The death of inclusion

By Jennifer Manning | March 22, 2016, 6:48 EDT

Printed from: https://newbostonpost.com/2016/03/22/the-death-of-inclusion/

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., speaks during a Republican primary night celebration rally at Florida International University in Miami, Fla., Tuesday, March 15, 2016. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

It has been almost a week, but a line from Marco Rubio’s concession speech keeps echoing in my mind: “[We’ve run] a campaign to be a president that would love all of the American people, even the ones that don’t love you back.”

This isn’t a requiem for Rubio’s campaign, but when he left the race we may have lost our last hope of a candidate whose focal point in campaigning was inclusion.

Bernie Sanders is waging what amounts to nothing short of a class war. By constantly pitting the “little guy” against “Wall Street,” he ignores that Wall Streeters are Americans, too.

Hillary Clinton just last week announced that she hopes to put “a lot” of coal companies and coal miners out of business; she later clarified that she hoped to shift the emphasis to cleaner energy.

But in the meantime, what about these coal miners and their families?

The Republican side is more of the same, if not worse. Ted Cruz completely isolates anyone who doesn’t agree with him politically (which is a substantial number of even sympathetic voters). Just see David Brooks’ piece, “The Brutalism of Ted Cruz” — its caution is even more prescient today than it was back in January.

John Kasich certainly tries; on CNN’s State of the Union Sunday Kasich posited, “Why doesn’t everyone just realize we’re better in America when we’re together and unified?” But is anybody listening?

And then there’s Trump — perhaps no candidate, ever, has done more to divide the American people. With Trump as the presumptive nominee, the GOP is in a shambles with no clear path to recovery. Trump has demonized any group of the “other” that he possible can — women, immigrants, the disabled, the media.

John Adams warned that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Is there a place left for virtue in the American political system? Perhaps the problem is even more basic.

Is our political system even inclusive anymore? Few people, I think, would disagree that there is a need for moral accountability for the sake of the common good. But do we truly mean “everyone” when we think about the common good?

The Catholic tradition defines the common good as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”

The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for the person, the social well-being and development of the group itself, and peace. It is within the political community that the most complete realization of the common good is found, for it is the political community that bears the responsibility of upholding these standards and making them a reality for everyone.

Respect for the person demands a leader who will protect the dignity and rights of all human people—not just a select few. A leader who denigrates segments of the population is no leader at all and certainly cannot effectively represent the community he or she is chosen to lead.

We need a leader who will be president of all Americans — past, present, and future. We need a leader who will uphold the dignity and sanctity of all human life — regardless of gender, race, status, or ability. We have witnessed (and continue to witness), as citizens of the world, atrocities that arise when people fail to recognize the inherent dignity that each person possesses.

The social well-being and development of the people of the United States necessarily depends on a leader who cares about the social well-being and development of the people — all people, not just the people who comprise one’s political base.

The trouble is, many political leaders seem focused only on the issues that will rally their supporters or bolster their legacy. The result is paralysis in government and glaring inaction. We have an acute awareness of humanitarian crises that demand action — the refugee crisis in Syria, genocide in the Middle East, the Flint water crisis — yet inaction is the status quo.

The United States has only admitted around 3000 Syrian refugees. Secretary of State John Kerry just called the deliberate murder of tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities a genocide; the President still has not used this term to describe these events.

There has been much grandstanding over the Flint water crisis and demands for the Governor to step down, but little has been done to change the infrastructure problem that began the crisis to begin with. If leaders were truly fighting for the common good, action would be taken, and quickly. Instead political leaders, trapped within the boundaries of their political support, do little, if anything, and the anger and distrust amongst these fractured groups continues to build.

Finally, peace can be found only if we continue to cultivate the dignity and humanity of every human person.

We need a leader who knows and lives this truth. The United States prides itself on being a beacon of light in the world. Founded on principles, core values, and more importantly, virtues, the people of the United States have sought to be bringers of peace and democracy. Anger and disgust for one another have no place in our political system at a time like this; we cannot allow this anger and disgust to get the best of us. We must elect a leader who will act. This drive to act is predicated on the conviction that one is serving one’s supporters and adversaries alike.

Rubio’s approach — that of “loving” all Americans, even the ones who don’t love him back — would ensure both action and accountability and would truly serve the common good.