The Choice of Our Times

In all of the major issues currently being debated in Congress and in the nation, our choice is not essentially between liberal and conservative answers to those questions. The choice we face, rather, is between a politics of engagement and one of imposition.  Engaged politics can be rough and tumble, but in the end it consciously works for solutions arrived it out of the engagement of many viewpoints in a process of give and take.  At its best engagement politics rests on mutual respect and shared concerns, no matter how differently expressed or even perceived those concerns might be.  Imposition politics is one-sided, ideological, and built on disdain. It appears to be the stronger of the two approaches, because it seems to be grounded on unbending principles and unalterable attitudes.  In fact, it totters uncertainly on the shifting sands of our worst political natures while engagement politics, for all of its uncertainties, tends to find solid ground in an underlying unity of purpose.  Engaged politics creates partners, however shaky their alliances might be, while imposition politics sparks intense, angry, and even bitter resistance.

The tea party, so called, represents one of the clearest expressions of imposition politics in recent American politics.  As such, it offers Americans an important opportunity to reaffirm our core shared commitment to a constitutional form of government built on engagement with each other regarding the great issues of our day.  Just as an infection can leave a body with enhanced antibodies, so resistance to the tea party movement could well strengthen our democracy and make us better practitioners of a more honest, open, and engaged politics.  Amen.

To Regulate or Not: That is Not the Question

The regulation of behavior has become one of the hottest issues in the culture wars.  Many conservatives, including esp. those on the right end of the scale, fear the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) because they believe that it expands the areas of life that the Federal Government can regulate.  The issue is the role of government in getting us to do things we know we should, such as eat healthfully and behave in ways that are safe.  It is a matter of balance, finding the line between what government should and should not regulate.  Gun control.  Light bulbs.  There is a dozen issues where regulation of behavior is the issue at hand.  Where do we draw the line?

One of the most important and possibly most contentious points of friction could eventually have to do with sugar.  If not a drug, it is certainly an addictive substance that is widely abused with devastating consequences for society—at least as bad as smoking. A February posting on WebMD entitled, "Americans Sweet on Sugar: Time to Regulate?" describes the case for treating sugar in the same way we treat tobacco and alcohol. The case against "unnatural" sugar consumption (i.e. sugar that is added to a food, not naturally occuring sugar such as in fruit) is a solid one. Two possible types of regulation are described: (1) tax sugar; and (2) prevent children up to a certain age from consuming  sugar additives. It is worth remembering that we control other substances partly by taxation, and we already require infants and children to sit in car seats when in an automobile.

There is only one way to decide on which side of the regulation line sugar falls, and that unfortunately is by way of the political process.  I say "unfortunately" because as a health issue the whole thing is an open and shut case.  Refined, "unnatural" sugar is a social menace and its consumption should be controlled.  Still, there was a time when Sunday morning worship was regulated.  The populace was expected to attend worship and attend it in a government approved house of worship.  In England, for example, there was a time when citizens were to attend worship in a Church of England church and by law forbidden from holding their own "free" services.  Conservatives rightly raise the question of what behaviors should be regulated and by whom. We should note, however, that while culture conservatives are adamantly opposed to some forms of regulation, they are in favor strongly of other kinds of regulation, such as outlawing abortion.  The question is not then whether or not we should regulate.  The issue is one of where we draw the line and what falls on which side of the line.