Concern For The Collective

For whatever reason, I am one of those people with a deeply ingrained sense of fair play that recognizes we are more than simply individuals 'doing our own thing' in isolation and with no regard to others; I happily acknowledge that we are part of a larger agglomeration that we name 'society.'

So yes, I readily admit to being one of those who counts the number of groceries in the basket of the person ahead of me in the express checkout at the grocery store; I am also someone who uses highway passing lanes for their intended purpose and not as my personal conduit or as a semi-permanent solution to avoiding merging traffic while driving at a speed that shows no regard for cars behind me. I also get outraged if a page is defaced or torn out of a library book.

In my mind, all of the above are serious crimes against the collective, selfish refusals to consider others as worthy of our respect and co-operation as we live out our lives.

And yet it is an attitude that seems all too common today, as governments and cultural imperatives urge us to be self-absorbed consumers whose highest values spring from the dictates of the marketplace, not our consciences, values, spiritual beliefs or regard for the common good.

It was therefore refreshing to read in today's Star an article entitled Harvard professor Michael Sandel examines ‘moral limits of markets’ in new book. In it, Sandel, a highly regarded Harvard professor of political philosophy, asks questions that we seem to have become reluctant to ask today:

Sandel says that we are increasingly reluctant to talk about what kind of society we want. We are reluctant to allow moral and spiritual concerns into public debate. Instead, we’ve come to rely on the market to assign value.

“Part of the appeal of markets,” he writes in the book, “is that they don’t pass judgment on the preferences they satisfy. They don’t ask whether some ways of valuing goods are higher or worthier than others.”

The market is only interested in efficiently matching buyers and sellers. It is not interested in what is being distributed, or whether it is fair — let alone whether some things should be distributed at all.

Sandel talks as well about the growing inequality gap that essentially has us living on different worlds, something that seems so very evident when we look at the direction the Harper regime is taking us in Canada:

By putting a price on just about everything, by having things of great value up for sale, we end up widening the gap between those with money and those without. “At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives,” Sandel writes. “We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools. . . It’s not good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live.”

He does not oppose inequality everywhere, but believes that too much of it is dangerous. “Democracy does not require perfect equality,” he writes, “but it does require that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another, and bump up against one another, in the course of everyday life. For this is how we learn to negotiate and abide our differences, and how we come to care for the common good.”

In a world that encourages lazy thinking, reactionary rather than thoughtful responses, and the embrace of absolutisms, Sandel is a refreshing and much-needed voice of reason and reflection. For those who are especially interested, he also has a 12-part television series available on the Internet that explores many of these questions.

The Soul of the Nation

Last April, as part of a larger post, I write the following about the pernicious effects of bad political leadership:

If we consider, for example, the widespread cynicism and disengagement gripping people today, we are witnessing the effects of bad leadership. When people are manipulated by the politics of fear, division, suspicion and exclusion, they become victims of diseased leadership. When people refuse to vote because they don’t feel it will make any difference, when they ascribe self-interest and greed as the main motivations of people seeking elected office, when they evince little or no surprise at the flouting of constitutional laws by their elected representatives, they not only have fallen prey to a spiritual or moral malaise, they are in fact facilitating its spread, something I suspect our political leadership is not in the least bit concerned about; after all, the more disengagement and disaffection there is amongst the voters, the easier it is for politicians to continue on their self-aggrandizing and pernicious paths.

I was reminded of those thoughts this morning as I read today's Toronto Star's editorial, entitled, Respect mah authoritah! essentially a litany of wrongdoing, both moral and legal, committed by the Harper government, including the following:

- In the case of the Attawapiskat situation, Harper has wrested fiscal control from the band council and placed it in the hands of a federal manager, at a cost to the band of $1300 per day;

- Even though the Federal Court has ruled Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz acted illegally in hobbling the Wheat Marketing Board, the government is intent on ignoring the legal ruling; in fact, Harper is about to invoke closure in the Senate to ensure its speedy passage into law;

- There is also the case of Irwin Cotler, who Tory operatives sought to undermine by spreading telephone rumours to his Montreal constituents that he is about to retire. The government response to this disclosure: According to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan, the Tories have a sweeping Charter right to resort to dirty tricks.

So my point is really a simple one. When people are subjected to a government that talks a harsh line about law and order, even going so far as to enact draconian punishments but places itself above the law and its sanctions, when they are subjected to a government that shows nothing but contempt for the views and the rights of others, they are not only witnessing a government with no moral authority to hold public office; they are also victims of an insidious process that leads to an inevitable erosion of their own sense of responsibility, morality, and concern for the public good.

If you don't believe me, take a few examples that initially may see extreme and melodramatic, but in fact followed the same path with destructive results: Nazi Germany and Rwanda immediately come to mind, and, to take a contemporary example, Israel, whose government and many of its citizens have reached such a hubristic state that the ability to reflect critically on their actions and mistreatment of others seems to have been lost.

Thus is the power of government to deform its citizenry. Canada will not be an exception to this pattern.