Wooten wrote:
"The Joe Wilson flap, taken nuclear by former President Jimmy Carter and others on the left, is a reminder that liberals really do believe that they and their policy positions are morally superior."Well, yes, come to think of it, I do believe that -- very strongly too.
But am I just biased and deluding myself? Am I infected with the kind of blind certitude that I ascribe to the bushcheneys of the world from the other direction?
So I sat and pondered: what are some of those beliefs cum policy that differentiate us from the conservatives? And I don't just mean the T-party crazies with their guns or the Wall Street greedies with their obese bonuses.
Well, what about the concept of sharing? Being your brother's keeper? Using common resources (i.e. government) to help those who are less fortunate? Treating everyone equally? Trying to level the playing field of opportunity? Putting moral principles ahead of profits? Defining social values in terms of human values rather than sectarian prohibitions? Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?
WWJD? What would Jesus do? That was quite a fad among the religious right for a while, with their bracelets and all; but in my opinion it perverted the message of one of the greatest moral teachers of all time, regardless of where you stand on the divinity question.
WWJD? I have no doubt that, if he took on any political label at all, Jesus would be a liberal/progressive/socialist. Just read over the Sermon on the Mount and think about it.
So, yes, I still believe that liberal beliefs and policies are superior -- not snooty-superior as in 'I'm better than you' -- but in the sense of being more in keeping with the lessons of our great moral teachers of all time.
Ralph
"morally superior"? How about just plain "moral?
ReplyDeleteIn this case, the moralities in conflict are health care as a human right versus health care as a profitable industry.
While one might mount this argument for almost anything, it is particularly poignant in the case of health care because there is no "competing in the marketplace" involved. The ill person is at the mercy of the system. So it's like a monopoly, devoid of the kind of choices that drive capitalism. And that's why the other great democracies have taken medical care out of the marketplace.
I do take the point that moral superiority is a poor way to argue for a position, because it carries an implication that the other side is morally corrupt. Our arguments are much better delivered on other grounds.
Health care reform is a frontal assault on a major industry - hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, medical supplies, etc.
I agree that arguments for policy should be based on the policy itself, and there are good ones to be made on health care.
ReplyDeletePart of the argument, however, is that people have a right to health care. Others argue that there is no such right, and they have a point that it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So I'm not sure that there is an argument for this "right" other than a moral one. Is there?
Doesn't it really come down to a clash between the right to health care and the right of the industry to make a profit?
Framed that way, I do believe that it is a moral choice.
Perhaps it would be better to argue that we as a nation will be more economically competitive, as well as having a higher standard of living and a happier populace, if we provide health care for all. But I'm not sure that would swing many votes.