Responsibility for self, fellow citizens define humanism

I can’t think of a better time to continue what I started in my last column: speaking of humanist values.

If you missed it, I was simply articulating my own small-“h” humanist beliefs, with the intent of measuring them against the official, big-“H” ones of the Council for Secular Humanism.

I was “testing” myself, as I haven’t read their statement of principles. I still haven’t, as I’m not done articulating my own.

My first four were, in brief, that I can determine what I believe for myself; what is right and wrong, for myself; that these beliefs don’t come from a higher power; and that people, not God, determine their fates, subject to chance and luck.

This is an incomplete list, but I think it serves as a suitable introduction to humanism. We should also be kind, charitable, fair in our dealings with others, believe in equality for all, etc. These values intersect with many religious belief systems, of course, and show the common terrain that religion and humanism can share.

But the proof is in the pudding, and I like to think of “applied humanism” not as the abstract foundation, but the fully framed, roofed and cozy home of shared abundance that I believe plain old people are capable of building – without hiring a carpenter.

To that end, I’m going to borrow from a great article that Bernie Horn wrote for The Nation magazine a few months ago. I can’t come up with a better statement of applied humanism, and it frames the difference between “conservative” (in quotes because many real conservatives are also appalled by, for instance, suspension of habeus corpus rights and torture) and progressive values more cogently than anything else I’ve read. (I urge you to read the original, available at www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/horn.)

Horn writes that the work of the government – implementing beneficial public policy – should be concerned with four simple, key ideas: “freedom, opportunity, security and responsibility.”

Freedom, essentially, means keeping the government out of affairs in which it has no business meddling: illegal wiretaps, for instance, or what happens in anyone but the GOP’s bedroom.

Opportunity, as Horn says, means creating a level playing field for everyone. Quality education for all. Fair taxation, for all. Corporations, which benefit hugely from public infrastructure, are no longer coming close to paying their way. (And can you say “war profiteering”?)

Tax cuts for the rich, hello? Military service for the privileged? Don’t make me laugh. The current field is as straight as a funhouse mirror.

Security doesn’t come from peddling fear. Security doesn’t come from illegal wars. The dead are secure; the rest of us live lives of jeopardy, and any government that works to deliberately put its citizens in harm’s way is an abomination. Terrorists will always be with us; making security solely an issue of (poorly) protecting us from terrorism makes no sense.

Real security work would address, among other things, our imperiled health, due to a defiled environment; longevity, by poor access to medical care; and life itself, by an unregulated workplace.

The final component here is responsibility, the value most lacking in these conservatives, illustrated so nicely (just to name one minor transgression) by their use of White House pages, covering up long after the facts were known.

Horn writes: “Conservatives cynically turn the word inside out by chanting a mantra of ‘personal responsibility.’ They mean that unemployment, hunger and discrimination are the individual’s problem, not society’s. In this way, conservatives twist the language of responsibility to avoid responsibility.”

I said in my last column that “Conservatism, per se, isn’t the problem, but a lack of humanism in the practice of said conservatism might be.”

This is a belief in freedom, opportunity and security for the few (rich Republicans). Responsibility – “You’re on your own, suckers!” – is for the many (everyone else). Can the difference in value systems be stated more plainly?

Quick question: Who’s talking here, a liberal or conservative?

“What has driven this book is the realization that our government has become largely authoritarian. It is run by … leaders who display all those traits I have listed – dominating, opposed to equality, desirous of personal power, amoral, intimidating and bullying; some are hedonistic, most are vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative, dishonest, cheaters, prejudiced, mean-spirited, militant, nationalistic and two-faced.”

This, from John Dean, a Goldwater Republican and a true conservative, in his latest book, “Conservatives Without Conscience.”

It would appear that the country as a whole agrees; Tuesday’s election signals a clear repudiation of the current extremism.

Here’s to a return to a responsible government that we can put our faith and trust in – and a restoration of real American values.