In this context, "moral values" is code for "being freaked out about gay people getting married," though most in the media don't have the balls to say it. Nearly a dozen states had initiatives banning gay marriage on the ballot, and the social conservatives turned out in force.
In our current political world, "moral values" has come to mean homosexuality, abortion, and professions of religious faith. In other words, when we talk about morality we talk almost exclusively about private behavior. How did this happen?It cannot be overstated how much this state of affairs benefits the right. They receive the most votes from precisely those areas of the country that are most hurt by their policies, and they get them by exploiting these moral wedge issues. (Tom Frank is all over this.) Of course, no powerful monied interests are threatened by largely symbolic government gestures on this front (except, perhaps, big entertainment companies fined by the FCC for showing boobs), so the big industry flaks who run the Republican party are more than happy to talk a great game about them. It's no skin off their backs.
But are policies that lead to more expensive healthcare, fewer and worse jobs, deaths in foreign wars, and -- ahem -- polluted air and water not moral issues? Are our collective decisions, as expressed in economic and environmental policy, not measured by moral standards? I understand why the powerful interests who benefit from these policies don't want them discussed this way, but why do so many voters fall for it?
What is more a threat to our health and welfare -- mercury in our fish or married gay neighbors down the block?
I just don't get it.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Threaded
melanie Posted 12:04 pm
03 Nov 2004
Permalink
obrieke Posted 8:36 pm
03 Nov 2004
How anyone can believe that there's a sharp disconnect between values and policy is beyond me. The majority of us here most likely think that mercury in our fish and science banished from the halls of government are deeply moral issues. And those of us who don't want to make laws against gay people living together probably have moral foundations for those ideas, too. But such thoughts are seen, in public discourse, as something different from morality.
I don't know why and I can't make sense of it, but the fact that I don't get it doesn't mean that something needs to be done to fix it. We need to get the message that it's not enough to be right, we also have to find a way to be righteous. Responsibly, tolerantly righteous, but righteous nonetheless. I'd be really interested to hear others' ideas about what could be done in this direction. A few of mine are:
-We in the environmental movement need to talk, openly and a lot, about morality and values. If we are working from deep commitments, we should find ways to be comfortable talking about them. Of course, we don't want to become the opposition too much by assuming that everyone works from the same values. But if we all share some moral ideas, we need to make that really public. And even if we don't, we need to show the rest of the country that we are morally serious and values-driven people.
-We in the environmental movement need to talk, openly and a lot, about religion. Whether we like it or not, faith and values are intimately linked in most people's minds. So those of us who work for the environment from religious motivation need to be absolutely clear about that. And those of us who don't have religious motivation need to be clear that we can be tolerant of the religious and respect morality from diverse sources.
-We need to find issues that sell as moral issues. If a key to this election was to use gay marriage and abortion to get scads of people to the polls, we need to figure out what issues might be as clear and effective for us. The religious right has lots of policy initiatives and long-ranging plans, but they bring in heavy support by concentrating on issues that people get behind. We should consider doing the same. I believe really deeply in sustainability and biodiversity, but I'm not sure either is yet at a point yet where it's going to be massively popular in this country. I wonder if child asthma rates and energy independence might be better bridge issues?
-We need to rethink our connection to the Democratic Party as it currently exists. One key to this Republicans-as-moral idea hasn't been talked about much: A residual effect of the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski/Kenneth Starr nonsense that (wrongly!) convinced so many people that democrats just don't have morals. We might just accept this and distance ourselves from the Democrats; there are plenty of good environmentalist reasons to leave that party behind. Or we might work to redeem it, but make it clear that the transformation is one that makes it more moral rather than just smarter.
I'm convinced that the response to this election needs to be more hard work. And I hope that part of that work can be to change the assumption that people who work on "liberal" ideas like the environment may have good ideas, but don't have good values. Ultimately, I hope we can prove that good ideas and good values go hand in hand, and that the very idea of voting for only one or the other is ridiculous.
Permalink
krabago Posted 12:11 am
04 Nov 2004
But I am stuck on how I can still argue for reproductive choice.
The ticket for admission to the "moral majority" seems to be the abortion issue (and the gay issue - which has in common that sex should only be between people intending and capable of creating a viable fetus with every act).
Will environmentalists or sustainability advocates ever get in? How?
--------
Karl R. Rabago
Permalink
bmoninna Posted 2:22 am
04 Nov 2004
bmoninna - college student
Permalink
da silva Posted 4:03 am
04 Nov 2004
Permalink
suzanne Posted 2:39 am
11 Nov 2004
I work in the environmental community and often find myself in the company of disapproving zero population folks or lots of middle and upper class folks who have one kid and don't understand how anyone, after going through all-nighters with one baby, could have another. Kids interfere with all that most valuable and important work we are doing.
Doing my job everyday means leaving my family behind, as do my volunteer efforts for the environment. Many of my collegues admit their kids are kind of clueless as to what it is exactly that they do. When the enviromental community does offer something up for kids (like camps and workshops), it's stuff that is not only tends to exclude parents, but is usually incredibly expensive--or the kids get to plant native plants and trees in local parks.
My question in light of the election has been, where is the hub? Where is the center? The moral issue in this election was galvanized in the churches and by neighbor talking to neighbor.
If you are new to a community and value God and country, you can usually find a church full of like-minded people with services and activities for the family and day-care and Sunday school for the kids--scout troops and 4-H groups spring up out of churches. Church and all of the activity is free or nearly and addresses all ages. Where can I go to be with others like me--for no other reason than to just be together and feel strong?
As an environmentalist who is not a christian, I've had a very difficult time finding community, a place where my values receive affirmation and where I'm encouraged to bring my family along. There are a couple of churches and temples that embrace earth ministry and stewardship, but I don't embrace their faith.
The best thing we have is our local food cooperative where we volunteer and shop, and while we shop our kids wander free because it feels safe. We run into lots of people we know there.
But for many outside the coop mentality, the coop is scary place full of homos and freaks. One friend who has a rather large family, but who embraces organics and local buying and other environmentally friendly practices was sneered at and called a "breeder" as she entered the coop.
I have very left-leaning, alternative life-style friends who have left their local coops because of the level of judging that goes on--and the myth of consensual decision making.
I think the environmental movement as it is now alienates moderates who are trying to make a living and raise a family. I know people who have moved away from orgs and activism and become more quietly active by making lifestyle choices because the demands of being an activist actually removes them from family and community. Or they move toward social activism because kids are welcome to help out in soup kitchens and at food banks.
This isn't really a lot of complaining, as it may seem to be. I'm trying to work through my current thinking so that maybe I can come up with a solution for my community.
No easy answers. The left, the liberals, the environmentalists all have some work to do to present a united front and embrace those who don't quite think like us.
The enviro movement is full of strong-minded, well-educated individuals who believe they have the answer. I think, sometimes, we can be as fundamentalist as the right.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:09 am
15 May 2007
Just ask yourself two questions:
"What would your life be like if everyone did it?"
"Would the expected outcome -- based on the first question --harm or improve your quality of life?"
If it harms your life... probably not a sound moral value. If it does not affect or actually improves your life... probably a good idea. I'm intentionally leaving out, for now, how the decision affects the rest of the planet. That is part of the experiment.
Just food for thought.
Forward!
Permalink