Facts. Policymakers operate on the basis of some reading of the facts relevant to the legislation they are considering, as well as the likely realities consequent upon acting or not acting in various ways. In the case of this massive spending bill, a great majority of our leaders agree on the factual claim that our economic problems are sufficiently grave that major governmental intervention is needed. They don’t agree on other factual claims related to what kinds of spending will produce the most effective economic stimulus in the shortest period of time. But enough of them agreed on a variety of options to get a plan passed.

Christian ethics has no special insight to offer on such factual claims, and must defer to those with particular expertise in these matters. Of course, no one operating at the highest levels of leadership in Washington has ever seen anything quite like this, so everyone is improvising.

Interests. Realism requires the recognition that every legislator comes to the table acutely self-interested, especially in their own re-election and rise in the political firmament. Every constituent of every legislator is also self-interested, as are leaders of every level of government, as are businesses and their leaders, as is every human being and human group. This means that there is always the temptation to cut loose the purse strings of government so that everyone -- or at least everyone who knows how to work the system -- gets their share of the pork.

Christian ethics can offer to public discussion the rich, sobering resources of our tradition related to the pervasiveness of sinful self-interest and the obligation to move beyond selfishness toward the common good. We can attempt to hold policymakers accountable for bridling rank self-interestedness -- and especially for barring favoritism directed toward the wealthiest, most powerful, and best connected.

Values. There are many value-laden issues related to this spending bill, as there are related to most important policy decisions. I think that reflection on these values is where Christian ethics can make its main contribution.

Consider the moral principle of intergenerational moral responsibility. Opponents of the current bill strongly resisted the massive borrowing involved. It is indeed true that a government that has been running major budget deficits and building a massive stockpile of debt is now about to add $800 billion more to the pile. That can only be described as a highly dubious move in terms of the responsibility of one generation of Americans to those that will follow. It can only be justified as essentially a national emergency measure. Once the economy gets back on its feet, this bill must be followed up by a level of government fiscal responsibility not seen in a long time.

Another relevant moral principle is care for the most vulnerable. It is a basic biblical principle that the least of these, the most powerless, needy, and vulnerable, are of great concern to God and must be of great concern to God’s people. This means that we have to scrutinize this spending bill for provisions it makes to employ the unemployed, give health care to those without it, keep people in their homes and reduce the tax burden on those who can least afford to carry it.

A final principle to consider is subsidiarity. This is a theme in Catholic ethics (it goes under other names in other ethical traditions) that emphasizes protecting and preserving the distinctive role, freedom and responsibility of the various actors in society. It is especially concerned about protecting individuals, families and local entities from having their functions taken over by higher-level organizations such as national governments. Subsidiarity recognizes the dangers of collectivism (and especially totalitarianism) and seeks to set limits on state intervention in the family, church, locality and economy.

A major question to consider in all economic legislation is whether it serves and strengthens other, “lower” sectors of society or instead takes over their functions in ways that would violate the principle of subsidiarity. The jury is out on this one right now.

-30-

David Gushee is distinguished university professor of Christian ethics at Mercer University.

---

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed