All the Internet conversations that have popped up after Sarah Palin’s speech to the Tea Party convention got me thinking about the possibility of a Palin presidency. While most of the folks I know scoff at the idea, I would encourage them not to take the potential of this disastrous eventuality too lightly.
Why?
Thinking about that question took me back to the philosophical question of Morals vs. Ethics. In the common parlance, the two terms are often used interchangeably, but there are differences. Morals represent personal beliefs of “right” and “wrong” or those held jointly by a group. Ethics refers to a system of integrated beliefs that define a social contract. While Morals are the fundamental basis for a system of Ethics, the individuality of Morals inherently creates stresses within any Ethical system.
The most successful Ethical systems tend to be those that are focused primarily on the moral responsibilities of individuals in relationship to the best interests of the larger social group. Ideally, the ethics of a society provide equal protection to both majority and minority Moral viewpoints, so long as those viewpoints do not directly harm other segments of the society. Ethical systems and the societies on which they are based face a continual balancing act in determining the definition of ‘harm’ in shared Moral terms.
It seems like a growing number of people in the United States believe that this country was founded on a a basis of Morals rather than a code of Ethics. Quite obviously, the opposite is true. The structure of the government created by the US Constitution was designed to protect the Ethical system from the tyranny of a Moral majority. The establishment of a Republic rather than a Democracy, the structure of the Electoral College, the balancing of power between the three branches (as well as within the legislative branch) and the definition of the Judicial branch’s role (following the Ethical code of the Constitution rather than any specific individual or group Moral code) all served to reduce the probability of a tyrannical majority. After all, many of the first colonists were fleeing exactly those conditions when they left Europe.
Through-out US history there have been conflicts initiated by Moral movements that want to either expand or restrict the landscape of the nation’s Ethical structure. Over the long term, it has been primarily those movements that are targeted towards expanding the sphere of protected classes that have had a lasting success. The most powerful representations of broad Moral shifts can be found in the amendments to the constitution, if only for the fundamental difficulty of achieving such a change. Granting rights to different races, to women, to those over 18 (to vote) all serve to expand the Ethical structure in an inclusive manner. The 18th amendment was one of the few that reduced the scope of allowable Moral positions, and it’s repeal demonstrated the fundamental intolerance of the nation to constitutional amendments that limit expression of those personal beliefs that do not present an innate risk of infringement on the rights of others.
Each significant Ethical shift is preceded by a period in which an insecure and vocal segment or segments of society react strongly against the notion of extending the protection afforded by the society’s Ethical system to a new minority. Often times the objection is couched in specific Moral viewpoints but regardless of the basis, the consistent underlying theme is the majority’s fear of a dilution of their power and authority. The US today is in the midst of a number of Ethical shifts towards a more inclusive social covenant, a fact which causes great distress in those who fear any shift in the status quo.
The first and most obvious is the shift in cultural attitude towards freedom of sexual preference. Acceptance of non-heterosexual preference as a protected class within the US Ethical structure appears now to be a matter of when and not if. Age-based demographics send that message strongly, and the “Conservative” backlash that has found it’s expression in opposition to gender-preference-equality as part of the definition of Marriage is the most visible manifestation. The goal of a Constitutional Amendment that protects a heterosexual definition of Marriage is the ultimate expression of the movements understanding that their position, while being in accordance with their relativistic Morals, is clearly in conflict with the existing Ethical structure of the society as defined by the Constitution. If the position were Ethical there would be no need to codify the rule as a new Amendment to the Constitution. This conflict also finds it’s voice in the justifications for the opposition of non-hetero marriage through vague references to the importance of reproduction and other non-Moral terms.
Accepting the Constitution involves a de-facto acceptance of the Ethical system that it represents. While a Moral argument can be a basis for changes to the system, via Constitutional Amendments, US history would suggest that even those who personally hold exclusionary Moral positions are often loath to push the issue to a Constitutional level given the historic trend toward an inclusive covenant. As a result, those who hold Moral views that are not consistent with the Ethical trend become deeply frustrated since they are without an Ethical means to assert their Moral position. The result tends to be insecurity, pettiness and anger that tends to drive either extreme, imprecise and impracticable solutions, or more often as now, no solutions at all.
Another major shift is the conflict regarding immigration and the willingness to include all persons within the political boundaries of our nation as members of the protected Ethical system. Anti-immigration supporters will point to illegal immigration as an Ethical excuse to exempt a class from protection by, and inclusion in, the Ethical system. Because there is a presumptive legal method of entering the system (legal immigration), it is considered Ethical to refuse the protections of our system to those who enter the country illegally. Unfortunately, there is a fundamental inconsistency within this attempted manipulation of Ethical structures. Those that oppose immigration also tend to support extensive restrictions on legal immigration, thus ensuring that a class of people have both no right to current protections and no genuine opportunity to achieve those rights. In this case, making the Ethical justification for either inclusion of the minority, or ensuring that the method for them to achieve inclusion is fair and consistent with the fundamental Ethical system, is more complicated. At the same time, the focus on a Constitutional Amendment as a means of ensuring the exclusion of the minority, which appears to be part of the current strategy, is evidence of the fact that the current situation is not consistent with the over-all Ethical structure of our society. The focus on adherence to laws which were enacted specifically to restrict the protections of the minority diverts attention from fundamental Ethical questions regarding the exclusionary laws themselves. Fundamentally, the Ethical covenant of the United States should protect and include those minorities that both seek inclusion and support the foundations of the covenant itself. If you believe in the set of Ethical rights and responsibilities expressed through the Constitution then you should be afforded a fair and just opportunity to become a part of the structure. In this case as well, the demographics of the nation seem to indicate the inevitability of a change.
So, what does the above have to do with Sarah Palin? After all, her name figures prominently in the title of this post.
I’ve been thinking a lot about Sarah’s seeming popularity and about the Tea Party movement that seems to worship her. What seems to unite the two is the idea that simply protesting in the abstract without promoting specific solutions or even identifying specific injury is a sufficient political and social expression. Why, within the movement or Palin herself, is there such a paucity of substance?
For Sarah Palin, the answer seems likely to be simple; she has found a group that will support her even though she represents a point of view devoid of actionable solutions or evenly clearly articulated problems. This is a politicians dream since it simultaneously caters to the ego while relieving the individual of any responsibility for actual achievements. In truth, Sarah Palin could actually become the President of the United States by virtue of pandering to populism and demonstrating a willingness to be manipulated by a range of socially and economically conservative interests in return for being given an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. To any who doubt this, I refer you to the 8 years between 2000 and 2008. Sarah Palin differs from George W. Bush primarily in name and gender.
Tea Party “activists” have different causes for their combination of righteous indignation and paucity of specifics. They begin with the fundamental insecurities of a long-standing majority faced with demographic changes that will ultimately and inevitably undermine that majority position. That, combined with extreme turbulence and uncertainty in a global economic system that is far more complex than the vast majority of individuals (myself included) can not truly comprehend, naturally drives people toward their personal Moral structures for succor and comfort. When those Moral structures are in conflict with the Ethical system of the country, insecurity is magnified and exacerbated. The net result is anger that has no clear target and is likely to be directed at those minorities that are in the ascendency, regardless of how small their actual footprint might be.
I don’t want to simplify the motivations of the Tea Party, nor to suggest is is a purely Social Conservative movement. Rather, I suggest that the movements lack of a clear policy intention may be the result of a set of Moral-Ethical conflicts that are not internally resolvable to the movement’s satisfaction. While history provides plentiful examples of populist movements that sputter out and die once the initial fuel of outrage and anger is spent, there are also sufficient examples of populist energy centered around a cult figure creating extremely powerful and destructive political realities. When a mob finds a common guiding voice, especially when that same voice sings in a nationalistic tone and is silently backed by powerful corporate interests, there is every reason for concern.
It is clear to me that, on her own, Sarah Palin does not possess the experience or vision to direct and sustain the energies of the mob. However, she is energetic and ambitious enough to be of great service to the sort of powerful political and economic forces that carried George W. Bush into the Whitehouse. The comparison doesn’t end there. Like Bush, Palin possesses little if any understanding of broader, global political and economic realities yet retains the self-assurance of an unchecked ego. She is seemingly un-constrained by Ethics while being a stalwart evangelist of her particular, malleable Moral imperative. All these characteristics make her an ideal, if risky, vehicle for promoting the interests of “Big Business” and the extreme social right.
I think my main point here is that we are in the midst of a populist uprising that is being driven by economic uncertainty and nationalism at a moment in history when significant changes in the Ethical covenant are gaining steam. It’s the social equivalent of a Triple Witching and all sorts of volatility are possible. It is a time to be wary, but also a time of opportunity. It is a time to avoid the incendiary, to move beyond the narrowness of our own individual and group Moral codes, and to reflect and rely upon the fundamental Ethical precepts on which our country was built.
