"Punitive Liberalism" and the Golden Rule
Personal Notes
| August 30, 2008
| Tim
A friend of mine at work wandered into my office and expressed a frustration with the tendency of people on "the right" to call Obama, or liberal programs "socialism" -- a charge he thought was primarily a kind of slander. "Why don't people on the right recognize that people have good motives?" he added. [All quotes here are, given the quality of my memory, necessarily paraphrases.]
I told him, concerning such programs, that I didn't care much what people's motives were. For one, those motives are frequently inaccessible to me. Two, the quality of their idea or program has nothing to do with the goodness (or lack thereof) of their motivation. I care about effects more than alleged feelings.
I also pointed out there were similar charges in other direction: People on 'his' side tended to view all opposition to their programs as arising out of bad motivations. "How many times have I heard: 'Tax breaks for the rich!' or that people who oppose, as I do, raising of taxes are doing it primarily for 'greed'? I personally tend to oppose high taxes because I think they hurt the poor most of all."
There are, it seems to me, at least two ideas about government. On one hand, we have the founding fathers' approach: government as a necessary evil. In that view, the state exists only to provide functions nothing else can: a post office, roads and other common infrastructure, protection of rights, police, a military. William Buckley and others have suggested this means functions should be provided at the lowest possible level: if something can be done privately, it shouldn't be done by town government; if something is being done adequately by a town, it shouldn't be done by the state, nation, UN -- and so on.
On the other hand, there's the competing vision: that a legitimate or even primary function of government is to redistribute wealth, or, more broadly, rectify wrongs. Thomas Sowell would call this goal "Cosmic Justice" -- a quest to make outcomes, not opportunities more similar: the high and mighty (except in government) must be brought down, and the poor and low will be raised up. Government, then, is seen as the great leveler -- and the primary goal becomes equality (of results) rather than liberty.
As such, there will be two aspects of this "leveling" process -- the bringing down of the highs, and the raising up of the lows -- right? Yet here's the interesting thing: modern "liberalism" (or "progressivism", etc.) seems far more concerned with bringing down than with raising up. Roger Simon recently compiled a short list of such stances, calling the trend "punitive liberalism." For example, consider this now-famous exchange between Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama during a recent Democratic debate (bold added):
GIBSON: ... You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
Urban tax legends aside, Obama's response indicates that he views taxation mainly -- first and foremost -- as an instrument for imposing "fairness." As such (harkening back to the first question my friend raised) it would seem entirely fair, all pejoratives and polemics aside, to say he adheres to a "socialist" view -- that government exists primarily to redistribute wealth. If that isn't socialism, then what is?
Yet, more troubling still, Obama admits he'd be willing to accept less money for cherished government programs in order to, shall we say, stick it to the rich. It is far more important that the high and mighty be brought down than that the low be raised up. Indeed, Obama's Exhibit A is not to suggest that we have much abject poverty we can easily fix, if only we had more tax money available -- but rather to complain that a small group of people somewhere are making too much money and it needs to be taken away from them.
The underlying motivation, then, would seem not so much compassion (for the poor) as envy -- the sort of subtle, subverted greed in which one child attempts to destroy another's toy: "How dare he have something I don't! If I can't have it, no-one else will!"
This is not at all unusual in my experience: in many discussions, my "liberal" friends seem unmoved by evidence that this or that program or policy harms the poor, or whoever it is supposed to help. Instead, I am left with the distinct impression that either envy or the desire to be seen (if only by the self) as noble far outweighs interest in actual outcomes.
As I said, this is a troubling observation, and I think it arises from several factors in modern society.
The quest for "cosmic justice", it seems to me, is a kind of replacement religion for a secular age. In Christianity, Judaism, or many other religions there is a belief that justice will be served in a future existence. So the craving for utopia is treated as future hope, not a present possibility. Critics would say this results in less concern about injustice here and now, but the statistics do not back that contention up: religious people do far more to help the poor than the secular.
Instead, I think there's a second factor involved: there are two competing notions of morality. I see around me a rising kind of "contingent" morality -- if something seems to work (by whatever popular argument "work" is defined today), then we should do it. I recently asked a woman it would be wrong to do some action to a person. Her first question was: "Is that person my friend?" The morality of the act depended on whether she liked the person.
Dennis Prager notes this a different way: He asks school kids -- up to high school ages -- if a stranger and their pet were drowning, and they could only save one, who would they save? Almost always, he reports, the stranger is consigned to death, and fluffy is rescued to live our her remaining seven years.
This is the opposite of traditional Western morality, in which the phrase "do unto others" (the "Golden Rule") was revered. That notion taught the equal value of persons, regardless of their relation to us. Doing something to my friend is just as wrong as doing something to someone else's friend; that drowning stranger could be you someday, and how would you feel the one person who could rescue you instead hauled out her cat?
The regard for this idea also explains the apparent puzzle noted above about envy and concern for justice: we are asked to imagine ourselves as the soon-to-be rich man, who has worked years and years to finally get this significant income. Should we be, apparently, "punished" by having most of it confiscated? Likewise, the rich man who believes in this idea is asked to imagine himself as the poor person, and thus compelled towards compassion. So we see why there is less envy (read: "progressive politics") among the religious, and simultaneously more charity: the Golden Rule explains both.
You know, I was going to write something going on about this, and the principle of subsidarity, but Pope Leo XIII wrote a nice little document quite worth reading, that does a better job than I could ever do:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.
Good post, however.
The quest for "cosmic justice", it seems to me, is a kind of replacement religion for a secular age
It seems instinctual in some ways to fear anyone amassing power. Native American tribes seem to have similar standards. The British notion of 'balance of power' seems similar as well. It's rational to fear someone gathering power if law is absent. And since most of our existance, evolutionarily speaking, involved playing a zero sum game it's not surprising that these views are so deeply wired into people.
This is the opposite of traditional Western morality, in which the phrase "do unto others" (the "Golden Rule") was revered
Going off of this and Michael's mention of subsidiarity, would it be reasonable to justify saving the cat because we have a reciprocal relationship with the cat and are responsible to it?
In answering your question Ryan, absolutely we would have a responsibility to save the cat. In addition to this we have a responsibility to preserve human life. The conflict comes when you have to save one at the expense of the other, and religious and conservative moral value would demand that you prioritize the human life over the animal every time. Besides, cats can often be a lot more resilient and than us humans.
Austin - But that doesn't address subsidiarity. To give a different example; if it costs x dollars a week to own a cat, to neuter it, feed it, care for it etc. is it ever justified to own a cat since that money would better be applied to a human-related charity? Is it ever morally justified to spend money on entertainment rather than helping others?
Ryan W., I don't understand the words that you are writing to me so i'm gonna have to take them as disrespect :-) :-( ...so i looked up the word Subsidiarity and i don't understand how the concept or term relates to the cat or to entertainment examples you gave, please explain. With regard to the entertainment question it is a good one. Within a vacuum using two dimensional models it would be difficult to justify entertainment over assistance. But in the multi-dimensional world we live in, it's important and moral to commit to a sustainable amount good deeds throughout your life. We need to take time to eat, sleep, laugh, self medicate, relax... etc. I believe everyone should have a goal in life to at least have a net life impact that is good. Might there be some wasted time? Sure, but is the time really wasted if it enables you to do greater good at other times?
Austin - I've probably abused the concept of subsidiarity a little since if something can't be handled at the local level the responsibility is supposed to propagate up to other institutions less close to the problem. I was trying to say "If we have the responsibility to deal particularly with problems closest to us, how do we determine what is 'close to us' and what do we do when we're exhausted by such problems close to us that its hard to help strangers?"
Tim mentioned the old standard of "when you see them" but of course with TV that quickly leads us to exhaustion.
I don't hold animal life above human life, but I do hold the responsibilities that I've voluntarily accepted via mutual obligations (the cat I hypothetically own. The community I live in. The debt that I owe. etc. ) higher than others.
I think that is Tim's point. There IS no higher responsibility in Western Religious traditions than "The Golden Rule". The idea of Tim's post, I think, is that many modern liberal policies stem from a very different secular view that more reflects the idea you're trying to get across.
To Ryan: O-I-C - Very thoughtful, and a bit of a stretch, but i like it. I certainly don't want the government telling me how to take care of my cat, but here's the thing: Just because one has responsibility for the things most close to that person, it doesn't mean that person forsakes others a bit further away. People pay federal taxes and state taxes right? Now when there are competing responsibilities one must prioritize. Let's say it cost x amount of time and y amount of dollars to maintain a favorite plant and there's this flash flood and there is only time to save either the favorite plant or a stranger floating down the street, which one does the moral man choose? Hopefully not the favorite plant. A human being holds more value. Logically it's not much of a stretch to substitute the plant for a cat. While a cat may or may not hold more value than the plant based on ones particular view of cats, it definitely holds less value than a human being. The moral man must save the dude floating down the street. (this is of course assuming it's within the power of the moral man to save him) I think the question becomes a little more challenging if its one's own child vs. the President of the United States. What would you decide? Does it matter if it's McCain or O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma your child is competing with? For me i guess it would depend on how Jack Bauer-ish I was feeling that day and if i had my Wheaties.
Logically it's not much of a stretch to substitute the plant for a cat.
For me, the two aren't in the same category. I never saw myself as having any moral obligation to a plant whatsoever, outside of its utility to others. But I'll agree cats hold less value than people. There's a fair biblical argument that animals have rights (they seem more concerened with freedom from unneeded pain and a few other rights than freedom from death at a human's whim, I have to admit). Though of course they have to be subordinate, for the most part, to human agency. Perhaps it would be wrong to save the pet rather than the stranger. I'm not sure.
I think the question becomes a little more challenging if its one's own child vs. the President of the United States. What would you decide?
Personally, I'd save my hypothetical kid first. I'd try not to base other decisions on the political beliefs of the person. Of course, I would not kill anyone in order to save a pet.
Though of course they have to be subordinate,
Animals, I mean. Not animal rights.
I suppose I could think of a situation where I might save the stranger. If he called out to me and no one else could help him, for instance. That might make me responsible for him.
I'm late to the party again, as usual. Sorry for the tardy response. For any who might still catch it...
Ryan: Tim mentioned the old standard of "when you see them" but of course with TV that quickly leads us to exhaustion.
Taken absolutely literally, that may be true. But I suspect the common-sense meaning here is that we address problems when (a) we're aware of them, and (b) have the means to do so. In a global world, that may still leave us with a meaningful, non-exhaustive course of behavior.
Troy: There IS no higher responsibility in Western Religious traditions than "The Golden Rule".
Technically, it runs second: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." But you're right in saying that it's the one most often applied to moral thinking, as it carries the more obvious social impact. (I would argue the first also has profound social impacts -- perhaps even moreso -- but they're indirect.)
The idea of Tim's post, I think, is that many modern liberal policies stem from a very different secular view that more reflects the idea you're trying to get across.
Indeed.
Going back to Ryan's earlier comment, in light of more recent ones: would it be reasonable to justify saving the cat because we have a reciprocal relationship with the cat and are responsible to it?
I agree with the view that we have more responsibility to things which are closer to us than farther away (often this correlates with the fact that we can more easily influence them). But I believe that cats and humans are in an entirely different category of moral importance, similar to the divide Ryan sees (and I do too) between cats and plants.
So no, unless we're indirectly saving a human life by doing so (in some bizarre scenario) I don't personally believe our moral obligations to the cat, or its owner, etc eclipse the moral value of saving the drowning person's life.
This isn't to say the cat has no moral value at all, or should be treated like machinery. While I want to avoid the heavily-freighted term "animal rights", I do believe that we have an obligation to treat animals compassionately, and according to certain ethical rules. But I believe cats and humans are not "convertable" quantities.
As Jesus put it: "Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God... Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows."
I read that as saying that (a) animals ARE important, and (b) humans are much more important -- no number of animal-obligations adds up to the value of a human life. Again, I would say the something similar applies to the relationship between plants and animals.
It seems to me the second question -- about it being justified to own and feed a cat in a hurting world -- is more a question about entertainment. If there wasn't an market for cats, there would probably be fewer of them (how are ocelots doing these days?) so we're talking about animals which often simply wouldn't exist if we didn't desire them for amusement and companionship. (And perhaps an occasional mouse-catching.)
I do believe, as spelled out above, that there is some room for entertainment, if other conditions are being met.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« "I Woke Up to a World on Fire" |
Front Page |
Page Two
| When Do People Fear Power? »
|
You know, I was going to write something going on about this, and the principle of subsidarity, but Pope Leo XIII wrote a nice little document quite worth reading, that does a better job than I could ever do:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm
The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.
Good post, however.
Posted by: Michael Zappe on August 30, 2008 12:28 PM