Thursday, July 03, 2008
Audacity, Hope, Etc. (Chapter 2)
Chapter 2 is entitled “Values”.
-----
It’s never the “Bush tax cuts”, it’s always the “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy”. Even when that extra phrase adds nothing in context. Geez.
-----
He had some nice anecdotes about meeting Bush. He’s quite sure that Bush and his compatriots have good intentions, they just happen to be going about things in the wrong way. That seems to undercut his unity theme, unless of course, by unity he actually means for everyone to agree with him.
-----
In a country as diverse as ours, there will always be passionate arguments about how we draw the line when it comes to government action. That is how our democracy works. But our democracy might work a bit better if we recognized that all of us possess values that are worthy of respect: if liberals at least acknowledged that the recreational hunter feels the same way about his gun as they feel about their library books, and if conservatives recognized that most women feel as protective of their right to reproductive freedom as evangelicals do of their right to worship.
There’s that nasty stereotype again – conservatives loves their guns so they can shoot things, while liberals love books so they can be all enlightened and stuff. Spare me.
And again there is the implication that if we all just recognized that we are passionate about different things, we would get along better. I am well aware that people are passionate about socialism. I am also well aware that they are wrong, and that their policies, though well intentioned, are dangerous. I can not and do not respect the people that hold these opinions, unless they show sufficient doubt their beliefs that I think there may be a chance at reforming them. The mere state of having an opinion does not entitle one to respect. That opinion must also be grounded in logic and facts before it reaches that state.
-----
I can’t help but laugh when liberals claim to be more “sensitive to constitutional constraints”. What was that again, Mr. Gun Control? Commerce clause? What’s that? Something about all other powers being reserved to the states or the people?
Oh, you didn’t mean those parts of the Constitution. I understand now.
-----
This is one of the things that makes me a Democrat, I suppose – this idea that our communal values, our sense of mutual responsibility and social solidarity, should express themselves not just in the church or the mosque or the synagogue; not just on the blocks where we live, in the places where we work, or within our own families; but also through our government. Like many conservatives, I believe in the power of culture to determine both individual successes and social cohesion, and I believe we ignore cultural factors at our peril. But I also believe that our government can play a role in shaping that culture for the better – or for the worse.
This is why the guy is sneaky. His paradigm is patently non-offensive, reasonable, and appealing. That is, until you get to the last part about government “shaping our culture”. We know very well what liberals mean when they want to “shape the culture” using the government, including the seemingly benign decisions to give people more freedom by letting them make their own moral decisions. Such as drugs, pornography, etc.
“Shape the culture” means destroy the culture and replace it with something else. Something progressive. Something deeply flawed and doomed to failure.
I run onto progressives all the time that point out the flaws in our current culture. Yes, I recognize those flaws too, I am not blind. The difference is that I don’t think we can tear down what we have and replace it with some utopian progressive vision. What we’ve got is pretty dang close to as good as it gets, all things considered.
-----
The chapter ends with a rousing couple pages about empathy.
I believe a stronger sense of empathy would tilt the balance of our current politics in favor of those people who are struggling in this society. After all, if they are like us, then their struggles are our own. If we fail to help, we diminish ourselves.
In other words, if you aren’t a liberal, you just don’t care. And you don’t care because those other people are Protestant/Catholic/black/brown/yellow/something-other-than-you, you mean horrible conservative. If only you would open up your heart and feel their pain, you’d be all over universal health care.
It’s the standard near-Godwin argument that I see trotted out all the time – there are no rational arguments against progressive policies, you are against progressive policies, therefore you are a bigot, or a classist, or whatever fits the argument of the moment. Only here, rather than directly denigrating the audience, the argument is delivered with a velvet glove and an appeal to change your ways.
You don’t want to be a bigot, do you?
Vote Obama!
Comments
-
So, to sum up, no surprises yet then?
Mrs. du Toit | 7/3/2008 12:31 PM CDT -
Expect a post soon entitled “Chapters 5-9 = more of the same”.
I’m only half kidding.
American Farmer | 7/3/2008 12:33 PM CDT -
I always love discussions of empathy. I can empathize that sometimes life is tough. I’ve been there, done that, went to phone booths looking for change so I could get something to eat.
I also know the difference between empathy and coddling. Coddling someone is about as bad a thing as I can imagine. It weakens the spirit, it keeps people in perpetual poverty, and it demeans them.
Hunger is a great motivator. It is one of the best, along with cold, parched, and scared.
Once you been there, you make a decision never to be there again.
Mrs. du Toit | 7/3/2008 12:40 PM CDT -
...if conservatives recognized that most women feel as protective of their right to reproductive freedom as evangelicals do of their right to worship.
Which definition of reproductive freedom do they mean?
- Freedom to practice abstinence?
- Freedom to use any commercially available contraceptive method?
- Freedom to get as freaky deeky as they want and then accept responsibility for the children that surely come?
- Freedom to choose to have as many children as they want and to take full financial and moral responsibility for them?Who’s denying them those freedoms?
Or is it just abortion they care about?
“The mere state of having an opinion does not entitle one to respect. That opinion must also be grounded in logic and facts before it reaches that state.”
Bravo. It’s too seldom that anyone realizes that point.
I believe a stronger sense of empathy would tilt the balance of our current politics in favor of those people who are struggling in this society. After all, if they are like us, then their struggles are our own. If we fail to help, we diminish ourselves.
But… but… they’re not like us. If they’re stuggling, they either can’t or won’t do what it takes to succeed. If they can’t, they need help.
But most won’t and demand our money. We help those people by teaching them to fish and then turning them loose to sink or swim (and mangle their own metaphors). By enabling poor decisions, don’t we actually deny them their freedom to fail? [/hard heart]
Weetabix | 7/3/2008 03:15 PM CDT -
Obama it seems about as New and for Change as much as an old faculty lounge lizzard/Chicago pol Dinosaur is.
“We will have Uptopia, just as soon as we run this next batch through re-education camps. Excuse me I have to go pick my kids up from private school. I wouldn’t have to do that if you would spend more money on education.toad | 7/5/2008 06:19 AM CDT
