Recently, I saw the movie “Bridge of Spies”. It’s opening scene is two lawyers, presumably representing different insurance companies, haggling over the semantics of paying for a car accident. The accident consisted of one car crashing into five cars, and whether that was a single incident or five separate incidents. This is important because the insurance policy of $100K will either be $100K/5 or $100K*5. The main character, played by Tom Hanks, argues for the ‘one incident’ side. What’s also important about the movie is that it is based on actual events.
By the time the movie closes, Hanks’ character has had an almost spiritual experience arguing the other side. He “unofficially” negotiates the exchange of one spy for two people – one military pilot and one innocent civilian. Including the civilian is his personal crusade. The movie is the story of his change of heart – his real-life instruction on morals and ethics.
We’re not told, in the film’s beginning, the details of the other five drivers’ insurance. They could be with the same company, or the other lawyer could be representing a group of five different firms. But the distinct *feeling* given is that the Right thing – the good, moral, and ethical thing – that should happen is that all six drivers are fully taken care of, regardless of what their individual policies say. This extends even to the thought that policies in general should legally not allow anything but. This is what “good” people around the world see and understand, and are beginning to demand.
I submit that this is a major reason for the rise in the popularity of “socialism” in this election year. To be clear, a rise in the desire for “moral socialism”. See my previously Facebook-shared article “Should Christians Be Socialists?” Also, please read Acts 4:32-37, regarding life in the early community of believers, and especially verse 35 “everyone was [able to be] given whatever they needed.”
We are at a point in history where this can be done on a global scale.
In the movie, Hanks’ repeatedly states “every person is important” and “1-1-1” which begins to sound like “won-won-won”. For myself, I was left thinking “What would Jesus do?” Would he haggle over who should pay/give the LEAST? Or whether giving/sharing ALL (or enough to help all) is the moral/ethical thing to do? What would Jesus say? Would he say that every person is important? Every person has equal value?
Constitutionally, we are all equal *in opportunity*. In this case, opportunity is treatment in the event of an accident or in the event of unfortunate circumstances.
Finally, we have twenty-first century technology. While we watched the film, my wife instantly looked up the story behind it. Information and donations are a click away. It is “common knowledge” both 1) how wondrous is the ease of living conditions technology has made possible, and 2) the incredible surplus corporations and some individuals have, and 3) this is a true story in which everyone did the Right thing. The impression of the “common man” (iow, me lol) is that these factors of technology and unshared resources actually do allow the Right thing to be the “easy” thing to do. (IOW redistribution is easy to implement and is becoming seen as Right.)
Rather than having a system which allows for the semantical haggling we see at the beginning of the movie, we are left yearning for a single-payer/single-provider representing and resolving our critical needs.
Thoughts? Not just on what I’ve written but how, too. I know my points were deeper towards the beginning of the article and less fleshed out toward the end. I’m working on the my writing style. Any feedback is appreciated!