Protection of the Vunerable

Common-Good Values, Part 2

The notion of systemic oppression of the vulnerable is most often associated with the Left, and for good reason. Most talk of systemic problems does come from the Left, and most conceptions of oppression come from the Marx-influenced Critical Justice Theory and identity politics. But not all notions of oppression are specifically tied to Leftist ideologies, and not all critiques of societal problems come from “Woke” activists. When it comes to protecting the vulnerable and fighting oppression, both sides of the spectrum have something to say.

Hidden Agreement

All of these questions are related to the issue of social justice, that is, the idea that societies themselves can be either just or unjust. A just society is one that serves the good of all its members, while an unjust society is one that serves the interests of only a privileged class of individuals.

The conservative critique that a society is unjust when it permits abortion is just as much about social justice as the progressive critique of low wages. The Republican argument that Democrat policies are leading to the abolition of the family is just as much about systemic problems as a BLM activist’s criticism of the justice system. The Right-Wing complaint that Leftists are censoring them and attacking religious institutions is just as much an appeal to oppression as the Leftist complaint that women and minorities are treated unfairly. Right-Wing politics is just as concerned with social justice as the Leftists are. The main problem lies in the question of who is being oppressed.

Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, virtually everyone agrees that not all problems with society are reducible to individual problems. Some societal problems are, well, problems with society. Some societal problems have become ingrained on a legal and institutional level. Everyone agrees with this reality implicitly, but not all people agree with it explicitly. Thus there is a hidden agreement between both sides that neither side seems to want to acknowledge. But acknowledgement of agreement is the only way to begin forming a consensus.

The Beginnings of a Consensus

Questions of social justice are perhaps some of the most polarizing on the political scene today. People on the Right use the accusation of “going Woke” as a blanket condemnation of anything they disagree with, while people on the Left generally ignore the fact that people on the Right care about societal problems too. People on both the Left and the Right of the political spectrum talk about oppression, social justice, and systemic problems. They just don’t always do so in those terms, and they don’t agree on what issues are issues of oppression and which problems are actually problems.

In order to truly form a consensus, both sides will have to start listening to each other. Both will have to swallow their pride to understand why the other side thinks about contentious issues the way that they do. It will be hard work, but it will be well worth it.

It is here that the Solidarian Option offers something truly unique on the American political scene—it offers a genuine chance at consensus on some of the most controversial issues of our day. Grounded in whole-life principles that value all human life, Solidarians are able to see the strengths that both Left and Right have to offer the discussion, without falling into myopic extremism.

Case Study: Immigration

Immigration is the classic example of an issue made unnecessarily difficult due to two-party polarization. Progressives generally advocate loose border restrictions, ignoring the many dangers and problems which can result from such an approach. The conservative reaction to progressive policy, however, has generally resulted in an isolationist stance that demonizes people from foreign countries and fails to recognize either the many benefits immigrants bring to our nation or the humanitarian need at play behind most immigration attempts. The phenomenon of escalating policies has become so extreme that Texas is attempting to shut off an open border in defiance of the President, a classic illustration of dysfunctional politics.

A common sense, common-good solution to immigration will realize that there is a dual responsibility to protect the rights and safety both of citizens and of those in need. Refugees from foreign countries and established citizens are all humans who are deserving of the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Framing the issue so as to ignore or deny either of these two sides is a denial of the value of human life. Only by fully recognizing the need for compassion on the stranger and the safety of the citizen can workable solutions emerge. Possibilities include stronger borders combined with increased government refugee camps and legal paths to citizenship. The Solidarity Party’s platform has many suggestions in this area that are well worth considering.

Case Study: Racism

In recent years racism has become one of the hottest topics of our time. Lines are typically drawn between supporters of Critical Race Theory (commonly known as “Wokeism”), which seeks to achieve racial justice by means of radical overturning of the established order, and the conservative resistance, which insists that racism has not existed in any meaningful sense since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. To an observer from the outside, both of these solutions to the situation are somewhat unrealistic.

Contra BLM activists, defunding the police is not a good way to improve the lives of racial minorities. Racial reparations are also an unwieldy and unrealistic way of righting past wrongs. But in the same vein, hundreds of years of slavery, genocide, and racism don’t disappear overnight, and it would behoove activists on the Right to recognize that just because racism has been abolished in theory doesn’t mean it always has been in practice. The sins of the fathers do in fact have consequences for the children. European domination of the rest of the world has led to negative consequences that last until the present day. The broken families and dismal living conditions experienced by large numbers of African Americans and Native Americans cannot be simply ignored. If Republicans can acknowledge that veterans deserve some sort of support for the service rendered to their country, it shouldn’t be that difficult (theoretically) to see the need to help ethnic groups who continue to deal with the consequences of Western expansionism.

Again, while both Democrats and Republicans continue escalating to ever-higher levels of extremism in their policies and activism, the Solidarity Party’s platform on “Anti-Discrimination and Racial Justice” appears remarkably well-balanced, moderate, and reasonable.

******************************************

Social justice isn’t a bad word in and of itself, even though current discourse has been giving it increasingly-negative connotations. The reason the above-discussed issues are so polarizing and contentious is due to a massive failure on both sides of the spectrum to adequately listen to the concerns of the other while clearly articulating their own ways of thinking. In a two-party duopoly a solution is perhaps impossible. But for those seeking reasonable resolutions to these debates, the Solidarity Party offers a credible alternative.