What’s Morality Got to Do With Politics? : Governor: Government decisions profoundly affect human life, so we need insight into the candidates’ reasoning.

A coalition of Jewish, Protestant and Catholic religious organizations concerned about the budget crisis in California recently wrote to the Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates. It expressed three goals and a hope. The goals were: obtain views on budgetary issues for voters to consider; reintroduce explicit discussion of moral issues as an element of the campaign, and allow voters to evaluate candidates on their views of moral issues besetting society and government.

Although religious institutions should not interfere with people’s political judgment, it is their function to remind us that political judgments have moral consequences. The coalition’s letter stated: “Explicit consideration of the moral implications of governmental decision has all but vanished from the political scene. All major governmental decisions profoundly affect human life. They, therefore, have significant moral implications” and should be discussed.

Six questions sought specific answers from the candidates on budget development. And the following principles were suggested to guide elected leadership in resolving budget dilemmas. The candidates were asked whether the principles are correct or not.

--The sole justification for the existence of government is the common good of all its citizens.

--Possession of life entitles everyone to the means necessary to live. The state must use its powers equitably to ensure that basic needs of each person are met.

--Basic human needs cannot be sacrificed to achieve budgetary balance.

--Solving budget problems by failing to protect the human person is cruel, myopic and not truly cost-effective.

--Budget decisions should support family solidarity.

--Taxation should be used to create new jobs.

--The use of regressive forms of taxation (sales tax and user fees) to effect solvency is inequitable.

--The justice of a system of taxation must look to both the total tax burden shouldered by a person or a particular segment of society, and the quality and quantity of public services these taxes generate benefitting that person or segment and the rest of society as well.

--This generation should pay taxes adequate to meet the responsibilities of state government today. Future generations should not be shackled with the cost of meeting today’s needs as well as their own.

Interestingly, neither candidate commented on any of the principles as requested. They were not asked to agree with the principles. Good men and women differ on the moral answers they hold. Each needed only an intelligent foundation morally justifying her or his answer.

Douglas and Lincoln in their historic debates did not simply weigh the economics and politics of slavery. The tenor of their times forced them to address slavery and other issues in their total, human context. Public relations and media experts did not dictate avoiding sticky questions that might cost votes. A solid moral foundation for the view held had to be made. Their audience required strength in that fundamentally important, explicit measure of leadership. Lack of this strength could cost as many votes as the practical answers they espoused.

Having a solid moral foundation for one’s approach to governance is not required of today’s candidate. Spectacular moral issues--abortion, the death penalty and crime--are addressed. However, the consequences to human life of countless other decisions of elected leadership are avoided to “sell the sizzle, not the steak.”

The religious coalition scored a clean hit on its first purpose: illuminating the issues for the voters. The questions and responses have been reported by the press. The group struck out on its second purpose: sparking discussion of moral concerns about budget decisions. The glimmer of moral values veiled in their answers allows some insight into the candidates, so the success of the third goal must be decided by the voters.

The saddest failure, however, was the hope expressed in the coalition’s letter. “It is our hope that you . . . communicate . . . the depth and resolve of your own conviction . . . (that) you will assist our state . . . by refocusing voters on the affairs of government as their serious moral responsibility . . . it extends to you the opportunity to reassume the exacting capacity of moral leadership . . . so critically needed by our society today.” Neither candidate seized the opportunity to allow insight into the forces driving and guiding them. Neither clearly seized the challenge of moral leadership explicitly offered.

Thomas Jefferson, penning the Declaration of Independence--thus, his death sentence for treason--felt that “a decent respect for the opinion of mankind” dictated proclamation of reasons morally justifying the action. That political and personal fearlessness created a mantle of moral leadership that forged a nation and moved the world. Mikhail Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel exemplify that courage and its consequences, mass media notwithstanding. Safety and election may be secured by moral silence. Genuine human progress and greatness cannot. What might happen in California if one of our candidates listened to Jefferson and his co-conspirators rather than Madison Avenue?