (I think) the president tried to say in that remark:
“We have observed that at least one approach to the welfare system lacked grace [the idea that the poor are poor because it’s their fault and that they threaten the social order of the greater community], and we have also claimed that grace, or a sense of indebtedness for unearned gifts, is pivotal in the covenantal tradition. How exportable is grace? ... We noted earlier [William F.] May’s description of the debt owed by physicians because of what they have received from scientists, teachers, patients, and government Grants. They are not just possessors of skills; they are recipients of tradition and of considerable help from others.
“A more general reminder of indebtedness was provided by a certain father who went to his daughter’s college campus for family weekend. He was a magazine editor, and he had been working on an article on welfare cheaters. He drove to his daughter’s campus in time to enjoy a concert on Friday night, a football game and reception on Saturday, and with other weekend activities. He concluded the visit by attending church with her before heading back home. When the church service ended, he tarried in his pew, still lost in medication. Growing rather embarrassed, his daughter asked what was wrong. His answer was as follows: ‘I have been sitting here thinking about my visit. I drove here through snowy weather over cleared roads and arrived safely and on time. I came to this college where I would be paying only two-thirds of the cost of your education if I were paying the whole tab for room, board, and tuition, and where you are receiving the fruits of the perennial quest for knowledge. I listened with you to some of the greatest music that human artistry has created and performed. And here I have worshiped beside you because our forebears made untold sacrifices so that we could have the freedom to follow the dictates of our consciences and worship according to our convictions. I think I am going to have to rewrite the piece that I am doing on the welfare system because we are all on welfare.’
“Somehow our education for citizenship should and can convey a sense of our community as graced people for whom the welfare of all us is bound up with the welfare of each of us. That would make us partners in a covenant of welfare" [which, you can understand from his context, means a sense of independency and well-being, however that might be achieved] (pp. 102-103).
*****
(1) Robert N. Bellah, et al., Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkley: University of California Press, 1985), 262-266. Bellah's and Mount's books were formative for the vision of the Center for the Congregation of Public Life, who hired me to be the principal writer of their curriculum "Faithful Citizen: Living Responsibly in a Global Society," http://congregationinpubliclife.org/DVDCurriculum.htm
(2) Taking a stand on an issue like this makes me think about all the ways we don't appreciate our interdependence. Although I'm not eating at Chick-Fil-a because of this issue, I meanwhile use products made by companies which have exploited foreign workers; I'm not as conscious as I should be where my food is produced and what are the conditions and policies of those companies; I pretty much ignored calls for boycott of a certain web hosting company (the one I use for my website) which had supported the SOPA online piracy bill; I drink a ton of coffee as I write about different topics for my blog, but I don't ask if it's fair-trade coffee, etc. Some injustices are more obvious than others, and if we take a stand on one issue we might meanwhile be contributing to numerous other injustices as consumers. But how do you keep up with them all?
No comments:
Post a Comment