is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in the weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
The reason for the title is because whenever the
word “morality” crops up, a substantial number of readers immediately
become dismissive, anticipating it leading to boring “moralizing” (pun
intended) or just plain garden-variety naíve idealism. Hence my tying up
the issue of morals with economics. Because if people can’t be made
concerned with the degradation of society, the youth’s sense of
entitlement, our adult’s lack of responsibility, the vulgarity of
popular culture, then surely (at least) we might show concern for what’s
happening to our own wallets.
Nowadays, of course, it’s quite fashionable to complain about
corruption and pork barrels. But your friendly Trade Tripper was never
much into fashion anyway. And so it was with some gratitude that he
heard some much needed sanity into this public debate, this time coming
from Cardinal Chito Tagle: “... political solutions only provide a
temporary answer to the problem of corruption. This is a cultural
problem. It will only be eradicated through moral transformation and
behavioral change to be led by parents in their households.”
Spot on. This is what I’ve been pointing out as well through various
media. This doesn’t mean that people should be passive politically but
rather be more discerning regarding their actions and to focus on what
the real problem is that needs to be solved. If people want to make a
nuisance of themselves in the streets and dress up in silly costumes,
fine. But the ills of our society arise from serious fundamental
problems that demand utterly serious thinking from a politically mature
and serious people.
Is it then so hard to accept the idea that the problem of corruption,
bad governance, absence of national vision, fundamentally lies with our
people’s character and morals? That the problems are so deeply ingrained
that no amount of angry rallying can solve, as EDSA 1 (which deposed a
Marcos for an Aquino) or EDSA 2 (which removed an Estrada for an Arroyo)
have shown? And if people are now shrieking about the “crooks in
Congress” (or the Executive), shouldn’t the blame fall on those who
voted them into office a mere four months ago?
Indeed. All this just goes to prove what we’ve been saying all along: if
we want a better economy, leaders, and country, we simply must have
better voters. Or to paraphrase from US President Barack Obama: change
will not come from Malacañang, change has to come to Malacañang.
Of course, the default excuse is to blame the lack of education for our
people’s propensity to vote criminals, plunderers, or traitors into
public office. But how can this be when public spending on education
constitutes between 15-17% of overall expenditure and when our country’s
literacy rate, particularly in the last two decades or so, hovers
around the 95% mark?
Inevitably, it’s because public debate on education ignores the fact
that education is not limited to the classroom. What the student learns
outside it is equally as important, if not actually more so. From there
one can now grasp the true significance of the family, media, and the
Internet.
So if the family is being rendered unstable (what with promiscuity,
same-sex marriage, and divorce all touted as the new normal), and media
and the Internet carelessly flouting pornography and the
if-it-feels-good-then-do-it mindset, what effect would that have on our
people’s overall education, which means the development of our people’s
skills, productivity, and integrity, and consequently the economy?
Devastating, as Charles Murray (Coming Apart, Crown Forum, 2013) and Mary Eberstadt (How the West Really Lost God, Templeton Press, 2013) amply demonstrated.
As I wrote in a previous article, both convincingly show that the
breakdown in people’s religiosity, traditional marriage, and the family
lead to “enormous” economic costs. 2012 research reveals that the high
US divorce rates “perpetually inhibits growth of the U.S. economy.” This
is backed up by Nick Schulze (Home Economics, Aei Press, 2013),
he declaring the link between “divorces and out-of-wedlock births in
America” and economic wellbeing as indeed substantial.
Which is why the local academe’s, the media’s, and policy makers’
unquestioning over-infatuation with John Rawls, as well as secular
progressivism, is utterly baffling.
As JL Liedl wrote for Ethika Politika (“Want a Good Economy? Try
Virtue”; 4 September 2013): “The dehumanizing theorems and charts of the
economist have done us enough harm already. Their consistent failures
and the general increase in global misery under their watchful guidance
should be enough to convince us that modern economics has been tried and
found wanting. Man does not live by bread alone, a truth that must be
acknowledged, perhaps especially acknowledged, when considering how man
produces and obtains bread. There is something metaphysical in play
here, and it must be observed even when dealing with the nitty-gritty,
physical practicalities of capital and labor. Virtue, more than anything
else, more than economic theories or fiscal policy, is what a society
needs to have a good and just economy.”
