In the Year of Our Conscience 2009

Another New Year, another war. Once again, the place they call the Holy Land is Ground Zero. But there are invisible wars, too, and they're all around us.

An estimated 22,000 Americans will die next year because they don't have health insurance. Millions more will suffer even though they do have health insurance, because they still can't get the care they need.

We're going to make some difficult decisions in 2009. Let's hope that the first question we ask ourselves won't be "Will it work?" but "Is it right?" The practical questions should come later, after we've reminded ourselves of the fundamental principles and goals.

War and healthcare have something in common. In both cases, we seem to prefer intervention to prevention. Avoidance just isn't as satisfying. It's more gratifying to let a problem develop and then eradicate it with costly technology. Then we can feel we've done something - something practical. Our conscience, that sense of the greater picture, might tell us to choose the less gratifying path. But we tune it out.

I'm not just talking about those in power. I'm talking about myself. Like most people, I live my life in the world of the practical and the possible. That's not likely to change. Compromise will continue to be necessary, but hopefully it can be conducted with the highest goals in mind. Expediency is a fact of life, but it shouldn't drown out higher voices - especially when we're under pressure.

Jesse Kornbluth wrote about his reaction to dead Gazan children in their school uniforms, and a commenter described his piece as "pornography of the conscience." That striking but debatable phrase got me thinking: If we're going to arouse any human response in the coming year, shouldn't it be conscience?

We tend to think of human impulses and instincts as innately harmful, because they're created out of sub- (or supra-) rational drives. The commenter called Jesse's piece "pornography" because harmed children trigger our instincts in a special way. That made the commenter feel manipulated. But not all of our primal urges are bad. Some are altruistic. They evolved from our need to survive collectively. Don't we need to encourage that sense of collective fate? In fact, I hope we expand it.

Case in point: The mirror self-recognition (MSR) experiment shows that at least six species of animals have some self-awareness. That makes them relatives. Yet we keep thinking we're a higher species than these animals - even when we don't recognize ourselves in the mirror of a child's face.

Too many times, that blindness occurs because the child comes from a different tribe and a different religion. As the Muslim poet Hafiz wrote, "Beware of the tiny Gods frightened men create to bring anesthetic relief to their sad days." Frightened people can't see their own reflections.

Frankly, it feels awkward to even talk about this stuff. I'm no moral authority. But the New Year seems like the right time to raise these questions. And as the often-quoted Rabbi Hillel said, "If not us, who? If not now, when?"

Notice that he said who - us - and when - now - but he didn't say what. The "what" part is the job of the conscience. It's more than consciousness or self-awareness. It's the ongoing, real-time awareness of the right and wrong of our own behavior. Evolutionary biologists are still investigating the origins of altruism, but it's clear that - at least for most of us - some internal process knows right from wrong on a deep level.

When the 18th Century biologist Linnaeus named our species he didn't just call us Homo sapiens - "he who knows." He classified us as Homo sapiens sapiens. That could be translated as "he who knows he knows." To know that you know: How's that for a curse?

When I'm ignoring that still, small voice, I change. I'm angrier, more defensive. I'm greedier, as if I can build a physical fortress around my guilt. I need a drink. I need a shrink. Because somewhere inside I know ... that I know.

I work in healthcare policy and management. A lot of my work involves something they call "crunching numbers." Conscience is the voice that reminds us what those numbers mean.

As for Gaza, yes: rockets were firing into Israel before this invasion took place. But civilian deaths have been disproportionate on one side. And did you know that Hamas won with a minority of voters' support? (Needless to say, no children voted.) So, whatever your feelings about this conflict, those children should weigh heavy on the conscience. Collective punishment is a concept that should have died with the 20th Century.

Does that mean all wars are unjust, or that incremental health reform is wrong? I don't think so. Maybe some wars can't be avoided. Maybe some diseases can't be prevented. We'll need to make tough choices. But we should keep looking for the quiet solutions. We should keep listening to the soft voices, even when - especially when - the noise is deafening. That's not just sentimentality. It's practicality. Sometimes the quiet voices have the best answer.

Maybe we need to remember Eleanor Roosevelt's question: "When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?"

That's not pornography. It's poetry.

_________________________

RJ Eskow blogs when he can at:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog

Comments

[kellygrrrl]

"Is it Right?"
I think WE are finally ready to ask ourselves that.

I further hope that we are prepared to stand up and say "That Was Wrong" and take steps to remedy

[AskariAli]

I know that looking at all the problems that plague the world today can be overwhelming for anyone contemplating the enormity of it all. However, if so many of us are not willing to do something to start resolving these problems, they will continue to mount until we are forced to do something in "crisis mode" which is rarely effective as evidenced by the recent so-called bailouts. New thinking, new courage, and new action is required from citizens like you and I. Waiting around for government and business to solve problems that they deliberately caused is insanity.

This year I am empowered to take a leadership role in getting people educated and put into action to address the problems they feel powerless to confront. How? By reminding everyone how magnificent and ingenious humanity is, has, and always will be. EVERY social problem on this planet was created by us and therefore can be solved by us. What 535 men and women (congress) can do together is NOTHING compared to what over 300 million people can do when they unite for their mutual prosperity.

I leave you with this one question: If you and I don't make it our business to do something to change our world, then who will?

[OtayPanky]

Well said, RJ.

You post less often than you used to - but what you say has a gravitas and maturity that was lacking before.

[conscioushope]

Eskow for Pres. in 2016!

What a powerful and poignant article!

[oldbrit]

I suggest that the foundation of all we do must be, "Does it advance human and civil rights for all people?"

Ultimately, when we deny human and civil rights to some, we sew the seeds of failure because those denied full human and civil rights will pursue their rights and if they are desperate enough, they will do it in ways that damage the environment, the economy, and perpetrate violence that can even escalate into wars.

This is why I find the refusal to grant full and equal civil and human rights to gays so destructive and am downright terrified that arguments against these rights are accepted as valid - even to the extent that Barack Obama is defended for asking a political activist against human and civil rights for all people to give the invocation at his inauguration.

I suggest that until the United States supports full and equal human and civil rights for all Americans - and for all people on this planet - we have no ethical or moral basis for anything we do.

[insignia90]

Beautiful and moving piece.....may 2009 be the year our consciences are heard....I won't miss the calloused consciences of the past 8 years.......

[Dap]

Eloquently expressed, without question Brother RJ. An outstanding New Year essay, as the truths within it made my eyes well-up as I read the poignant words. Agape.

[Nickesq]

Profound and compelling words. Since most bad things happen in the name of nations of people, most of whom have active consciences, we have to find ways to make our views known unequivically. Let us now praise Heroes: Whistleblowers, the college student who upset Bush's auction of leases on Utah land (saying he kept waiting for others to act and finally realized he was the one he was waiting for), all people who champion the human rights of the weak and the exploited, CEOs who work to preserve workers' pensions instead of the bonuses and salaries they negotiate for themselves in collusion with their buddies on the Board, officials and bureaucrats who enforce international law even when vigorously opposed.

[Libarchist]

That is all well and good; but the market has no conscience, and Madoff is only the tip of iceberg -- most should avoid the market, by taking their money out of it, and prepare for the coming depression.
_________________________

Hell is full of good intentions or desires.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

[Nickesq]

Are we the people of this so-called democracy the slaves or the masters of the economic system we have created? This system is exploited by those who value their private wealth above any public good. Moreover, they continually appropriate public property as their own. They are theives of the public. Witness the bailout paid by taxpayers to help people who played risking roulette with other people's money; witness the low-cost leases of public land for private profit by the very politicians whose friends and contributors stand to gain; witness the total absence of enforcement of anti-trust law; witness the wars waged at great cost to taxpayers and equally great benefit to private companies. Let's agree on one thing - we will abandon Friedman economics like the plague that it is. The globalization of the financial industry serves no one but the modern-day robber barons. Let's go back to local economy for local communities.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

I'm sure the banks suffering from loss of confidence and trust in the interbanking market could use a decent amount of those good intentions stockpiled in hell.

But of course Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wasn't talking about the pricing of credit derivatives.

[Donkslayer]

Author, your heart is in the right place I guess, but it's amazing how the ideological edges of the American political spectrum will look so much like each other at times (like the circle we all learn about in political science class). If you look at conservative wingnut blogs like Human Events...there are no practical solutions or even strategies (don't think there should be a bailout? Ok, give some logic/practical reasons why not and what else we should do instead), just ideological 'we should/we shouldn't" spew. Same here....again, your heart is in the right place, but we need to maintain a functional society that inspires the producers and achievers to create wealth (that must exist FIRST before you can distribute it) and can be competitive in world...so even if the answer to "Is it right?" is YES, the same answer needs to apply to "Will it work?", or we're simply wasting our time, our resources, and our intiative.

[blindjester]

Good comment. We need solutions that are both moral and effective.

I agree with Eskow that we should start with the question "Is it right?" when looking to solve our country's problems. From the options that are morally acceptable, we choose the most effective.

Even if torture were effective, for example, we still shouldn't engage in it, because it doesn't pass the first test of being ethical.

And when we try to rescue the economy, we need to be effective, of course. That doesn't mean we can't act in accordance with our better angels at the same time.

We may be going broke as a country, but I think we can still afford to be ethical.

[RJ Eskow - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm not sure you read the entire piece. The very next sentence after "is it right?" reads: "The practical questions should come later, after we've reminded ourselves of the fundamental principles and goals." The penultimate para reads "we'll have to make some tough choices." Another para says "compromise will continue to be necessary," and that "I continue to live in the world of the practical and possible."

Thanks for believing my heart is in the right place, though. I feel the same way about you. Thanks for commenting.

[DiogenesOfAlaska]

I disagree.

Bubbles and other market failures demonstrate that excessive focus on competitive advantages of individual firms can collectively lead to massive destruction of wealth.

It is hence far from clear that seeking cooperative solutions automatically means that less is to be distributed.

This is exactly the fallacy that needs to be overcome. It won't happen if you stick to Reagonomics talking points until the next bubble bursts.

[Libarchist]

The market would show no mercy; it does not care if it is a altruistic democratic company or a cold Republican owned company.

in fact, the emotional feeling do gooder ones are more likely to fail by-- market forces --- then the cold inhuman ones; in this utopian economic theory for 2009.