As the American election season continues to move forward to
its climax in November I felt an uncomfortable urge to throw in a bit more of
my slightly, (?), biased opinion. I have made it fairly clear that I do not
support the GOP platform nor its banner-bearer, Mitt Romney. This has made many
of my Evangelical sisters and brothers look at me suspiciously. After all, isn’t
Christian ethical and moral identity tied to a politically conservative
position? Isn’t it for the sake of a “Christian America” that we contend vigorously
with the evils of progressive and liberal thought? I think that there is more
to consider in this run-up to November than the current economic conditions in
this country, and the world at large. I don’t think that we can separate
economic issues from issues of justice and ethics. However, both political
parties would have us believe that just such a position is not only possible,
but proper. Let me take a quick look at some of the issues I see.
Mr. Obama has, at the very least, been a mediocre manager
and administrator. However, I believe that his naiveté and lack of consensus in
the other branches of government have been mitigating factors in this. The
statements and policies emanating from the current White House have had, if
nothing else, an egalitarian flavor. Look at the positions on Mexican
immigration, rights for the marginalized, i.e. gay/lesbian, Muslim, and other peripheral
groups. While many on the so-called political right see this as a threat to the
American ethic, others see this as the practical working of Paul’s view that in
Christ there is neither slave nor free, male nor female, Greek nor barbarian.
All are equal in the sight of Yahweh and have inherent worth as eikons of God. I
think that his desire for equal healthcare availability for every citizen is praiseworthy.
However, I’m not convinced that the current method is the best. What is good,
however, is that something other than talk has actually been implemented. They
say it’s easier to steer a vehicle that’s moving than one that is not.
Hopefully, the conversation will continue toward policies that are just and
equitable.
The GOP, on the other hand is championing the right of the
American people to be free from government interference so that they can move
forward and achieve their share of the elusive, if not mythical, American
Dream. In promoting this they have become, in my view, ethically utilitarian.
In a nutshell, utilitarianism is “The creed which accepts as the foundation of
morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right
in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce
the reverse of happiness.”[1]
This is long-winded way of stating that the ends justify the means. In the New
Testament, Caiaphas stated this idea clearly when he said that it was better
for One to die for the benefit of the entire nation. Or, for the trekkies in
the crowd, Mr. Spock’s declaration that the needs of the many outweigh the
needs of the few…or the one.
How does this pertain to the current political campaign? The
GOP has taken a stance that what benefits the many, namely the white, middle
class majority, is the direction that government must take. In their view that
is to create policies that make it easier for businesses and entrepreneurs to
function. Thus, in theory, this will create job opportunities and an
environment for the marketplace to flourish. This is wonderful! But, it is an
end that has consequences along the way. Consequences that the GOP thinks are
worth the final “good.” Let’s take a look at a few.
Mr. Romney made a statement in Feb. of this year that caused
the first red flag to be flown in my mind. He said, “I'm not concerned about
the very poor," Romney said. "There's a safety net there, and if it
needs repair I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing
just fine. I'm concerned about the heart of America, the 95% of Americans who
are right now struggling."[2]
This is as utilitarian a statement as anyone could make. By alluding to a
non-existent safety net Mr. Romney can justify putting the concerns of the very
poor on a back-burner. So, after 4 years of a Romney presidency, he can
conceivably state that the goal of helping the 95% may be successful, but we
never got around to fixing the net…it was not the expedient thing to do. Yes, I
am speculating here. But, it is a valid question for people to consider.
In response to this I would like to quote one of my
professors, Wyndy Corbin Reuschling. She wrote, “this emphasis on the greatest
good for the greatest number and what serves their needs is in contrast to the scriptural
obligations to care for the least of these, for the minority and for those on
margins of social and political power. This is especially problematic if one
has even a cursory view of human history, and even church history, and the
tyranny of the greatest good defined by the majority and their tyranny over the
minority. We know that the majority can be wrong and often have the resources
to muster the ideological power and political support to enforce the view that
might makes right and the majority always wins.”[3]
The case for working for the happiness of all, especially those who have little or no voice in the process, is of
paramount importance for those who claim allegiance to the text of Holy Writ.
The God of the Bible mandated that it was the responsibility of those who would
follow the Way to care for the widows, orphans and aliens among them. Jesus, in
his first recorded message to those in the synagogue, quoted the prophet Isaiah
saying, “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to
proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the
prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to
proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[4]
It seems that there is a kind of ‘entitlement’ that has been proclaimed by
divine fiat that we who choose to follow Christ must consider seriously.
Mr. Romney is also on record in favor of the construction of what is known
as the Keystone Pipeline. This is a project that will allow oil extracted from
Canadian oil sand to be transported across the U.S. to refineries and export
facilities. Much ink has been spilled on this issue. Most of which, I fear,
most Americans are utterly unaware of. Allow me to share a couple of concerns.
While many still think that global warming is simply a political ploy to add
regulations and burdens to business and industry, the evidence is mounting to
prove it. The extraction of oil from Canada may very well add to the problem of
increased greenhouse gases in ways that boggles the mind. One source states,
“The oil sands are Canada’s fastest growing source
of GHGs,” said the document. It estimated that the industry’s annual greenhouse
gas emissions would rise by nearly 900% from 1990 to 2020. By the end of that
period, the oil sands — with an estimated annual footprint of 90 million tonnes
of carbon dioxide equivalent gases in 2020 — would exceed the carbon footprint
of all cars and SUVs on Canadian roads from 2008, according to the Environment
Canada document.
The document also warns of other rising air
pollutants that could cause acid rain or other forms of acidification to damage
lakes in Saskatchewan and Alberta, along with particulate matter that could be
toxic to rivers, the landscape and wildlife.”[5]
Besides the atmospheric threat, there is the threat to the environment from
the path of the pipeline itself. It has been the plan of the developers to
build the pipeline across the largest fresh water aquifer in the U.S. This link
will allow those interested to read just one of many articles that voice
concern for this major source of drinking water and irrigation, http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20110811/keystone-xl-pipeline-route-ogallala-aquifer-nebraska-sandhills.
Yet, those who favor the project state that the benefits far outweigh the
risks. Jobs will be created and money will be made, (at least by those at the
top of the investment food chain). There is reason to pause and consider this,
though. There are some who would contest the optimistic view of the project. One
such sources states,
“According to the U.S. State Department the
pipeline would create at most 6,500 temporary construction jobs, and would
leave only "hundreds" of permanent jobs, according to TransCanada,
the Canadian company that wants to build the pipeline. Claims that the pipeline
would employ tens or even hundreds of thousands of people are simply not true.
A Cornell University study concludes the pipeline would kill more jobs than it
would create, by reducing investment in the clean energy economy”[6]
(On this issue I think that Mr. Obama has taken the prudent position to deny
the project’s access and to encourage further study and conversation.)Utilitarianism is a normative ethical position that may help people when making moral decisions. It is not, however, the best way to proceed. What constitutes the ‘good of the many’? Who is able to render that position for all concerned? Pope John Paul II had concerns about the tendency for utilitarianism to make people, individuals and groups, objects of use. He wrote, “Utilitarianism is a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of things and not of persons, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used.”[7] It is this philosophy as espoused by the GOP that causes me concern. It does not seem to matter to them what happens to the few, as long as the many benefit. In civilized society we are, in fact, our brothers’ keeper. For those of us who accept as normative the admonition of Scripture, we have a mandate from Yahweh to care for the marginalized in society. And, I feel, that the government that is elected must share in that mandate. To not do so evidences a considered disregard for justice for all.
So, what does that do for my personal position? Well, none of the choices available are ideal, or even really good. However, when presented with a choice between a well-meaning, yet naïve incumbent who seems to be clear on what is just and a challenger who is equally clear in what is unjust, I must choose justice.
[1]Mill,
John Stuart, Utilitarianism, in The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill, (Modern
Library: New York, 2002). Qtd. In Corbin Reuschling, Wyndy, Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises
and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality, (BrazosPress: Grand Rapids,
2008).
[3]
Corbin Reuschling, Wyndy, Reviving
Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality,
(BrazosPress: Grand Rapids, 2008).
[4]
Luke 4:18-19, NIV 2011.
[5] http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/22/secret-environment-canada-study-warns-of-oil-sands-impact-on-habitat/,
Accessed: 10/7/2012.
[6] http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/?gclid=CIeYq8OT77ICFUid4AodEl4AsQ,
Accessed: 10/7/2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment