Toward A New Political Humanism

There’s a problem with creating a political humanism in that humanist philosophy is based not upon any dogmas or doctrines, but rather upon general principles. Humanist share in common an affirmation of ethical values such as the application of reason, the importance of a pluralistic society, and the right to privacy. Each humanist can, however, arrive at different conclusions from those principles. Not every humanist agrees on particular issues like abortion or taxation, even though there are positions more common than others.

This creates an interesting contrast to the Christian Right where certain principles are touted (“culture of life”), but those principles are applied inconsistently (abortion is wrong, capital punishment is not). The Christian Right, then, can be said to have broad agreement on the application (or lack thereof) of principles which appear to be little more than public slogans.

Let’s face facts: saying “we feel that abortion is wrong because we embrace a culture of life” makes a better sound-bite than saying “we affirm the importance of a well-lived human life, which may lead some of us to support abortion rights, some of us not to, and others to disagree with abortion but support a woman’s choice in the matter.” Such nuance may be better in many ways, but it doesn’t exactly inspire, does it?

Humanist politics needs a coherent system of principles and values, and humanism does have that. Humanist politics also needs a coherent agenda that is matched with those principles and values — specific proposals and positions that follow logically and cohere with one another. That doesn’t exist right now and I’m not sure that any of the essays in the book show how it can. Any one policy position will leave some humanists out; a system of policy positions is likely to annoy most humanists in one way or another.

Many of the essays in this book are critical of this, that, or the other thing, perhaps because more humanists agree on what they dislike than on what they support. While that may be a fair start, more is needed. It’s not enough to explain how George W. Bush’s presidency fails to live up to principles of humanism or to discuss the status of democracy and secularism in the Muslim word; the creation of a real political humanism requires the development of a specific agenda, a series of specific policy proposals that people can get behind.

Toward A New Political Humanism, edited by Barry F. Seidman, Neil J. Murphy

Thus, Seidman’s and Murphy’s book is a good start but I would like to see more. I would like to see a sequel, Developing a Political Humanism, in which each essay puts forward some policy proposal (separating church and state, freedom of choice in abortion, defending the right to privacy). The authors should explain how and why this position is more consistent with humanist principles than the alternatives. These would not be final statements of “True Humanist Politics,” but the initiation of a dialogue that might lead to different, or at least more refined, positions in the future.

That’s what I’d like to see, at least. Sketching out the theory is good, but religious fundamentalists didn’t get to where they are today by sticking with just theory.

« Back...