Thursday, January 06, 2005
Democratic Values: The Political Realm
The discussion of the apparent ability of the Republican Party in the last election to capture the “values” issue has confused and alarmed many democrats. Slowly most Democrats are coming to realize that in fact the election was not won on the basis of the adherence of voter’s to “family values”. It probably had much more to do with a perception that George W. Bush was more of a leader. (Now, dear Democratic reader, set aside your own visceral reactions to the President. The important issue here is what the average voter thought. Bush seemed more decisive. So he makes mistakes, but don’t we all.) In fact, in state and local elections the Democrats came out slightly ahead of the Republicans.
What is most curious about the discussion is this insistence on the importance of “family values” when speaking within a political context. As far as politics are concerned, the important values are not family, but “community” or “civil”. Those involved in political affairs at the national level have traditionally assumed that the issues appropriate to families are within the purview of individuals or families, and are most appropriately dealt with there. When these values are not up to the task of socializing successive generations, then there is a network of personal or family counselors, religious or secular, to help define and instill family values that alone make this process succeed.
To turn to the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan on which this blog has concentrated, the problem is not that the Iraqis or Afghanis have insufficiently developed “family values”. What they lack is a sense of responsibility and commitment to wider national communities. We will help in these countries in so far as we assist in the development of community and civil values, even sometimes at the expense of family values.
Political systems exist because there is a need for a mechanism or institution to deal with common issues that go beyond what individuals and families can do acting separately. This concept that there is a higher community interest is what makes it imperative that all people pay their taxes, vote in elections, respect the laws of their community and nation, and serve on juries when called upon. It is also imperative that the community, or in the large, the nation-state, considerable the welfare of all its members, all its citizens, and when they see they are in need of better security, better health services, or better schools, that they pool together community resources to provide these. In recent years, this common responsibility, this set of community values, has been most commonly espoused by the Democratic Party. This is why this is the party that believes in the strengthening of welfare, educational, environmental, and health systems that benefit all people and all generations — even if this requires repealing tax cuts, thereby increasing over the short-term the “pain” of a few.
When the nation-state is no longer the appropriate institution to deal with issues that transcend its borders, then other mechanisms and institutions must be developed to deal with issues on the trans-national level. That is why we have the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and a plethora of other international bodies. These are imperfect institutions, but they are increasingly necessary institutions, and the development of more encompassing community and civil values are the only ways in which we will as the human community be able eventually to make these institutions serve the purposes of all. This is why the Democratic Party believes that the United States should play a responsible leadership role in the growth of the institutions of the World Community, even if this means compromising at times the absolute sovereignty of the American state.
Much of what is said here would not go over well with all constituencies in the United States. But it is the responsibility of Democrats to define what they stand for, to define the values that lie behind the policies they applaud. Only then can they embark on the great educational effort that any campaign, political or otherwise, requires.
What is most curious about the discussion is this insistence on the importance of “family values” when speaking within a political context. As far as politics are concerned, the important values are not family, but “community” or “civil”. Those involved in political affairs at the national level have traditionally assumed that the issues appropriate to families are within the purview of individuals or families, and are most appropriately dealt with there. When these values are not up to the task of socializing successive generations, then there is a network of personal or family counselors, religious or secular, to help define and instill family values that alone make this process succeed.
To turn to the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan on which this blog has concentrated, the problem is not that the Iraqis or Afghanis have insufficiently developed “family values”. What they lack is a sense of responsibility and commitment to wider national communities. We will help in these countries in so far as we assist in the development of community and civil values, even sometimes at the expense of family values.
Political systems exist because there is a need for a mechanism or institution to deal with common issues that go beyond what individuals and families can do acting separately. This concept that there is a higher community interest is what makes it imperative that all people pay their taxes, vote in elections, respect the laws of their community and nation, and serve on juries when called upon. It is also imperative that the community, or in the large, the nation-state, considerable the welfare of all its members, all its citizens, and when they see they are in need of better security, better health services, or better schools, that they pool together community resources to provide these. In recent years, this common responsibility, this set of community values, has been most commonly espoused by the Democratic Party. This is why this is the party that believes in the strengthening of welfare, educational, environmental, and health systems that benefit all people and all generations — even if this requires repealing tax cuts, thereby increasing over the short-term the “pain” of a few.
When the nation-state is no longer the appropriate institution to deal with issues that transcend its borders, then other mechanisms and institutions must be developed to deal with issues on the trans-national level. That is why we have the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and a plethora of other international bodies. These are imperfect institutions, but they are increasingly necessary institutions, and the development of more encompassing community and civil values are the only ways in which we will as the human community be able eventually to make these institutions serve the purposes of all. This is why the Democratic Party believes that the United States should play a responsible leadership role in the growth of the institutions of the World Community, even if this means compromising at times the absolute sovereignty of the American state.
Much of what is said here would not go over well with all constituencies in the United States. But it is the responsibility of Democrats to define what they stand for, to define the values that lie behind the policies they applaud. Only then can they embark on the great educational effort that any campaign, political or otherwise, requires.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
