In American culture, our obsession with the two-party political system dominates much of the rest of our lives. It used to be that Catholics were supposed to be good Democrats while Protestants though this has changed in recent years. People classify themselves as "conservative" or "liberal" (drawing from the old British party system) and often times allow themselves to be conscientiously defined as such or ideologically determined this way. People on the "right" tend to be more religious, and support more autonomy and less interference. People on the left tend to be more agnostic or atheistic and support more governmental interference. These stereotypes become so ingrained in people's minds that many Protestant Christians will be shocked to find Democratic Christians while anti-war protestors might be surprised to find in their midst registered Republicans. This is the problem of our system--we tend to polarize values and expect that people cannot be strongly in favor of one thing or another.
The very greatest problem with this is that our two political parties are full of blatant contradicting values. For example, Democrats tend to be against war and the death penalty, but are more likely to favor more relaxed abortion policies and even allow assisted suicide or euthanasia. Similarly, Republicans tend to be against increased taxation, but also tend to support military efforts which cost the nation billions, even trillions of dollars. This problem for the simple reason that political parties are comprised of politicians, each of whom has his own political agenda. The agenda upon which they agree is the basis for their party, but the remaining agenda on which they do not, they must compromise upon for the sake of party unity. Thus, though Catholicism's strong pro-life ethic had been a part of the Democratic Party's platform for many years, after Roe vs Wade Democratic politicians tended to favor looser abortion policies and Catholics, as a result, began to switch party allegiances. Because of many political decisions and compromises, neither political party represents a solid or coherent ethic.
Take, for example, Libertarianism. Libertarianism is a political stance closest to Nietzsche's philosophy. The main idea of libertarianism is "live and let live." In other words, Libertarians favor small government (or no government), and laissez faire economics, similar to Republicans. However, Libertarians also tend to oppose war and religion in political situations, similar to Democrats. Their stance draws from values in both parties, but is entirely consistent, unlike either the Republicans or Democrats. Similarly, Cardinal Bernardin, former archbishop of Chicago, proposed a theology many Catholics today embrace called "the Seamless Garment" or "The consistent Ethic of Life." The main focus of this ethic is that life is sacred and thus anything that attacks it, be it abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, or war, is evil. This stance draws from both political parties but is entirely outside of them and is, as the name suggests, entirely consistent.
Whether or not one agrees with the Seamless Garment or the Libertarian ideology, what is impressive is their consistency. Unlike the two parties which we follow now, which are riddled with contradictions. The critical observer will realize the incongruencies within the parties. Those with strong convictions will ally themselves with and vote for whichever politician best represents their beliefs while those with less conviction will ally themselves wholeheartedly with a party. Often times, however, we confuse our own beliefs and ethics with those of political systems. This is the case not simply with political parties but even with political bodies.
Consider for example, if I ask the question, "Is America good?" The patriotic reading this will answer wholeheartedly "Yes!" The subversive reading this will answer with just as much gusto, "No!" If I ask the follow-up question, "Why?" however, the answers will be more muddled. The first camp will say things like "Because we have freedom," while the second camp will answer "Because we're doing X (keeping out immigrants, going to war, taxing the poor, denying gay marriage, or whatever hot-button issue one wants to use)." I could ask further follow-up questions, but I think the solution lies in something more basic. Those who think America is good do so because America is a very powerful nation, one in which any person (theoretically, though not practically speaking) can rise through the ranks of society and even become the leader. Those who think America is not good do so because with the power America possesses, there ought to be more efforts to create more good in the world.
However, America is not necessarily "good" or "evil." Just now I labeled the US as "powerful," but power can be used in various ways. For most American citizens, life here is better than it would be in any other nation. For many other nations, America is not doing enough globally. However, even in the midst of all this, America itself is not a moral agent. The citizens of the country are. "America's policies" cannot be defined as all necessarily right or wrong. In other words, the United States is a conglomeration of compromising political figures, each of whom influences the nation in either a positive or a negative fashion. The US itself is not a moral authority nor a moral actor.
We often historically forget this fact. World War I erupted as a result of strong nationalistic feelings in Europe. The aftermath of both World Wars resulted in the nation of Germany twice being punished as if a moral agent, first by essentially bankrupting the country and second by dividing it. Similarly, when Muslim extremists attacked a few prominent American buildings, the nation went to war against the entire nation of Afghanistan. Since the rise of the nation state, "national values" have often been confused with ethical systems. I have mentioned before that positive law is not identical or necessarily based on ethical norms, but I think that it bears repeating. The policy of a nation cannot be confused with what is good.
Because of this, we are unlikely to see recognize the good when the good is presented to
us. Jesus was killed by his own people. Martin Luther King, Jr was shot by an American. Dorothy Day was disliked by many Catholics. Harvey Milk was killed for his efforts to further gay rights. We tend to only be able to see goodness in the mirror. The same is true for evil. We recognize now that Hitler was evil, though we did not stop him before 1944. The United States and the Soviet Union built up massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons before anyone protested. We were in Vietnam for nearly ten years before pressure from both within and without convinced congress to stop. The point is, we are not always good at recognizing what is good and what is evil when it happens, though we are always good about seeing it later.Thus, it seems to me that within our nations policies and cultural norms, we often ignore what is good and embrace what is evil.
Rather than seeking to follow party lines or obey orders, we should be willing to evaluate our decisions and our judgment calls based on the question, "How will this support the good?" Things that encourage life are good. Things that bring about justice are good. Things that encourage people to serve others are good. Things that increase oppression or poverty are bad. Things that prevent education or increase ignorance are bad. Things that cause harm or illness or increase the risk of such things are bad.
The world may not be "black and white," but individual actions can be evaluated as such, and personal action ought to be determined more on this criteria than on anything else.
Posts
