< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Judging by the tenor of much of my correspondence, as
well as what I read about the presidential primaries, one
major issue this year is what I'll call morality in
government.
It's a big part of Bill Bradley's challenge to Al Gore. On the Republican side, all three candidates (Alan Keyes was still running, the last I heard) seem to think it's important, though they focus on different aspects of the topic.
John McCain stresses a moral approach to the processes of government -- that is, public projects should be undertaken for the public good, rather than because the affected shipyard is in the home state of a powerful senator, and that a congress beholden to its campaign contributors tends to serve them at the expense of the general public.
George W. Bush apparently sees government as one of several social forces toward an improved personal morality, and Keyes can sound almost theocratic, as though government exists only to enforce codes of personal morality.
Philosophical political questions like this have been
around since Plato composed The Republic,
and our
Founding Fathers certainly considered these matters.
The best such observation came from James Madison, who
famously noted that If men were angels, no government
would be necessary.
In other words, if we were perfect, then we would always act in an honest and moral way without the need for armies, police, courts and prisons, along with associated taxes and bureaucracy.
That is obviously not the case, so government is necessary. Can the government be a moral agent?
It's a good question, but even if we had a good answer to it, it wouldn't provide much guidance in resolving our major political issues.
Go back to slavery, the issue that tore the nation apart in 1860. There were many who said slavery was immoral; indeed, the first secession movement arose in New England, where the flag and copies of the Constitution were burned in public because they represented an unholy covenant with the immoral Slave Power.
And there were Americans who followed John C. Calhoun's reasoning that slavery was a moral arrangement, indeed one sanctioned by the Bible, and that it was thus immoral to advocate any changes.
Move forward to the Vietnam War. Opponents said it was unjust and immoral. Supporters said it would be immoral to betray our allies in South Vietnam -- that we had given our word, and a moral nation does not go back on its pledges.
Examine another hot-button issue, abortion. I can't make a moral case in favor of abortion, but neither can I make a moral case for a government exercising that much control over anyone's body. I figure that if humans are individual moral agents, then there are decisions that we are supposed to make, rather than leave to the government.
But this begets another question. If we are citizens who ultimately control a representative government, then how much moral responsibility do we bear for the government's actions?
In other words, is it right to pay taxes to support activities you find morally repressible? Henry David Thoreau thought not. He refused to support the Mexican War and spent a night in jail. In current times, the same arguments appear over everything from controversial art exhibits to the bombing of Belgrade.
On occasion I have argued that government exists to perform actions that would be immoral for individuals. Bombing a building is thus wrong if performed by individuals in Oklahoma City, but virtuous if performed by the U.S. Air Force in Baghdad. Killing an unarmed person is a capital crime for individuals, but an unfortunate accident for police officers. Seizing someone's property is theft when done by individuals, but it becomes civil asset forfeiture when performed by government agents.
This analysis could continue indefinitely, but it misses one point: Any government with enough power to protect its borders and maintain some degree of social order will end up performing actions that would be immoral if done by individuals. There's no way around it.
That being the case, maybe the best we can hope for is that the processes of government are conducted in a fair way, and that the powers of government be limited so as to minimize the number of immoral acts -- acts that may be quite moral in some eyes -- that it compels its citizens to be a party to.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2000 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >