The Challenge
On Wednesday, one of Pastor Mike's parishoners sent him the following email. Although he admits to not finishing the bottom "Going Deeper" part of the letter, his basic response to the letter writer was "you are right".
The Letter
Want to schedule a Tuesday meeting to discuss values and political issues? Could be fun. And with the elections over people might be able to consider the issues more calmly.
I would like to reiterate my appreciation and agreement with the thrust of your sermon. It is a shame that you had to say “Bush is my President” and that some of the audience needed to hear it.
You are 110% correct that we as a society in general and as Christians in particular should always take our values (all of them) into the voting booth. Arguing that people should only vote their narrow economic interests is:
So I give you a standing ovation on all that.
BUT (hey you knew this was coming) you also made a very subtle but highly consequential mistake. It is a common one, and often behind the acrimony in political discourse.
You confused policy disputes with moral / value disputes. Now all of the things that you mentioned have implications for both. But consider two items you mentioned: abortion and minimum wage.
Abortion is a pure values dispute which results in policy disputes. Values dictate policy. Valuing the unborn and unrestricted abortion are fundamentally incompatible.
Minimum wage is a pure policy dispute. Although it can be conceived of in terms of values and morality, an agreement on values does not require an agreement on policy. It is possible to earnestly wish to help the poor and agree the government should help if it can (a values discussion) and also support the elimination of the minimum wage (a policy discussion). So a disagreement on policy does not necessarily imply a disagreement on values.
Bottom Line: if you are having a discussion with someone, make sure both of you are having the same one. Are we discussing Goals, Means, or Results?
Getting deeper
Indeed, there are TWO types of conversations.
An agreement on the duties Christians have to be compassionate and charitable does not require an agreement that these duties should be met in part or in their entirety through the exercise of government power. That is a long conversation, and a good one. It is a conversation we all should have. But I would hope we can agree that disagreement on the latter does not imply disagreement on the former. (Goals vs. Means).
The second conversation involves the efficacy of a particular use of government power in achieving the stated aims. (Means vs. Results
The Letter
Want to schedule a Tuesday meeting to discuss values and political issues? Could be fun. And with the elections over people might be able to consider the issues more calmly.
I would like to reiterate my appreciation and agreement with the thrust of your sermon. It is a shame that you had to say “Bush is my President” and that some of the audience needed to hear it.
You are 110% correct that we as a society in general and as Christians in particular should always take our values (all of them) into the voting booth. Arguing that people should only vote their narrow economic interests is:
Insulting. Marxist reductionism. A formula that no democracy can long survive. “Bread and Circuses” is the fatal disease of democracies. Encouraging that type of thinking is an abomination. Doubly insufferable when the argument is made by people who, by the same argument, have already decided to vote against their narrow economic interests.
So I give you a standing ovation on all that.
BUT (hey you knew this was coming) you also made a very subtle but highly consequential mistake. It is a common one, and often behind the acrimony in political discourse.
You confused policy disputes with moral / value disputes. Now all of the things that you mentioned have implications for both. But consider two items you mentioned: abortion and minimum wage.
Abortion is a pure values dispute which results in policy disputes. Values dictate policy. Valuing the unborn and unrestricted abortion are fundamentally incompatible.
Minimum wage is a pure policy dispute. Although it can be conceived of in terms of values and morality, an agreement on values does not require an agreement on policy. It is possible to earnestly wish to help the poor and agree the government should help if it can (a values discussion) and also support the elimination of the minimum wage (a policy discussion). So a disagreement on policy does not necessarily imply a disagreement on values.
Bottom Line: if you are having a discussion with someone, make sure both of you are having the same one. Are we discussing Goals, Means, or Results?
Getting deeper
Indeed, there are TWO types of conversations.
An agreement on the duties Christians have to be compassionate and charitable does not require an agreement that these duties should be met in part or in their entirety through the exercise of government power. That is a long conversation, and a good one. It is a conversation we all should have. But I would hope we can agree that disagreement on the latter does not imply disagreement on the former. (Goals vs. Means).
The second conversation involves the efficacy of a particular use of government power in achieving the stated aims. (Means vs. Results
posted by john at 10:09 PM
1 Comments:
Thank you for your comment, Rob.
A raise in the minimum wage operates differently than you have assumed, and as you trace the effects it can get quite complex.
If you raise the minimum wage from $7.50 to $9.00 you can set off the following chains:
For workers that I can profitably employ at $7.50 but not $9.00 I will let them go, reduce their hours, or not hire as many in the future. This is a fundamental observation which has always been observed in reality when tested.
By raising the price of this labor, I make other alternatives more attractive. An example: instead of paying 3 dishwashers at the old wage I'll pay 2 -- and buy a new dishwasher. This also depresses the use of labor.
Finally, the people who currently work at $7.50 are not always the same people who will be working at $9.00. Some people who will work for $9 but not $7.50 will now compete for those jobs. These people tend to be richer and more highly skilled. It is precisely those who are most prone to poverty that impacted adversely. In the 1950s the unemployment rate for black teens was essentially the same as white teens. Last time I looked it was more than double. Economists have long pointed to minimum wage increases with the effect I just mentioned to explain why.
Peace
Post a Comment
<< Home