robert reich's moral agenda
during last week's election, it appears the overwhelming priority for voters was moral values. as i have stated in a previous post, moral values are important and they are not relative, and actually, i believe most people believe there are absolutes. i just think they happen to define them as whatever is important to them. people don't often wrestle with the question of whether there are specific moral absolutes, they instead argue for their particular issues become absolute. for instance, just moments ago i watched a press conference by the leaders of the various liberal women's groups debating that very question. one reporter asked whether there had been any studies done to determine what exactly defined "moral values" in the election. the answer was that there had been little done, but that they were sure that for many of those who voted, a woman's right to choose was one of those values. again, in a subjective way, the moral values were absolute. in an article in slate yesterday, entitled "gotta have faith," robert reich defined the far left's ideas of moral absolutes:
"Yes, Kerry should have spokenand future Democrats must speakin moral terms. But not about Janet Jackson's bare breast, or about gays, guns, abortion, or school prayer, or even about the "evil" of Saddam Hussein and terrorists. The Democrats' moral language should be about social justice. Let's be clear: Bush ran on a moral agendaGod, guns, gays, and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Kerry ran on a policy agendaaffordable health care, deficit reduction, and combating terrorism through stronger international alliances and a smarter strategy."
it is clear in reich's commentary that neither God, homosexuality, nor the evil of terrorism are to be considered moral issues...only social justice fits reich's criteria. now, let me be clear, i certainly believe that social justice is a moral issue, but it isn't the only moral issue. reich demonstrates a very narrow, atheistic point of view in which issues that have traditionally been considered strong democratic positions should be considered. i am certain that reich would agree with the ladies of the left that a woman's right to choose death for her unborn child is a moral absolute, but little else. clearly, reich does not tie morality to anything transcendent as he goes on to assert, "My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. Nor should Dems move toward Republican positions on matters of personal morality, such as gay marriage or abortion. (One caveat: I do think Democrats should be clear that they want fewer abortions in Americanot by prohibiting them, but by making sure young people have access to contraceptives and family-planning counseling, and other social services.) My recommendation is that Democrats offer somewhat fewer plans and policies and have more moral conviction."
again we see reich's befuddled ideas of morality when he says that abortion isn't wrong, but we don't want too many. too many, now that would be wrong. i guess mr. reich has some magic number under which abortion is ok. not only is there ambiguity concerning what is considered a responsible number of abortions, but we see that as long as condoms are passed out to the thirteen year old girls and boys that are making the children, everything is just fine, because we know reich's idea of family-planning counseling: teaching the kids how to use the condoms that they've been given.
if there was any doubt about the kind of morality robert reich is encouraging the democratic party to embrace, he removes it when he says that, "I'm not saying Democrats have to adopt my particular moral positions. But unless or until Democrats return to larger questions of public morality, they won't inspire the American public." in other words, what you believe is not really important as long as you believe something. Reich goes on to say that, "Democrats need to talk more about it [morality], and inspire more of it. But here again, I don't mean the Republican or right-wing evangelical versionfaith in a particular religion or god, faith in final judgment. I mean the sort of faith on which all social progress has been based, and must be basedan irrational faith that it is possible, by working together, to create a more just nation and a more just world. This sort of faith is entirely irrationalit defies reasonin the sense that it's often impossible to find hard evidence to justify it. It requires a great leap into the unknown and unknowable. It necessitates boundless energy and absurd optimism even in the darkest times. But without such faith, progress toward a just society is not possible."
the reason mr. reich has problems justifying it is because there is no justification for it. it sounds irrational, because it is irrational. these are the same people that claim that evangelical's belief in a sovereign God that created the universe is irrational. of course, it is no more irrational to believe that there is a God who created the incredible features of the universe, including the most sophisticated computer we call a human being, than it is to believe that the computer on which i am typing was actually created by a rational, intelligent and very real human being. it takes a much greater "leap into the unknown and unknowable" to adopt mr. reich's morality than to believe that a good God created the world and the moral laws that are found within it. clearly, mr. reich is promoting a political agenda in which social justice and morality are nothing more than ammunition to be used in a fight to fool people into believing there is real concern in order to gain more blue states in the next election.
"Yes, Kerry should have spokenand future Democrats must speakin moral terms. But not about Janet Jackson's bare breast, or about gays, guns, abortion, or school prayer, or even about the "evil" of Saddam Hussein and terrorists. The Democrats' moral language should be about social justice. Let's be clear: Bush ran on a moral agendaGod, guns, gays, and true grit in fighting the evils of Saddam Hussein and terrorism. Kerry ran on a policy agendaaffordable health care, deficit reduction, and combating terrorism through stronger international alliances and a smarter strategy."
it is clear in reich's commentary that neither God, homosexuality, nor the evil of terrorism are to be considered moral issues...only social justice fits reich's criteria. now, let me be clear, i certainly believe that social justice is a moral issue, but it isn't the only moral issue. reich demonstrates a very narrow, atheistic point of view in which issues that have traditionally been considered strong democratic positions should be considered. i am certain that reich would agree with the ladies of the left that a woman's right to choose death for her unborn child is a moral absolute, but little else. clearly, reich does not tie morality to anything transcendent as he goes on to assert, "My recommendation to Democrats is not to become more religious. Religion is a personal matter. Nor should Dems move toward Republican positions on matters of personal morality, such as gay marriage or abortion. (One caveat: I do think Democrats should be clear that they want fewer abortions in Americanot by prohibiting them, but by making sure young people have access to contraceptives and family-planning counseling, and other social services.) My recommendation is that Democrats offer somewhat fewer plans and policies and have more moral conviction."
again we see reich's befuddled ideas of morality when he says that abortion isn't wrong, but we don't want too many. too many, now that would be wrong. i guess mr. reich has some magic number under which abortion is ok. not only is there ambiguity concerning what is considered a responsible number of abortions, but we see that as long as condoms are passed out to the thirteen year old girls and boys that are making the children, everything is just fine, because we know reich's idea of family-planning counseling: teaching the kids how to use the condoms that they've been given.
if there was any doubt about the kind of morality robert reich is encouraging the democratic party to embrace, he removes it when he says that, "I'm not saying Democrats have to adopt my particular moral positions. But unless or until Democrats return to larger questions of public morality, they won't inspire the American public." in other words, what you believe is not really important as long as you believe something. Reich goes on to say that, "Democrats need to talk more about it [morality], and inspire more of it. But here again, I don't mean the Republican or right-wing evangelical versionfaith in a particular religion or god, faith in final judgment. I mean the sort of faith on which all social progress has been based, and must be basedan irrational faith that it is possible, by working together, to create a more just nation and a more just world. This sort of faith is entirely irrationalit defies reasonin the sense that it's often impossible to find hard evidence to justify it. It requires a great leap into the unknown and unknowable. It necessitates boundless energy and absurd optimism even in the darkest times. But without such faith, progress toward a just society is not possible."
the reason mr. reich has problems justifying it is because there is no justification for it. it sounds irrational, because it is irrational. these are the same people that claim that evangelical's belief in a sovereign God that created the universe is irrational. of course, it is no more irrational to believe that there is a God who created the incredible features of the universe, including the most sophisticated computer we call a human being, than it is to believe that the computer on which i am typing was actually created by a rational, intelligent and very real human being. it takes a much greater "leap into the unknown and unknowable" to adopt mr. reich's morality than to believe that a good God created the world and the moral laws that are found within it. clearly, mr. reich is promoting a political agenda in which social justice and morality are nothing more than ammunition to be used in a fight to fool people into believing there is real concern in order to gain more blue states in the next election.
Labels: David C. Price
posted by DAVID C. PRICE at 11/09/2004 01:35:00 PM
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home