Scudder, Rauschenbusch, and Ransom said that capitalism was too predatory and corrupting to be tamed with select reforms. The system itself had to be changed fundamentally. There had to be a way to reward cooperation and leave nobody behind. American capitalism subsequently sprawled to global dimensions that dwarfed what Rauschenbusch opposed. Economic democracy is fundamentally a bottom-up strategy.
But I am not dogmatic about bottom-up, because I believe in the principle of subsidiarity — social problems should be solved by the least centralized authority that is competent to solve them. In a world hurtling toward eco-apocalypse, there is going to be a role for international organizations and public ownership. DORRIEN: Any attempt to live out the biblical ethic of justice has to contend with the American worship of power and success and its flipside contempt for the poor and weak.
The social gospel was explicitly a critique of Social Darwinism. The first major social gospel institution, the American Economic Association, declared at its founding in that everything was at stake in fighting off Social Darwinism.
They prized their own social standing and were intimidated by the intellectual prestige and cultural popularity of Social Darwinism. Intellectually, the founders were outgunned through the s and s. They had to rely on a Christian ethical conviction: Social Darwinism could not be true because it is morally repugnant. Browse Housing. View Safety Info. Campus Athletics Tickets. Buy Tickets. Browse Store. Watch Live. Engage Ways to Give. Contact Us Support Lehigh. Make a Gift.
Share This Story. Story by Stephen Gross. Photography by Christa Neu. Posted on May 20, Tags Baccalaureate address Baccalaureate commencement The deciding factor in attending Lehigh as a freshman, she said, was the Christian fellowships on campus, which she said helped her when she felt lost that first year. That has also helped her do something she never would have considered four years ago: become part of a Jewish community in Philadelphia after graduation, she said.
But that does not mean it makes little difference which president we elect or that only small changes will be possible. The enormity of the meltdown will undoubtedly crowd out many things.
But this crisis also puts into play big questions of purpose and vision that have been off the table politically for 30 years. Instead of the usual Pepsi-or-Coke policy options, and the usual fixation with trivia and personalities, there is an opening for larger concerns.
What would a good society look like? What kind of country should we want to be? In the s Sweden and Japan had national discussions of that sort that revolved around the tolerable limits of income inequality.
In Japan, where worker shareholder plans were commonplace, a similar debate occurred over the tolerability of allowing more than the existing ratio of 16 to one. Meanwhile, in the United States the ratio climbed to to one, and there was no debate. The right to attain wealth was exalted over other values.
The Reagan administration cut the marginal tax rate for individuals from 70 percent to 28 percent and cut the top rate on capital gains from 49 percent to 20 percent. All of this has created an opening for a democratic surge for social justice and equality. Mercifully, the Occupy Wall Street movement has made a start, but so far, the common good is still getting hammered, and Obama has spent most of his presidency cleaning up an economic disaster. Throughout American history, Americans have debated about the kind of country they want to be.
Today, America stands at the crossroads of a decision about the kind of country that America should be, which does not mean that a decision is necessarily imminent, since Americans are deeply polarized. There is still time for to be transformational in the sense of these historic elections, ending an era of American politics.
But time and opportunity are running out as the Reagan era endures in bizarre forms. In , the top 1 percent of the U.
0コメント