 |
About Woodstock | Programs | Publications | Search |
[Woodstock Report, October 1996, No. 47]
Our main story in this issue of the Woodstock Report is a conversation about "the values behind the issues" in the current presidential election. We were blessed to have three exceptional and well-informed people share their reflections on this timely question with us: Thomas B. Edsall, a national correspondent for The Washington Post, Dr. Peter N. Skerry, a visiting fellow in governmental studies at the Brookings Institution, and Mary McGrory, a syndicated columnist for The Washington Post. Woodstock fellow Thomas J. Reese, S.J., moderated the discussion.
What I found especially intriguing in this conversation was the distinction that emerged between "values" and "interests." Peter Skerry started it by saying we ought to call a moratorium on "values talk," because politicians use this talk to dodge the real issues (or "interests," as he calls them) and manipulate the electorate in their favor. In fact, he said, the more they talk about "values," the less trustworthy they may be. Examples he gives of "values talk" are talk about affirmative action, abortion legislation, immigration, welfare, crime, and education. "Interests," on the other hand, are the serious and seemingly intractable questions about social security, campaign finance reform, the sad condition of our civic and political institutions-which politicians may well be dodging when they start talking "values talk."
Thomas Edsall feels, quite to the contrary, that the presidential campaign ought to be about values. He thinks the public wants government to be concerned about the values enshrined in education, crime, welfare reform, the abortion debate, and so on. Sure, it can become manipulative, but that is an indictment not of "values talk," but of some "values talkers." Judging from her remarks, Mary McGrory would seem to agree.
Does a distinction between "values" and "interests" hold up? And is it helpful? That is the question I found intriguing. To my mind, "interests" are "values," and vice versa. "Values" are simply the goods--genuine or bogus--that people desire and pursue. Campaign finance reform is no less a value--or interest--than affirmative action, and so for the other instances of interest/value mentioned above. And in that sense, the whole drama of presidential debate and election is drenched in values, wittingly or unwittingly, sincerely or hypocritically.
But maybe I am missing the point. Read this fascinating conversation yourself and make up your own mind. It will, in any case, be an instructive adventure, and one that could be quite important as you mull over which candidate you will support, and why.
Also, in this issue you will find a list of our 1996 donors. We are deeply appreciative and grateful to all of you who have made our work possible with your generous financial contributions. Your encouraging support of Woodstock enables us to keep our projects and programs up and running.
Be sure of the prayers and gratitude of all at Woodstock. God bless!
James L. Connor, S.J.