Interfaith and the future of Liberal literacy

As we watch President Obama, with both grief and dismay from the leftward leaning sidelines (and lesser playing fields) we have to ask ourselves (all progressive communities) what are we doing to lay the groundwork for liberal literacy in this country? For it has surely been both taken for granted and swept away from honest discussion, as if we actually imagine that we have lived for the last 50 years under pure laissez faire capitalism.

In fact, since Roosevelt, we have been living in a socialist society that has, for the most part served the public well. Well indeed until legislation under the Nixon administration opened the flood gates for the healthcare industry to drive the practice of medicine away from care toward profit at all cost. Now that we are reaping that cost, the radicals on the right claim that this is the moral hazard of the welfare state.

But this is malarky breeding "MAL-Archy."

So I believe Liberal literacy is something that can only be promulgated through deep strategic interfaith conversation and political action.

I would suggest as a start a media fair and/or lecture series that travels among congregations and pushes back against the narrative which claims it is liberalism rather than religious fundamentalism, extreme conservatism and criminality and corruption that threatens america's economy and politics.

If anyone would like to join me to start a discussion that would lead to a simple page or two of talking points and historical references I look forward to it.

Comment

You need to be a member of Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA to add comments!

Join Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, VA

Comment by Laura Dely on August 19, 2011 at 11:56am: Thank you, Todd, for proposing such a discussion and study. I have been so concerned about the steady march of our country toward plutocracy via neo-liberal ideology that I is why I returned to school to study Economics at the National Labor College.

The NLC is a rare outlet that provides an alternative to the right-wing, neo-libral thinking that infects most schools' economics programs; instead it is wide, and diverse in its study, and I believe in the end it provides an overview beyond ideology.

You are so correct in thinking that we need to improve our political literacy. And I can tell you that the UU's for a Just Economic Community (UUJEC) is developing a "Just Economic Congregations" program in which your proposed study/discussion group would fit perfectly. UUJEC could also be a great way to disseminate what results from such work in our congregation. (I am a UUJEC Board Member, and am part of the commitee that is developing the JEC program which we hope to introduce at the next GA. We won't have everything in place then, but we will at least have an outline to begin to talk about why we UUs should be looking at the very questions you propose, and then acting in some way to address the problems identified.)

So I would very much like to be a part of such a discussion, and have resourse materials to share that could begin the discussion (#1 recommendation: "Economic Crisis Reader" from Dollars & Sense Publishers). And there are films that we could show to engage more of our community in the discussion -- there are too many to list here, but count me in for the discussion group.

Comment by jill herndon on August 18, 2011 at 1:13pm: As I 'fessed up to my illiteracy in my earlier comment, I would be glad to see you develop the materials you just described. I would also like to find some common ground -- a shared set of values that most everyone regardless of persuasion could agree to. You brought up the cost effectiveness of shared resources for sustainable economic and political growth and development -- I would think people could get behind that one. Somethings that people can come out of their cocoons for.

Comment by Todd Parola on August 18, 2011 at 12:58pm: Jill and Cynthia - Thanks for your remarks. The irony is not lost on me that as I write, the stock market is dipping again; there is continuing sectarian violence in the various corners of the world; and here, we have an electorate that is unable to recognize the prosperity and stability that intellectual, economic, social liberalism has brought this country.

The prevailing mindset from conservatives is that "you are on your own" and any state sponsored program, aside from defending the borders is a step down a slippery slope of immorality; that taxation is merely another form of theft.

What is not enunciated often enough is that "sharing (in privileges, resources and access to justice) is far less expensive than not sharing." Because it is historically plain to see that when there is no means of redress for social injustice, and imbalances of wealth, redistribution of wealth will inevitably be effected by violent force. Embedded in this notion of inviolable personal wealth is the idea that the poor and miserable are the way they are because they are immoral.

It is also true that we liberals have our own moral problems and knee-jerk fantasies about the role of the state that would benefit from some introspection. But for the most part, we are society that is philosophically illiterate and estranged from our liberal genealogy.

I'd like to get started by putting together a syllabus (for something like Liberalism and Socialism 101) that would provide a foundation for discussing modern liberalism by describing it's roots in classical market liberalism.

This study would illustrate the conceptual transformation of modern society away from monarchical statism to Enlightenment notions of liberty and existential responsibility of individuals; and then, up through the Great Depression when under the New Deal, Americans, whether they like to admit it or not, embraced socialism - which is the individual's acceptance that the state has a limited, but crucial role to play in guaranteeing constitutional rights; protecting individuals from the excesses of corporate tyranny; and to champion a balanced economic playing field for all people regardless of class, creed, race, or sex.

This is my understanding of liberalism. If socialism is a more clarifying term, then so be it. I think it should be vigorously studied and defended. I also think a thorough understanding will help us to understand the conservative complaint - and to help separate legitimate conservative critique from exploitative demagoguery.

We cannot effectively defend liberal and socialist constructs if we do not have a ready vocabulary for their historically altruistic manifestations - from labor rights to civil rights, from conservation to trust-busting in American law. It is ridiculously obvious that without a strong government referee, individuals will be totally subjugated to corporate private interest; which is why it is so frustrating and perverse that the most vulnerable people in the middle of the country are such suckers for the Republican narrative.

Comment by jill herndon on August 18, 2011 at 11:37am: Glad to see this posting. I think we are all caught up in the last of Summer and Fall planning. My own very quick take on the issues is that we still operate from out of deep ancestral and historical roots that subconsciously restrain us and hold us from moving forward. Personally I was shocked repeatedly while reading "The Help" this summer. I am about to be 65. Our family had "Help". I was glad for the mothering I would not have had otherwise. I was aware of the injustices that sometimes happened -- but not the whole social sin that kept that safe to do until I started rattling the bars of my little cage of "female" in a society that said my access to power would always be through a conduit of male authority. We have improved by talking the talk of "equal access" but it is still an ideal.

You know it occurs to me now that I have no clue what it might be to be a literate liberal. All I think I know is that people have knee-jerk belief systems with different labels for the forms of exclusion that they authorize.

Comment by Cynthia Adcock on August 16, 2011 at 11:44am: Todd--Funny that you and I both are making words in similar territory (I am about to post a blog entry). At home I keep ranting about the lack of economic and historical literacy in this country:

Why do people think we can have economic wellbeing if workers don't earn enough to buy back the products we (collectively) make?

Why do people forget what happened to other nations when they spent their wealth on military ventures or administration of their empires?

But I would add: Why would people think our government could manifest liberal values if, in our own personal and community lives, we mostly focus on taking care of ourselves and our families?

Yes, I'd like to join in a discussion!