Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
Security and Sacrifice
-
May 2, 2005 Posted by Rich HarwoodHoly smoke! No sooner than President Bush makes a proposal on Social Security, the daggers come out. Here’s what to look for in the coming debate.
There is little doubt in my mind that this debate will degenerate into the typical acrimony and divisiveness we all so used to on tough political issues. The politicos and organized interest groups will stake out their positions, use the Social Security to rally their troops and raise dollars from their faithful, and make sure little progress is made.
But, this issue, if engaged, could help the nation sort out some important concerns that have been just beneath the political surface for some time, such as:-
What is the social covenant today? Americans
are deeply torn and concerned over what the
social covenant is between and among them. This
issue, clearly, raises such concerns and the
opportunity to debate them.
What is my own obligation? In a society that is so consumer driven, where we expect to get what we want when we want it, there is the question about what our own obligation is to secure our future. This debate provides the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
What is the public good, and what sacrifice will I make for it? Here, there is the question of what kind of society do we want, and what do each of us need to ante up in order to create that society. This debate requires that, at some point, we engage as citizens, not just as individuals.
But if we ask these three questions, we can begin to generate a different kind of debate. That would be good for the nation, and for each individual. More on this in the coming days.
-
Jun 3, 2005 | Sue N. | BaileysMom132@hotmail.com
“Social covenant”? I’d have to say that the political shift to the right—and upward—these days only recognizes one Covenant, and that one is not with each other here but with the god of choice. This, unfortunately for the rest of us, leaves precious little room to try to negotiate on matters of day to day concern. Change needs to be demonstrated to most people from their leaders, but this administration presents ideas (whether Bush’s or Rove’s, we can’t say for certain) that allow for no discussion even among its own staff members. Disagreement is eyed with suspicion at the least and subversion at the worst. This attitude has trickled down to others who follow our leader’s methods and has become “my way or the highway, and I’ll by God legislate it on you whether you like it or not.” My obligation is to keep my opinion out there in the editorial pages and try to bargain, but when “resistance is futile,” one can easily give up the willingness to converse. We retreat into our own shells and seek further reassurance that our values are right by refining our media filters and seeking only those who agree with us. The recent Kansas evolution debates are a fine example. One side shows up with its mind admittedly already made up, and the other side doesn’t show at all because it feels the forum is formulated on false pretenses. When one side adheres strictly and solely to a power beyond human, how can we begin to talk about such matters of “mere” human concern?
-
May 4, 2005 | Susan Barrick | susanbarrick@door.net
I have been receiving posts from this blog and exploring this organization for a couple of months. The word hope in the title attracted me, but I am not able to get past the cynicism and disapproval content like this post carries. I can't help but feeling concerned for Mr. Harwood's state of mind and spiritual well-being.