This question, at first secretly, without my knowing it, was on my mind all day. Our day was spent on capitol hill..... with senators, representatives, legislative aids .... and over and over we asked them for their take on advocacy--which I think they all understood as having a Social Justice component. It's true, the very term "Social Justice" is muddled and disputable. One can argue, as Michael Novak did Monday, that it is an individual virtue (or was that a virtue that collective organizations must uphold, Mr. Novak?). But because that is not my focus, I'm going to stubbornly insist that "Social Justice" has a just little to do with a societal perspective on justice and NOT an individual one. I venture to believe it has to do with looking at justice holistically, involving everyone in it, leaving no one behind. Then the question returns--should the government be involved in Social Justice?
And in a very obvious way, the answer is just, yes. It can be argued that individuals / private organizations would more effectively provide social justice for all. But there is a reason we have a government with such extensive social programs--and that is that historically, so many have been left out in the free market of social charity. Government is supposed to do what individuals can't (or won't?)
So maybe the question on my mind today was actually, Is the government involved in Social Justice? Based on the visits we had today, my impression is: only to a certain extent. I know a lot of the different legislative aids certainly advocated on behalf of what might be called a Social Justice imperative. But everything is ultimately framed toward what constituents will vote for, what image a position will give off. What I mean is, this matters more than the personal beliefs of congressmen. Is the government involved in Social Justice? Only to the extent that people value it enough to vote on behalf of it (instead of purely economically motivated voting)
~ ~ ~
Amanda
No comments:
Post a Comment