'I am my brother's keeper.' Discredited idea?

The Politico's CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN



The relevant part of the article linked to on "moral obligation:"



Via David Kurtz at TPM.

The general idea isn't bad, it's the presentation that's been lacking.

I suggest a different metaphor: We watch the backs of the guys we're in a foxhole with.

Aristotle once said "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god", Athropos essi politikon zoon "Man is a social creature".

Friends of mine who are even more to the left than I am roll their eyes when they hear politicians talking about moral obligations, and so do I. It's not the message, it's the institution that the messenger represents.

hey, every man for himself and the powerful ones on top get the good candy. the republicans peddle that kind of politics and look how that's worked out.

having said that, the government is supposed to be truly representative of the people, and more people than not this time voted for the side of politics that believes that we have a moral obligation to help others.

if more people than not believe "f8ck you, i'm looking after number 1" than that is the kind of government they deserve.

AD

heartstrings. I can fully agree with a program and still roll my eyes when the government trots out the "it's for the children" line. My point, which you obviously missed, was not the message itself, but how it's delivered.

I was really hoping that would be understood so that posts like yours could be avoided, but I was obviously hoping for too much. Looking at your first line and wondering how you could have assumed that is just giving me a headache.

The founding documents refer to "promote the general welfare." Aren't those appropriate messages for government?

it's not the idea I have a problem with, it's when it's sold in guilt trip format. I'm all for programs that benefit children, for instance, but when the cry "it's for the children, the poor, poor children" comes out I understand all the rolling eyes.

I can't say I know exactly the best way to sell these programs, but I believe that taking the tug-at-the-heartstrings approach is a bad one. To give you an idea, though, selling something as a mutual benefit for all of society rather than a moral obligation which makes you a heartless bastard if you oppose it is what I have in mind.

You didn't say before what you're saying now "again" -- although you may think you did, if "moral obligation" is so heavily charged it immediately causes "guilt trips" and rolling eyes.

Okay. Packaging matters. No tugging at the heartstrings. Something as a mutual benefit for all of society sells. No heartless bastards!! :toast:

Do you listen to Thom Hartmann? He talks about the commonwealth and these concepts very straightforwardly. :thumbsup:

in vain, is that guilt trips don't work when so many people think that they know how to spend every cent better than government ever could. That's one of the major reasons why eyes roll when the guilt trips are rolled out.

I used to be a Republican, I actually voted for Bush in 1988. Put it this way: people who are on our side currently don't need to be convinced. People who are fiscally conservative won't buy into anything no matter how we package it. The way to get the support of those on the fence is to let them know the proposed program benefits us all, not that you're a heartless fuckstick if you don't entrust career politicians who just love their pork with more of your money, and that you also hate children and puppies.

I'm still very much to the center fiscally (I was always on the left socially, but in my youth I used to be just to the right of Milton Friedman fiscally), and I believe that telling people who are struggling that they have a moral obligation to take care of others when they are barely getting by themselves is not going to sway anyone. Telling them that they should feel responsible for everyone else will only make them point to select demographics (alcoholics, drug addicts, gambling addicts, and so on...and not everyone believes those situations are the product of a disease, many believe "you made your bed, don't expect me to pay your rent") and say "not a fucking chance." Same with people who got over their heads with credit cards and other loans. All I'm saying is that it's a better sales pitch to show how it's beneficial for all than to tell people they're somehow responsible for the woes of others. Were I on the fence, the last thing I'd want to hear is some fat cat politician who's busy trying to get a train station named after himself telling me how I should feel responsible for others when I'm struggling to get by.

I've been on both sides of the political fence on fiscal matters, and I still believe to this day that well over 90% of those on Capitol Hill, no matter which party they call themselves a member of, care more about their career than those they represent. When they dare to tell me what my moral obligations are, all I want to do is extend my middle fingers to them, even if I agree with the principle of the program being proposed.

with the "I am my brother's keeper" adage, but they believe in going about it differently.

Conservatives think that charity is the way to "take care of" those less fortunate. Liberals think that some problems are so big and critical that charity isn't enough of a guarantee, so government should be involved.

In general haven't reganite's written the book on rewriting the (history) book?