Sheila – Page 1031 – Sheila Kennedy

Couldn’t Have Said It As Well

I have been meaning to post on this very issue, but Doug Masson has said precisely what I intended to say, and better, so I’m just going to say “amen.”

I will only add that a similar argument is made when the subject is poverty, and policies to address the structural elements in the economy that make it difficult for families to move into the middle class. There are strong echoes of Calvinism in the dismissive belief that, if someone is poor, it must be due to laziness, lack of drive, or other moral defect. As Calvin taught, if God loved you–if you were among the “saved”–then you wouldn’t be poor.

True Believer Syndrome

To me, one of the most frustrating aspects of contemporary public debate is something I call the “true believer” syndrome. The true believer can be on the political right or left; the distinguishing characteristic is a smug certainty that he or she is in possession of Truth (note capital T), and only the most unenlightened, hypocritical or downright evil person could possibly disagree.

On the right, true believers tend to be either biblical literalists or free-market fundamentalists. On the left, a disproportionate number are self-proclaimed (self-satisfied) environmentalists. What makes the environmentalists particularly annoying—at least to me—is that I generally agree with their basic message. It’s the aura of superior virtue that is off-putting.

I thought about this the other day, during a meeting of IUPUI’s “Common Theme” committee. The campus Common Theme program began a couple of years ago; much like the “One Book, One Community” project adopted by many cities, the Common Theme takes one book annually as its centerpiece. A year-long discussion of the themes raised by that book will include speakers, panel discussions, student projects and other programs. It’s an effort to encourage a more thoughtful and informed discussion of an important issue—and it is well worth doing.

This year, the Common Theme book is Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. McKibben is evidently a rock star of sorts in the environmental movement, and he will be on campus November 9th to kick off the year’s programming. I read the book, and found much of its argument—although certainly not all of it—persuasive.

I also found it annoying, thanks to the book’s moralistic tone.

A cover blurb from the Boston Globe might best convey what I mean: “A hopeful manifesto…an inspiring book that shows us not only the way we need to live, but also the way we should want to.” And indeed, throughout the book, there is the implicit message that if you are somehow so benighted as to disagree with one or more of McKibben’s prescriptions for a virtuous life, should you somehow, inexplicably fail to agree that this is the way you should want to live, you are to be scorned or at least pitied.

This is particularly irksome because—while there is much of value in the book—some of those prescriptions are just plain dumb. Others aren’t going to happen. (Small towns in America are not going to begin issuing their own currency. If you want to know what that has to do with sustainability, or saving the environment, you’ll have to read the book.)

Ideally, those of us participating in the Common Theme discussions will use these opportunities to separate the wheat from the chaff, to focus on the very real environmental challenges we face, to understand connections we hadn’t recognized, and to figure out how to make the changes that will inevitably be required. And ideally, we can participate in those discussions without being treated to the sort of elitism and moral snobbery that too often characterize these discussions.

Ideally, True Believers would stop being their own worst enemies.

Comments

The Ethics of Private Police

In my historic neighborhood, we are having a vigorous debate about the wisdom/propriety of paying monthly “dues” to hire off-duty police officers to conduct extra patrols. The concern is that the Indianapolis police force is stretched thin, and despite Mayor Ballard’s emphasis on public safety, not much has changed, and certainly not for the better.

I understand the problem; it’s real, and not improving. Like my neighbors, I want to feel that my person and property are being adequately protected. But I have a real problem with “rent-a-cop” proposals of this sort.

Public safety is one of the very few things that virtually all Americans believe should be provided by government. Practically speaking, private policing creates the classic “free rider” problem–if I pay a private security guy to patrol my street, my neighbor who refuses to pay his fair share for this service will benefit anyway. Ethically, the question goes to the heart of why we have collective mechanisms like government in the first place: why should citizens who can afford to pay extra get adequate basic services while our poorer neighbors don’t?

If I thought that hiring private security for the Old Northside would prompt the city to deploy added police in underserved poor neighborhoods–where social dysfunction and economic distress increases the incidence of violent crime–I might reconsider my opposition, but anyone who understands the way these things work knows how unlikely that is. It’s more likely that the Mayor would breathe a sigh of relief and REDUCE the public police force proportionately. My neighborhood would benefit at the expense of poorer areas.

What’s worse, we’d be echoing the message that seems to resonate with all those “tea bagger” folks: that we don’t need no stinkin’ government. If for some reason you can’t fend for yourself, it’s probably because you are undeserving. In any case, that’s your problem.

Maintenance

I believe it was Eric Hoffer who said that the mark of a nation’s civilization was the degree to which it maintained its infrastructure. In other words, while the ability to erect impressive structures is a sign of technological and artistic expertise, the real sign of a mature culture is its attention to upkeep.

I thought about that when I read Masson’s blog this morning; he notes the need to attend to our aging sewers, and makes much the same point that Hoffer did. It is a point worth pondering in an age where citizens seemingly care about nothing other than low taxes.

Muncie has 368 miles of water lines and some 600 miles of sewer lines, many of which were constructed 75 to 95 years ago, Bennington said.

I only mention it to note the difficulty in budgeting for upkeep of infrastructure. Present needs have a way of shoving aside intentions to set aside money for future needs. When you build something, it’s a certainty that repairs will be needed in the future. It’s almost as certain that routine maintenance will be less expensive in the long run than deferring maintenance until something catastrophic happens. But, it’s hard to say “no” to a present need or to raise taxes just to pay for something preventative on systems that are largely taken for granted.

The Pace of Progress

Civil rights activists often disagree over tactics. That was (and is) true of the African-American civil rights movement, and similar disputes characterize those working for equal rights for women, Latinos and other minorities. So it should not surprise anyone that gay rights activists often disagree about where resources should be deployed and when, or whether to be confrontational or to work behind the scenes.

There aren’t “good guys” and “bad guys” in most of these debates—just idealistic people of good will who have different ideas about the best way to proceed.

The most recent evidence of such disagreement was this fall’s March on Washington. It is no secret that many people in the so-called “gay establishment”—HRC comes to mind—were less than thrilled at the prospect of diverting energy and resources from places like Maine, where the recent recognition of same-sex marriage faces a Proposition 8-like repeal effort. (HRC did get on board when it became obvious the March would be held, but its early reluctance was hardly a secret. Barney Frank never did support it.)

At the March itself, another fault-line became evident.

Many members of the gay community are clearly angry that the Obama Administration has not yet acted on several promises to advance equality for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. A number of those who delivered speeches at the March made their displeasure very clear. The general sentiment was: yes, you talk the talk. But where’s the walk?

Others–generally those who have worked on equality issues for many years and who are all too familiar with the political barriers that have to be dealt with–believe that actually achieving these changes is more complicated than the critics seem to understand. They are impatient with impatience.

As a recovering lawyer, I am painfully aware that legal changes almost always lag cultural ones. That’s because legislatures and even the courts (angry accusations about “socialist” policymakers and “imperial” courts notwithstanding) rarely act until something akin to a social consensus emerges. Nor can a President unilaterally make most changes. And even when a President can act without Congress, through Executive Order, there are legislative consequences to be expected.

The impatience displayed by many of the Washington marchers is understandable. It’s like being told that “if you just stay in the back of the bus a bit longer” America is more likely to get health care and environmental protection. Why should GLBT rights be held in thrall to other goals? What’s the point of having political capital if you don’t spend it?

My own analysis is somewhat different. Barack Obama is one of the most strategic politicians to come along in my lifetime. I believe him when he says–as he did at the HRC dinner–that he is committed to achieving equal rights for the GLBT community. And I believe him when he says he will do so in his first term.

There are two things any constituency needs from its political champions: sincere commitment and the strategic smarts to actually get something done. I think Clinton had the commitment; but he couldn’t get it done. He was ahead of his time, for one thing; the culture was not quite ready. But he also made a tactical error; his approach to the issue of gays in the military was clumsy and badly timed. I think Obama knows how to get things done–even very difficult things.

Basically, Obama is asking the gay community to trust him.

It’s easy for me to say, of course–I’m not gay. But I DO trust him. And those of my friends who’ve been long-time activists on behalf of GLBT rights, people who know how tough these fights still are, trust him too.

We may be wrong–only time will tell. But when Obama says he’ll get it done during his first term, I believe him.