WE ARE DAVID

Sketch by Homero Cruz of Monterrey Mexico

We are David.^* No, I am not referring to myself or even specifically to my own name. Rather I am remembering another David, a David from ancient times. Many of us remember, I am sure, the story of David and Goliath, right?

There is a great conflict taking place between Israel and the Philistines. But the Philistines have a secret weapon, a giant by the name of Goliath who threatens Israel's warriors, challenging them as to who has the courage to come and confront him in battle. But Israel's soldiers tremble in fear, and no one is found who will confront the giant.

On to this stage comes the young boy, David, sent by his father to bring goods and get news from his elder brothers. Upon hearing the challenge of the Giant, David goes to the King, Saul, and says to him: “Let no one lose heart on account of the Philistine; your servant will go and fight him.” Although Saul tries to dissuade him, David insists.

What is impressive to me is his faith and determination. The story reads that, with sling in hand, he goes to a brook and carefully, thoughtfully, selects five smooth stones. He then proceeds calmly to the battle line to confront the Giant. Seeing the boy, you can hear the disdain in Goliath's voice: “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” he snarls. “Come here, and I will giver your flesh to the birds and wild animals.”

Speaking in faith David looks the fully armored and weaponized Giant in the eye and responds confidently: “You come against me with sword, and spear, and javelin; but I come to you in faith and in solidarity with those who you have disrespected and defied. This day you will be delivered into my hands, and I will strike you down.” With that, David begins running toward the on-coming threat. Reaching into his bag he chooses one of the stones, puts it in his sling and with confidence and deadly accuracy he lets fly. And the next moment the Goliath comes crashing down, struck by a single stone to his unprotected forehead.

I believe that many of us feel today that we are in a time of great conflict and danger. It seems that around the world we are seeing the advance of evil powers. In Europe, in Latin America, and here in the United States gathering clouds of threat and conflict. People incentivized to be over-against one another, disrespecting because of color of skin, religion, gender, place of origin, sexual preference. “Leaders” tweeting images that, for the unreflective, create a sense of threat and fear of the Other. Easy talk of war. Open and direct attacks on the values so many of us have fought to achieve over years, decades, even centuries: equality, diversity, justice, peace; quality of life for all - globally, care for our fragile planet, the common good.

Right now in the United States we may feel that this threat emanates most directly from a man who I refer to simply as the t-boy, because I refuse to give his name any additional attention in cyber-space. And in one sense that is true, but this single man is not our Goliath. No, the Goliath has been around, rising up and growing (and at times shrinking) its stature over many years. In his article, “The Tale of Two Countries,” author Neal Gabler provides a brief tracing of the history in the United States. No, our Goliath is not a single man in the White House, nor even all 535 congress persons and senators in Washington. No, our Goliath is a system that prioritizes profits over people, and today it is a global system, the Global Goliath. And this Goliath is fully armored and weaponized with drones, smart bombs, nuclear shields, and armies. And, it wields tremendous power – politically and economically. The power to destroy anything that stands in its way and an unbounded determination to protect all that is in it's interest, no matter what the monetary cost or the cost in human life - threatening even the demise of all life on this planet.

And so where do we find the David to confront today's Giant? The answer: David is us!! It is “we the people” who must stand up to this modern-day Goliath. Goliath's power is a mirage, because WE vastly outnumber the holders of power. If they are the 1%, WE are the 99%. But even if those who would benefit from and defend this power are 20%, WE are 80%. Our power is in our numbers. Their economic power depends on the sweat a blood of our labor, and on the purchasing power that we hold. Their political power depends on our quiescence to allow them to govern in whatever way they choose. But if we choose to act, to challenge and change this system – they are outnumbered. They may use their power to imprison and surely even kill. But despite the size of the industrial prison complex, they do not have space sufficient to imprison all of us. And if we refuse to guard the prisoners, they cannot imprison. And if we refuse to make the guns and build the bombs, their stock piles will run out.

Like David of old, we must be calm and reflective. We must be full of faith and confident. We must be courageous and willing to confront. Prepare – pick our stones strategically and wisely. Identify the chinks in Goliath's armor. What is that one soft place that when targeted with lethal accuracy brings the entire facade crashing down. And while time and urgency is of the essence, we must not rush but must advance thoughtfully, in solidarity and in faith. Choose the best stones. Place them in our slings. And let fly!

WE ARE DAVID! And with little victories and large, we can and will bring this giant down!

*This reflection was inspired as I listened this morning to Maya Angelou's Tribute Poem to Nelson Mandela.

quality of life & the common good

In my most recent post I argued that our national pledge in the United States, of “liberty and justice for all”, while nice sounding is in fact misleading since in actual practice these two ideals are mutually limiting. A society like the United States which emphasizes personal liberty must (and in actual fact does) fail in the area of justice, and similarly a society that places primary emphasis on social justice thereby makes a choice to place limits on personal liberty. I concluded the post by suggesting that a better – and in fact more measurable - set of values to focus on in creating the ideal society are “quality of life” and “the common good.” In the present post I explore this idea.

Quality of life (QOL) is about meeting a defined standard of safety, comfort, and satisfaction in our lives – as individuals, as families, as communities. The Quality of Life Research Unit at the University of Toronto identifies three areas that make up QOL: Being, Belonging, and Becoming.¹ “Being” is defined as having to do with “who one is;” “Belonging” as having to do with “connections with one's environments;” and “Becoming” as related to “achieving personal goals, hopes and aspirations.” Each of these areas is fruther broken down, as shown in the table below.² According to the Toronto Center's model, given an environment meeting specific criteria, QOL can be defined individually by each person, family, community, etc. It is not a one size fits all model.³

So, the challenge in what I am proposing is to re-think our societies in such a way that, instead of individual freedom, emphasis is placed on empowering all to achieve the quality of life desired. This will require allowing for some agreed on level of personal freedom but it does not require absolute freedom. The goal is for persons to experience a personal sense of quality in their lives.

QOL focuses on more the personal and individual side of the equation. Balancing this then we must again recognize the fact that as human beings we are part of a series of communities – starting with family and broadening to community locally, regionally, nationally, and globally. This takes us then to the second value that I am proposing: The Common Good (TCG). TCG is essentially the implementation of QOL collectively and universally. It is the striving (together) for all persons to enjoy QOL. The word “common” in this phrase refers to the fact that this “good” must apply to all persons. I suggest that the “good” is defined by QOL. Moving from our personal QOL we are called to be in dialogue with our neighbors to ensure that QOL is shared by ALL. This certainly means in our own family and in our immediate community, but from there it must extend finally to encompass every human person on the planet.⁴ What would life be like if this were to become a reality?!?  I believe that if we pursue true QOL, it will mean that we are also caring for the earth itself - our survival and well-being, its survival and well-being, and the survival and well-being of all living beings on this planet!

BEING	Physical Being	physical health personal hygiene nutrition exercise grooming and clothing general physical appearance
	Psychological Being	psychological health and adjustment cognitions feelings self-esteem, self-concept and self-control
	Spiritual Being	personal values personal standards of conduct spiritual beliefs
BELONGING	Physical Belonging	home workplace/school neighbourhood community
	Social Belonging	intimate others family friends co-workers neighbourhood and community
	Community Belonging	adequate income health and social services employment educational programs recreational programs community events and activities
BECOMING	Practical Becoming	domestic activities paid work school or volunteer activities seeing to health or social needs.
	Leisure Becoming	activities that promote relaxation and stress reduction
	Growth Becoming	activities that promote the maintenance or improvement of knowledge and skills adapting to change

1 See the Quality of Life Research Unit's website for more detail.

2 Reproduced from the Toronto Quality of Life Research units website. See ibid.

3 In fact there are a number of studies that offer approaches to quantifying and ranking the quality of life in various parts of the world. See, for example, the OECD Better Life Index site, and the Quality of Life Indicators on the EUROSTAT site. NUMBEO is another example, although their approach tends to be based more on material considerations.

4 If we achieve this balance, I believe that in fact we will have reached an appropriate balance between liberty and justice as well.

LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL?

In my recent post, “Reflections on the Occasion of Fidel Castro's Passing”^*, I wrote about the qualities I value in the Cuban revolution: free and improved education, free world-class healthcare, world-class achievements in agriculture and dairy production, and significant gains in equality among the citizens. In response, a good friend who had previously raised questions critical of Castro and the revolution responded: “I simply think that liberty, universally, is worth more than anything you mentioned.”

That got me thinking! I live in a country that claims “liberty and justice for all.” But as I reflect, it seems to me there is a contradiction in this phrase. It implies that one can enjoy both liberty and justice fully and equally. However I would suggest that each of these values in fact limits the other.

By liberty, do we mean absolute liberty? If so, then this would mean, according to a definition given on google, “having the power or scope to act as one pleases.” A slightly more sophisticated – and revealing – statement defines liberty as “a condition in which a man’s (sic) will regarding his own person and property is unopposed by any other will.”¹ But is it possible to have this kind of liberty universally, if by universal we mean that such liberty is enjoyed by all persons?

I suggest that the latter definition is more revealing because it points to the conundrum that exists when we are dealing with universal liberty and justice. If one is the only living being on a desert island, perhaps one can do whatever one pleases. However, to paraphrase John Donne, in fact “no human person is an island.” Human life begins in family and is lived out within community and society. If all then are to enjoy liberty, it is a liberty that is not absolute but that must necessarily be limited – limited by the fact that it cannot impose upon or transgress the liberties of others. In fact our founding fathers recognized this limitation. Thomas Jefferson asserted that “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”²

Now, if liberty is about individual experience, justice in this context is about the experience of community. It is about the inter-connection between individuals with their liberties, ensuring all persons an equal (although not an absolute) level of liberty (and at the same time an equal level of limitation to their liberty). If it applies to “all,” this means that for there to be justice no one may rightfully exercise a level of personal liberty that is greater than that of everyone else in the community/society. And similarly, no one – regardless of whatever attribute we may choose – may be deemed to qualify for a lesser degree of personal liberty than anyone else in the community. Common synonyms for justice include “fairness,” “equity,” “even-handedness,” “impartiality.”

So how do we balance liberty and justice? If as a nation we give preference to personal liberty, fairness is threatened. On the other hand, the broader our commitment to justice, the greater the limitations on personal liberty. To return to the question of Cuba, this it seems to me is the difference between the United States and Cuba. The United States, despite our claim of “liberty and justice” has always given greater credence to liberty. In actual fact that has meant greater liberty for some (based on race, gender, class, sexual preference, etc.) and less for others; i.e. the diminishment of justice. By contrast post-revolutionary Cuba has given priority to justice. This has however required limiting personal freedom.

So where does this reflection take us? I would like to suggest that instead of liberty and justice, there is a different set of measures that do a better and more effective job in helping us envision and strive for the ideal society. Furthermore I believe that these measures - by giving us a different language and focus – will in fact help us create the proper balance between liberty and justice. What I propose is that the ideal society be characterized by “quality of life” and “the common good.” In my next post I will explore this proposal more deeply.

* See my December 18, 2016 post.

1 See the online article “What is Liberty Exactly?

2 Ibid. Emphases added.