Imagining our Neighbor

Much of the political wrangling this past week has been over competing budget proposals, one by the GOP (led by Paul Ryan) and one proposed by Obama. I'm not going to summarize them too much, as you can find details all over the internet, though the GOP cuts the budget deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years by cutting taxes and programs (inc. Medicare) while the Obama plan cuts it by $4 trillion over 12 years (by cutting some funding but also increasing taxes on the most affluent). Having competing visions over the role of government and the common good (hopefully) will make the political debate over which vision is better substantive and interesting.

I'd like to think about both in relationship to the idea of imagination. For some of my research as an ethicist, I've been looking at and thinking about the role that the imagination plays in ethical deliberation and action. Being a Protestant, my tradition is somewhat ambivalent about the imagination's fantastical ability to think about nearly anything (ex. Calvin thinks it creates idols, Luther was more concerned about the heart). Folks like Kant and Hegel described how the imagination was active in producing new, creative and free ideas and possibilities for human action. I am looking at the imagination as helping us think both about what each of us should be (i.e. to "imagine" oneself as striving to enact Christ-like love) but also as a means to become empathetic (i.e. to "imagine" what it is like to be in another's shoes). 

Obviously, such imaginative activity is difficult, but if following Christ means to love the neighbor as oneself, it requires us to strive to "imagine" the life that our neighbor lives in order to properly love them. It is to imagine their needs in order to help them find fulfillment. Such an imaginative act requires, to the best that we can, properly seeing the needs of our neighbors: hunger, poverty, lack of opportunities, poor education, hopelessness. 

Yes, our neighbors include the affluent, but to imagine the needs of the affluent is to largely see the lack of an ethical imagination; in other words, it is about an ignorance towards the depths of human misery related to material and social conditions. For example, in October, Limbaugh spouted "There is no equality" because "some people are just born to be slaves" whole others are "self-starters'" meaning that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. Rush, like many with wealth, has a need to truly see poverty, hunger, hopelessness, to see how many work hard (rather than choose to be lazy) yet struggle. So the imaginative act requires us to see everyone as a neighbor.

There is a danger here too--that we imagine such needs without truly knowing the neighbor. Maybe part of the difficulty of this imaginative act is that we live next to people like us (ex. the poor live in poor neighborhoods, the rich in rich communities), meaning we lack diverse communities that help us see the true depth and diversity of human need. But with this reality,  the Christian imaginative act requires us to find, engage, work with our neighbors throughout the world, in Haiti and in the Hamptons.

So if we think about both budget proposals, which one is more imaginative in this Christian ethical sense? Which one better adheres to this imagining of the needs of the neighbor? Granted, neither of the options are "perfect," but which one better sees the true material, social and imaginative needs of the neighbor, both poor and wealthy? 

On the one hand, the Ryan plan's imaginative vision states: "More important, it is based on a fundamentally different vision from the one now prevailing in Washington. It focuses government on its proper role; it restrains government spending, and thus limits the size of government itself; it rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world; and it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and opportunity – qualities that make each American’s pursuit of personal destiny a net contribution to the Nation’s common good as well." 

Might the GOP's imaginative vision be about the unique, individual responsibility of each person to create one's own destiny? In the process, by cutting programs (inc. Medicare) and taxes on the affluent to get government out of the way, it is less about imagining the diverse needs of the other and the sociological elements (education, health care, infrastructure) that affect one's destiny, and more about seeing one's own needs (esp. if you are the affluent) first and foremost. You are the true neighbor, and your imagination is to envision your 'personal destiny.'

On the other hand, Obama's plan states: “But there's always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we're all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. Part of this American belief that we're all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. "There but for the grace of God go I," we say to ourselves." 

Here the imaginative activity is directed at seeing the common needs of all humans, and every one is a neighbor, affected by the shape of our wider community.

Shouldn't we strive to use our imagination in a Christian sense? Aren't we all neighbors?

Limbaugh's comments are here: http://www.projectthevalues.net/mmtv/201010080031