Verbal Sustainability?

Sustainability – the idea that things can be engineered to take care of themselves – is certainly very popular. But consider this: Could there be such a thing as sustainable talk?

First, consider what sustainability is. How we use energy is often linked to sustainability. If we use energy that we make, our use of energy is more sustainable; that is, we can sustain our own use of energy. If talk were to be considered sustainable, our use of it would have to sustain us in some way. But what would talk sustain? If we think about what it is that sustains us, what it is that provides us with sustenance, we would find that we are sustained by a complex combination of spiritual, emotional and physical nourishment, a mix that is constantly changing every day.

If talk were to be sustainable, it would – like our use of energy – have to sustain us, it would have to provide us with the kind of sustenance we need to continue living. And it would have to be done in such a way that my use of talk sustains me but does not do so at the expense of anyone else. To be truly sustainable, a thing has to be sustainable for everyone, not just me or not just a small group of people. So even though burning my own garbage might supply me with sustainable energy, it wouldn’t sustain my neighborhood. Although my neighbors could start burning their own garbage and sustain themselves, if everyone in my city did it we’d be breathing severely polluted air. So sustainability can’t sustain one thing at the expense of another.

For talk to be sustainable, it has to sustain us in some meaningful way. How does talk sustain you?

“That’s not the way we talk!”

It was close to 7 a.m.

I was busy making coffee and making lunches for my 11 year-old and my six year-old. I heard my son cry out from the living room, “Way to go, jerk!” Incensed, I dropped what I was doing and approached the kids. I pulled my son aside, looked in his eyes and said “That’s not the way we talk! I don’t care what happened; we don’t talk that way!”

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that most reasonable people – well, most reasonable adults, anyway – know that we don’t talk that way to one another. We don’t call people jerks (even though we might feel the urge to) and we know it’s not nice to call people names. We learn these rules over time, so they seem fairly self-evident. But consider why it is that we don’t talk that way: Because talking that way isn’t kind and demonstrates the sort of malice of forethought that undermines family, loving relationships, and perhaps even the good of society itself.

Then why is it that some political pundits and commentators (most notably on cable news networks and radio talk shows) do talk that way? I recall one recent broadcast during which Rush Limbaugh described President Obama as a “joke of a president.” Mr. Limbaugh, of course, is perfectly entitled to his opinion; we all are.

On the other hand, no parent in her right mind would tolerate that kind of talk in the house. So why do we tolerate it from members of the media who command the attention of thousands of listeners and have the ability to shape public opinion on a massive scale?

The easy answer is that we’re not as close to members of the media (or to the people they’re attacking) as we are to members of our families. It’s hard to argue with that kind of rationale. Let’s let Mr. Limbaugh and President Obama work it out! But if we find ourselves tolerant of such discourse we will find that our ability to live with one another in fellowship, expressing the love that God has for us, to be in serious jeopardy.

What’s Good About “Medicare for Everyone”

Unlike “death panels” and “pulling the plug on grandma” the newest euphemism launched on Capitol Hill – “Medicare Part E” or “Medicare for Everyone” – isn’t engendering the same kind of emotional, irate response. What House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn called the “rebranding” of the public option hasn’t caused people to run from their homes screaming or to throw their shoes at their televisions.

And that’s a good thing.

Why? Because characterizing something by draping it in ugly euphemisms is not Good (that’s right, Good with a capital “G”). You see, criticizing President Obama’s healthcare plan as promoting “death panels” that would “pull the plug on grandma” was bad because it was intentionally designed to stir up anger. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, any time we set out to purposely inflame people’s emotions so as to color their ability to reason, we find ourselves on a slippery moral slope. That’s one reason why he claims that a fool shouldn’t give advice.

On the other hand, “Medicare for Everyone” seems to augment our ability to reason by comparing the healthcare plan to something we’re familiar with. That kind of comparison invites understanding instead of trading it for an emotional firestorm. So no matter what you think of the politics involved, what’s Good (that is, moral) about “Medicare for Everyone” is that it’s a phrase that is not designed to get us angry and frustrated, things we can certainly do without.