Posted by
Paul on Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:59:38 PM
I believe the underlying reason political parties exist is to win elections, but they should only win elections if their ideas for society are better than those of the other party or parties. This time around the Republican party did not have very much depth to its ideas, and the overarching vision of government activism of the Democratic party, however unappealing to conservatives, did appeal to a majority of voters. The response of Republicans should be one of thoughtful formulation of new ideas that will win elections in the future.
One idea from the past articulated by President Bush was the ownership society. This concept took the idea of individual ownership and extended it to domestic government programs like social security (private social security accounts) and health care (individual control of health care purchases). One problem with the ownership society is that it is too limited. By its very nature, which is basically economic, it applies only to the ownership of private property and extensions of that private ownership. It is difficult to extend it into the legal system, the legislative arena, and social policy. Because it inherently bases itself on the individual and an individual's property, it plays into the long-standing criticism of the Republican party as being selfish, greedy and uncaring about others, however inaccurate that may be. In order to create a new vision for the future, it is necessary to think outside the box of what the Republican party currently represents, but also to think fully within the box of what conservatives truly believe.
The new vision for the future that we need is the stewardship society. Stewardship, like ownership, is at the very basis of what conservatives believe. The implicit underlying principle of the pro-life movement is that an individual life is valuable from conception and should be protected in an almost trusteeship relationship by society. Under stewardship the answer to the question of whether or not we are our brother's keeper is always yes. It is based on the individual, but recognizes a society that exists outside of the individual. The steward citizen or the citizen as steward always recognizes his or her responsibity to others, outside of the activism of government, but without necessarily dismissing a constructive role for government. It is a concept that works primarily through the private sector, but creatively so. It is friendly to all major religions, and personally as a Christian I find the idea of stewardship to be very much a part of my belief system. Most importantly, it can be implemented in all sectors of society and in all branches of government, in place of paternalistic and domineering yet inefficient government programs.
We can be stewards of the environment, of our fellow citizens who may be physically or economically disadvantaged, and of our fellow family members. In fact, the idea of stewardship would breathe new life into the traditional family which can be seen as the perfect vehicle for the exercise of this principle, perhaps even validating the extended family as something that society needs. If we saw those who decide to have children (at any age) as stewards of their offspring, where neither parent including the male can legally walk away from their offspring, think of how many young people would choose not to engage in risky sexual behavior. Connecting future responsibility with current action is what stewardship would encourage.
Like the ownership society, the stewardship society has many important economic implications. It is a concept that allows us to question how things are currently organized. Many people do not realize that the economy is designed my man. Stock exchanges, corporations, credit default swaps, and even banks were all ideas thought up and implemented by men. Conservatives do not necessarily have to agree with how the economy and our society currently works, and in fact may want to question how things are. One such area is the relationship between ethics and the economy.
As the melt down of Fannie and Freddie, as well as the financial sector, has shown, when the underlying ethics of an economy crumbles, the economy itself crumbles. If all interactions are based on misrepresentations and lies, if a man's word cannot be trusted, if what is put down on paper is not worth the paper it is printed on, economic transactions become meaningless and in the aggregate destructive. Good old fashioned honesty is something conservatives always supported on an individual basis, but stewardship allows us to argue for it in the aggregate, with true legal consequences for those who intentionally take actions that are unethical in both the economic and political arena. This needs to be followed with a very difficult question: does the profit worshipping society we live in today best serve the interests of individuals and society, or is it an incentive towards the unethical behavior we find so unacceptable today?
One controversial but important idea conservatives need to embrace is this: the private sector can in many cases be more effective and serve people better when the profit motive is not the main factor. There is no need for Republicans and conservatives to worship profit and self-interest any longer. While nobody is questioning the legitimacy of profit, alternative forms of economic organization that serve people well need to be looked at from a stewardship point of view. This can be well illustrated by a couple of comparisons in the private sector.
The first comparison is between banks and credit unions. Credit unions are not so much based on profit as on service to their members. Their investments are more conservative, and their financial products take into consideration the needs of their members. Banks are failing because of the self-interested and profit-making decisions they made, but credit unions are not, so from a stewardship perspective which form of organization is better? I think it is credit unions. Another comparison could be made between failing insurance giant AIG and an insurance association like USAA. Again, USAA makes decisions based on service to its members rather than just profit, and makes conservative (there is that word again) investments and decisions. AIG is failing because of its profit-motivated and self-interested decision making. From a stewardship and economic perspective, USAA is doing a much better job than AIG. Even in the health care field, how well are we being served by profit-making corporations? I think a new form of economic organization is needed for the health care sector. These are the kinds of economic organization in the private sector that conservatives can get behind, and in doing so create services that fulfill the needs of all people through the private economy as opposed to the government. Only a stewardship society would encourage us to do so, the ownership society would not.
In conclusion, while ideas do need to be explained and expanded upon, they also need to be simple and able to be grasped in one short sentence. What could be a simpler campaign slogan than this: we want to create a stewardship society. I do not see anything more effective on the horizon.