|
THE CALL FOR A MORAL OMBUDSMAN
I am calling for the creation of a group whose natural constituency would
be all Americans - that would ignore political affiliation or economic
clout when dissecting current events in the political field. Issuing
its decisions in
policy papers, op-ed articles, press releases, scorecards on the votes of
public servants and reaching out in other like manners, this non-profit
watchdog
would
finally offer a true moral center from which to judge the legislation and
the public actions of our elected leaders.
By developing and implementing an agreed upon moral matrix - developed by a wide
collection of religious leaders - through which to view current events and,
most importantly, the slurry of noxious legislation emitting from our various
legislative bodies, a Moral Ombudsman could begin to turn the political
discussion away from what is most politically expedient and/or monetarily
remunerative for a lucky few and towards a view that is morally correct and
helpful to the greatest number of our fellow citizens.
The board of directors of the Moral Ombudsman would be made up of
representatives from 19 different religious and ethical bodies, which would
represent more than 95% of the country's citizens. These would include a single
representative from Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian,
Episcopalian, Letter-Day Saints (Morman), United Church of Christ, Jehovah's
Witness, Pentecostal, secular humanists, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism,
Unitarian, Native American, Baha'i and Sikhism.
Additionally, to add weight to the project, a collection of past political
leaders who might themselves have been frustrated with the lack of a moral
center to politics, would be asked to sign on to the project as honorary
co-sponsors, thereby lending political gravitas to a project that could easily
be marginalized by the power-brokers, who are generally more interested in their
own personal interests than a clear moral center that would expose their own
public hypocrisy. Such past leaders as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Warren Rudman,
Bill Cohen and others would be approached and, hopefully, some would see the
worth of such an endeavor and lend their name to the project.
All decisions on a moral basis for specific issues would be based on consensus;
participants would be asked to look to their own scriptures and beliefs instead
of the political field to base their decisions. If the vast majority of
participants agreed on a particular issue, with up to 25% dissenting voices,
an edict would be issued, prominently noting the dissenters and their reasons.
While clearly not a perfect schema, when attempting to knit 95% of such a
diverse country as ours together under a "moral mantle," the challenges must
be met head on and imperfections must be acknowledged.
Initially, the representatives from these 19 denominations would gather,
along with a single, non-voting chairperson of the board who would facilitate
the
meetings, to talk over the specific aspects of morality and the public square.
First of all, the most important general public and political issues would
be
identified and discussed from the moral perspective of each of the 19 religious
bodies. The environment; death penalty; true meaning of the Second Amendment;
public monies spent on tax cuts v. social safety net; criminal system based
on
revenge and "public safety" v. a prison system based on forgiveness; a foreign
policy based on fear or love; the role of money in the electoral process; the
role of truth in public discourse (as opposed to "objectivity" of the press or
"national security interests") and other specific, pressing issues would be
brought up, discussed and then moved towards a moral center. Ultimately,
the decision would be made as to what would be the moral response to these issues?
In a perfect (and morally-based) world, how would specific issues be dealt
with
in the public square?
Once positions were taken on the major issues of the day, press releases, press
conferences and position papers would be released on these same subjects.
Included in this would be a series of scorecards of specific legislators,
pointing out where they stood in relation to this agreed upon moral center.
After this initial setting up of the positions of the Moral Ombudsman, staking
out a moral center on the important issues of the day, the group would then
settle in for the work ahead. As legislation was brought up in congress,
it would be compared to already agreed upon moral strictures; if the new
legislation didn't fit into a standing moral rubric, the group would once
again decide what the moral position was on specific legislation (for instance:
the
Medicaid Bill of 2004) and issue a position paper, using all of the familiar
outlets to get the word out.
Additionally, a series of conferences and talks would be set up, attempting
to influence the public discourse on a variety of large issues. For instance,
what
would a morally based foreign policy look like? Currently, U.S. foreign-aid
budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the
world's wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). What is the moral response
to this figure? And how does this compare with our half-a-trillion dollars spent
annually on "national defense?" Does the current application of funds truly make
us "safer," or would a morally based, more peaceful expenditure of dollars
make us more secure than we in fact currently feel?
Perhaps there would be a conference on the role of truth in public discourse.
After all, most journalists opt for "objectivity" - as in a midpoint between the
two major political parties - eschewing truth. Are journalists complicit in the
breakdown of a moral center by not hewing to truth when reporting stories,
afraid that they might thereby "offend" important sources, which would dry up?
What obligation does the journalistic community have in helping move the public
discourse towards a moral center, and away from a spurious "objectivity," where
the center skitters across the political spectrum as one or the other political
party gains the upper hand?
There might be a conference on envisioning a pluralistic election system
completely devoid of private money - with each candidate being forced to
run on his or her program and positions, all spending the same amount of
public
funding. Would it open the field for other, disparate voices, outside of
the two
dominant political parties? Specifically, would it help lead us to a more
moral politics?
The possibilities are endless - and profoundly important. By injecting a
moral center into the public scrum, the whole context within which we see
the
political process, which is currently limned by political advertising and
the press, would be changed for the better, proffering a center that would
not
move
with the political winds. By setting up and hewing to a moral reference point,
the Moral Ombudsman would help to change the public discourse and, at its
very best, lead our country out of the wilderness of competing, personal
and
corporate interests towards a politics where the true constituency would
be the people themselves.
|
|
|
