There is a great deal of talk these days about the need for sacrifice. In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, William McKenzie chides us here in the U.S. for our unwillingness to sacrifice. He writes that "most of us are unwilling to make the changes necessary to resolve big problems." Climate change and health care top his list of those things people are unwilling to sacrifice for.
While McKenzie makes a plausible argument, I believe he has missed the point. Sacrifice exists in abundance in the U.S. There is no shortage of people willing to sacrifice for their children, friends, families, and communities. In the U.S., there is an extraordinary compassion for those who have suffered and are suffering. Disasters and tragedies often bring about a swell of charity from the public. We expect people to make sacrifices in times of war and suffering, and they rarely disappoint. The problem all too often lays in what it is people are being asked to sacrifice and for what purpose.
The further an issue lay from the lives and interests of people, the more problematic it is to expect sacrifice. A hungry, unfortunate, or ill family member can often rely on the beneficence and sacrifice of friends and family to aid them in their time of need. Churches, charities, and local communities can be relied upon as well. The problem arises most often when the government is relied upon. Government services often alleviate for many the sense of obligation to the poor and the suffering. Like Scrooge, many advocate for, and rely upon government programs to relieve them of their obligation to those in need. Often the easiest thing to do for others is to write a check or pay your taxes: or demand that society, i e. the government, take care of them.
Sacrificing for strangers and causes is laudable, even virtuous. But like love or trust, sacrifice and compassion can be asked for, even hoped for, but they should not be demanded. When sacrifice and compassion are demanded, or worse, compelled, they lose whatever virtue or merit they possess. Suffering and misery may be alleviated by compelling others to assist, but there is nothing virtuous, compassionate, or noble about it. Many who support health care reform fancy that they are motivated out of compassion. They often flatter themselves that it is their "values" that compel them to labor for social and economic justice. The reluctance and indifference to the cause they perceive in others only reinforces their determination to persevere. They are determined to conscript others, less virtuous and compassionate than themselves, and, if need be, compel them to participate in their cause through taxes, regulations, and laws.
It is common to hear others speak of the need to compel society to the goal of justice. The health care debate is replete with demands for sacrifice and effort on our parts in behalf of the suffering and unfortunate. Certainly there is nothing wrong with urging people to take action to aid those who are in need. It is right to appeal to the virtue and compassion of others. But it is quite another thing to compel it. Even if we set side the question of what it is people are being asked to sacrifice for, there is nothing virtuous or compassionate in compelling virtue and compassion from people. The virtues of compassion and sacrifice lay in the voluntary choice by people to act in accordance with them.
People in the U.S. have demonstrated great compassion for each other, and on many occasions, for people throughout the world. People in the U.S. have also demonstrated great willingness to sacrifice for each other and those in need. From the compassion of families and loved ones, to the efforts of churches and charities to assist the suffering and mistreated, the willingness of Americans to help each other is an issue that should not be in doubt. The abundance of charitable groups and foundations dedicated to the ill and the poor are a testimony to the compassion of the American public.
Nor have Americans proved indifferent to changes necessary to help the environment. There have been great strides made by the American people over the last few decades to improve the environment. From unleaded gasoline and reduced reliance on coal, to recycling, managed foresting, and efforts to reduce pollution and carbon emissions through alternative energy, Americans have proved to be extraordinarily sympathetic and accommodating to the environment, both here in the U.S. and globally. While it is true that the government participated in cleaning up the environment through laws and regulations, the environmental movement was a bottom up movement and took decades before it became part of our national fabric.
It is possible, as Mckenzie asserts, that many are not willing to make the changes "necessary to resolve big problems." It may also be true that people are not being asked to make reasonable sacrifices for the right things. Ask people to sacrifice for their family, their friends or those suffering in their community, and one will not often be disappointed. Ask them to sacrifice for an abstraction like "nature" or "humanity" and things become more complicated. To compel people to sacrifice is another thing altogether. Compelled virtue is no virtue, even though to those doing the compelling it may feel otherwise.
Persuasion is never a bad thing. Compulsion is almost never a good thing. To claim that Americans are oblivious, or even hostile to changes that need to be made to solve problems, be it social "justice" or the environment, simply reflects the impatience of a crusader. The vehemence and urgency with which change is demanded simply reflects the ardor of a zealot. While compelling virtue and demanding compassion may feel like noble causes, they are anything but.
No comments:
Post a Comment