Is The Other Side Morally Bankrupt?

In this age of moral grandstanding, I see and hear the phrase “morally bankrupt” all the time. As in:

• Are the Rich Morally Bankrupt?

• Is Capitalism Morally Bankrupt?

• Morally bankrupt liberals

• Morally Bankrupt Banker - TV Tropes

• Donald Trump is morally bankrupt, and so are his supporters

• The Republicans are morally bankrupt

• Pompeo slams Venezuela's Maduro as 'morally bankrupt'

•  Motion: The Republican Party Is Morally Bankrupt

To be bankrupt is to owe more than you can possibly pay. Which translates to irredeemable, as in rotten to the core. In politics, that translates to “I refuse to engage the other side, because they have the wrong values.” In other words, the Other Side cares about the wrong things.

In medieval times, the wrong values had to do with wanting more in the material world. The Devil was about doing to get something. The Saint was about being. No means-end mentality for the Saint. Just surrendering to God. Thus the taint of capitalism, which is about the unapologetic pursuit of desire. A system designed to maximize getting through doing and therefore inherently sinful.

I know a lot of people with moral litmus tests. Mostly these people are self-described progressives. Not to say conservatives don’t have their own litmus tests - only that I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. The problem for me is the idea of trade-offs and consequences, all of which have moral implications. For me, a profoundly moral question is what would happen if the government enacted a particular policy. I want to know how other morally desirable ends wound be affected if, for instance, the US implemented Medicare-for-all, free college tuition, taxing the rich even more, etc. A flippant answer won’t do.

Policy wonks think hard about these things. Policy wonks are today’s saints.