NOTE:  This article originally appeared in the run-up to the 2012 election.  But the issues it addresses are seemingly perennial.  Just change some of the names and what was true then is true now.

In op-ed pieces and political speeches, we often hear that this year's election is about how much government Americans want.  It will be most unfortunate if this becomes the central issue that is debated by Americans between now and election day.  What needs to be clarified through debate is not the size of government but its purpose.

The end purpose of our government . . . for which its ingenious system of checks and balances, division of powers, and all the rest (including even its size) is but the means . . . is stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  In other words, the Preamble says that the Constitution is about how the people of the United States will, through the vehicle of their government, care for each other in meeting these specified needs which are common to and affect all the people.  

President Obama's somewhat un-focused campaign would do the country - not to mention itself - a great service if it would adopt as its slogan, "Caring About Each Other."  It could then bring the participants in any political debate back to this central issue by asking:  how will this budget proposal, or contemplated legislation, or platform plank help the people of this country to care for each other?  If it kept asking this question and consistently pursued its theme, the American people would usefully be reminded of their deep, interdependent connections with one another.  Elected politicians might even take notice.

Furthermore, such a slogan can also be articulated using metaphors and teachings of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, to name but a few.  All of these great faith traditions emphasize the importance of the common good . . . caring for each other.  The Great Society's legislative milestones that helped to make this a more caring nation were often promoted with an appeal to such teachings.  Tragically, for itself and the country as well, the Democratic Party has neglected this sort of faith-based narrative, yielding the floor to those whose understanding of their Christian faith tradition often neglects to include the commandments, teachings and values concerning welcoming the stranger, pursuing distributive justice, and demonstrating effective concern for the least among us.    

Americans' awareness of the fact and necessity of this deep, caring, unifying connection  . . . and behaving in ways that celebrate and promote it . . . gets overwhelmed, lost, and abandoned, due in part to the cut-throat, fundamentalist-like political culture created by our elected officials.  Our leaders inevitably lose sight of Americans' essential connectedness in their single-minded pursuit of agendas which uncompromisingly seek only their own political advantage, and that of their party. 

When our elected officials eschew the common good and become hyper-focused on the triumph of their own party . . . when even having dinner with members of the other party is considered an act of treason . . . when career-ending levels of pressure are brought to bear upon members of Congress by their own party's leadership as they seek to enforce party unity and ideological purity as values that trump all others . . . the republic is in danger.  In spirit, if not in law, this is unconstitutional behavior because it undermines the formation of "a more perfect union."   

Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate sharpens the urgency of this focus on caring about each other.  This is because Mr. Ryan, despite his recent attempts to deny it, is clearly a longtime devotee of the philosopher Ayn Rand and likely remains one.  Rand emphasized that the individual should take care of himself as his supreme moral duty.  She called this "enlightened egoism" and referred to it as "the virtue of selfishness."  Ayn Rand is also a darling of the Tea Party and Libertarians who, along with most Republicans, clearly want government to be as small as possible.  But the larger question for everyone . . . and particularly for the Republicans, the Libertarians and those drawn to the Tea Party . . . is whether they believe, as did the Founders, that the people of this country should care for each other as a practical and moral necessity.  That is a value that transcends party loyalty.  Without it there can be no union . . . no We the people . . . only me and mine. 

Do most Americans and their elected officials believe that we are deeply interdependent upon and connected with one another; and that, as a consequence, our politics should pursue ways in which we can care for each other . . . as a matter of our civic duty?  How refreshing it would be if this election were to be about clarifying the answer to that question!

<Back to Congress