Monday, March 07, 2005
Morals in the Bush Administration
I am continually surprised and dismayed by the attribution of moral ideals as the motivation of Bush and his administration.
The Good vs. Evil approach to evaluating political and social issues does not leave room for rational thought to be a deciding factor in the outcome. Rationality is countenanced by moralistic leaders until the rational thought leads to a conclusion that is inconsistent with their faith-based beliefs. The next step is reverting to the teachings of the religion's "good book" as primal; the rational argument becomes the work of evil people trying to subvert the teachings of the "supreme" word.
This phenomenon is troubling, but it at least gives the moralists the benefit of the doubt as to motivation. They are assumed to be working for a positive outcome, even if the definition of "positive" means in conformance with their faith.
I have not seen this moralistic approach applied consistently in other spheres.
Corporate scandals: Bush connections with Ken Delay; Cheney connections with the oil industry; these parties with access to the administration get undue influence over policy decisions as well as "look the other way" treatment for actions that the society at large condemns. The "friends of George" generally come from the social class of people who probably cannot state their net worth within a million dollars, a million being relatively inconsequential to them. Shouldn't the judgments of these people be subjected to close scrutiny based on biblical teachings? After all, the rich man going to heaven (an indication of moral behavior on earth) is as easy as a camel going through the eye of a needle. Rich men were assumed by this religious teaching to be corrupt, greedy, cruel, an/or immoral in some way for this to be so.
Environmental policy: The Bush policies in this area have leaned toward "doing what we have to do" to meet our "need" for fossil fuels and the energy produced by them. The concept of stewardship is not taken seriously. A steward is one who "manages the property or affairs of others" presumably to safeguard them for the future. Doesn't the Bible tell believers that they are to take care of God's creations (e.g. the earth)? In what way can this administration claim to be pursuing these ends?
There are more examples to be made, but space is short. I believe that the "moral" stance taken by the Bush administration is an excuse for doing what is in their best interest. When the moral justifications don't support their actions, morality is not mentioned. Either the president is a hypocrite, or he simply does not have the depth of moral belief that has been portrayed.
The Good vs. Evil approach to evaluating political and social issues does not leave room for rational thought to be a deciding factor in the outcome. Rationality is countenanced by moralistic leaders until the rational thought leads to a conclusion that is inconsistent with their faith-based beliefs. The next step is reverting to the teachings of the religion's "good book" as primal; the rational argument becomes the work of evil people trying to subvert the teachings of the "supreme" word.
This phenomenon is troubling, but it at least gives the moralists the benefit of the doubt as to motivation. They are assumed to be working for a positive outcome, even if the definition of "positive" means in conformance with their faith.
I have not seen this moralistic approach applied consistently in other spheres.
Corporate scandals: Bush connections with Ken Delay; Cheney connections with the oil industry; these parties with access to the administration get undue influence over policy decisions as well as "look the other way" treatment for actions that the society at large condemns. The "friends of George" generally come from the social class of people who probably cannot state their net worth within a million dollars, a million being relatively inconsequential to them. Shouldn't the judgments of these people be subjected to close scrutiny based on biblical teachings? After all, the rich man going to heaven (an indication of moral behavior on earth) is as easy as a camel going through the eye of a needle. Rich men were assumed by this religious teaching to be corrupt, greedy, cruel, an/or immoral in some way for this to be so.
Environmental policy: The Bush policies in this area have leaned toward "doing what we have to do" to meet our "need" for fossil fuels and the energy produced by them. The concept of stewardship is not taken seriously. A steward is one who "manages the property or affairs of others" presumably to safeguard them for the future. Doesn't the Bible tell believers that they are to take care of God's creations (e.g. the earth)? In what way can this administration claim to be pursuing these ends?
There are more examples to be made, but space is short. I believe that the "moral" stance taken by the Bush administration is an excuse for doing what is in their best interest. When the moral justifications don't support their actions, morality is not mentioned. Either the president is a hypocrite, or he simply does not have the depth of moral belief that has been portrayed.
Idea Proliferation
I read in a recent issue of The Nation magazine that had suggestions from numerous writers on what should be included in the Democratic platform. I found that most of the suggestions seemed sensible to me, from strategies to protect the environment, promote labor organization, foster international cooperation, to issues of the proper governmental role in our lives (re: Patriot Act).
I am not optimistic about the prospects of seeing any of these admirable ideas implemented. The complexity of life today provides enough analytical and perceptual challenges for most people. They've got to figure the best way to handle their own resources, interact with an increasingly diverse set of people (neighbors, co-workers, customer service people, etc.), and interact with new communication devices and modes (e.g. automated phone systems).
Your average citizen is not looking for more subjects to have to make sense of. Advocates of seemingly radical ideas, regardless of how obviously they may promote the common goals of humans, have very little means of promoting those ideas beyond several small groups (e.g. the others deeply concerned with that issue, and more general elements of the citizenry who have a strong interest in social structures, sane development, peace, etc.).
In ancient Greece the city-states had functioning democracies in which the "citizens" (defined rather restrictively) voted to resolve disputes. The assembly allowed open discussion and argument of the issues of the day and then decide by majority vote on a course of action. They were able to successfully run their (relatively) small social units, and, together with a philosophy that had less developed "doctrines" that limited the range of ideas, they seemed to successfully (at least rationally) deal with a broad range of challenges and threats. Rationally being a key word - also doctrines.
Dissemination of information that would allow the citizenry to reach rational conclusions does not occur effectively; media spin is available to support many different world views. The media aimed at the general public successfully informs people in some areas of their lives, but when complex systems are involved (e.g. the earth, or international politics, technology and its implications), they are not very successful. There is a need for some integrative influence to sift the multiple issues in diverse fields, produce strategies that can elevate these issues to national prominence, and prevent special interests from skewing the perceptions of the public. Political parties and think tanks are not performing this function.
The crux of the problem is that the diversity and complexity of the world leads individuals to rely on "authority" to provide the answers and rationale in most areas of social policy. The "authorities" have not made significant progress in advancing the human condition in the last fifty years, despite the huge consumption of resources that has taken place. The "authorities" that dominated the twentieth century have not all been the most rational and objective operators (our current president - GWB - a case in point).
Can we develop some authorities that have in their underlying aims a more humane (i.e. for the good of the species) understanding of the effects of their actions. Some that might balance short term utility with long term sustainability. Head toward flattening the income distribution curve of nations and the world. Where would these authorities come from? Academia? Business? Government? Is there some blend of hierarchical and democratic systems that might accomplish saner, more accountable government?
Democracy requires an informed and engaged populace to function effectively. Our nation, due to size and diversity, a lazy and cowed media, and our attitude that our sole purpose is the pursuit of happiness, does not seem to have the necessary prerequisites for a functioning representative democracy.
Rob
I am not optimistic about the prospects of seeing any of these admirable ideas implemented. The complexity of life today provides enough analytical and perceptual challenges for most people. They've got to figure the best way to handle their own resources, interact with an increasingly diverse set of people (neighbors, co-workers, customer service people, etc.), and interact with new communication devices and modes (e.g. automated phone systems).
Your average citizen is not looking for more subjects to have to make sense of. Advocates of seemingly radical ideas, regardless of how obviously they may promote the common goals of humans, have very little means of promoting those ideas beyond several small groups (e.g. the others deeply concerned with that issue, and more general elements of the citizenry who have a strong interest in social structures, sane development, peace, etc.).
In ancient Greece the city-states had functioning democracies in which the "citizens" (defined rather restrictively) voted to resolve disputes. The assembly allowed open discussion and argument of the issues of the day and then decide by majority vote on a course of action. They were able to successfully run their (relatively) small social units, and, together with a philosophy that had less developed "doctrines" that limited the range of ideas, they seemed to successfully (at least rationally) deal with a broad range of challenges and threats. Rationally being a key word - also doctrines.
Dissemination of information that would allow the citizenry to reach rational conclusions does not occur effectively; media spin is available to support many different world views. The media aimed at the general public successfully informs people in some areas of their lives, but when complex systems are involved (e.g. the earth, or international politics, technology and its implications), they are not very successful. There is a need for some integrative influence to sift the multiple issues in diverse fields, produce strategies that can elevate these issues to national prominence, and prevent special interests from skewing the perceptions of the public. Political parties and think tanks are not performing this function.
The crux of the problem is that the diversity and complexity of the world leads individuals to rely on "authority" to provide the answers and rationale in most areas of social policy. The "authorities" have not made significant progress in advancing the human condition in the last fifty years, despite the huge consumption of resources that has taken place. The "authorities" that dominated the twentieth century have not all been the most rational and objective operators (our current president - GWB - a case in point).
Can we develop some authorities that have in their underlying aims a more humane (i.e. for the good of the species) understanding of the effects of their actions. Some that might balance short term utility with long term sustainability. Head toward flattening the income distribution curve of nations and the world. Where would these authorities come from? Academia? Business? Government? Is there some blend of hierarchical and democratic systems that might accomplish saner, more accountable government?
Democracy requires an informed and engaged populace to function effectively. Our nation, due to size and diversity, a lazy and cowed media, and our attitude that our sole purpose is the pursuit of happiness, does not seem to have the necessary prerequisites for a functioning representative democracy.
Rob
Democracy and Media
To have a democracy requires that we at least allow reasonable (1 man:1 vote) representation. Next, the populace needs a truly "balanced" yet diverse media outlet for valid information on physical facts and occurrences, (i.e. non-propagandized, non-sensationalized news) to pursue their best interests.
