“People should be allowed to pursue their happiness in the competitive market. But it makes no sense to require people to compete in the market for basic goods. Those who lack such goods have little chance of winning them in competition with those who already have them. This is what leads to an underclass exhibiting the antisocial behavior condemned by one picture of young black men and the object of the prejudice condemned by the other picture.
We need to move from outrage over the existence of an underclass to serious policy discussions about economic justice, with the first issue being whether our current capitalist system is inevitably unjust. If it is, is there a feasible way of reforming or even replacing it? If it is not, what methods does it offer for eliminating the injustice?
It is easy – and true – to say that a society as wealthy as ours should be able to keep people from being unhappy because they do not have enough to eat, have no safe place to live, have no access to good education and medical care, or cannot find a job. But this doesn’t tell us how – if at all – to do what needs to be done. My point here is just that saying it can’t be done expresses not realism but despair. Unless we work for this fundamental justice, then we must reconcile ourselves to a society with a permanent underclass, a class that, given our history, will almost surely be racially defined. Then the bitter conflict between the two pictures of this class will never end, because the injustice that creates it will last forever. Dr. King’s island will never disappear, and there will always be another Trayvon Martin.”
Gary Gutting, Getting Past the Outrage on Race, Opinionator/The Stone, New York Times, September 11, 2013
I recently read a piece in The New York Times that I believe everyone in America – or anywhere else, for that matter – ought to read. Gary Gutting, its author, is a professor of philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, and he is seeking to remind Americans polarized in their view of the meaning of the death of Trayvon Martin that there is an underlying cause upon which they might find common ground if only a dialogue could be had about it. Professor Gutting’s entire article can be found here:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/getting-past-the-outrage-on-race/?ref=opinion
Professor Gutting’s remarks seem to point out that the government of a representative democracy is not efficient or effective in resolving the causes of an economic underclass. The point of this remark is not to suggest that a prince, theocracy, or dictator would be any better at it, since none of these forms of government is likely to care about the issue or to make it a priority. It is to say, however, that representative democracies are likely, over time, to become so polarized over issues that reflect personal values that compromise about them not only becomes impossible, but parties become deaf to the possibility that they might share a modicum of common ground over the immorality of its root causes – common ground from which a potential resolution might be fashioned. This is due to the monumental effort each party must expend in shouting as loud as they can to be heard over the din of democracy. The ever-increasing din ensures increased polarity over the consequences of basic, unresolved societal problems; the increased polarity over consequences renders meaningful dialogue about the underlying causes nearly impossible.
While Professor Gutting didn’t issue a direct challenge to stop shouting and consider the causes, he does remind us that even very difficult issues are capable of solution if we do not surrender to despair in the consideration of their resolution. After all, if we can go from speculating over the existence of canals on Mars to the discovery of thousands of planets circling far off stars in a little over a century, we ought to be able to turn our intellect to the successful resolution of basic societal issues that have plagued mankind forever.
For purposes of this piece I take it as a given that elimination of the need for a significant number of our citizens to spend their entire existence merely seeking to survive another day would be a positive result. I suggest that if everyone would quiet down long enough to listen to their own voice, to their own soul, to their own heart, many would agree with this proposition even if they have qualms about what I – or anyone else – might be about to propose in the way of its resolution. How much more prosperous we all would be, how much more secure and guiltless we all would feel, how much more confidence in the means we use to govern ourselves would we all have, if only we knew that our society assured each individual of the satisfaction of his or her basic needs.
But – surprise! – I don’t intend to offer a solution, for a solution to something this basic requires massive input from all concerned. Instead, I want to think about whether there is a trailhead from which we might pursue a path of discovery leading to resolution. For if we are to find our way to a consensus, we must first discover a path that might lead us there.
So what can we say about this problem that all of us might agree upon regardless of our place on the political spectrum:
- Government doesn’t seem to be able to solve the problem by imposing a solution on society, because any such imposition is bound to favor the dominant point of view then in power.
- Representative government has the particular difficulty of being representative.
- While representative government assures that different viewpoints have a seat at the table, it also assures that each elected representative will be hard of hearing when it comes to compromise, for each representative has to please his or her particular constituency in order to stay in power.
- Representative governments therefore work best at resolving basic societal issues when there is a pre-existing societal consensus about the essence of the matter; they work worst when there is no such societal consensus and only warring constituencies instead.
- Therefore, societal consensus is best achieved through some means other than direct governmental action.
-
However, government can be very helpful in implementing necessary legislation when there are societal-wide agreements over how we want to act, especially if the political parties do not feel pushed to extremes in order to be heard.
- Therefore, government may have a role in helping to eliminate an economic underclass, but only after societal consensus over basic issues has first been reached and a path to an ultimate resolution of the matter is identified – a path that allows for differences of opinion, even as it assures a common result.
- Representative government has the particular difficulty of being representative.
- Resolution of the issue does not require us to decide which of the viewpoints about Mr. Martin’s death as portrayed by Professor Gutting is more right and which is more wrong.
- Resolution of the issue does not depend upon either extreme winning at the polls.
- In dealing with so basic an issue, the concept of “winning” needs to be redefined in such a way that a win is considered to be a societal-wide improvement to which everyone participating in its fashioning can feel they added something material.
- A win must:
- Make each of us feel better about ourselves in accordance with whatever measuring stick we personally employ (religion, morality, feel goodishness, etc.)
- Have broad enough support across the political spectrum so as to become a political possibility. We do not need unanimity; we need significant consensus.
- Allow everyone to be heard; allow everyone to feel materially involved.
- Allow for conversations instead of shouting matches.
- Consensus will have to be built a brick at a time by those demonstrating moral authority.
- No single person or entity exclusively occupies the throne of moral authority, for there is no throne of moral authority.
- Religion hasn’t a lock on what is or isn’t moral; it is but one voice at the feast of morality.
- To suggest that religion has the only legitimate voice as to morality is to beg the question of which religion should be invited to the table.
- Religion is but one of the ways mankind has chosen to seek a moral path, and religion has developed into a vast river delta of many streams emptying into the same sea.
- All legitimate religions have a place in the discussion, especially since a shared consensus will have many differing aspects.
- Ethical humanism also has a place at the table, since it is but another means of looking at human morality.
- Humanity has found a variety of ways to express what morality is or isn’t, as demonstrated by the teachings and actions of Buddha, Confucius, Gandhi, Dr, Martin Luther King, jr., Mother Theresa, Albert Schweitzer, and others.
- If nothing else, sheer numbers should prevail when it comes to earning a place at the table, especially when the goal is a societal compromise broad enough to support our elected representatives in moving forward.
- Common sense must have pride of place at the table, since many proposed solutions will not be achievable either because they cannot work in real-time, lack a broad consensus, or because they represent only a narrow point of view.
- Common sense is an exceedingly rare commodity, and what is common sense in one context may be zealotry in another.
- The common sense we need must be founded in the belief that the goal (eventual elimination of an economic underclass) is central to the continuation of our society and must have the highest priority during discussions. The common sense we require at the table must have the elimination of the underclass as its spiritual flame.
- Leaders of the discussions must be possessed of this common sense, even to the point of being able to step aside when it becomes clear that someone else is better equipped to lead at various stages of discussion.
- The goal we seek must be clearly and simply stated in such a way that all can agree using their point of view.
- The more simply the goal is stated, the more likely that differing points of view can agree upon it.
- Simplicity is of the essence of a starting point, especially when it comes to very complicated issues. For at some very basic level there is common ground; it is the details of its resolution that divide us.
- Therefore, it behooves each party at the table to remember a simple mantra.
- Perhaps it is best to remember the Declaration of Independence, since that is what brought us all together in the first place: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
- Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness brings us to Professor Gutting’s conclusion: “It is easy – and true – to say that a society as wealthy as ours should be able to keep people from being unhappy because they do not have enough to eat, have no safe place to live, have no access to good education and medical care, or cannot find a job.”
- The discussion must be over how to achieve the stated goal; the discussion must not be about how we got to where we now are.
- Discussions over who is at fault never resolve anything other than upon whom to affix blame, and, when it comes to blame, there is always plenty to go around.
- Even a perceived moral high ground has dark consequences, since no human point of view is without its darker aspects.
- Even when someone did nothing specific to contribute to an actively poor result, that someone was part of the culture in which the result was achieved and, therefore, added something, however big or small, to the creation or maintenance of the problem. We all need to shoulder responsibility and move forward.
- If everyone accepts that they contributed something to the problem in some fashion – even if simply by having ignored its very existence – no one need spend time seeking to affix blame upon others.
It seems to me that our self-professed “moral leaders” (whomever they may be) must begin this dialogue by calling a meeting somewhere, a meeting from which further dialogue can be empowered and can commence. But before doing so, they must first examine themselves for the disqualifying signs of zealotry and ask themselves if they are truly willing to listen to someone who professes a shared goal, but with whom they may have profound philosophical disagreements. No zealots for whom everyone else is an idiot, a heathen, a non-believer, an infidel need apply. In other words, each participant at the table must be willing to recognize as an intellectual, moral equal someone who disagrees with his or her basic tenets of belief.
Surely there must be enough of us in sufficient despair over the existing gross imbalance of societal assets to realize that there must be a better way forward. Surely there must be those of integrity who have the moral and intellectual strength to recognize that while they, alone, do not have all of the answers, they might find answers in consort with others from across the spectrum. Will those with sufficient standing now come forward?
Or am I crazy to imagine there is even the slightest possibility of such a thing happening? After all, I still have faith in Santa Claus. I only know one thing with certainty: if you don’t ask, you won’t receive an answer.
