|
In my last newsletter, I argued the time had come to articulate a new Vision for America based on a values or ethics perspective, and I laid out my initial ideas about the central principles I would include in that vision (see here). Readers responded—some humorously—”What office are you running for?” But two particular responses raised the unavoidable discrepancy between when a political vision is based on ethics and values, and when it is just political. What is a values-based or ethics-based vision? When can an ethicist using ethical arguments critique political decisions? Can we say our immigration policies or a decision of the Supreme Court are unethical, not just ones we oppose politically? I have faced this persistent question throughout my professional career. I have been quoted critiquing politicians’ behavior and their policy positions, and I have taught ethics to state legislative leaders from all 50 states. Not only do I believe it is possible to comment on politics in ethical terms, but I think it is inevitable. I think there are important ethical principles behind most political decisions. I have taken it further and argued that there are often important ethical principles behind most actions of leaders in organizations of all types. That is why I have championed business ethics, political ethics, medical ethics, technology ethics, sports ethics, nonprofit ethics, and even dental ethics (my example of how far ethics infects every aspect of human life). My readers’ comments are important, though. The relationship between politics and values has long been a controversial one. “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” may work in the context of the Bible story (Matthew 22:21), but it is harder to put into practice in contemporary America. Recognizing the difficulty of mixing faith and politics led the founders of the American nation to eschew the 18th-century norm that each country was either Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or aligned formally with another religion, usually that of the monarch. They insisted America would not have a state religion and that church and state would remain separate. Instead, our political founders articulated a robust set of values: that “all men are created equal” with “inalienable rights” which include “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” They asserted definitively that governments are created to protect and further those rights. “Political” issues with strong ethical and values content have arisen throughout American history—slavery and “Jim Crow,” of course, but also immigration, reproductive freedom, the right to social security, religious liberty, the right to electricity and water and medical care, and lately, broadband internet. In 21st-century America, such ethical and values-based political questions abound. We should not shy away from them for that reason; we should employ ethical principles in search of just political decisions. Religious leaders have confronted this problem frequently in the era of Trump. Some evangelical pastors actively promoted the elections of Donald Trump after he pledged to ban abortion, which they considered the all-important ethical question. A few Catholic bishops even took the position that Catholics could not vote for any Democratic or Republican candidate who supported legal abortion under any circumstances. Most American religious leaders, however, avoided endorsing candidates but still spoke out on selected issues. Just this November, the American Catholic bishops as a body considered a resolution condemning current strategies of immigration enforcement. Carefully grounding their argument in ethical terms, the bishops emphasized a foundational concern for the human person, for the 130-year-old body of Catholic social teaching, for statements of Popes, and for biblical values. While they criticized current policies for creating a climate of fear, for vilifying immigrants, for separating families, and for conditions in detention centers, they also invoked the ethical principle that a country can control its own borders (see here). In the wake of the vote, Archbishop Richard Henning of Boston commented: “Obviously, the beliefs of the Church have political consequences, but are not political in the usual sense of the word. And so there was a real effort to make sure that this would be a pastoral address to our people rather than an attempt to lobby.” Similarly, I would argue that ethical and values principles have political consequences, but are not political as we think about that word. An ethical or values-based vision should inspire good political policies and can inevitably be used to critique existing political decisions and policies, but it is an attempt to make politics, a human creation, match our ethics and values. I believe Americans are desperate for a values or ethics-based vision and are exhausted by the hyper-political and extremely partisan nature of politics today. I admired those politicians who can speak to their constituents in values and ethical terms, avoiding raw partisanship. But I also agree with the reader who suggested I needed to be even more careful with any words that belie a partisan or specifically anti-Trump motive in my draft vision statement! We can start talking and come together only if we share our deeply held ethical and value beliefs and truly listen to one another.
|
