Listening for understanding

The Sunday readings are back to Mark’s gospel now.  Last week we heard Jesus explain that it’s not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of him:

"From within people, from their hearts,
come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,
adultery, greed, malice, deceit,
licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.
All these evils come from within and they defile." (Mark 7:23)

This coming Sunday Mark will tell us about Jesus opening the ears of a deaf man.  As we enter into the final two months of the presidential election season, all of us will be hearing more and more about the two candidate and their party platforms.  I wonder how many Americans are really listening and understanding what the candidates are saying, as opposed to hearing only for what they already agree with and want to hear?  According to the pollsters, most Republicans and Democrats will vote their party, and the so-called independents and undecided voters will swing the election one way or another. Each party demonizes the other and fills the media with ads attacking their opponent, especially in the swing states. 

Can anyone sift through all this trash-talk and really learn what kind of president each candidate would make?  I would like to suggest that instead of taking a political view of the candidates, we all compare and contrast the candidates and their party platforms based on the moral value of their positions and party planks.  After all, the purpose of any government is supposed to be to seek and ensure the “common good.”  Rather than assess the political impact of the speeches and ads, we might instead carefully examine the content of each party’s platform to determine which one best serves the common good.  The next president and the majority party in congress will not only be passing legislation, they will be writing the administrative laws that interpret legislation according to their values and vision for America.

Will the laws and administrative rules of America be based on authentic values that promote the common good?   How do we define what’s good for America?  How does each party define morality?  Pope Benedict has said that separating law from morality “fails to recognize the full breadth of human nature and in fact diminishes man and threatens humanity.”   Cardinal Dolan who gave the closing benediction at the Republican National Convention, and will do the same at the Democratic convention this week, has said that laws which violate human dignity – no matter how much they appear to make people free—contribute to the culture of death. 

President Obama is right about one thing: there is a sharp contrast between the two parties and candidates.  They hold completely different values and each has their own definition of morality.  One party’s platform places a high value on abortion rights, gay marriage, and higher taxes on the wealthy as a means of reducing national debt. The other party opposes all three, believing in the intrinsic value of every human life from the moment of conception, defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and wants to lower taxes on small businesses and their owners in order to stimulate the creation of new jobs.  

Rather than debate the political wisdom of these very different platforms, examining them from a moral context is perhaps the best way to predict the benefits and consequences of each alternative.   President Obama is being characterized as caring more about the poor and the middle class, certainly a good thing.  But he exercises this concern by offering to give people absolute freedom, including the freedom to kill unwanted children in the womb, freedom to marry same sex partners, and a safety net that provides money, food, and healthcare for those who for one reason or another failed to develop job skills.   Are these values morally good, or do they diminish human dignity by placing personal freedom ahead of human life and family values?  The consequences of this value system are lower birthrates, fewer people entering the workforce, either because they were never born or because it’s so much easier to accept government assistance than to finish one’s education and start at the bottom of the pay scale for unskilled labor.   It also results in fewer people contributing to the productive capacity of our nation and fewer people paying taxes.   As we’ve seen the past four years, this results in our government spending far more money than it takes in, hence the $16 trillion deficit faced by our nation.  Where’s the “common good” in all of this?

The other party promotes human dignity by recognizing the innate value of every human life and therefore condemning abortion as morally wrong.  They also uphold the vital importance of traditional marriage as the place for bringing children into the world in a safe and secure environment with a mother and father to teach them to respect human dignity, develop virtuous habits such as temperance, personal responsibility, and sexual continence.  Children of traditional families are more likely to complete their education, and add constructively to the nation’s economy.  The consequence is higher birth rates, more workers entering the workforce, higher productivity, higher incomes, and more tax revenue,  enabling the government to balance its budgets so that the burden of debt is not passed on to future generations.  Doesn’t this sound more like the “common good?”

Over the next couple months, tune your ears carefully to hear not just political rhetoric, but listen instead for the moral values of the two candidates and the two parties.  Which one resonates with your personal values and vision for the common good of our country?   As Michele Obama said during her speech Tuesday night, being president doesn’t change you, it simply reveals who you really are.  Listen carefully and hear what comes from the hearts of the two candidates, and ask yourself if it defiles them or reveals them to be promoting the moral values that will uphold and strengthen our country.   Are they spewing political rhetoric that appeals to the selfish desires of their ardent supporters who hold personal freedom to be the penultimate value, regardless of the consequences to our nation; or are they revealing themselves to be leaders willing to fight for what they believe to be morally best for our nation?