1. Spam has been infecting our comments section. One result is that some real comments have been getting lost. The authorities have been alerted and don’t think we hate you if something you said never appeared in the thread. Keep threading, of course!
2. Circulating among PORCHERS and AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES is the message of Alasdair MacIntyre from 2004 about the duty not to vote. The Democrats are hopeless the life issues, and the Republicans equally hopeless on the social justice front. Someone might say, though, that even for this kind of conservative things have changed since 2004. The illusions of safety-netted Christian Democracy as a program for the future have been exploded by tough economic and demographic realities. There’s no way government can deliver some “family wage,” and the global competitive marketplace insures that unions won’t be around for long. So anyone who’s actually STUDIED the policy issues can see that we’re stuck with some version of the move from DEFINED BENEFITS to DEFINED CONTRIBUTIONS across the board. We should be happy that we’re not stuck with all the unsustainable amenities of European “social justice.” The change that’s coming won’t be as hard for us. Keep in mind, of course, that I’m not some TEA PARTIER oblivious to the downsides of current trends.
3. Someone might add that the Democrats have become much worse on the life front. Read the aggressive 2012 platform. Don’t forget the HHS mandate. ETC. ETC.
September 5th, 2012 | 8:01 am
Nice complement to your “two cheers for Galston” post. (Not that I was worried that you’re going wobbly, Peter.)
September 5th, 2012 | 8:33 am
“Keep in mind, of course, that I’m not some TEA PARTIER oblivious to the downsides of current trends.”
I concede I have no idea what you mean here–are you being sarcastic, in this final line, but sincere in the rest of the preceding paragraph? What “current trends” do you refer to? The runaway debt? The “shrinking” of the government (we should be so lucky)?
September 5th, 2012 | 8:41 am
“the duty note to vote.”
Hmm. I’ve seen that quote floating around, and I think your rephrasing of it (by adding “duty”) changes the message radically, does it not?
I do think that the notion that we should accept that we have to vote for one of the two major party candidates is absurd. Either withholding your vote or voting third party is a perfectly valid choice, and it’s crucial that we utilize these option, especially those of us who believe that government legitimacy derives from the consent of the people. I was perfectly content not to vote in the CA gubernatorial race a few years back when Ahnuld ran against whatever Dem party hack he crushed.
September 5th, 2012 | 10:15 am
I agree with everything you say above, Peter. But as I was getting ready this morning I caught a bit of NPR’s review of the Charlotte convention speeches from last night, which included a line from the first lady about there being more ways to measure success than by how much money you’ve made. It hit on something which had rubbed me wrong throughout the GOP convention–all the emphasis on what “we built” and the Paul Ryan line about success in business being a good thing. It IS a good thing, but at times it began to feel like it was the only thing being celebrated. Ryan also had the good line in his speech about societies being measured by how they treated the weakest and most vulnerable of their members, but that line was all too easy to lose in the general celebration of the American entrepreneurial spirit. It was certainly not at the center of the party message. I agree that it’s becoming more clear that the social safety nets need to be adjusted due to the demographic and fiscal realities to which you often point us. But the Dems still seem to beat the GOP every time on compassion. It’s important for the GOP to get the word out that the safety nets are failing, and that they’re the ones willing to do something about it before it’s too late. But that doesn’t mean the GOP has to villainize those who rely on them. This could just be due to different emphases in rhetoric, but when I think of my true-believer Democratic buddies, more often than not I see in them a real commitment to a vision of justice which extends beyond friends and the family. Surely there’s something noble in this broader vision of social justice, and something true in the Dems portrayal of Romney as insulated from the real concerns of the poor and weak. After all, the touching testimonial from his parishioner at the convention was that of a family friend. Who doesn’t have family friends? I know the GOP can’t be all things to all men, but parties do develop over time, and it would certainly be good to hear some balance in the GOP message, talking up the importance of caregiving and public service, the nobility of this work, alongside that of the military family and the small business-owner.
September 5th, 2012 | 10:32 am
I’m not surprised Mac would say “don’t vote” given his political philosophy, but for those who don’t fully buy into his political philosophy I don’t think his reasons are very compelling.
This is the guy who claims political debates in democracy are emotivist, have nothing to do with a common good, and are arbitrary. In the second to last chapter of AFTER VIRTUE he describes a debate between “A” and “B” over property rights and entitlements, stand-ins for Rawls and Nozick. I think MacIntyre probably still sees American politics boiling down to this kind of “who gets what, when, why” debate, and deems it rationally unreasovable. So, why participate in such a politics?
The alternative (other than not voting) is to see contemporary political debate as involving BOTH private interest AND views of the common good. MacIntyre in effect views politics as purely a clash between interest groups, as an economist would. That’s part of Mac’s project to show modernity “fails on its own terms.” But whether pure self interest thinking is America’s “own terms” is highly debateable, even on the most cursory view of Madison’s “Federalist 10.” If we looked at this from a more Aristotelian standpoint, which is MacIntyre’s “own terms,” we would see not just two parties defending self interest, but also two views of the common good they’d like for the whole country. An American view of the common good may mean more “Rawlsian” measures at some times and more “Nozickian” measures at others; both have a certain place in our Constitutional system.
(full disclosure- I’m currently writing a dissertation on MacIntyre’s view of rights)
September 5th, 2012 | 1:44 pm
Spam: I’ve been clicking it into the Spam file like an OCD housekeeper. If I deleted anyone’s comment in error, I am truly sorry.
MacIntyre I had to look up, being curious, but his is an argument I have heard before, and if not quite as he puts it, nearly so. It’s a “Heaven on Earth” demand, isn’t it? If Earth and man will not be like Heaven and angels, then we have a moral obligation to resist in protest until everyone comes around. Looking at the world and even exceptional America, social justice is too expensive and while we may be inhumane to say so, it does seem inhuman to demand social justice when we cannot indefinitely ignore the expense.
September 5th, 2012 | 10:59 pm
After Virtue was one of those big influential books for me, but I’ve always sensed Mac hasn’t sufficiently extricated himself from the Utopian influences of his Marxist past. He could use a good dose of Augustine (particularly his City of God) to temper his rather Utopian appropriation of Aristotle and Aquinas. I am aware that he subjects Augustine to a full critique in his book ‘Whose Justice, Whose Virtue?’ but haven’t read it.
September 6th, 2012 | 12:03 am
or rather “Whose Justice Which Rationality”.
September 23rd, 2012 | 7:11 pm
[...] Lawler is of course right about the 2012 Democratic platform’s provision on abortion. It is about as far on the [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact