TODAY'S TOPIC:

Essay No.100

by
Natalia J. Garland

Print Version

Q - Can a conservative be a social worker?

A - There was a time when the answer to that probably would have been no for most people. Social workers have usually been more activist than mainstream society. Politically, I would say that social workers have always had a tendency toward liberalism.

Q - Are you saying the political climate has changed?

A - Politics is much more polarized nowadays. There are extremists in both the political left and right, and the extremists seem to be the most vocal.

Q - What is it that divides the left and right?

A - The issues on marriage, abortion, the death penalty, and the war in Iraq are what really divide people. However, there are many other political and social issues which get less attention and reaction. There are important concerns in education, unemployment, the environment, healthcare, social security, and criminal justice.

Q - Are there any options to the extremes of left and right?

A - Yes, there are numerous political categories, but these are not as strongly expressed except maybe during elections. Here is a very simplified view of the basic political categories.

Generally, we think in terms of liberals and conservatives. Liberals emphasize individual freedoms, while at the same time holding a belief that government programs should aid social welfare. Conservatives emphasize traditional values, are hesitant to change social structure, and prefer very little government involvement.

Moderates are in between liberals and conservatives. Moderates decide for themselves if they agree or disagree with anything, and they dislike being politically labeled. They are good at finding commonalities among different viewpoints.

The difficulty nowadays is that liberals at the extreme left and conservatives at the extreme right have narrowly focused on the issues of marriage, abortion, the death penalty, and the war in Iraq to the point of creating a cultural battle in which no debate can take place.

Q - What is your political affiliation?

A - I'm an American.

Since September 11th, I have become more appreciative of America history, and more sensitive to the struggles and successes of the people who made America a good place to live. Politically, I am aligned with anyone who loves our country and wants to keep it free.

I have been a registered Democrat since I was old enough to vote, but I always vote as I see fit. In the 1980's, I defined myself as a Conservative Democrat. That meant I had family values, but I also believed in social programs. In the Republican Party there were also people like me who were known as Progressive Republicans.

Q - How do political labels affect social workers?

A - Let me give an example. I used to have a job where we openly discussed political issues and how we were going to vote. Opinions and disagreement were acceptable. Then I had another job where I would not have dared to express my views or concerns, because to disagree was to be disloyal to the institution.

This is what happens with polarization. There can be no independent thinking, no new ideas. Any disagreement with one extreme means that you must belong to the other extreme. You are labeled. It can make the workplace very uncomfortable. You have to be careful in everyday socialization with your colleagues.

Q - This brings us back to the original question: can a conservative be a social worker?

A - Yes, a conservative could find a suitable job nowadays. I think it would be more difficult for a moderate to find a niche. We have learned to think critically, but polarized politics requires us to choose a side. If you do not choose one or the other side, then you will find yourself rejected by both. It takes a strong person to endure that kind of alienation.

Q - Doesn't it seem strange that social workers would succumb to political pressure?

A - Yes and no. Yes, because social workers should exercise objectivity, reflection, and self-determination. No, because political platforms are always changing in response to the times we live in. Whether it's the New Deal, the War on Poverty, or No Child Left Behind, we are always trying to find ways to solve current problems. If you want to accomplish something, it may mean political alignment. The difficulty today is that political polarization and the cultural battle have become obstructions to debate.

Q - Do I detect some hypocrisy here? In other essays you have talked about the necessity to choose sides between civilization and terrorism. Is that not a form of polarization?

A - No, not at all. These are entirely different situations. And this is why we always need to exercise critical thinking: so that we can untangle things like this.

Regarding the choice between civilization and terrorism, there were indeed only those two choices. Options did not exist. There was a need to unify and mobilize the pro-democratic nations of the world. Any attempt at neutrality would have been, de facto, supportive of terrorism.

Q - How does this differ from America's polarized politics?

A - Think of it as a frozen T.V. dinner. A frozen dinner is a packaged deal. You buy the dinner complete in a box. You cannot say, "I want the chicken and the mashed potatoes, but take out the corn." Likewise, in polarized politics, you cannot say, "I favor traditional marriage, the death penalty, and the war in Iraq, but I disagree with the anti-abortion stance." You have to buy the whole package.

Q - Is there any way out of this?

A - Courage.

We must follow our convictions regarding the cultural battle issues. We also need perseverance to tend to the non-packaged areas of education, unemployment, the environment, healthcare, social security, and criminal justice before they also become rigidified into cultural division.

Knowledge.

We must study our own history. America has always found strength and unity in individualism and diversity. Take a quarter out of your pocket. E pluribus unum: out of many, one. In contrast, a sharp cultural division only results in a battle for domination of the whole.

Q - Does political affiliation alter the patient/therapist relationship?

A - No, just remember to start where the client is.

So long as we follow the social work maxim to start where the client is, there should be no conflict between the therapist's political ideals and the patient's pyschosocial needs. A conservative therapist should be able to treat a liberal patient, and a liberal therapist a conservative patient.

When the political and the personal overlap, then it is the therapist's responsibility to find an employment solution. If you do not believe in abortion, then do not take a job in a family planning clinic. If you have grievances against the Catholic Church, then do not take a job in a Catholic institution just to use your position as a soapbox for bashing Catholics.

Q - If you could change anything about the profession of social work, what would it be?

A - I would emphasize helping all people regardless of income or status, meaning both poor and rich. Historically, social work has been directed toward the poor, the downtrodden, the vulnerable. Services for this population are essential, but I think it became a social work political bias.

When I was in social work school, there were some students who scoffed at the prospect of helping rich people. They did not apply the social work value of individual worth to the upper income population. It was as though just because you had money, you had no problems. Or, because you had money, you should be able to fend for yourself. Self-determination (i.e., making money) was denied to the rich. Yet, these same students would expect funding for social programs from the government (i.e., taxpayers' money).

This view has changed somewhat nowadays. We know that wealthy women can also be victims of domestic violence, rape, incest. The rich also suffer from depression, anxiety, addiction and self-destruction. Yes, they have the money to seek help from private practitioners and they have other advantages. But that does not make them less deserving of compassion.

Q - Should social workers run for political office?

A - Sure, why not? There are, in fact, social workers in elected offices at all levels of government. Most are Democrats with only a scattering of Republicans. This is probably good news if you are a liberal. If you are a conservative, then this might motivate you to change that proportion.

Social workers should consider doing more than, or other than, advocating for patient rights or endorsing candidates as a way of influencing political policy. Getting elected to office is a way of being directly involved in decision-making on behalf of the community.

Q - What are your career goals?

A - To keep learning, to be creative, and to stay connected to people. When I was younger, I wanted to work for specific employers and with specific populations. It became part of my identity. Now I prefer flexibility, adaptability, and variation. In addition to making a contribution to the lives of others, I look for expansion of my personal interests. I think this change in attitude is a part of getting older. Time is running out, and there are still things I want to do. (Written 03/06/06: bibliography available.)

Addendum

In January, 2009, Martha Coakley made the following comments in her campaign for the Senate. She was talking to Ken Pittman:

Upon access of Coakley's remarks, I felt that I should clarify one of my above paragraphs:

Now, I do NOT agree with Coakley. According to the conscience clause, a hospital employee has the legal right to refuse patient services if such services violate the employee's moral beliefs. Roman Catholics have a right to work in emergency rooms. Moreover, my opinion is that Catholics and people of other religions are NOT personally obligated to avoid employment in emergency rooms because of their faith.

When I wrote the above essay, my emphasis was on obvious situations which are under the control of the individual worker. If you do not believe in abortion, it does not make sense to work in an abortion clinic where the general purpose is to perform abortions. Placing yourself in a pro-abortion employment situation is not going to change anything. There are other ways to oppose abortion if that is your motive. Similarly, if you grew up Catholic and still resent the nuns who taught you in parochial school--yet you take a job as a social worker in a Catholic institution--you are only wasting everyone's time by using staff meetings to ventilate your bitterness toward the Catholic Church and to buck policy and procedure. This type of 'protest' is fruitless.

It would seem logical that one's job should align with one's values--in order to fulfill the job duties as well as to find personal happiness. The general purpose of an emergency room is very much within Roman Catholic social values. If you are a social worker who was harmed by the Catholic Church, there is much good you can do despite this harm--whether employed by the Church or by a secular organization. The harm that you experienced needs to be addressed in other ways which could promote healing and positive change. (Written 01/04/10)

Until we meet again..............stay sane.