Morality, Politics and Liberalism

The public controversy concerning the Terri Schiavo case illustrated how important it is for progressives to emphasize that issues affecting economic well-being are the most crucial moral issues that we face as a national community.

When news outlets focus excessively on socio-cultural issues, as in the Schiavo case, attention is deflected from socio-economic issues that more gravely threaten Americans’ well-being. It is astounding, for example, that the media became obsessed with the Schiavo case at the same time that it paid so little attention to the Bush administration’s proposed cuts to Medicaid. The administration is attempting to use a budget crisis of its own making as an excuse to destroy programs that help poor people gain a foothold into the middle class, assist middle class folks struggling to stay out of poverty, or provide basic care to millions who are in difficult straits. Medicaid and programs that, for example, provide job training, housing subsidies, child care subsidies, special education, foster care, after-school recreation, food stamps, and mass transit truly affect people's lives in crucial ways. If more Americans would consider how the denial of such assistance is morally wrong, then progressive candidates would have a better chance of electoral and legislative victory.

Progressive politicians and commentators actively need to educate citizens about the moral basis of these issues, framing specific policies within the context of a broad public philosophy that emphasizes a sense of allegiance to our fellow Americans who are in need and subscribes to Franklin Roosevelt’s view that as “problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as individuals, it becomes the duty of government itself to find . . . remedies with which to meet them.” Historian Richard J. Carwardine points out in his recent book, Lincoln, that our Civil War president first gained national fame in running for the U.S. Senate against Stephen Douglas in 1858 because he so articulately expressed the moral basis of his opposition to the extension of slavery into the territories. Lincoln recognized that as a candidate he needed to educate voters, to drive home the fact that Douglas’ “don’t care” position on slavery extension was morally repulsive.

Likewise, it is important today to help Americans to recognize that various government programs promote the well-being of millions—in part by showing how cuts in government programs concretely affect real human beings, especially innocent children—and to recognize how morally insensitive most Republican politicians are in opposing such programs. Lincoln helped focus his listeners on the central moral tragedy that slaves as individual human beings could not develop their potential, and it is up to us in the present day to show how poverty or the grinding struggle to stay out of poverty inhibit the human potential of individuals, and how we as a society can help by supporting progressive social policies.

Lincoln also knew that in order to remain politically viable, he needed to adopt a moderate stance on what were then the socio-cultural issues of his day—immigration and temperance—that would have divided his Northern coalition. His focus on slavery expansion as a moral issue instead served to unify disparate cultural groups of the North around his candidacy. Similarly, given the Democrats’ struggle for voter approval in today’s political climate, they should not indulgently provide ammunition with which right-wingers can (falsely) portray them as cultural extremists. Instead, Democrats need to galvanize their base and attract others who may not agree on various socio-cultural issues by focusing on the socio-economic policies that are at risk, and the moral importance of these policies, repeating themselves loudly and often on these policies until they are heard. They ought to stop fearing that by showing passion they will be labeled “idealists.” Most people will respect idealists, as long as the ideals are balanced off by hardheaded practicality and an emphasis on the reciprocal obligations of aid recipients.

Our nation’s history itself is a powerful moral touchstone that many Americans use in making decisions about public issues. In 1858, Lincoln beckoned his countrymen to do this when he emphasized that the Founders, for moral reasons, abhorred the idea of slavery expansion. In the present day, progressives would be wise to emphasize how congruent their socio-economic policies are with the words and ideals of great leaders in American history such as Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy. Relatedly, they could stress that the political forbears of George W. Bush and his ilk, with their ideological certainty that policies involving the transfer of funds through taxation from the well off to the disadvantaged are un-American and anticapitalistic, opposed programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from the start—and that right wingers who today contend that they compassionately wish to “save” these programs are using camouflage, shedding crocodile tears for that which they really wish to destroy.

Additionally, progressives could help rally support by using religious quotations, from Biblical figures to Erasmus to today’s Jim Wallis, that indirectly offer eloquent support for progressive socio-economic programs. Progressives could ask Americans to consider today’s social problems in light of the golden rule and the admonition that “There but for the grace of God go I,” and to consider that Jesus, Hillel, and other foundational religious and spiritual figures, if alive today, would be appalled at the administration’s proposed cuts to social programs. Similarly, as John Kennedy well knew, quotations from Shakespeare and other classics in literature and philosophy can powerfully relate contemporary social justice themes to timeless ideals.
In helping citizens to recognize socio-economic policy as a paramount moral concern, perhaps fewer Americans will be attracted to the siren song of right wingers who portray themselves as the sole representatives of all that is good and proper. And perhaps the day will sooner come when the public will recognize most right wing “moral” crusades as extremist or diversionary, and when progressives can successfully initiate new socio-economic programs rather than always playing defense.