"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
30.11.04
QUOTE: Discoshaman:
"The events in Ukraine are about a people fighting free of the grayness, corruption, abuse and fatalism of the post-Soviet era. All of you, Right or Left, need to see them as people. Yes, there are geopolitical ramifications. But they should be so incredibly secondary to the humanity of the Ukrainian people -- these are flesh and blood human beings who are fighting to be free of a vicious, grinding system."
"The events in Ukraine are about a people fighting free of the grayness, corruption, abuse and fatalism of the post-Soviet era. All of you, Right or Left, need to see them as people. Yes, there are geopolitical ramifications. But they should be so incredibly secondary to the humanity of the Ukrainian people -- these are flesh and blood human beings who are fighting to be free of a vicious, grinding system."
29.11.04
A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL: weather.com now is showing the first day I'll have after finals and papers on the 10-day forecast. I'll be able to celebrate being done with Pride and Prejudice and a dreary, rainy day... probably just getting me ready for my big tour of the northland.
It will be nice to think about something other than how Morrow's arms race model is really just an expansion on Richardson's third term in his arms race model, not a totally new idea; conditional continuous variables; and how completely and totally wrong Rousseau, Mill and Marx are.
It will be nice to think about something other than how Morrow's arms race model is really just an expansion on Richardson's third term in his arms race model, not a totally new idea; conditional continuous variables; and how completely and totally wrong Rousseau, Mill and Marx are.
LINK: Get thee hence to Le Sabot Post-Moderne for the best non-Telegraph coverage of the ongoing situation in Ukraine, and also excellent photos of the situation in Kiev.
28.11.04
QUOTE: I think Naomi Klein makes a good point here (no, really):
"...Kerry repeated his outrageous (and frankly racist) claim that Americans "have borne 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq." His unmistakable message: Iraqi deaths don't count."
You know who else pointed out that fact? Of course you do. Shame Klein didn't credit them for being willing to rebut Kerry's "outrageous" claim.
"...Kerry repeated his outrageous (and frankly racist) claim that Americans "have borne 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq." His unmistakable message: Iraqi deaths don't count."
You know who else pointed out that fact? Of course you do. Shame Klein didn't credit them for being willing to rebut Kerry's "outrageous" claim.
LINK: this doesn't seem to me to be a change of opinion on the situation in Ukraine quite so much as it's an attempt to be diplomatic and recognize that we'll have to deal with whichever side comes out on top. Obviously, I'm rabidly in support of the opposition, but I don't think it's the US government's place to take sides on who they want to win.
LINK: this is both ick-inducing and hilarious:
"It was taboo as a realist not to prefer balancing. If word got out, her reputation among the guns & bombs crowd would be ruined. But Jack's social constructivism was too seductive for her feeble rationalist defenses.
"Oh... Jack," she whispered into his ear, "I give in -- reconstitute my identity!" "
"It was taboo as a realist not to prefer balancing. If word got out, her reputation among the guns & bombs crowd would be ruined. But Jack's social constructivism was too seductive for her feeble rationalist defenses.
"Oh... Jack," she whispered into his ear, "I give in -- reconstitute my identity!" "
I MUST'VE MISSED THAT MEMO:
"The sheer frenzy, the entire mania of consumerism, the notion that meaning is to be found in buying things and giving these things to other people or to yourself - it all leaves me cold. That's one reason I'm such a Christmas-phobe. Each year, we have a communal campaign to persuade ourselves that we never have enough, the new things will assuage our real needs, that buying is the same as living."
-Andrew Sullivan
"The sheer frenzy, the entire mania of consumerism, the notion that meaning is to be found in buying things and giving these things to other people or to yourself - it all leaves me cold. That's one reason I'm such a Christmas-phobe. Each year, we have a communal campaign to persuade ourselves that we never have enough, the new things will assuage our real needs, that buying is the same as living."
-Andrew Sullivan
24.11.04
A THANKSGIVING THOUGHT FOR YOU: both ridiculous and sublime:
First, I highly recommend to you the video of U2 performing "I Will Follow" on Saturday Night Live; pop music is a really weird thing--it's hard to say how or why it affects you the way it does, and U2 have always drifted too close to making Statements for me to like them more than I do--the visceral thrill of their best songs is always almost being overmatched by the intellectual--and I was pretty determined going in not to like this performance, but there's a certain exuberance to it--the joy of making music--that just can't help pulling you along.
First, I highly recommend to you the video of U2 performing "I Will Follow" on Saturday Night Live; pop music is a really weird thing--it's hard to say how or why it affects you the way it does, and U2 have always drifted too close to making Statements for me to like them more than I do--the visceral thrill of their best songs is always almost being overmatched by the intellectual--and I was pretty determined going in not to like this performance, but there's a certain exuberance to it--the joy of making music--that just can't help pulling you along.
22.11.04
LINKS: Your daily amusingness:
via Londonist:
"So why are we banging on about it now? Well, becasue Zafferano has just bought the most expensive truffle in the world.
So how much is the most expensive truffle in the world worth? Five hundred? Five thousand? Fifteen thousand?
You might want to take a deep breath and sit down before you read this next bit..."
Also, with those with a penchant for American sports, this, which is pretty funny.
via Londonist:
"So why are we banging on about it now? Well, becasue Zafferano has just bought the most expensive truffle in the world.
So how much is the most expensive truffle in the world worth? Five hundred? Five thousand? Fifteen thousand?
You might want to take a deep breath and sit down before you read this next bit..."
Also, with those with a penchant for American sports, this, which is pretty funny.
LINK: Sara Butler has some interesting thoughts on how the stay-at-home/working mom dichotomy is sometimes more complicated than that:
"The other big problem with all this is the assumption that there is a bright line between mothers who work and mothers who stay at home. Many, many mothers are somewhere in between. My mom, for example, is in many ways the quintessential stay-at-home mom; she even homeschooled us kids for many years. But actually, for years, my mom has worked one day a week. She clearly doesn’t fit either of our ideas of working moms: either the privileged professional mom with a nanny or the struggling mom working at Wal-Mart. But my mom is far from alone.
I really think that this kind of flexible, part-time work is, or at least should be, the future of the working mom. I very much hope to be able to be an at-home mom, at least when my kids are small, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to be working at the same time. Despite what we’ve been told, there is, dare I say it, a third way here. Of course, it’s really only possible to get away with part time work when there’s a second income in the family, but the frequent absence of a father’s income is often only briefly noted in both conservative and liberal takes on this issue, as is the idea that fathers could make their working schedules more flexible in order to be at home with the kids more."
"The other big problem with all this is the assumption that there is a bright line between mothers who work and mothers who stay at home. Many, many mothers are somewhere in between. My mom, for example, is in many ways the quintessential stay-at-home mom; she even homeschooled us kids for many years. But actually, for years, my mom has worked one day a week. She clearly doesn’t fit either of our ideas of working moms: either the privileged professional mom with a nanny or the struggling mom working at Wal-Mart. But my mom is far from alone.
I really think that this kind of flexible, part-time work is, or at least should be, the future of the working mom. I very much hope to be able to be an at-home mom, at least when my kids are small, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to be working at the same time. Despite what we’ve been told, there is, dare I say it, a third way here. Of course, it’s really only possible to get away with part time work when there’s a second income in the family, but the frequent absence of a father’s income is often only briefly noted in both conservative and liberal takes on this issue, as is the idea that fathers could make their working schedules more flexible in order to be at home with the kids more."
QUOTE: SIAW:
"Finally, to put both the Lancet report and the events in Fallujah into some much-needed perspective, here’s Will Rubbish showing what can happen - and is still happening right now, as you read this - when the West does not intervene; and here’s a report proving that Will’s description of the UN as “the professionally uber-incompetent conglomerate of intellectually constipated mutherf****s” is putting it far too politely. Those on the pseudo-left who claim, with utter implausibility, to be equally concerned about every loss of an innocent life would do well to reflect on the sharply different fates of Afghanistan and Iraq, on the one hand, and Darfur on the other - though, of course, they won’t; and those mired in the liberal swamp who approach “international law” with the same sanctimonious air as others approach the altar of God would do well to reflect further on Will’s question, “What does the UN exist for?” - but, of course, they won’t either. As ever, they’re all too busy lining up with China, Russia and assorted dictatorships against the US, Britain, Australia and assorted liberal democracies to have time for anything so difficult and uncomfortable as reflection.
Meanwhile, what C. Day Lewis wrote in 1943 still applies in 2004, and that's good enough for us:
It is the logic of our times,
No subject for immortal verse —
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse."
"Finally, to put both the Lancet report and the events in Fallujah into some much-needed perspective, here’s Will Rubbish showing what can happen - and is still happening right now, as you read this - when the West does not intervene; and here’s a report proving that Will’s description of the UN as “the professionally uber-incompetent conglomerate of intellectually constipated mutherf****s” is putting it far too politely. Those on the pseudo-left who claim, with utter implausibility, to be equally concerned about every loss of an innocent life would do well to reflect on the sharply different fates of Afghanistan and Iraq, on the one hand, and Darfur on the other - though, of course, they won’t; and those mired in the liberal swamp who approach “international law” with the same sanctimonious air as others approach the altar of God would do well to reflect further on Will’s question, “What does the UN exist for?” - but, of course, they won’t either. As ever, they’re all too busy lining up with China, Russia and assorted dictatorships against the US, Britain, Australia and assorted liberal democracies to have time for anything so difficult and uncomfortable as reflection.
Meanwhile, what C. Day Lewis wrote in 1943 still applies in 2004, and that's good enough for us:
It is the logic of our times,
No subject for immortal verse —
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse."
18.11.04
17.11.04
LINK: Oliver Kamm, on the mora equivalence of some pacifists:
"To honest pacifists, the gas chambers - and the consequent certain knowledge that every Jew in Europe would have been killed had the allied powers not taken up arms - were a cause of personal shame as well as horror. Not, however, to the most famous of all British peace campaigners, Vera Brittain, author of Testament of Youth (and, incidentally, mother of the current Liberal Democrat leader in the House of Lords, Baroness Williams of Crosby - who would certainly not share her mother's view of WWII). In one of her regular letters to her fellow-campaigners, on 3 May 1945, Vera Brittain maintained that the gas chambers were being publicised by the allies:
... partly, at least, in order to divert attention from the havoc produced in German cities by allied obliteration bombing.
Thus an ethical objection to war - grossly misguided, but not inherently ignoble - became a position indifferent to tyranny and genocide, uncomprehending of the moral imperative of combating evil, and even complicit in support of that evil. Lindsey German, London mayoral candidate for Respect and convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, wears the symbol of that campaign with pride - and, I must say, a certain historical appropriateness."
"To honest pacifists, the gas chambers - and the consequent certain knowledge that every Jew in Europe would have been killed had the allied powers not taken up arms - were a cause of personal shame as well as horror. Not, however, to the most famous of all British peace campaigners, Vera Brittain, author of Testament of Youth (and, incidentally, mother of the current Liberal Democrat leader in the House of Lords, Baroness Williams of Crosby - who would certainly not share her mother's view of WWII). In one of her regular letters to her fellow-campaigners, on 3 May 1945, Vera Brittain maintained that the gas chambers were being publicised by the allies:
... partly, at least, in order to divert attention from the havoc produced in German cities by allied obliteration bombing.
Thus an ethical objection to war - grossly misguided, but not inherently ignoble - became a position indifferent to tyranny and genocide, uncomprehending of the moral imperative of combating evil, and even complicit in support of that evil. Lindsey German, London mayoral candidate for Respect and convenor of the Stop the War Coalition, wears the symbol of that campaign with pride - and, I must say, a certain historical appropriateness."
QUOTE: Joe Carter
"When those of us on the “religious right” hear such paranoid ranting it naturally elicits a chuckle. After all, more than half of American evangelicals are either Baptists or non-denominational. We don’t even want a centralized church government much less a central government controlled by the church. So where does this silly canard come from?..."
As usual, it's the Presbyterians who ruin everything, I think (us and our silly system of heirarchical church government).
"This double standard is embarrassingly obvious. When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others. There’s a sense that these critics believe that the right to vote and influence legislation should be limited to the people who have politically correct religious views. The enthusiastic applause that followed Garrison Keillor’s plan to “pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians” is a shocking reminder of the bias against religiously orthodox Americans."
I've never taken as dim a view of paternalism as some, because it always seemed relatively obvious to me that so long as people are legislating, they're going to try and impose their morality in some sense, narrow or broad. And given that (and my preference for my own morality), why not try to legislate mine*?
*I am being, as usual, about half tongue-in-cheek there.
"When those of us on the “religious right” hear such paranoid ranting it naturally elicits a chuckle. After all, more than half of American evangelicals are either Baptists or non-denominational. We don’t even want a centralized church government much less a central government controlled by the church. So where does this silly canard come from?..."
As usual, it's the Presbyterians who ruin everything, I think (us and our silly system of heirarchical church government).
"This double standard is embarrassingly obvious. When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others. There’s a sense that these critics believe that the right to vote and influence legislation should be limited to the people who have politically correct religious views. The enthusiastic applause that followed Garrison Keillor’s plan to “pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians” is a shocking reminder of the bias against religiously orthodox Americans."
I've never taken as dim a view of paternalism as some, because it always seemed relatively obvious to me that so long as people are legislating, they're going to try and impose their morality in some sense, narrow or broad. And given that (and my preference for my own morality), why not try to legislate mine*?
*I am being, as usual, about half tongue-in-cheek there.
LINK: Via Gene at Harry's Place:
"Christopher Hitchens's support for Bush administration policy in Afghanistan and Iraq has earned him a lot of links and cyber high-fives from the Right side of the blogosphere. At the same time, former fans of Hitchens on Left mutter about him having gone over to the neocon Dark Side.
But just when you think you've got Hitchens sussed, he stubbornly refuses to meet your expectations. He has never stopped believing that the US lent aid and comfort to brutal fascist regimes in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, and he continues to demand that a chief architect of this policy-- one Henry Kissinger-- be held to account...
I expect Hitchens's rightwing cheering section will be more subdued about this piece than they have been about his attacks on the antiwar Left. If they acknowledge it at all, that is.
And I hope the antiwar Left will concede that Hitchens is still capable of thinking clearly and independently about US foreign policy, past and present-- even when they don't like what he says about it."
Being neither rightish (entirely) nor leftish anti-war, it should come as no surprise that I despise everything Henry Kissinger stands for and I'd be happy to waive my normal objection to the ICC for the sole purposes of handing him over. Indeed, as Hitchens has argued in the past, you can't really have the moral imperative of pro-democracy and pro-human rights now without an open acknowledgement that it's the victory of realpolitik (and, earlier, containment) as doctrines which led to virtually every misstep made in US foreign policy since WWII. It's not so much that you can't have Paul Wolfowitz without H.K., but rather that the impact of Kissinger requires someone like Wolfowitz, if this country is ever to have hope of regaining moral leadership in anything.
"Christopher Hitchens's support for Bush administration policy in Afghanistan and Iraq has earned him a lot of links and cyber high-fives from the Right side of the blogosphere. At the same time, former fans of Hitchens on Left mutter about him having gone over to the neocon Dark Side.
But just when you think you've got Hitchens sussed, he stubbornly refuses to meet your expectations. He has never stopped believing that the US lent aid and comfort to brutal fascist regimes in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, and he continues to demand that a chief architect of this policy-- one Henry Kissinger-- be held to account...
I expect Hitchens's rightwing cheering section will be more subdued about this piece than they have been about his attacks on the antiwar Left. If they acknowledge it at all, that is.
And I hope the antiwar Left will concede that Hitchens is still capable of thinking clearly and independently about US foreign policy, past and present-- even when they don't like what he says about it."
Being neither rightish (entirely) nor leftish anti-war, it should come as no surprise that I despise everything Henry Kissinger stands for and I'd be happy to waive my normal objection to the ICC for the sole purposes of handing him over. Indeed, as Hitchens has argued in the past, you can't really have the moral imperative of pro-democracy and pro-human rights now without an open acknowledgement that it's the victory of realpolitik (and, earlier, containment) as doctrines which led to virtually every misstep made in US foreign policy since WWII. It's not so much that you can't have Paul Wolfowitz without H.K., but rather that the impact of Kissinger requires someone like Wolfowitz, if this country is ever to have hope of regaining moral leadership in anything.
16.11.04
QUOTE FOR THE DAY: We'll be discussing terrorism tomorrow in my IR class, and discussions of terrorism always put me in mind of Trotsky on this topic, who, I think, makes a very good point, especially to those who want to give some kind of theoretical legitimacy to terroristic acts:
"But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?
In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more 'effective' the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy."
"But the disarray introduced into the ranks of the working masses themselves by a terrorist attempt is much deeper. If it is enough to arm oneself with a pistol in order to achieve one's goal, why the efforts of the class struggle? If a thimbleful of gunpowder and a little chunk of lead is enough to shoot the enemy through the neck, what need is there for a class organisation? If it makes sense to terrify highly placed personages with the roar of explosions, where is the need for the party? Why meetings, mass agitation and elections if one can so easily take aim at the ministerial bench from the gallery of parliament?
In our eyes, individual terror is inadmissible precisely because it belittles the role of the masses in their own consciousness, reconciles them to their powerlessness, and turns their eyes and hopes towards a great avenger and liberator who some day will come and accomplish his mission. The anarchist prophets of the 'propaganda of the deed' can argue all they want about the elevating and stimulating influence of terrorist acts on the masses. Theoretical considerations and political experience prove otherwise. The more 'effective' the terrorist acts, the greater their impact, the more they reduce the interest of the masses in self-organisation and self-education. But the smoke from the confusion clears away, the panic disappears, the successor of the murdered minister makes his appearance, life again settles into the old rut, the wheel of capitalist exploitation turns as before; only the police repression grows more savage and brazen. And as a result, in place of the kindled hopes and artificially aroused excitement comes disillusionment and apathy."
LINK: For those who aren't hip to these sort of things, Londonist, Gothamist for those of us who naturally fixate on all things England and this post in particular:
"So, it turns out the ravens in the Tower have only been there since Victorian times and the story that the monarchy will fall if they leave is a 19th-century invention.
Of course, there’s unlikely to be anyone over the age of eight who ever believed this story, but Londonist is saddened all the same. The Tower ravens have always been rather ridiculous creatures, especially since their wings have been clipped to prevent their departure. If they did wander out, it would cost them £13.50 to get back in, so it’s natural to think they would want to stay, pampered camera-fodder as they are.
But it was always amusing to think that a chief duty of the yeoman-warders of the Tower – a royal prison that has held traitors, heretics, thinkers, queens and Nazi war criminals – was to protect some bad-tempered flightless birds in order to prevent a republic."
"So, it turns out the ravens in the Tower have only been there since Victorian times and the story that the monarchy will fall if they leave is a 19th-century invention.
Of course, there’s unlikely to be anyone over the age of eight who ever believed this story, but Londonist is saddened all the same. The Tower ravens have always been rather ridiculous creatures, especially since their wings have been clipped to prevent their departure. If they did wander out, it would cost them £13.50 to get back in, so it’s natural to think they would want to stay, pampered camera-fodder as they are.
But it was always amusing to think that a chief duty of the yeoman-warders of the Tower – a royal prison that has held traitors, heretics, thinkers, queens and Nazi war criminals – was to protect some bad-tempered flightless birds in order to prevent a republic."
THE FAMOUS HERR SCHLOSSER AND I: had this conversation earlier today, which was pretty interesting, and also, I think, a good slice-of-life for those who wonder what it's like to be a first-year theorist at a major political science graduate program:
We'd finished up (and not a moment too soon) on J.S. Mill today, and one of the things our professor noted was that Mill was the first theorist we'd covered who was not concerned primarily with what constitutes legitimate government, but rather with issues surrounding forced conformity. HS asked, apropos of this, when exactly the change had occurred. I cited the Federalist Papers (which, to my mind, answered once and for all that a legitimate government has to respect rights and the rule of law), he cited Montesquieu, for reasons I'm having trouble remembering at the moment (though I don't doubt he'll pop in an explanation in the comments (HINT HINT)). HS then mused that we knew when the change had occurred, but not why. I pointed out that the first two major theorists who dealt with the 'tyranny of the masses' idea (Tocqueville and Mill) were themselves, if not aristocrats, then certainly from groups that stood to lose power in the face of liberal democracy. HS, bless his heart, wanted to attribute this change to class, though as I pointed out, even though class and personal (aristocratic) interests ran in tandem for these two figures, there's no logical reason why they would always have to, and it's clearly the latter of the two that'd be doing the work. We also had something of an interesting digression as to whether rights theorists had to be inherently opposed to individualistic liberal theories, and we typed the major early modern theorists by which camp they fell into (and discovered that I actually do apparently agree with Rousseau about something, though, on further reflection, I think Locke belongs in the rights theorist camp, and not the individualist one). Then we got off the East-West bus and went our separate ways.
We'd finished up (and not a moment too soon) on J.S. Mill today, and one of the things our professor noted was that Mill was the first theorist we'd covered who was not concerned primarily with what constitutes legitimate government, but rather with issues surrounding forced conformity. HS asked, apropos of this, when exactly the change had occurred. I cited the Federalist Papers (which, to my mind, answered once and for all that a legitimate government has to respect rights and the rule of law), he cited Montesquieu, for reasons I'm having trouble remembering at the moment (though I don't doubt he'll pop in an explanation in the comments (HINT HINT)). HS then mused that we knew when the change had occurred, but not why. I pointed out that the first two major theorists who dealt with the 'tyranny of the masses' idea (Tocqueville and Mill) were themselves, if not aristocrats, then certainly from groups that stood to lose power in the face of liberal democracy. HS, bless his heart, wanted to attribute this change to class, though as I pointed out, even though class and personal (aristocratic) interests ran in tandem for these two figures, there's no logical reason why they would always have to, and it's clearly the latter of the two that'd be doing the work. We also had something of an interesting digression as to whether rights theorists had to be inherently opposed to individualistic liberal theories, and we typed the major early modern theorists by which camp they fell into (and discovered that I actually do apparently agree with Rousseau about something, though, on further reflection, I think Locke belongs in the rights theorist camp, and not the individualist one). Then we got off the East-West bus and went our separate ways.
LINK: SIAW has a good post here, and I've sort of been thinking about it:
"We do try, and should perhaps try harder, to keep in mind that there are well-meaning pseudo-leftists and then there are other, truly malevolent pseudo-leftists, and have been for several generations. We think of an elderly Quaker lady we know whose days are spent in the good works that the Society of Friends still fosters, and who actively supports the Labour Party, Amnesty International and Oxfam - but who also insists that everything the rest of us think we know about Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China is nothing but capitalist lies; that Uncle Joe was a worthy successor to Lenin, and an exemplar of sincere and benevolent socialism; and that all the Labour Party needs to do to win back the working class (win them back from whom?) is to turn to Arthur Scargill and Tony Benn once again. Her motives are entirely pure and admirable; her good works, within their limits, are effective; her political ideas stink. What can you do?"
but I find this judgment to be a little off:
"Good intentions are to be prized, and those who have them deserve some understanding and forgiveness; but good effects, regardless of motives (which may be obscure even to those who have them, are often unstable and incoherent, and are easily misrepresented and manipulated), matter far more."
Certainly, the ends are creditable for both the person who acts rightly from a properly construed sense of morality and a person who does the right thing in spite of their other beliefs. But this seems to run the dangerous risk of saying that the person who fails to acheive good in spite of having the right moral objectives is somehow equivalent to the person who neither does the moral thing nor wants to. In some ways, Kant is right, and the highest instantiation of moral right is the person who does right even though they know they'll fail (take, for an example, the obvious rightness of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, and ask yourself why you'd have that reaction for a man who utterly fails at what he set out to do?).
I also think, as to SIAW's point and not my derivation from it, that Aristotle might have something to say on the difference between the two people he posits, but I must off to class now, so I'll have to save that for later.
"We do try, and should perhaps try harder, to keep in mind that there are well-meaning pseudo-leftists and then there are other, truly malevolent pseudo-leftists, and have been for several generations. We think of an elderly Quaker lady we know whose days are spent in the good works that the Society of Friends still fosters, and who actively supports the Labour Party, Amnesty International and Oxfam - but who also insists that everything the rest of us think we know about Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China is nothing but capitalist lies; that Uncle Joe was a worthy successor to Lenin, and an exemplar of sincere and benevolent socialism; and that all the Labour Party needs to do to win back the working class (win them back from whom?) is to turn to Arthur Scargill and Tony Benn once again. Her motives are entirely pure and admirable; her good works, within their limits, are effective; her political ideas stink. What can you do?"
but I find this judgment to be a little off:
"Good intentions are to be prized, and those who have them deserve some understanding and forgiveness; but good effects, regardless of motives (which may be obscure even to those who have them, are often unstable and incoherent, and are easily misrepresented and manipulated), matter far more."
Certainly, the ends are creditable for both the person who acts rightly from a properly construed sense of morality and a person who does the right thing in spite of their other beliefs. But this seems to run the dangerous risk of saying that the person who fails to acheive good in spite of having the right moral objectives is somehow equivalent to the person who neither does the moral thing nor wants to. In some ways, Kant is right, and the highest instantiation of moral right is the person who does right even though they know they'll fail (take, for an example, the obvious rightness of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, and ask yourself why you'd have that reaction for a man who utterly fails at what he set out to do?).
I also think, as to SIAW's point and not my derivation from it, that Aristotle might have something to say on the difference between the two people he posits, but I must off to class now, so I'll have to save that for later.
LINK: Is Wal-Mart Good for America? is, to me, a hilarious question. Hilarious mostly because if you've ever lived in a place that didn't have a lot of retail prior to your local wal-mart or equivalent, it's an utterly pointless question: would you rather have access to lots of inexpensive stuff that makes your life more enjoyable (and possibly has dodgy economic consequences in some grand sense), or be self-righteous and without anything?
LINK: this argument is a little inscrutable to me:
"I agree with Hiatt that for all of Bush's soaring rhetoric, he sees democracy mainly as a club to wield over unfriendly or uncooperative regimes. It's not that the people living under these regimes don't deserve demoracy-- of course they do. But are those whose rulers currently please us any less deserving?"
...and it seems mostly inscrutable as the argument is either obvious or wrong. If Gene means to say that the US could certainly be doing more than it is to promote democracy in the world, well, that seems to be quite evidently the case. If he's saying that our willingness to temporarily abet dictators in some parts of the world is a moral failure, well, that also seems to be right. But it seems like the implication of this argument that what progress we are making with respect to the spread of democracy is somehow compromised by the fact we're not doing it everywhere. That's pretty clearly wrong. If we had unlimited time and resources, that'd be a fantastic way to do things, but, lacking that, we have to pick , and choose our battles. You can argue that maybe we haven't picked the right ones, but having picked any at all is a giant step forward for US foreign policy, and that deserves notice, too.
"I agree with Hiatt that for all of Bush's soaring rhetoric, he sees democracy mainly as a club to wield over unfriendly or uncooperative regimes. It's not that the people living under these regimes don't deserve demoracy-- of course they do. But are those whose rulers currently please us any less deserving?"
...and it seems mostly inscrutable as the argument is either obvious or wrong. If Gene means to say that the US could certainly be doing more than it is to promote democracy in the world, well, that seems to be quite evidently the case. If he's saying that our willingness to temporarily abet dictators in some parts of the world is a moral failure, well, that also seems to be right. But it seems like the implication of this argument that what progress we are making with respect to the spread of democracy is somehow compromised by the fact we're not doing it everywhere. That's pretty clearly wrong. If we had unlimited time and resources, that'd be a fantastic way to do things, but, lacking that, we have to pick , and choose our battles. You can argue that maybe we haven't picked the right ones, but having picked any at all is a giant step forward for US foreign policy, and that deserves notice, too.
15.11.04
LINK: This is pretty amusing, as college basketball season begins:
"BD: Duke's no worse than anyone else.
D: Oh, yeah? At halftime of the ACC semifinal last March a Duke fan yelled, "You suck!" at the referees as they headed into the tunnel.
BD: Happens all the time.
D: The fan was Mickie Krzyzewski, the coach's wife.
BD: Why are you so down on Duke?
D: Have you ever tried typing, "Coach Krzyzewski had nothing but praise for assistant coach Steve Wojciechowski" on deadline?
BD: You didn't get in, did you?
D: Wait-listed."
"BD: Duke's no worse than anyone else.
D: Oh, yeah? At halftime of the ACC semifinal last March a Duke fan yelled, "You suck!" at the referees as they headed into the tunnel.
BD: Happens all the time.
D: The fan was Mickie Krzyzewski, the coach's wife.
BD: Why are you so down on Duke?
D: Have you ever tried typing, "Coach Krzyzewski had nothing but praise for assistant coach Steve Wojciechowski" on deadline?
BD: You didn't get in, did you?
D: Wait-listed."
QUESTION OF THE DAY: From an e-mail correspondent:
"Also, does anybody else want to draft Munger to replace William Safire. I think he is just what the New York Times needs..."
...it would certainly get me to read the NYT more...
"Also, does anybody else want to draft Munger to replace William Safire. I think he is just what the New York Times needs..."
...it would certainly get me to read the NYT more...
LINK: Eric the Unread has an interesting analysis of Karl Popper on democracy and aggressive war:
"As can be seen Popper was not a pacifist, but the war in Iraq does perhaps raise questions about Popper's assertion that aggressive war is morally impossible for a democracy. Even though a majority of the British population was in favour of the war, it can hardly be suggested that the nation was fully united behind the government. So has Popper's thesis been refuted?
I think not. On September the 11th the world was made acutely aware of the potential for mass slaughter by non-state organisations. Non-state organisations, totalitarian in nature, seeking to destroy the free societies Popper cherished.
Flagrant breaches of the UN charter, as seen in Iraq for years, were no longer acceptable. The final prevention of any restarting of Saddam's WMD programmes and the uncovering of the surprising extent of Libyan WMD developments were valuble outcomes of the war in Iraq. Perhaps more important is the possibility of a successful democracy in Iraq - which could lay the seeds for a safer future in time.
On September the 11th free societies looked into the abyss, and some recognised the "unambiguous aggression" staring back out of the smouldering piles of twisted metal. Others have yet to do so, but will do.
Push free societies and they will push back."
"As can be seen Popper was not a pacifist, but the war in Iraq does perhaps raise questions about Popper's assertion that aggressive war is morally impossible for a democracy. Even though a majority of the British population was in favour of the war, it can hardly be suggested that the nation was fully united behind the government. So has Popper's thesis been refuted?
I think not. On September the 11th the world was made acutely aware of the potential for mass slaughter by non-state organisations. Non-state organisations, totalitarian in nature, seeking to destroy the free societies Popper cherished.
Flagrant breaches of the UN charter, as seen in Iraq for years, were no longer acceptable. The final prevention of any restarting of Saddam's WMD programmes and the uncovering of the surprising extent of Libyan WMD developments were valuble outcomes of the war in Iraq. Perhaps more important is the possibility of a successful democracy in Iraq - which could lay the seeds for a safer future in time.
On September the 11th free societies looked into the abyss, and some recognised the "unambiguous aggression" staring back out of the smouldering piles of twisted metal. Others have yet to do so, but will do.
Push free societies and they will push back."
LINK: Joe Carter turns things around nicely:
"Too often we assume that because we are on the right side of the absolute/relative moral divide that we are exempt from having to understand why the “blue state secularists” believe as they do. We don’t have to accept relativism as legitimate, but dismissing it as intellectually disreputable (as I regrettably tend to do) will not help us win hearts or change minds. Instead, we must make the necessary effort to dig deep and find the root of their relativism. Such a task won't be easy and will certainly require more than a dismissive, reductive analysis. Since all Red state absolutists don’t have the same reason for believing in moral absolutes, we shouldn't expect Blue state secularists to all share the same reasons for believing in moral relativism."
I'm certainly as guilty of this as anyone, though I'd like to believe I have a reasonable defense for taking that position--I tend to think that anyone*, pushed sufficiently, has some moral lines they will not cross for any reason, and some they're prepared to cross for a sufficiently good reason. I think it's mostly been a failure on the part of moral realists to focus on the extreme cases and the absolutes of moral law and not articulate a really good decision-making mechanism which is consistent across cases.
*There are some exceptions, of course, and it has to be the task of the moral realist to eventually convince these people, but it seems to me that there's a much larger audience who have adopted the forms but not the beliefs of relativism, and this group could be swayed with a better-argued moral realism.
"Too often we assume that because we are on the right side of the absolute/relative moral divide that we are exempt from having to understand why the “blue state secularists” believe as they do. We don’t have to accept relativism as legitimate, but dismissing it as intellectually disreputable (as I regrettably tend to do) will not help us win hearts or change minds. Instead, we must make the necessary effort to dig deep and find the root of their relativism. Such a task won't be easy and will certainly require more than a dismissive, reductive analysis. Since all Red state absolutists don’t have the same reason for believing in moral absolutes, we shouldn't expect Blue state secularists to all share the same reasons for believing in moral relativism."
I'm certainly as guilty of this as anyone, though I'd like to believe I have a reasonable defense for taking that position--I tend to think that anyone*, pushed sufficiently, has some moral lines they will not cross for any reason, and some they're prepared to cross for a sufficiently good reason. I think it's mostly been a failure on the part of moral realists to focus on the extreme cases and the absolutes of moral law and not articulate a really good decision-making mechanism which is consistent across cases.
*There are some exceptions, of course, and it has to be the task of the moral realist to eventually convince these people, but it seems to me that there's a much larger audience who have adopted the forms but not the beliefs of relativism, and this group could be swayed with a better-argued moral realism.
LINK: Michael Totten has a round-up of interesting political interpretations of The Incredibles, most of which see the movie as some sort of Ayn Rand-ian libertarian advertisement (government = bad, individual action = good). Well, if that was the indoctrination I was supposed to receive, it sure didn't work on me--aside from a little bit of relive-the-glory-days action, what mostly seemed to be driving Mr. Incredible and co. was their sense of obligation to people who were not themselves superheroes--it's hard for me to see the libertarianism in that, though perhaps my understanding thereof is a little limited.
WELL: Just finished up watching Triumph of the Will last night, the, erm, charming documentary of the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg in 1934. A thought:
it's a really interesting exercise to forget who's doing the speaking, and focus rather on the words, and see what's objectionable. The answer (for me, at least): much less than you'd think--most of the speeches are your usual rah-rah political nonsense. There were, however, two areas in which I couldn't understand anyone being persuaded, though it occurs to me that as a Christian and a deontologist, I might be particularly immune to these sorts of appeals: the first was to the overarching superiority of the state, and the second was to moral absolutism.
As to the first, most of the argument comes out of The Theological Declaration of Barmen: a Christian owes their first loyalty to God, and only after (and far behind) that can loyalty be offered elsewhere. Interestingly, I'm not sure how much this particular argument is available to the non-Christian deontologist or the utilitarian. The non-Christian deontologist can argue, perhaps, that their primary duty is to the moral order of the universe, or the categorical imperative, but it's both unclear to me how that's a duty in the same way duty to God or the state is, nor is it clear to me that a non-Christian (to be fair, non-religious) deontology can hold up in the same way under stress, though I confess to not having thought that through very much, so I may well be wrong.
As to the second, the last of the Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis speaks to it, I believe. I did not quite get this at first:
"Thou shalt realise that the basis of thy life is not 'must' but 'may', not 'law' but 'mercy'; this is thy consolation, thy creed , and thy power as a Christian Netherlander."
I believe there's an order in the universe which is a meaningful way of assigning moral praise and blame and a guide for my own actions. But I am not held to it for the assignment nor for the guide, I choose it (the 'not must but may' part). And insomuch as I perpetually fall short of the standards of that morality, and yet God forgives me, so to do I not judge the people who themselves fall short (I trust the relevant Biblical stories here are numerous enough that I need not cite one). The universe is structured in moral order, but that order does not define it: that's what's so objectionable in the movie, and that's the sort of thing that should instantly put people on guard.
I sense there are some larger implications for that last point, though I haven't quite worked through them yet.
it's a really interesting exercise to forget who's doing the speaking, and focus rather on the words, and see what's objectionable. The answer (for me, at least): much less than you'd think--most of the speeches are your usual rah-rah political nonsense. There were, however, two areas in which I couldn't understand anyone being persuaded, though it occurs to me that as a Christian and a deontologist, I might be particularly immune to these sorts of appeals: the first was to the overarching superiority of the state, and the second was to moral absolutism.
As to the first, most of the argument comes out of The Theological Declaration of Barmen: a Christian owes their first loyalty to God, and only after (and far behind) that can loyalty be offered elsewhere. Interestingly, I'm not sure how much this particular argument is available to the non-Christian deontologist or the utilitarian. The non-Christian deontologist can argue, perhaps, that their primary duty is to the moral order of the universe, or the categorical imperative, but it's both unclear to me how that's a duty in the same way duty to God or the state is, nor is it clear to me that a non-Christian (to be fair, non-religious) deontology can hold up in the same way under stress, though I confess to not having thought that through very much, so I may well be wrong.
As to the second, the last of the Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis speaks to it, I believe. I did not quite get this at first:
"Thou shalt realise that the basis of thy life is not 'must' but 'may', not 'law' but 'mercy'; this is thy consolation, thy creed , and thy power as a Christian Netherlander."
I believe there's an order in the universe which is a meaningful way of assigning moral praise and blame and a guide for my own actions. But I am not held to it for the assignment nor for the guide, I choose it (the 'not must but may' part). And insomuch as I perpetually fall short of the standards of that morality, and yet God forgives me, so to do I not judge the people who themselves fall short (I trust the relevant Biblical stories here are numerous enough that I need not cite one). The universe is structured in moral order, but that order does not define it: that's what's so objectionable in the movie, and that's the sort of thing that should instantly put people on guard.
I sense there are some larger implications for that last point, though I haven't quite worked through them yet.
14.11.04
11.11.04
LINK: Our fearless leader points out this charming little website. My favorite bit:
"Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about?... Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were?"
Yes indeed. All our greatest founding fathers were yankees. Like George Washington... and Thomas Jefferson... and James Madison.
I certainly hope they're kidding.
"Cause we fucking founded this country, assholes. Those Founding Fathers you keep going on and on about?... Who do you think those wig-wearing lacy-shirt sporting revolutionaries were?"
Yes indeed. All our greatest founding fathers were yankees. Like George Washington... and Thomas Jefferson... and James Madison.
I certainly hope they're kidding.
WELL: As I was finishing up my preparations for my exam today, I was reminded of how my 10th grade American Lit. teacher (who was Catholic) used to tell us to pray to St. Jude, that is, the patron saint of lost causes and impossible tasks. I shared that with the people in my study group and, for some reason, they didn't find it particularly amusing. Go figure.
10.11.04
WELL: The harsh mistress that is probability will be commanding my attention for the remainder of the day, and tomorrow (after my exam) will be spent frantically tryijng to do the reading for my remaining classes, which means, of course, no time to post (in the positive sense; in the normative sense, I ought not to post). But I do remember what tomorrow is, and want to have a few thoughts of other people for anyone who visits to reflect on, the first two being rather obvious choices (though important for those of us who advocate the possible good uses of war to keep in mind), the last, I think, too much unknown for how much one can get out of it:
Siegfried Sassoon, "The General"
"Good morning! Good morning!" the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soliders he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
"He's a cheery old card," grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
...
But he did for them both by his plan of attack.
A bit from Wilfred Owen:
"If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch his white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
From Testament of Youth, by Vera Brittain:
"It may be that our generation will go down in history as the first to understand that not a single man or woman can now live in disregarding isolation from his or her world. I don't know yet what I can do, I concluded, to help all this to happen, but at least I can begin by trying to understand where humanity failed and civilisation went wrong. If only I and a few other people succeed in this, it may be worth while that our lives have been lived; it may even be worth while that the lives of the others have been laid down. Perhaps that's really why, when they died, I was left behind."
Siegfried Sassoon, "The General"
"Good morning! Good morning!" the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soliders he smiled at are most of 'em dead,
And we're cursing his staff for incompetent swine.
"He's a cheery old card," grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.
...
But he did for them both by his plan of attack.
A bit from Wilfred Owen:
"If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch his white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
From Testament of Youth, by Vera Brittain:
"It may be that our generation will go down in history as the first to understand that not a single man or woman can now live in disregarding isolation from his or her world. I don't know yet what I can do, I concluded, to help all this to happen, but at least I can begin by trying to understand where humanity failed and civilisation went wrong. If only I and a few other people succeed in this, it may be worth while that our lives have been lived; it may even be worth while that the lives of the others have been laid down. Perhaps that's really why, when they died, I was left behind."
9.11.04
LINK: David T at Harry's Place links to the sort of thing that can get you killed nowadays, apparently.
LINK: It's not often that an atheist Crooked Timber-ite and I might agree about something relating to Christmas, but, well, here we are...
SCHADENFREUDE WATCH: I know I promised to root for Ohio State football until they play Michigan, but this is too good a story not to link to.
I will refrain from laughing evilly, though, so I think that should count for something.
I will refrain from laughing evilly, though, so I think that should count for something.
8.11.04
IMMANUEL KANT AND THE METAPHYSICS OF RESPONSIBILITY:
Just a quick thought about Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals--I still have more probability to do--when I read it this time around, I thought almost immediately of this essay in moral philosophy, "Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility" by Susan Wolf, because I think the objection she raises to the deep-self view of free will can apply equally well to Kant's use of rationality as a method to get to applications of the categorical imperative.
Kant thinks we take any situation we're faced with which has a moral component, and choose as our maxim for action that which we would want universalized. Wolf considers the case of a dictator who is habituated into thinking that horribly torturing and killing people is perfectly morally acceptable, if not good. Such a dictator would be able to rationally choose to torture, etc, using Kant's method, and would have reasons for doing their actions which they could articulate. It would just be their morality which was wrong. So it looks like one of Kant's implicit and unjustified assumptions is that a rational actor will have a particular view of morality*.
Of course, you could maybe defend this by looking at the formulation of the categorical imperative where Kant says people must be treated as ends, and never as means, but I think the question can fairly be asked whether this really follows from the categorial imperative, or it's just an argument Kant tries to stick in to make his life easier.
*Of course, if you just index morality back to, say, an ontological disposition of the universe that assigns moral values to acts, you can get around this problem.
Just a quick thought about Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals--I still have more probability to do--when I read it this time around, I thought almost immediately of this essay in moral philosophy, "Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility" by Susan Wolf, because I think the objection she raises to the deep-self view of free will can apply equally well to Kant's use of rationality as a method to get to applications of the categorical imperative.
Kant thinks we take any situation we're faced with which has a moral component, and choose as our maxim for action that which we would want universalized. Wolf considers the case of a dictator who is habituated into thinking that horribly torturing and killing people is perfectly morally acceptable, if not good. Such a dictator would be able to rationally choose to torture, etc, using Kant's method, and would have reasons for doing their actions which they could articulate. It would just be their morality which was wrong. So it looks like one of Kant's implicit and unjustified assumptions is that a rational actor will have a particular view of morality*.
Of course, you could maybe defend this by looking at the formulation of the categorical imperative where Kant says people must be treated as ends, and never as means, but I think the question can fairly be asked whether this really follows from the categorial imperative, or it's just an argument Kant tries to stick in to make his life easier.
*Of course, if you just index morality back to, say, an ontological disposition of the universe that assigns moral values to acts, you can get around this problem.
LINK: I'm not sure whether I enjoy this post more, or the commentary that follows it in the comments. It'd be a lot easier to trust the people if the we're idiotic religious crypto-fascists, wouldn't it?
LINK: MoDo goes crazy over Karl Rove:
" Even as a high school debater in Salt Lake City, "Rove didn't just want to win; he wanted the opponents destroyed," write James Moore and Wayne Slater in "Bush's Brain." "He would defeat them, slaughter them and humiliate them.""
Sounds like every debater I knew in high school.
" Even as a high school debater in Salt Lake City, "Rove didn't just want to win; he wanted the opponents destroyed," write James Moore and Wayne Slater in "Bush's Brain." "He would defeat them, slaughter them and humiliate them.""
Sounds like every debater I knew in high school.
5.11.04
OOPS: It occurred to me last night that, in my modern political thought class, I have argued both of the following recently:
1. There can be no such thing as Rousseau's General Will, because people are unable to get beyond their particular interests except to make such vague generalizations ("security is good") as to be entirely useless.
2. There can be such a thing as Kant's Categorical Imperative, because people can remove all considerations of particularity in the consideration of moral actions.
...and these certainly appear to be somewhat incongruous. This should make for an interesting paper topic, though, as I think I can hold both those opinions without contradicting myself.
1. There can be no such thing as Rousseau's General Will, because people are unable to get beyond their particular interests except to make such vague generalizations ("security is good") as to be entirely useless.
2. There can be such a thing as Kant's Categorical Imperative, because people can remove all considerations of particularity in the consideration of moral actions.
...and these certainly appear to be somewhat incongruous. This should make for an interesting paper topic, though, as I think I can hold both those opinions without contradicting myself.
4.11.04
WHAT NEXT? Taking up my own challenge from a couple of days ago, some thoughts on how to proceed with respect to foreign policy:
1. There needs to be serious rapprochement with Democratic governments around the world, key among them France, India and Japan*. If the first Bush term was about exposing how corrupt and impotent current international institutions and norms are, the second term needs to be about building both up so that other nations and future American leaders will have something to help guide them.
2. Some second-level threats need to be dealt with, particularly Syria and Saudi Arabia, but through diplomacy and not military intervention.
3. The Bush administration (or perhaps a combined US-UK-Polish-French? group) ought to be willing to put in writing some of the larger conceptual goals which inform particular action, so that in dealing with particular states, their violations and our hopes for the future can be clearly articulated. In other words, there needs to be a more-or-less comprehensive statement about what we believe in and why it leads us to act.
*France because Chirac is canny enough of a politician to realize the value of being willing to go along with the US now, India because a strong and stable democracy whose values mirror our own in the middle of Asia could work strongly as a stabilizing force (especially against regional threats posed by China), and Japan because they're going to be key in dealing with China, whenever that issue comes to the fore on the international stage.
1. There needs to be serious rapprochement with Democratic governments around the world, key among them France, India and Japan*. If the first Bush term was about exposing how corrupt and impotent current international institutions and norms are, the second term needs to be about building both up so that other nations and future American leaders will have something to help guide them.
2. Some second-level threats need to be dealt with, particularly Syria and Saudi Arabia, but through diplomacy and not military intervention.
3. The Bush administration (or perhaps a combined US-UK-Polish-French? group) ought to be willing to put in writing some of the larger conceptual goals which inform particular action, so that in dealing with particular states, their violations and our hopes for the future can be clearly articulated. In other words, there needs to be a more-or-less comprehensive statement about what we believe in and why it leads us to act.
*France because Chirac is canny enough of a politician to realize the value of being willing to go along with the US now, India because a strong and stable democracy whose values mirror our own in the middle of Asia could work strongly as a stabilizing force (especially against regional threats posed by China), and Japan because they're going to be key in dealing with China, whenever that issue comes to the fore on the international stage.
LINK: Chris Lawrence has an interesting discussion up on the Democrats' problem with 'values voters.' To wit:
"More to the point, one has to wonder about a national Democratic Party that can’t even secure the paltry share of the white vote in a state like Mississippi it would need to be competitive, but it’s unlikely to see an improvement until the party gets over its Dean-esque arrogance that Southerners need to stop voting on “guns, God, and gays” and come to the conclusion that they need to respect (even if it’s only to the point of respectful disagreement) those Americans who care deeply about those things."
Part of what strikes me as the problem is that the typical Democratic analysis (such as it exists) of why people vote on moral issues tends to get it entirely wrong: Democrats work themselves up into a lather over how the 'objective' results of a policy are so bad, but they never really seem to ask what the relevant bit of motivation is. As a result, Democrats who run for office (like, for example, John Kerry) mouth what they take to be the right platitudes to win over values voters ("I am personally opposed to abortion" or somesuch*). But those platitudes are about the results of policies, not the reasons for supporting them in the first place. Until Democrats understand that critical difference, they're not going to have much success in the south or west.
In a similar vein proposals about re-casting things in moral terminology seem to me to be of dubious effectiveness. Most moral systems (of values voters, anyway) aren't infinitely expansive--ideas are either in or they're out, and I think most people can tell the difference between a Democratic proposal put in moral terms and a Democratic proposal that comes from a moral understanding. I tend to think this would be rather easier for Democrats to do (it'd probably be easier if they were deontologists, but most things in life would be easier if that were the case).
"More to the point, one has to wonder about a national Democratic Party that can’t even secure the paltry share of the white vote in a state like Mississippi it would need to be competitive, but it’s unlikely to see an improvement until the party gets over its Dean-esque arrogance that Southerners need to stop voting on “guns, God, and gays” and come to the conclusion that they need to respect (even if it’s only to the point of respectful disagreement) those Americans who care deeply about those things."
Part of what strikes me as the problem is that the typical Democratic analysis (such as it exists) of why people vote on moral issues tends to get it entirely wrong: Democrats work themselves up into a lather over how the 'objective' results of a policy are so bad, but they never really seem to ask what the relevant bit of motivation is. As a result, Democrats who run for office (like, for example, John Kerry) mouth what they take to be the right platitudes to win over values voters ("I am personally opposed to abortion" or somesuch*). But those platitudes are about the results of policies, not the reasons for supporting them in the first place. Until Democrats understand that critical difference, they're not going to have much success in the south or west.
In a similar vein proposals about re-casting things in moral terminology seem to me to be of dubious effectiveness. Most moral systems (of values voters, anyway) aren't infinitely expansive--ideas are either in or they're out, and I think most people can tell the difference between a Democratic proposal put in moral terms and a Democratic proposal that comes from a moral understanding. I tend to think this would be rather easier for Democrats to do (it'd probably be easier if they were deontologists, but most things in life would be easier if that were the case).
3.11.04
ERM: Had a class today which included a long discussion over how we'll be in Iran by this time next year. The logic goes like this:
1. Israel will use the bunker-busting bombs we've supplied them with to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
2. Iran wil retaliate by attacking Israel and US forces in Iraq.
3. The US will go to war with Iran.
4. Bush will institute a military draft.
...somehow I doubt it will actually work out this way. How do I know? I haven't gotten the memo from Karl yet.
1. Israel will use the bunker-busting bombs we've supplied them with to take out the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
2. Iran wil retaliate by attacking Israel and US forces in Iraq.
3. The US will go to war with Iran.
4. Bush will institute a military draft.
...somehow I doubt it will actually work out this way. How do I know? I haven't gotten the memo from Karl yet.
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PEOPLE OF THE GREAT STATE OF OHIO:
Dear Ohioans,
I'd just like to take this opportunity to retract all of the not-nice things I've previously said about your state. I don't believe that Ohio is really "the armpit of America," (New Jersey, perhaps?), and I feel really bad about frequently referring to your state on car trips as "five hours of my life I'll never get back." Akron is actually a really nice city, and I always found downtown Cleveland to be enjoyable.
Nick
ps. southern Ohio near West Virginia is also very pretty.
pps. I promise to root for Ohio State in football until they play Michigan.
Dear Ohioans,
I'd just like to take this opportunity to retract all of the not-nice things I've previously said about your state. I don't believe that Ohio is really "the armpit of America," (New Jersey, perhaps?), and I feel really bad about frequently referring to your state on car trips as "five hours of my life I'll never get back." Akron is actually a really nice city, and I always found downtown Cleveland to be enjoyable.
Nick
ps. southern Ohio near West Virginia is also very pretty.
pps. I promise to root for Ohio State in football until they play Michigan.
2.11.04
WHAT NEXT? Well, I voted for Bush (for multiple Republicans, no less) and, despite everything I had been led to believe by years of familial indoctrination, I neither suffered a heart attack nor was instantly struck by lightning. I take this to be a good thing.
I voted for Bush mostly because I trust his instincts on the important questions much more than I trust Kerry's. I know there's a serious argument to be made that he's botched the execution thereof, and I certainly don't want to mitigate the seriousness of that critique. But execution is something that, it's pretty clear to me, can be learned or improved on over time; instinct is much harder to replicate if you don't have it naturally. But this is a bit of an aside.
Obviously, come tomorrow, it'll be time for something new. But what? I have a real fear that a Kerry administration will ignore the various human rights issues and pro-democracy movements around the world in favor of regaining favor in Paris and Berlin. I have a real fear that the situation on the ground in Iraq will sap Bush's will to continue the project of global democratization, and the project will be left half-done.
I'm also a little worried that the very real left-right connections that have been made over the last few years with respect to human rights, democracy and opposition to terrorism might erode once again in the face of partisan differences. So I propose the following: those of us who think about these things should, in the next couple of days, evaluate world priorities and look at our theoretical justifications and desired practical applications and attempt to keep a slightly more regular and systematized dialogue on these issues, do a quick little 'what next?' post, and engage each other on those various ideas.
Whaddaya think? Joe? Norm? Jeff Jarvis? Michele? Oliver Kamm? Bill Wallo? SIAW? Harry's Place-ers? OxBloggers?
(I'm not intending to exclude anybody from this list; these just happen to be people I read frequently who talk a lot about human rights, democracy and terrorism. Feel free to post 'what next?' ideas in the comments, etc)
I voted for Bush mostly because I trust his instincts on the important questions much more than I trust Kerry's. I know there's a serious argument to be made that he's botched the execution thereof, and I certainly don't want to mitigate the seriousness of that critique. But execution is something that, it's pretty clear to me, can be learned or improved on over time; instinct is much harder to replicate if you don't have it naturally. But this is a bit of an aside.
Obviously, come tomorrow, it'll be time for something new. But what? I have a real fear that a Kerry administration will ignore the various human rights issues and pro-democracy movements around the world in favor of regaining favor in Paris and Berlin. I have a real fear that the situation on the ground in Iraq will sap Bush's will to continue the project of global democratization, and the project will be left half-done.
I'm also a little worried that the very real left-right connections that have been made over the last few years with respect to human rights, democracy and opposition to terrorism might erode once again in the face of partisan differences. So I propose the following: those of us who think about these things should, in the next couple of days, evaluate world priorities and look at our theoretical justifications and desired practical applications and attempt to keep a slightly more regular and systematized dialogue on these issues, do a quick little 'what next?' post, and engage each other on those various ideas.
Whaddaya think? Joe? Norm? Jeff Jarvis? Michele? Oliver Kamm? Bill Wallo? SIAW? Harry's Place-ers? OxBloggers?
(I'm not intending to exclude anybody from this list; these just happen to be people I read frequently who talk a lot about human rights, democracy and terrorism. Feel free to post 'what next?' ideas in the comments, etc)
1.11.04
MY GOODNESS: Norm is really on a roll in this interview. Begin with the part that starts "Second, the plain horror of what happened, squashed in between the 'yes' and the 'but' and then lined up in a long list of other horrors, was diminished," and continue through the end of that question.
Okay, I can't resist: here's an especially good bit:
"For the rest, the clear tendency of the proffered contextualization and these convenient shifts was to set up a rough moral equivalence between the US government and those it was – actually – at war with. We were supposed to think that George W. Bush and what he represented, on one side, were on a level with Bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban and what they represented, on the other. But to propose even a rough equivalence here is to overlook or make light of the circumstance that George Bush – despised as may be, and all observations or jokes about Florida notwithstanding – is an elected politician in a democracy, with everything that this entails. He is answerable before a democratic electorate, and constrained by a legal and political culture and institutions which, whatever their limits, are as good, broadly speaking, in the way of democracy as humankind has succeeded in establishing so far. This culture and these institutions are the indispensable historical and ethical starting point for any left-wing or other genuinely progressive opposition to existing relations of oppression, exploitation, injustice."
Okay, I can't resist: here's an especially good bit:
"For the rest, the clear tendency of the proffered contextualization and these convenient shifts was to set up a rough moral equivalence between the US government and those it was – actually – at war with. We were supposed to think that George W. Bush and what he represented, on one side, were on a level with Bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban and what they represented, on the other. But to propose even a rough equivalence here is to overlook or make light of the circumstance that George Bush – despised as may be, and all observations or jokes about Florida notwithstanding – is an elected politician in a democracy, with everything that this entails. He is answerable before a democratic electorate, and constrained by a legal and political culture and institutions which, whatever their limits, are as good, broadly speaking, in the way of democracy as humankind has succeeded in establishing so far. This culture and these institutions are the indispensable historical and ethical starting point for any left-wing or other genuinely progressive opposition to existing relations of oppression, exploitation, injustice."
QUOTE: The Hitch:
"Then there is the prospective list of countries to be liberated by holy war. In the order given, these are "Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen." The last two on the list are old hat: Bin Laden is of part-Yemeni origin, and his loathing for the Saudi regime is notorious. It might also be assumed that he detests the Pakistani authorities, since they have assisted, however grudgingly, in his ignominious eviction from Afghanistan. Nigeria is of interest, because it is now only in the early throes of an attack by fundamentalist thugs who seek to impose sharia law on all Muslims and on a huge number of non-Muslims as well. You may remember their attempt to stone to death Amina Lawal, for her crime of having given birth to a baby. One might want to pay attention to this additional warning, of an attempt to turn a near-failed state (with large oil resources) into a full-fledged rogue one. Morocco has been the scene of a campaign of Islamist violence for some time: a campaign notable for the additional demand that Spain be reconquered for the one true faith. As for Jordan, I could be mistaken but I was struck by the remark of one analyst quoted in the New York Times who said that Bin Laden was running for re-election as the president of Islamic militancy. In that case, he might have been aware of the rival candidacy of Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, who began his career of crime with a declaration of war on the Jordanian ruling house."
"Then there is the prospective list of countries to be liberated by holy war. In the order given, these are "Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen." The last two on the list are old hat: Bin Laden is of part-Yemeni origin, and his loathing for the Saudi regime is notorious. It might also be assumed that he detests the Pakistani authorities, since they have assisted, however grudgingly, in his ignominious eviction from Afghanistan. Nigeria is of interest, because it is now only in the early throes of an attack by fundamentalist thugs who seek to impose sharia law on all Muslims and on a huge number of non-Muslims as well. You may remember their attempt to stone to death Amina Lawal, for her crime of having given birth to a baby. One might want to pay attention to this additional warning, of an attempt to turn a near-failed state (with large oil resources) into a full-fledged rogue one. Morocco has been the scene of a campaign of Islamist violence for some time: a campaign notable for the additional demand that Spain be reconquered for the one true faith. As for Jordan, I could be mistaken but I was struck by the remark of one analyst quoted in the New York Times who said that Bin Laden was running for re-election as the president of Islamic militancy. In that case, he might have been aware of the rival candidacy of Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, who began his career of crime with a declaration of war on the Jordanian ruling house."
LINK: Joe Carter makes a very interesting argument I'd never heard phrased in quite these terms before, and I think I can say I'm decisively won over by it:
"Kerry says that he is personally opposed to abortion, an admirable sentiment that is in keeping with his convictions as a Catholic. But the senator’s willingness to act against his conscience on an issue of such importance makes him unsuitable candidate for the office of the Presidency."
If you think that it's wrong--it can be abortion, genocide, authoritarian government, whatever you like--then it's never okay, even on narrow utilitarian grounds, right?
"Kerry says that he is personally opposed to abortion, an admirable sentiment that is in keeping with his convictions as a Catholic. But the senator’s willingness to act against his conscience on an issue of such importance makes him unsuitable candidate for the office of the Presidency."
If you think that it's wrong--it can be abortion, genocide, authoritarian government, whatever you like--then it's never okay, even on narrow utilitarian grounds, right?
LINK: I'm in: are you?
After the election results are in, I promise to:
: Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him.
: Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him.
: Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.
: Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better.
After the election results are in, I promise to:
: Support the President, even if I didn't vote for him.
: Criticize the President, even if I did vote for him.
: Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.
: Unite as a nation, putting country over party, even as we work together to make America better.
LINK: Ever wonder why music snobs such as myself like some bands and hate others? Why, it's because we hate African-Americans and women, naturally:
"Rockism isn't unrelated to older, more familiar prejudices - that's part of why it's so powerful, and so worth arguing about. The pop star, the disco diva, the lip-syncher, the "awesomely bad" hit maker: could it really be a coincidence that rockist complaints often pit straight white men against the rest of the world? Like the anti-disco backlash of 25 years ago, the current rockist consensus seems to reflect not just an idea of how music should be made but also an idea about who should be making it."
No mention of, say, Patti Smith, and the rather condescending implication that people like me only like OutKast. Public Enemy, etc:
"Ever wonder why OutKast and the Roots and Mos Def and the Beastie Boys get taken so much more seriously than other rappers? Maybe because rockist critics love it when hip-hop acts impersonate rock 'n' roll bands..."
...or maybe it's because they seem capable of producing more than one good song at a time.
"Rockism isn't unrelated to older, more familiar prejudices - that's part of why it's so powerful, and so worth arguing about. The pop star, the disco diva, the lip-syncher, the "awesomely bad" hit maker: could it really be a coincidence that rockist complaints often pit straight white men against the rest of the world? Like the anti-disco backlash of 25 years ago, the current rockist consensus seems to reflect not just an idea of how music should be made but also an idea about who should be making it."
No mention of, say, Patti Smith, and the rather condescending implication that people like me only like OutKast. Public Enemy, etc:
"Ever wonder why OutKast and the Roots and Mos Def and the Beastie Boys get taken so much more seriously than other rappers? Maybe because rockist critics love it when hip-hop acts impersonate rock 'n' roll bands..."
...or maybe it's because they seem capable of producing more than one good song at a time.
CHEERY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: It's the moderate ones you have to watch out for, you know. One of the otherwise nice and (mostly) sane commenters at Fistful of Euros has this comment about tomorrow's election:
"Though I hope to the contrary, I believe the weeks following the US Presidential election will become a much bigger electoral and legal debacle than most commentators are willing to admit now. In the end, this election might well become a testament of the principal current American weakness - deep social and partisan divisions, if not outright hatred between the camps. American politics now appears to consist predominantly of conceptually empty labels - very soon even rituals of Patriotism may be exposed as nothing more than a band aid for a mentally and spiritually ailing."
"Though I hope to the contrary, I believe the weeks following the US Presidential election will become a much bigger electoral and legal debacle than most commentators are willing to admit now. In the end, this election might well become a testament of the principal current American weakness - deep social and partisan divisions, if not outright hatred between the camps. American politics now appears to consist predominantly of conceptually empty labels - very soon even rituals of Patriotism may be exposed as nothing more than a band aid for a mentally and spiritually ailing."
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals:
"Finally, there is one imperative which immediately commands a certain conduct without having as its condition any other purpose to be attained by it. This imperative is categorical. It is not concerned with the matter of the action and its intended result, but rather with the form of the action and the principle from which it follows; what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may. This imperative may be called that of morality."
"Finally, there is one imperative which immediately commands a certain conduct without having as its condition any other purpose to be attained by it. This imperative is categorical. It is not concerned with the matter of the action and its intended result, but rather with the form of the action and the principle from which it follows; what is essentially good in the action consists in the mental disposition, let the consequences be what they may. This imperative may be called that of morality."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)