Religion reared its head just once in last night's presidential debate, in Mitt Romney's two-point riff on the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Point one focused on the government's responsibility for the protection of life and liberty--militarily, with no suggestion that "life" has to do with abortion. Then came :
Second, in that line that says we are endowed by our creator with our rights, I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can't care for themselves are cared by -- by one another.
We're a nation that believes that we're all children of the same god and we care for those that have difficulties, those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that are disabled. We care for them. And we -- we look for discovery and innovation, all these things desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.
That the right to pursue happiness should require the government to protect religious liberty is plausible enough, but the idea that it entails a governmental obligation to help the poor, the elderly, and the disabled has got to be a novelty. It's the kind of claim that, if a Democrat said it, would elicit howls of socialism.
So much for Reaganesque--or (Paul) Ryanesque--claims that the government is best that governs least. Romney was clearly making his pitch to get back some of the 47 percent. Ayn Rand is turning over in her grave.
Marmot | Oct 4, 2012 | 10:40am
You may be reading something into this that was not said. He didn’t say government has that obligation. He said “we” have that obligation. Certainly Christians and many others believe that we have that obligation at least as individuals and probably collectively as faith communities.
Government’s responsibility may or may not have been implied.
But even if it was, there is a world of difference between a temporary helping hand for those in dire circumstances and a culture of learned dependency that of necessity denies earned success in service of a redistributionist goal that is ultimately socialism-light.
I know no Conservatives that think it is not promoting the “general welfare” if government to provides temporary assistance to those in dire need (and even long term help for those truly disabled, as long as it does not get in the way of them achieving as much self sufficiency as they are able). Unfortunately, I know few Liberals who think that should be the end of government’s role in that matter - most Liberals believe government’s role should also include taking the legitimately earned success of one (I’m not speaking of ill gotten gains here) to redistribute to those that have not earned it.
There is a big gap between those two views. A healthy debate would start by each side at least recognizing where the other Begins. Liberals do a disservice by shrilly claiming that Conservatives want to let the poor die, and Conservatives do a disservice by not acknowledging that Liberals believe that it is truly in the “general welfare” for government to redistribute income.
To read words into Ronmey’s comment he did not say is not helpful. And to imply that if he did mean government (which perhaps he did, but only in part), that this comment represents some dramatic break with the Conservative tradition also does a disservice to the debate.
Mark Silk | Oct 4, 2012 | 11:18am
The question was specifically about the role of government, and Romney began his response by saying, “The role of government: Look behind us. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents.” If the “we” in his answer doesn’t refer to the American people acting collectively through the government, then the answer makes no sense. How else can the government go about “making sure” that the those unable to care for themselves are cared for?
Adriana Muller | Oct 4, 2012 | 12:28pm
I believe that people (relatives and neighbours) should be more concerned about the ones unable to take care of themselves but indeed this is love.
Love is the light of the heart the brighter the light the more you love and the more you love the more you help others.
Government doesn’t love anyone they just do business.
Doc Fox, SFO | Oct 4, 2012 | 1:44pm
Of course the Declaration of Independence is a political statement made by revolutionaries to justify their revolution. It has no force of law, let alone constitutional law. Constitutional Law grows out of the Constitution, with its Bill of Rights. At most, the Declaration of Independence might indicate something of the mindset of the different group authors of the 13-years-later Constitution, which is debatable.
Our obligation as communities, whether ecclesial communities, neighborhood communities, city communities, county communities, state communities, national and larger church communities, and the national community, according to ability to act and fund things, are collectively responsible for the well-being of every occupant of the United States, however the necessary acts of kindness for the poor, the sick, the strangers, the elders, the infants, the young, however those acts of kindness that ensure food, medicine, housing, and work as appropriate to each relevant person’s abilities—how best those acts can actually be accomplished is the only question. It should never be said by anyone that ‘x should have done it, and yeah, x didn’t, but we’ve done what we should’. No, delegation to the entity closest to the situation (or half of the subsidiarity Q) is not in and of itself sufficient, if the delegee can’t or won’t act—then delegation is not the answer. And if a problem is of national scope, it needs to be dealt with by the national community acting through its government.
Nate Bostian | Oct 4, 2012 | 5:46pm
This discussion in the comments seems predicated on the idea that Romney substantially meant what he said. What if he was just saying that because it had a nice ring to it and a vague, nebulous, wide ranging appeal to people on both the left and right who believe in God? It seems clear from fact checking websites that both Romney and Obama were inventing, or at least spinning, numbers and statistics to suit their argument (Romney perhaps more so). Why not spin God language too? It’s all deconstructsble. In American political discourse, isn’t language always merely the wax nose on the face of power? In the end, wasn’t nearly every sentence in the debate reducible to “Vote for me, because I will say anything you need me to say to make you feel good about ceding power to me”? Yes, this is blatant political nihilism. But is there any real reason to hope for anything else? I’m not sure that anyone in Washington actually has a constructive vision of the public good, and governments rightful role in ensuring public goods are properly distributed for the public good. I would love to believe otherwise.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | Oct 9, 2012 | 10:30am
While the Declaration is not law, is not the Constitution, it is prior to the Constitution. It created the United States. The Constitution is an instrument created by the nation, and can be altered and even discarded by it, as the Articles of Confederation were. It took a century for the Constitution to include equality, another to be implemented, but the statement in the Declaration has constituted the nation, and as Lincoln used it in the Gettysburg Address, it has been the aspirational call to us as Americans, forging our identity out of a new belief system rather than a long history like other nations.