 |
Religious Consumption |
 |
A maxim of the moribund Shaker faith, that any and every action should be a reflection of one’s religion, bears itself in the 
craftsmanship displayed in their furniture produced. Their meticulous production of understated boxes, baskets, chairs and sundry others consistently garners upwards of $60,000 at auction. Though the current American marketplace rarely displays such dedication to quality product, shoppers seem to have inherited something of the belief.
In a recent article, run by The Economist, organic foods were treated as a prime example of the way consumers are now expressing politics in even their most mundane of actions. In a capitalist society, the argument goes, everything is undertaken within the marketplace, and everything is, or soon will become, a commodity. As such, the sum of your choices as a consumer, can, and should be, the measure of your personality, your morality, your politics. When you buy organic, locally-grown produce, you are supporting regional farming and enterprise. You simultaneously reject the environmental costs of shipping foods from afar. When you opt for the free-range chicken you are ensuring the chickens lived with some modicum of dignity. When you buy products with the FairTrade label, you are helping farmers climb out of poverty, ensuring equitable trade conditions as well as supporting community development and environmental sustainability.
All these methods are not an exercise in perfection. Fair Trade has a number of critics who cite the practice as “a form of subsidy that impedes growth.” That aside, the majority of studies have found the benefits on local farmers to be irrefutable. The extra revenue they generate is used on the necessities of life, education, and business capital for investing.
Although this brand of grocery shopping represents only one example of politically 
motivated consumption, the anonymous Economist author rode this single example to the following conclusion: if political efficacy is your aim, your vote is key, not your wallet. While the argument was not an entirely convincing one, the article itself is an allusion to the political ramifications for a party which embraces, or fails to embrace, the issues at hand.
Efforts to woo this consumption-conscious demographic have been largely Democratic, but that does not mean they have been large. Democrats may often bill themselves as the champions of the environment, but their actions often seem motivated more by political considerations than from actual conviction. The Republican record is by and large shaped by their belief in the power of the free market and the potentially disastrous consequences of alienating their pro-business constituency. This renders the Democratic hold over this segment of society so unchallenged they needn’t offer anything more than minimal support. In spite of this concession by Republicans, the Democrats would be wise to put forth more effort into securing this block.
As both parties are making centrist moves, the differences become less, and apostates become more likely. Examining the root causes of the issues surrounding this new trend, it seems the political windfall could be huge for the first group to take concerted action. If both continue to sleep, the power of public spending, somewhat trivialized by The Economist, would be forced to coax the companies into action of their own accord. No doubt this would be effective, as mammoth corporations like General Electric have already begun reading the signs on the wall. They have recently started boasting of their “Ecoimagination,” rolling out ambitious initiatives in the process. Allowing such a trend to continue of its own momentum would not only be a political opportunity squandered, it would also not be as efficient as appropriate legislation.
So, what is at the core of this movement that has roused giants like GE into action? Certainly there is a degree of self-interest involved. Avoiding foods produced with the aid of pesticides, chemicals and other unnatural elements is just good personal policy. Small, locally owned business is endangered by cost cutters like Wal-Mart. Moreover, shopping organic has become for many a marker of class-status, another example of conspicuous consumption. But despite the selfish interest that might spur some of the action, it is not an adequate explanation for the phenomenon. How to explain those who protest corporations like Wal-Mart, never having been employed by, or in competition with, the chain? Or those who denounce unfair treatment for foreign manufacturers of US goods, paying more for brands that are produced in an equitable fashion?
Some, no doubt, do it from traditional religious convictions. Some out of concern for their fellow man. Others are appalled at corporate malfeasance. All of these reasons, however, are simply subcategories of a super-structure; morality. As this morality is conspicuos by nature, it markets itself. Potential converts are attracted by the social responsibility, compassion and justice it endorses and exemplifies. It is thus a steadily growing community.
This subset demands to be addressed. In the same way the Republicans have kowtowed to the religious right, making ostensible piety and military strength their bread and 
butter, the Democrats need to cozy up a little closer to those working for positive, moral change. The foundations for the movement are just the sort of adaptable ethics that can be simultaneously religious and secular in nature. The appeal is widespread, and its consequences could be manifold:
First, it would work to refute two claims, the former spiteful and dubious, but the latter with some meat to it: that Democrats are Godless, and that Democrats are reactionaries who do not stand for much.
Secondly, current political cynics, contemptuous of the dual Republican/Democratic choice and thus non-participants, could be coaxed into the political process. A couple of palpable wins in the fight against corporations would do much to invigorate a portion of the population who thought American politics was so far gone as to be not worthy of their time or efforts.
Additionally, and perhaps most promisingly, current members of the already-shifting religious right would be forced to take a second look at the Democratic Party. With such a progressive agenda in action, the devout would face some tough choices: on one side lie the Republicans and their staunch objections to abortion. On the other are the 
Democrats. While they would not be able to offer the religious high ground such a weighty single issue as abortion, what they lacked in heft they would make up for in quantity.
If explained, promoted and packaged correctly, the Democrats’ new, bolder stance could easily come to be seen as championing agricultural entrepreneurship, public health, environmentalism, global market equality, protection of God’s bounty, and something sure to get chest-pounding patriots enthused: Democrats could be the revivers of the American family farm, now severely endangered by industrial farming.
Lastly, and this may or may not be enticing to those Democrats within the machine, it would provide another much needed distinction between the two parties that currently constitute our democracy.
Unfortunately, the Democratic support for this phenomenon has thus far been nominal in nature. The Green Party, who after a brief cameo in the 2000 election is now a mere receding fringe element, has been the only American political party to clearly, coherently and comprehensively address the matter. They do not equivocate in stating their environmental goal, “a sustainable world where nature and human society co-exist in harmony.” Their platform goes beyond lip-service. It not only concedes all the elements that plague our environment, it offers sensible, genuine solutions to them.
Certainly the issues raised in this article contain no dramatic insight on my own part, one which has escaped the heady think tanks on the Democratic payroll. It is no doubt apparent that this issue could be a political boon to whichever major party embraces it. What presumably prevents their reaping it, however, is their own close ties to corporate America. What’s good for business is not always good for a nation.
After reading some of these articles, I am more convinced you’ll like that book I was telling you about: In the Country of Last Things by Paul Auster. It has a certain Orwellian quality that I think you’ll enjoy.