According to
the Project on
Middle East Democracy (POMED), United States Secretary of State Rex
Tillerson recently announced that the Department of State is drafting new
statements of purpose, mission, and ambition. These will jettison
the U.S.’s commitment to justice, democracy, and personal liberty. As POMED Executive Director Stephen McInerney said,
Such a move is especially alarming in light of other statements that
suggest that this administration may seek to diminish the role of justice and
democracy in U.S. foreign policy. Changing policy in that way would
not only be antithetical to basic American ideals, but would also benefit
autocratic regimes and jeopardize U.S. security.
We couldn’t have
said it better ourselves, which is why we quoted McInerney. We find
such a move disturbing. While it has never been perfect, the United
States has at least been able to claim that it has striven for justice and
democracy from its very beginning, just as it says in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution: the United States was formed primarily to "establish justice."
So, is getting
rid of America’s ideals really the way to “make America great
again”? Is it a good idea to abolish even the lowest standard —
although promoting democracy and justice is hardly setting the bar low — for
any reason?
Quick answer: No.
Longer answer:
democracy and justice must be preserved and promoted because they are
important. Why? Because all society is supposed to run on
justice, and democracy (both political and economic) means that people, not the
State or some other institution, are in charge and have power over their own
lives.
 |
| Lincoln and Douglas, 1858 |
Abraham Lincoln
probably gave the best definition of political democracy as government “of the
people, by the people, and for the people.” We can paraphrase that
for economic democracy and say it is an economy of the people, by the people,
and for the people.
And
justice? Justice is defined as the virtue (“virtue” being “the habit
of doing good”) that directs us to render to each what each is
due. Perhaps not coincidentally, Lincoln also gave a good idea of
how a just society should work. In his debate with Stephen Douglas
on October 15, 1858, arguing against the idea that justice is only for some
people, not for all, Honest Abe said,
That is the real issue. That is
the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge
Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these
two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two
principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will
ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the
other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it
develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn
bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the
mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by
the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving
another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.
 |
| Tillerson: Democracy and justice are for me, not for you. |
So the message
that Secretary Tillerson would have America send to the rest of the world is
that most people don’t matter. Government and economic life are not
“of the people, by the people, and for the people.” No, they are “of
the élite, by the élite, and for the élite.” And
justice? Justice is the economic
principle that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat
it.”
Is that what the
world really wants? Is that what the world really
needs? And is that what America really wants or
needs?
No, everybody wants
democracy and justice. The problem with the élites is
that they only want it for themselves. Except for the truly
psychotic or those who are sociopaths, however (and few of those manage to stay
in power for very long), the reason the élites fear democracy
and justice for others is that both words have been redefined in ways that mean
something different from what Lincoln meant.
 |
| Some revisions of Lincoln's words. |
“Democracy” now
means the collective rules (meaning those who control the State are in charge
of everyone’s life), while “justice” means that all material needs (as defined
by the State) are met . . . by the State.
In other words, democracy and justice mean socialism — State control —
not free people in control of their own lives.
Thus, it’s no
wonder that an extremely wealthy person Secretary of State Tillerson who favors
monopoly capitalism would want to draft new mission statements for the United
States. If he were to promote the socialist version of democracy and
justice, he’d just be increasing demands on his current and future wealth.
Consider,
however, what things would be like if capitalists did not have
a monopoly over future wealth, and America became firmly committed to genuine global
justice and democracy, economic as well as political. Most people
could get what they need (including the legitimate services of government) with
diminishing need for charity or government redistribution.
Take, as one
obvious example, the healthcare system.
Or,
preferably, don’t take it. Leave
it. When government monopolizes a nation’s healthcare business, it
does even worse than it does in other areas.
Government is supposed to look after the common good and enforce and
lift barriers to economic justice, not look after everybody’s individual and
personal needs (except in an emergency when there is no other recourse) — and,
with few exceptions, nothing except education and a few other things is more
personal and individual than healthcare.
A government
monopoly over education is bad, and it’s even worse with
healthcare. Bad education means you might not live
well. Bad healthcare means you might not live at all.
 |
| Dr. Leo Alexander (1905-1985) |
The dangers of
politicizing healthcare have been known for decades. One of the more
obvious examples is what happened in the Third Reich. In Nazi
Germany, everything was political, with the results horrifyingly chronicled by
Dr. Leo Alexander, Chief Medical Examiner at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials,
in his article, “Medical Science Under Dictatorship.”
What is needed is
a health care system that puts physicians and their patients, not the
government, back in charge. Who, after all, is better able to make
the best decision about someone’s health? A trained professional
consulting with the person to put or keep that person in good health, or a time-serving
bureaucrat consulting the latest directive to keep his or her job?
For an
alternative, consider “Affording Universal Healthcare: A Private Sector
Alternative to Mandates,” from the interfaith Center for Economic and
Social Justice (CESJ). It’s at least worth some
serious study, and might even suggest one or two ways to get out of the hole
people — and governments — have dug themselves into.
This is all very
well, of course, but the questions arise, How are you going to do it? Where is the money going to come from to put
actual people back in charge, if not from the rich (as in capitalism) or the
State (as in socialism)? Without
democratic access to money and credit, there will be no monetary justice. Without monetary justice, there will be no
economic justice . . . and without economic justice, there will be no political
justice, no democracy, and the people of the world will remain at the mercy of
either a capitalist or socialist élite.
And, having
raised those key questions, we’ll look at them tomorrow.
#30#