A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on December 5th, 2007 in Progressive Faith

I have to disagree, in part, with some of my colleagues over at Faith in Public Life on their takes on the “common good“ as a means of redefining political debate.

We start down at the bottom with Nathan Newman. He writes:

So I’m been asked to talk about the role of the Common Good from the “secular” perspective, except it’s clearer to say I come at it from the atheist perspective, since in many ways I think I’m less of a “secularist” than many folks precisely because I think it’s hard to have a real discussion of a “common good” when everyone is leaving their faith at the door of public discourse, at least the way many secularists think you should.

I’ll agree with that. I’ve always said that a person who believes anything – Jesus Christ is the son of God or we shouldn’t pull fingernails off of shoplifters – simply can’t hold any discussion about those beliefs, or how those beliefs are played out in the real world, without actually discussing those beliefs. It sounds pretty stupid when it’s put that way, but if I say, “Christians cannot talk about public action without speaking about how that action relates back to their Christian beliefs,” then I get every two-bit armchair politician telling me we have “separation of church and state”.

He goes on:

But in the long run, we need a broader dialogue not just about the “what” of the common good but how we continue the dialogue on the “why” and accommodating our different belief systems to agree on how to arrive at that “what.”

I’ll suggest to Nathan that he shift from “why” to “how”. Conservatives are not trying to be mean – they just believe that the common good is best served by allowing the forces of the market to work unfettered. Liberals are not trying to build an all-powerful government – they just believe that the government is there to enforce the basic equality of existence. If someone believes in such a thing as “the common good”, chances are that they will endorse it. It is the “how” of addressing it that causes so much strife.

Nathan concludes this way:

My basic conviction is that only as a real religious engagement over values happens in the public sphere will atheists actually even have a chance to get respect within that sphere.

Counterintuitively, a secular public space, by cultivating more ignorance of each others’ beliefs, has left less room for the less religious to be validated for their own values since the religious never engage with atheists in a meaningful social dialogue. We spend our time fighting over what to exclude from public debate instead of arguing over what we share based on the overlap in our values.

I can’t put that any better, so I’ll just let it stand.

Similarly, David Buckley says this:

Someone once said that we all agree about human rights, so long as nobody asks why. That person had a point, and it would be reasonable to say the same thing about the common good.

I respect David a lot, but in my discussions on human rights, the question that comes up is “Which ones?” “Why” seems to be self-evident – you have human rights because you are a human. He continues:

If it’s challenging to talk about “why” between Nebraska and New York, it’s downright daunting to dream of a common good that stretches from Kansas to Khartoum.

David is right. I’m well aware that my favorite medium of expression is not even accessible to the majority of humans in the world. Anyone reading this is probably in the top 10% of the weathiest earthlings. It means when we talk about human rights, and the common good, we bear the brunt of the responsiblity for reaching out to make things right. We can’t take the Bush approach to Kyoto and say, “When those under-developed countries begin to cut their emissions, we’ll consider it.” We can afford to do it now – they can’t. That’s reality.

Sally Steenland is the next batter. She writes:

I hate to say it, but I’m getting worried about the common good. Not the concept itself— it’s a rich moral precept with deep roots in our religious and civic history. But I worry that the phrase is in danger of being turned into a slogan, tacked onto whatever issue needs ethical pumping up, and stretched beyond its genuine meaning to give moral cover to whomever/whatever needs it.(You know the common good is in danger when oil companies are using it in their ad campaigns.)

Hah. So true. But do we expect oil companies to advertise, “If you must go to hell in a handbasket, make it a big honking handbasket with lots of luxury features.”? I don’t. There has not been a single political cause put forth that was ever justified on anything but “common good”. That’s my reaction to Nathan and David. Like the Supreme Court saying “pornography cannot be defined, but I know it when I see it”, “common good” is so amorphous as to defy rational definition.

But if the problem is that everyone uses “common good”, then that’s the solution, too. Each generation must redefine that term in relation to their existence. The fact that the term is up for grabs right now means that the iron is hot – and progressive must strike soon or have that term defined against their interests for another generation.

She concludes:

Because I’m a Calvinist, I believe in a fallen world, which means the common good will probably never be perfectly realized on this earth. Even so, we need to keep striving for it, reaching beyond ourselves for something larger and better, calling others to join us on the journey.

I’m not a Calvinist, but I don’t look for mankind to ever invent a single perfect thing – except maybe a perfect mistake (as in “invasion of Iraq”). We are not called to usher in perfection, though, only to show the world that things can be better – and to strive to make it so.

James Salt then replies:

The common good is a belief that societies thrive when we are willing to serve and sacrifice for one other. That is that I’m better off when my neighbor is better off. This concept links the interest of the self with the interest of the other. (For Christians, we call this the golden rule) Furthermore, the concept of the common good has universal acceptance, as evidenced in the fact that few if any arguments exist against the necessity of roads, public schools or clean water.

I wish it were so, but it isn’t. Talk to a few libertarians or Ayn Rand worshippers. Again, the arguments do not come against the existence of such public goods, but the proper way to pay for and allow access to them.

He also writes:

A thorough pronouncement of the common good ethic from those seeking elected office has the potential to redefine the role of government in American society. This has been a point sorely absent from the post-New Deal left and despite the sloganeering

I have to disagree. John Kennedy told Americans “Ask not what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country.” He then followed up by addressing the world: “Ask not what America can do for you; but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” Lyndon Johnson launched a War on Poverty – which is about as “common good” as a person can get. Bill Clinton offered “A hand up, not a hand out.”

The problem isn’t that people haven’t focused on the “common good”, but that the consensus about what the best way of achieving that “common good” has been lost. This was due, largely, to the horrible economic conditions of the 1970s and a concerted effort on the part of self-interested wealthy funders of the Conservative movement.

I don’t personally have a problem endorsing what any of these fine folks have said – but I’m not going to fool myself into thinking that it would gain wide acceptance without a fight. That’s why I didn’t fold up shop when my upgrade went badly – there’s a fight ahead, and I plan to be a part of it.

Technorati Tags: Faith in Public Life, common good, Nathan Newman, David Buckley, Sally Steenland, James Salt

Sphere: Related Content