by Jonathan Schell
At the GOP debate on the 12th, there was another public
expression of enthusiasm for loss of life in Texas. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked
Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who favors repeal of President Obama’s health plan,
what medical response he would recommend if a young man who had decided not to
buy health insurance were to go into a coma.
Paul answered, “That’s what freedom is all about: taking
your own risks.” He seemed to be saying that if the young man died, that was
his problem.
There were cheers from the crowd.
Blitzer pressed on: “But Congressman, are you saying that
society should just let him die?” Someone in the audience shouted, “Yeah!” And
the crowd roared in approval.
A characteristic that these exchanges have in common is
cruelty. Cruelty is a close cousin to injustice, yet it is different. Injustice
and its opposite, justice—perhaps the most commonly used standards for judging
the health of the body politic—are political criteria par excellence, and apply
above all to systems and their institutions. Cruelty and its opposites,
kindness, compassion and decency, are more personal. They are apolitical
qualities that nevertheless have political consequences. A country’s sense of
decency stands outside and above its politics, checking and setting limits on
abuses. An unjust society must reform its laws and institutions. A cruel
society must reform itself.
...Read Article
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...