It seems to me that the prevailing political climate of our day patently indicates an unnecessary antinomy. Both represent, or at least claim to represent, cluster's or particularities of society. Liberals tend to be the advocates of the populace consisting of the destitute, deprived, impoverished, or the so called minority and the like. What comes of things when the "minority" carries the weight of the majority? What happens when legislation is passed that then oppresses the other strata of society not associated with that ilk. Is this not oppressive as well? Conservatives, on the other hand, are proponents of the responsible, ethical, self-sufficient. These are the harbingers of capitalism who incessantly pontificate upon liberty and excellence. What happens when those liberties are abusively touted? Doesn't the dynamic of corporations seem to reflect an individualistic consumerism, although "legalized"? Have liberties and rights not devolved into a sophisticated way of promoting selfishness and idolatry?
Both spectrum's of political theory and practice are quick to point the finger, assign blame and avoid mutually beneficial solutions that are both equitable and charitable. As Timothy Keller astutely remarks, "Liberal theorists believe that the "root causes" of poverty are always social forces beyond the control of the poor, such as racial prejudice, economic deprivation, joblessness, and other inequalities. Conservative theorists, put the blame on the breakdown of the family, the loss of character qualities such as self-control and discipline, and othe habits and practices of the poor themselves" (Generous Justice). Both mentalities smack of irresponsibility and selfishness the result of which is the break down of society and the church.
Although there are legitimate points made by both sides as well as illegitimate points the problem is more foundational. And while there are economic, political, legislative and ideological considerations that are worthy of note and analysis I venture to postulate that the societal and cultural contructs that have been burgeoning over the decades are the outcome of a more systemic collapse.
This collpase is inexctricably related to the egregious disregard for the "commonality" or "similitude" of humanity. Aside from the salvific distinctions within biblical nomenclature for instance there are the equitable and charitable categories which are applicable to humanity in general. Without being too circumlocutory holy writ obliges Christians to be charitable and equitable to all strata of its environs. This is true for the simple fact that all are God's creatures (although not all are God's children; scripture does not espouse a universal fatherhood) and intrinsically bear the image of God (Gen.1:26-27,9:5-6), though in vestigial form (James 3:9). As philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff concludes in an illustration to this effect, "because we treasure his owner we honor his house." (Justice: Right and Wrongs) When Christ, who was the embodiment of equity and charity walked amidst humanity he was routinely moved with compassion towards the crowds while inculcating love toward neighbor and enemy.
We have lost the reality of biblical and Christologicaly incarnational ethics. Both sides of western society are replete with guile. One trumpets equity while burying charity and the other trumpets charity while burying equity. All of God's creatures should be treated with equity and charity as well as appreciated for their indissoluably inherent creatureliness; mininally.
C.S Lewis penned, "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations-these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. It is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit..."
Credo ut Intelligam
