Comments on: Moral Values Again http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:39:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: pedro http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49790 pedro Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:57:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49790 Russell Arben Fox says something very intriguing: "At the very least, I think there is a decent sized chunk of that crowd (I’m one of them) that would be content to see their beliefs be accepted as part of the context of liberal decisionmaking in America, even if the resulting content doesn’t perfectly, or even mostly, reflect their socially conservative ideal." Russell, can you please, please elaborate? I'm more interested in knowing how *you* (not the decent chunk to which you allude, but you yourself) would like for your socially conservative ideas to be contextually incorporated into public decisionmaking discourse. What do you mean? Russell Arben Fox says something very intriguing: “At the very least, I think there is a decent sized chunk of that crowd (I’m one of them) that would be content to see their beliefs be accepted as part of the context of liberal decisionmaking in America, even if the resulting content doesn’t perfectly, or even mostly, reflect their socially conservative ideal.” Russell, can you please, please elaborate? I’m more interested in knowing how you (not the decent chunk to which you allude, but you yourself) would like for your socially conservative ideas to be contextually incorporated into public decisionmaking discourse. What do you mean?

]]> By: pedro http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49789 pedro Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:54:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49789 Russell Arben Fox says something very intriguing: "At the very least, I think there is a decent sized chunk of that crowd (I’m one of them) that would be content to see their beliefs be accepted as part of the context of liberal decisionmaking in America, even if the resulting content doesn’t perfectly, or even mostly, reflect their socially conservative ideal." Russell, can you please, please elaborate? I'm more interested in knowing how *you* (not the decent chunk to which you allude, but you yourself) would like for your socially conservative ideas to be contextually incorporated into public decisionmaking discourse. What do you mean? Russell Arben Fox says something very intriguing: “At the very least, I think there is a decent sized chunk of that crowd (I’m one of them) that would be content to see their beliefs be accepted as part of the context of liberal decisionmaking in America, even if the resulting content doesn’t perfectly, or even mostly, reflect their socially conservative ideal.” Russell, can you please, please elaborate? I’m more interested in knowing how you (not the decent chunk to which you allude, but you yourself) would like for your socially conservative ideas to be contextually incorporated into public decisionmaking discourse. What do you mean?

]]> By: Russell L. Carter http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49788 Russell L. Carter Fri, 05 Nov 2004 22:57:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49788 Jeff, I think you're right. I am not temperamentally equipped to deal magnamaniously with advocates who hold that particular religious beliefs trump the fiscal health of the nation and the freedom of its citizens. Good luck to those who can. Jeff, I think you’re right. I am not temperamentally equipped to deal magnamaniously with advocates who hold that particular religious beliefs trump the fiscal health of the nation and the freedom of its citizens. Good luck to those who can.

]]> By: vernaculo http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49787 vernaculo Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:44:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49787 Side by side with Everyman, the ghost of what could have been has marched through history. The myths and commonplaces we inherit teach us that good will always out, and that the unbroken thread of what we are stretches back unchanged to our shared beginnings. This is a lie. Our change has been as volatile and forced as the Galapagos finch's. In the midst of domestication we can see the willing submission of some to the pastures of captivity, and the anguished desperation of others. Further gradations show us those who would increase the privileges and conditions of the tamed, while others demand unrealistic freedoms within the confines of domesticated living. It all hurts now. Connecting to the moral values of willing slaves is repugnant, and it should be, it's a vile thing. Compromise is the only practical answer, but compromise has proven to be a Xenic line of halfway and halfway and halfway again, with a dream of arrival sometime - just not yet - and meanwhile each stage of compromise has consistently lowered our median grace. The State motto of New Hampshire is a truncation of a more accurate sentiment once shared by many Americans - <blockquote>"Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils."</blockquote>It's already achieved the irrelevancy Myria threatens the vaguely defined "...You people..." with, though I personally think that's shameful and condemnatory. There's a smugness now on the part of the tame, that's more a result of their limited vision than it is a confirmation of their beliefs. I've seen that same smugness in a dog whose master was a vicious bullying thug. Safe, powerful, good boy. - There's worse things than losing this kind of battle for relevancy - that's what I wanted to say; becoming something that would compromise with evil merely to survive, for instance. Side by side with Everyman, the ghost of what could have been has marched through history. The myths and commonplaces we inherit teach us that good will always out, and that the unbroken thread of what we are stretches back unchanged to our shared beginnings. This is a lie. Our change has been as volatile and forced as the Galapagos finch’s. In the midst of domestication we can see the willing submission of some to the pastures of captivity, and the anguished desperation of others. Further gradations show us those who would increase the privileges and conditions of the tamed, while others demand unrealistic freedoms within the confines of domesticated living. It all hurts now. Connecting to the moral values of willing slaves is repugnant, and it should be, it’s a vile thing. Compromise is the only practical answer, but compromise has proven to be a Xenic line of halfway and halfway and halfway again, with a dream of arrival sometime – just not yet – and meanwhile each stage of compromise has consistently lowered our median grace. The State motto of New Hampshire is a truncation of a more accurate sentiment once shared by many Americans –
“Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils.”
It’s already achieved the irrelevancy Myria threatens the vaguely defined “…You people…” with, though I personally think that’s shameful and condemnatory. There’s a smugness now on the part of the tame, that’s more a result of their limited vision than it is a confirmation of their beliefs. I’ve seen that same smugness in a dog whose master was a vicious bullying thug. Safe, powerful, good boy. – There’s worse things than losing this kind of battle for relevancy – that’s what I wanted to say; becoming something that would compromise with evil merely to survive, for instance.

]]> By: doghouse riley http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49786 doghouse riley Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:27:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49786 Forty years in the wilderness, and still no sign o' Goshen! Myria, out of curiosity, do you mean we've been backmarkers since that sound thumping Goldwater gave us, or is it the Civil Rights Act you had it mind? Forty years in the wilderness, and still no sign o’ Goshen! Myria, out of curiosity, do you mean we’ve been backmarkers since that sound thumping Goldwater gave us, or is it the Civil Rights Act you had it mind?

]]> By: Jeff http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49785 Jeff Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:20:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49785 Russell: It's not so much that I disagree with you on the facts. I'm more interested in the way the discussion is conducted. There was an article in New Scientist a couple of months ago that talked about how people could be persuaded. Basically, the upshot was that once a person got angry it was almost impossible to change their mind. If you want to persuade someone to your point of view it's never a good idea to fire off accusations at them. What I like to do is ask them questions about how and why they think what they do. For instance you could ask Myria "What do you think the left is selling? And why do you think that the majority of Americans don't buy it?" Then you would be actually having a conversation instead of casting aspersions and accusing. This might lead to someone actually changing thier mind, instead of hardening someone's opinion. Russell: It’s not so much that I disagree with you on the facts. I’m more interested in the way the discussion is conducted. There was an article in New Scientist a couple of months ago that talked about how people could be persuaded. Basically, the upshot was that once a person got angry it was almost impossible to change their mind. If you want to persuade someone to your point of view it’s never a good idea to fire off accusations at them. What I like to do is ask them questions about how and why they think what they do. For instance you could ask Myria “What do you think the left is selling? And why do you think that the majority of Americans don’t buy it?” Then you would be actually having a conversation instead of casting aspersions and accusing. This might lead to someone actually changing thier mind, instead of hardening someone’s opinion.

]]> By: Uncle Kvetch http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49784 Uncle Kvetch Fri, 05 Nov 2004 18:33:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49784 <i>You people truly don’t have a clue, do you? You can rant and rave about how evil Christians are</i> Myria, who are you talking to? Who in this thread has referred to Christians as "evil"? You people truly don’t have a clue, do you? You can rant and rave about how evil Christians are Myria, who are you talking to? Who in this thread has referred to Christians as “evil”?

]]> By: Bethany http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49783 Bethany Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:58:59 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49783 FRIENDS: Learn from my mistakes. Ignore the error messages and check to see if your post worked, anyway. Too much activity, maybe. FRIENDS: Learn from my mistakes. Ignore the error messages and check to see if your post worked, anyway. Too much activity, maybe.

]]> By: PG http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49782 PG Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:58:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49782 <a href="http://bertrandrussell.blogspot.com/2004/11/not-so-cool-thing-about-nyc-post.html">I disagree pretty completely with Henley's idea that core values inherently come packed with policies.</a> This is not at all to denigrate the intelligence of Christians who currently vote Republican, but rather an argument for their capacity to think outside the ruts of the Republican Party. While some religious conservatives found the notion that <a href="http://bertrandrussell.blogspot.com/2004/10/ye-of-great-faith-though-week-is.html">abortion rates actually increase under Republicans implausible</a>, many others have taken it more seriously. I think that the value of prioritizing life can be part of a <a href="http://bertrandrussell.blogspot.com/2004/07/suggestion-for-democratic-party-this.html">Democratic program that still keeps abortion legal</a>, if the Dems are ready to start talking about the RARE part of "safe, legal and rare." I disagree pretty completely with Henley’s idea that core values inherently come packed with policies. This is not at all to denigrate the intelligence of Christians who currently vote Republican, but rather an argument for their capacity to think outside the ruts of the Republican Party. While some religious conservatives found the notion that abortion rates actually increase under Republicans implausible, many others have taken it more seriously. I think that the value of prioritizing life can be part of a Democratic program that still keeps abortion legal, if the Dems are ready to start talking about the RARE part of “safe, legal and rare.”

]]> By: Bethany http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49781 Bethany Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:50:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49781 Kieran, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to *answer* the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it's just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don't follow politics, don't want to follow politics and don't trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu's chapter on politics in <i>Distinction</i> on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush's habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don't need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will <i>need</i> religion. There's no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don't think we'll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don't want to see it's inner workings. I wish they did, and I'll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they're doing. Kieran, I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to answer the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it’s just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don’t follow politics, don’t want to follow politics and don’t trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu’s chapter on politics in Distinction on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush’s habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don’t need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will need religion. There’s no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don’t think we’ll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don’t want to see it’s inner workings. I wish they did, and I’ll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they’re doing.

]]> By: Bethany http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49780 Bethany Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:48:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49780 Kieran, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to *answer* the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it's just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don't follow politics, don't want to follow politics and don't trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu's chapter on politics in <i>Distinction</i> on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush's habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don't need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will <i>need</i> religion. There's no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don't think we'll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don't want to see it's inner workings. I wish they did, and I'll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they're doing. Kieran, I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to answer the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it’s just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don’t follow politics, don’t want to follow politics and don’t trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu’s chapter on politics in Distinction on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush’s habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don’t need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will need religion. There’s no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don’t think we’ll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don’t want to see it’s inner workings. I wish they did, and I’ll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they’re doing.

]]> By: Bethany http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49779 Bethany Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:45:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49779 Kieran, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to *answer* the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it's just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don't follow politics, don't want to follow politics and don't trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu's chapter on politics in <i>Distinction</i> on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush's habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don't need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will <i>need</i> religion. There's no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don't think we'll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don't want to see it's inner workings. I wish they did, and I'll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they're doing. Kieran, I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to answer the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it’s just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don’t follow politics, don’t want to follow politics and don’t trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu’s chapter on politics in Distinction on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush’s habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don’t need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will need religion. There’s no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don’t think we’ll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don’t want to see it’s inner workings. I wish they did, and I’ll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they’re doing.

]]> By: Bethany http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49778 Bethany Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:43:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49778 Kieran, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to *answer* the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it's just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don't follow politics, don't want to follow politics and don't trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu's chapter on politics in <i>Distinction</i> on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush's habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don't need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will <i>need</i> religion. There's no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don't think we'll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don't want to see it's inner workings. I wish they did, and I'll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they're doing. Kieran, I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to answer the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it’s just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don’t follow politics, don’t want to follow politics and don’t trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu’s chapter on politics in Distinction on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush’s habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don’t need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will need religion. There’s no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don’t think we’ll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don’t want to see it’s inner workings. I wish they did, and I’ll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they’re doing.

]]> By: Bethany http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49777 Bethany Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:40:29 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49777 Kieran, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to *answer* the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it's just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don't follow politics, don't want to follow politics and don't trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu's chapter on politics in <i>Distinction</i> on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush's habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don't need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will <i>need</i> religion. There's no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don't think we'll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don't want to see it's inner workings. I wish they did, and I'll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they're doing. Kieran, I’m pretty sure we’re not supposed to answer the values rhetoric. As far as I can tell, it’s just a charicature for W to occupy. It allows all those disaffected voters who don’t follow politics, don’t want to follow politics and don’t trust politicians to feel like they can trust him to do the right things. It allows them to ignore complexity and feel good about it. (I highly recommend Bourdieu’s chapter on politics in Distinction on this point. He says habitus recognizes habitus. Bush’s habitus may be fake, but it works well.) This is not to say democrats don’t need to get a grip on values. We do, but we need to package them in a PERSONALITY. And folks, please also remember that this is religion. In the American South & Midwest, losing your job, your health, your home, and your 19-year-old son does not make you less zealous about your religious conviction! The worse our material conditions get, the more people will need religion. There’s no use waiting for them to see a different light. I don’t think we’ll ever win the game by playing enlightened rationality against religious ideology. We need to have the better ideology, and we do, but we keep trying to cover it with science, law and economics. These are useful tools, but politics is like an airplane. Most people don’t want to see it’s inner workings. I wish they did, and I’ll keep working that angle in the classroom, but on the political stage, I think democrats just need to convince the voters that they know what they’re doing.

]]> By: Russell L. Carter http://crookedtimber.org/2004/11/05/moral-values-again/comment-page-2/#comment-49776 Russell L. Carter Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:06:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2493#comment-49776 Myria, exactly what is it that you bought? There are facts on the ground, and ideas in the air. Which facts on the ground do you support? The expansion of the budget? The institutionalization of increasing deficits? Erosion of civil liberties, through a defacto suspension of the constitution, justified by a war which "we cannot win"? What did these payments of property and freedom buy? Keeping gays from providing aid and comfort to their lovers in their hospital rooms? That's some moral achievement. Myria, exactly what is it that you bought? There are facts on the ground, and ideas in the air. Which facts on the ground do you support? The expansion of the budget? The institutionalization of increasing deficits? Erosion of civil liberties, through a defacto suspension of the constitution, justified by a war which “we cannot win”? What did these payments of property and freedom buy? Keeping gays from providing aid and comfort to their lovers in their hospital rooms? That’s some moral achievement.

]]>