The passing of Sunday’s health care vote demands a few words about its reflection on society. The fact that we had to legislate health care only expresses that our country and society are in a mess. This vote is being marked alongside other “historic” votes which brought about social welfare change (Social Security, Medicare), and on the principle that life is important and needs to be ensured none of these are destructive. The problem is that in order for some people to obtain affordable healthcare the U.S. Congress had to pass a law. This action itself leads to a society that isn’t able to maintain the values upon which it was built, and if the only way for society to stay stable and sustainable is to pass laws that make us reliant upon a government that shifts with each election then we can be sure of more problems to come. Already the pollsters are predicting that the GOP will be back in full swing come November’s election and win back so many of the seats that just two short years ago the Democratic Party won with astounding numbers. How can a country and society keep going back and forth on its public opinion and voice so frequently and to such extremes? Lincoln and others have stated that, “a house divided against itself can not stand.”
Society can be represented by a house with its foundation being columns representing values, beliefs and interest common among those who established and created the society. As time passes these columns are tested and strained by conflict which take place among the members and groups of society. Change happens and with it comes social conflict that has a direct impact on these columns. Governments (which are a product of society) enact laws to help brace these columns through times of change but the laws are only a temporary fix that will not sustain society for long if the columns are being changed to an extensive degree. Society and its people make the final decision about which columns bear them up by the values, beliefs and interests they hold. With too much change society will fall and out of the rumble new societies will be built upon shared values, beliefs and interests.
The passing of the health care bill show a few different reflections about society which include: society does not value life as much as it does money, to care for the poor has become insignificant, the hearts of men have grown cold, leaders of our government and economy have lost their integrity by significant degrees, luxury is seen as an entitlement, empowerment is only received through financial means, and others.
No prediction is being offered that our society is about to fall nor is it being suggested that the health care bill should not have passed, but the question is being asked to what degree are our columns changing and will they hold? Personal agenda needs to be set aside and principle needs to be reinstated as the driving force behind this nation. We need stability. We need values and principles that are surer than laws. Abigail Adams wrote to her son John Quincy these words, “Improve your understanding for acquiring useful knowledge and virtue, such as will render you an ornament to society, an honor to your county, and a blessing to your parents … and remember you are accountable to your Maker for all your words and actions.” If every member of society could have this desire as described by Mrs. Adams then our societal columns will hold and we will have many years of constructive living ahead of us as we have had in the past. If you choose not to believe in God as “your Maker”, as I think was intended in this quote, then please think of “your Maker” as mankind and the passage is significant still.
2 hours ago
6 comments:
I also liked your column metaphor, and agree with your premise, generally. But I have many questions. I'd suggest that values and principles, in their broadest and most abstract definitions, can be commonly held. I question, however, how a plural society can maintain common understanding and belief as the values and principles themselves must be progressively interpreted and applied on a more and more specific level. I see this necessary process of interpretation and application as a challenge, and reflective of citizens' cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. Do you think that our columns can ever be common throughout all levels of this process, unless we give up those freedoms that help shape and enable the plurality on which our nation rests?
Beezus,
Your suggestion that values and principles can be commonly held in the broadest definition is fine but the application of those values tends to make me think that the values themselves are different. Taking the value Freedom and given the current context of health care some may say having a state operated health care system gives them Freedom while others say that the same system takes it away. There must be a fundamental difference between the two definitions if Freedom from both sides is in conflict.
Your question to a plural society is mine as well. I think the answer is something along the lines of what Abigail Adams had to say. Knowing that one's actions are accountable to something greater than one's self is key to this dilemma.
I would also note that in the beginning our society didn't rest on so much plurality as we deal with today with the exception of slavery which almost ruined us. I don't know if a society can stand if it becomes too pluralistic, or it may just become an oppressive state with one group dictating to the others.
I am interested in your entry, but am struggling with how to comment.
As I think you know, I was/am a major supporter of health care reform. But, I agree with you that the very fact that this needed to be legislated belies a HUGE problem in our society. Partisan lines that used to be relatively blurry are becoming increasingly clear. Factions are forming--factions well-intentioned, but ultimately damaging.
I hate how the "religious right" is pitted against the "elitist educated left." There is so much room for overlap, but I think too few people get their information about politics from unbiased sources (if there even ARE unbiased sources).
As you said, "the hearts of men have grown cold."
"We need values and principles that are surer than laws." I completely agree--and I believe that a free society depends not only on government but also on morality. What is legal is not necessarily just; and in saying this, I do not mean that laws have somehow failed us or government is inadequate. I think Abigail Adams understood that, in crafting an ideal government, many things need to be entrusted to the morality of the people. For instance, consider free speech laws. Our government encourages free and open discourse, vigorous debate of complicated issues, with the understanding that allowing broad free speech will best help us, as a society, identify truths. Consequently, it is vile and immoral to shout racial slurs or homophobic insults, but it is not illegal to do so. We need to choose a dignity and morality that transcends the legal minimums. In context of the health care debates, I can understand good, moral people having differing viewpoints about how to care for our sick, or whether the matter should be a state or federal issue, but providing access to health care is a reasonable legal minimum, and it's disappointing that we needed to legislate health care. But I was particularly distressed to see how the issue was publicly debated as Congress met to discuss and vote on health care. I was devastated last Saturday when the tea party protesters chanted the n-word at African-American members of Congress or called them "faggots" (not to mention violent threats and throwing bricks through office windows). Sure, protesters have free speech rights, but aside from being completely inarticulate and contributing nothing to useful discourse, hate-based slurs are grotesquely wrong, utterly vile, and distressing. It made me think that we, as a people, have not evolved from the mob-based violence of colonial politics. And that led me to think of exactly what you're saying here--what the Founders (including the women) knew as they trepidatiously forged a free democracy--that our society will thrive only if individuals voluntarily adopt stable principles of respect, morality, and collective well-being beyond what the law requires. Without that, we are definitely on shaky ground.
Our house needs some arches... if you know what I mean.
Hi Corbrett,
I'm visiting Kerri and I'm checking out your blog. I love getting updates on you. Hope all is well and you are loving the D.C. life.
Alysha
Post a Comment