A Short Note on Best Buy and a Myopic Observation

My first week at Best Buy has been quite the whirlwind.  After three days of orientation and two days in the division, it’s clear that I have a lot to learn and that I’ll be working with erudite folks.   However, due to Best Buy’s social media policy, I won’t be able to tell you what I have learned.  So from now on I will simply not talk about work subjects.

-----------

I would like to provide my observation, perhaps myopic, on an aspect of the current Presidential contests.  A couple weeks ago I read through a slideshow presented by the President’s re-election campaign titled “The Life of Julia.”  The slideshow pretty much is a list of government programs the President supported and/or implemented for a lady named “Julia” from cradle to grave in contrast to what they say Mitt Romney’s positions are in denying “Julia” these programs.  While you can guess the Hayekian instinct in me was not too enamored with the President’s positions, I was really struck by this slide on the issue of government-mandated contraception coverage.

“Under President Obama: For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer. Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.”

 While the issue of whether the government should mandate that insurance companies cover contraception is a serious issue, what struck me is the implied context of this statement in the slideshow.  For one thing, throughout the entire slide show there is no male presence, thus no encouragement of a traditional family relationship even when “Julia” decides to have a child later in the slideshow.  But the idea that women, especially single women as this slideshow insinuates, should not have to pay for their contraception themselves instead of through their insurance is a clear statement of our culture.

The debate over contraception glosses over a fundamental issue that underlies it: the issue of where sex, relationships, marriage and family fit within our culture. 

What I see is two worldviews colliding.  The traditional view based on Biblical teaching that the self-discipline, committed heterosexual relationships, intimacy, sexuality and healthy marriages go hand in hand to enhance society and children’s welfare has been under cultural siege for decades by secularists.  Secularism seeks a libertarian view on these issues where individuals are unhindered from all authority that has been especially growing in cultural popularity since the 1960s. 

In regards to the contraception debate, the secularists believe that a wider availability of contraception is a pragmatic way to ensure that individuals, especially single individuals, can express unfettered sexuality without consequences. Therefore, sexuality becomes as recreational activity, not an activity that fits within a committed heterosexual marriage that has a desire to create and raise a family.  In such a context, pregnancy is treated like it’s a disease as opposed to a miracle of life.  Or as the President said during his 2008 campaign, having a baby is a punishment.

So what’s the result of the increasing popularity of the secularists’ view?  The growing popularity of the secularists’ view has unleashed millions of abortions worldwide, dehumanizing venereal diseases and a growing number of broken homes, especially among the poor and minority communities.   Instead on focusing on how individual behavior in contrast to Biblical teaching is a root cause of these societal costs, the secularists promote a wider use of contraception as a way to address these issues.

So as the President continues to largely promote the secularists’ view to address questions with significant fiscal and cultural implications, we need to ask ourselves if we want to continue down this path when the last 50 years provide evidence that this path has imposed significant costs to our society.