The Scum at the Top
Commentary on the Rats in Washington
Each political decision expresses a moral position
By Peter Rogness
StarTribune
© January 16, 2005
Page AA1
I welcome the attention to morality in public conversation and political
life. However, I worry about a divide between those who speak only of
private morality and those who focus solely on morality in public policy.
We need attention to both.
In an age of rapid change, family instability, faltering business ethics,
sexual permissiveness and unlimited individual choices, we need to recommit
to personal moral values. People must tell the truth, keep their word, be
tolerant and compassionate toward others. We need to live by a moral code.
Personal decisions we face, including those around volatile issues like
abortion and marriage, deserve attention.
How we live together as a people is also a moral issue. America was shaped
by refugees who fled autocratic governments and religions. When they settled
here, they established a separation of church and state that has guarded
freedom of religious expression.
But that came with a cost. Preachers were warned to keep politics out
of the pulpit and talk only about heaven. As a result, it became difficult
to talk about our public life together in terms of morality. But Hebrew,
Christian and Muslim holy writings all speak of the mandate to shape a
just and humane society.
How we treat each other is also a matter of morality, which brings us
to the intersection of morality and politics.
Politics is the process by which we shape our common life. We choose what
kind of people we want to be together, and in a democracy we elect
representatives to do the work of making us into that kind of community.
These representatives both frame the discussion and make the decisions for
us. This isn't just politics; it's moral deliberation about us as a people.
If we wish to take a moral position that we value all persons equally, then
we shape a public life that doesn't give favor or privilege to a few.
If our moral judgment about the dignity of every person leads us to
believe that each of us should have life's basic needs met (food, shelter,
education, health care), that children should be valued, that recent
immigrant and longtime resident have equal worth, then politics is the
means by which we arrive at becoming that kind of people.
So language is important. Each issue, each political decision, expresses
a moral position. For instance:
We ought not to decide first on whether to raise or lower taxes, but
rather consider what we want to be and do (the moral deliberation).
Former Gov. Elmer L. Andersen said, "The first order was determining
need, and the last bill considered was the tax bill to finance those
needs." Taxes, like government, aren't inherently good or evil; they
are the means we use to pool our resources to be who we wish to be
as a people.
If human services costs are rapidly rising, we ought not to speak of
a human services budget "out of control," but rather of "the rapid
rise of human need for human services."
We ought not to speak of "capping rising costs," but rather of "limiting
access to human services" -- for that is what capped costs do -- and
then deliberate about whether that is what we want to do.
You see, language is important. These decisions change the kind of
place we are, the kind of people we are.
Deciding to let a large segment of our people live without health care
is not only a financial decision, but also a moral decision that shapes
what kind of people we together will be.
Eliminating human services for mentally ill people (nearly half of homeless
persons are mentally ill) is not cutting costs; it's a moral decision
that says we choose to leave these people alone without help.
Responding to an educational crisis by tightening budgets instead of
providing teachers and specialists to meet the needs of increased
poverty and immigration is a moral decision about the value of these,
our children.
Minnesota has long been a place that ranks high in many indices of
quality of life, human care and service. The 1973 Time magazine that
depicted "The Good Life in Minnesota" didn't come about by chance; it
arose from our being a people that placed high value on how we live
together.
The median has never been our yardstick. Being a people who care for
each other has been our hallmark. And the most telling measure of how
well we care for each other is to consider how we treat those on the
margins -- the poor, the children, the elderly, the immigrant, the
disabled.
We have been a state that has cared for each other well.
Today we are heirs of that legacy. We are also the ones who will choose
what kind of people we will be this year and next, for years to come.
I want our legislators who make decisions on my behalf to recognize
the moral dimension of those decisions. I want them to challenge and
lead and ennoble us. I want the conversation to be about morality, and
I want us to be recommitted to living moral lives, both private and
public.
Peter Rogness is bishop of the St. Paul Area Synod of the Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America.
The Scum at the Top - Home
E-mail: dwagner2@isd.net
©2007 DJW
Last Modified:
January 15, 2007