If you want a good compendium of what people on the right believe, this is good, from Chad McIntosh.
On the liberal side, this is Dustin Crummett's presentation.
If you believe what a conservative believes, should you support Trump. That is the challenging question I am struggling with. I would like to argue that you should not vote for Trump even if you believe everything McIntosh believes. I think I am right, though, concede all of McIntosh's position, you should still prefer Biden to Trump.
70 comments:
First link is not anonymously available
McIntosh discusses many issues that seem to me only tangentially related to the left/right divide, such as the effects of Christianity, the existence of natural rights, the “complexity of human nature,” and the silliness of the song “Imagine.” I agree with much of what McIntosh says about these issues, and my disagreements aren’t important here. I will instead focus on his views about freedom and equal-ity, which are unsatisfactory in ways that do reflect major differences between left and right, and that help illuminate the indefensibility of his position.
I think the discussion of human nature is at the root of this disagreement. The fact that Crummett dismisses it is interesting if he represents the majority of leftist opinion. I don't call it a liberal opinion, because it seems McIntosh's position is the classical liberal position.
Should have said more in line with the classical liberal position.
Victor,
You seem to be on the horns of a genuine personal dilemma, or perhaps you have already settled this dilemma for yourself, but only marginally, and don't yet feel fully settled on your considerations.
It would seem rather self serving for me, an ardent anti-Trumper, to say you should definitely forget all those policy matters that are so important to you and vote the obviously criminal and destructive incompetent jackass out, and good riddance.
Well, people do not brush aside policy matters so lightly and have good reason to focus on policies if the personal defects of the president have little or no direct effect on the governance and laws of the USA. After all, that is what we hire him to do, carry out policies and propose budgets and sign or veto bills we do or do not support.
If he has some distasteful sexual dalliances along the way, or makes a few crude remarks, or is generally not to our personal liking those seem to be relatively minor and not especially relevant to the core of why we vote for a particular candidate.
Even if he lies about his foibles we tend to say the underlying transgression was not part of the core job descriptions so that does not rise to the level of removal, especially since the replacement is likely to have his own set of personal shortcomings.
So, suppose I was faced with a choice between a Dwight Eisenhower and a George Wallace? Hopefully I would realize the Eisenhower is relatively moderate and Wallace is a vicious racist so I would swallow hard and vote against my usual party of choice and vote for Eisenhower.
That is why I voted for Biden in the primary, for me, I saw forward to people like you struggling to make this choice and with Bernie you would have the choice between a radical and a radical, but with Biden you have the choice between a moderate and a radical.
So I voted in the primary with the intention of making your choice in the general more difficult, sorry about that :-)
Biden is an establishment guy, he is not going to attack business, the military, the police, the churches, Wall street, or any other established institutions. He isn't going to ask China or Ukraine or any other government for re-election help, he isn't going to deny the pandemic or promote dangerous responses to it, and he isn't going to flood us with inane tweets.
You think the last 3.5 years were bad? What do you think will happen if Trump gets a second term with no consideration of re-election? Does he seem like a guy who would restrain himself in any way?
Pope Francis today added the title "Comfort of Migrants" to the Litany of Loreto to the Blessed Virgin Mary, along with two other titles (Mother of Mercy and Mother of Hope).
All praise to Sheila Buck, a Catholic resident of Tulsa, Oklahoma, who was not only denied entry into the Trump rally, but was arrested for trying to get in (despite having a ticket to attend).
So all you supporters of this "president" (sic), what is Trump afraid of? Sheila Buck? If so, then he is PATHETIC.
I don't accept McIntosh's conservatism. But, if I did, I would STILL, like former Sen. Jeff Flake, vote for Biden. A real conservative not only pursues conservative goals, but pursues them within the bounds of the Constitutional roles set out for the various offices, (legislative, executive, and judicial). Trump had to be told by that flaming liberal Liz Cheney that he didn't have the power to order states to reopen--that decision was reserved by the Tenth Amendment to the states.
I think the real clash between conservatism and progressivism comes out most clearly in my reply to Crummet. The whole exchange is in the second link you give.
It's worse than that. Trump mistreated his own brother, who suffered from cerebral palsy and died at 42. Joe Sheffer, a longtime friend of both myself and Starhopper, suffered from cerebral palsy and died of a heart attack at 36.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/21/donald-trump-mary-lea-trump-book-memoir
Her antipathy towards her uncle long predates his foray into populist rightwing politics. When Trump’s father, Fred Trump Sr, died, his will distributed his estate among his children and their offspring with the exception of his son Fred Trump Jr. The children of Fred Jr objected that they had been included an earlier will, written before Fred Sr was diagnosed with dementia, and took legal action.
Mary told the New York Daily News that her aunt and uncles “should be ashamed of themselves”. And soon after the lawsuit was filed, Trump changed a health insurance policy so that Fred Jr’s grandson, who had cerebral palsy, lost coverage. Eventually the lawsuit was settled and the child regained health insurance.
If he saw a buck in it for himself, Trump would without hesitation sell out his own mother. And why wouldn't he? He sold out his country's national security for a campaign contribution. He sold out his (latest) wife for a fling with a porn star. He tried to sell out COVID-19 victims so he could profit from hydroxychloroquine (in which he has a financial interest).
Chad,
But, it hardly needs to be said, humans don’t always act morally. We lie, cheat, and steal; we fornicate, victimize, and murder—all to the destruction of others and even ourselves. Why? Answers to this question account for our political dif-ferences probably more than anything else. As the conservative sees it, external factors like rough environment, low education, poverty, joblessness, oppression, etc. cannot sufficiently explain our predilection for evil. Nor can the relatively ostensible internal reasons we give, such as selfishness, anger, or hatred. No, a deeper explanation is required.
It seems Crummett thinks that what you consider the crux of the differences between left and right are only a tangential concern for him. I wonder why that is. It seems if one is going to write a rebuttal, one should address the major thesis of the piece that one is rebutting.
bmiller,
As far as I remember, I didn't really disagree that much with Chad about human nature, so naturally I didn't think that explained much of our other differences.
Hi Dustin,
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
I'm unaware of the background for the exchange, so please excuse my ignorance in that regard.
It seems both of you agree for the need for hierarchies which are just are not egalitarian by definition. It seems to me that there is a significant number of leftists/anarchists that would disagree with your view on hierarchies. So although you personally may not hold the "dismal view", I think it is a fair for Chad to point it out as a contrast to thinking on the right side of the political spectrum.
That said, I think the issue of human nature actually is at the heart of the division. Your position, I think, is that hierarchies are OK as long as they are reasonable and just. But however reasonable and just an institution may be it is still populated by human beings. Those people may be perfect humans or imperfect humans. When institutions are run by imperfect humans those humans usually find a way to exercise their power in unjust ways. It seems to be a tendency of the left to attempt to counter this evil by concentrating more and more power from the top down rather than the bottom up.
Conservatives on the other hand generally recognize that there are no perfect humans and so it is wise to keep the necessary government smaller and dispersed rather than larger and centralized. Even though most evangelicals wouldn't read Catholic Social Theory, they agree that the role of the central government should be limited, subsidiarity should be promoted and the basic unity of society is the family, not the individual.
I think all of these differences flow from the concept one has of human nature.
Hal,
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take away from your response.
Maybe it would help if you discussed your opinion on these 3 items that, As I understand it, you disagree with "conservatives" on.
the role of the central government should be limited, subsidiarity should be promoted and the basic unity of society is the family, not the individual.
Hi bmiller,
I admit, it seems odd to me that in an exchange where one party argues that we should default to *opposing* hierarchies, and the other argues that we should "simply presume that hierarchies, ubiquitous as they are, contribute to the common good unless proven to be oppressive," you would think that the *former* party supports "concentrating more and more power from the top down rather than the bottom up."
More broadly, I extensively discuss in my pieces my "skepticism of those who hold power; that includes politicians." I argue explicitly that "we should be vigilant toward government power" and that McIntosh "doesn’t give the government less power than I do—just power in different areas." So of course I won't grant that I am the party of uncritical, centralized power while he is the party of distributed, bottom-up power.
Some relevant passages:
"An obvious type of unequal relation occurs in cases of what I’ll call domination, where some have arbitrary, far-reaching, and unaccountable power over the actions of others. An obvious example is slavery, but there are many other ways this can happen. For instance, when whites prevented people of color from voting, or when men did the same for women, members of one group indirectly exercised power over another: The state exercises power over everyone, and one group controlled the state without input from the other. (Dictatorship, where one person controls the state and thereby dominates everyone else, is the limit case of this.)
Notice something important here: Freedom and equality are sometimes portrayed as being in conflict, since protecting equality might require restricting free actions that work against it. Domination shows that the picture is more complicated. A certain kind of freedom (that involved in being a free person, rather than a servant) actually requires a certain kind of equality (the social equality that prevents some from exercising unaccountable power over others). Views that ignore this provide great freedom to the powerful, but no one else...
When it comes to [necessary] power relations, egalitarians generally support making them reciprocal where possible, so that no one has unaccountable power over another. For instance, political leaders have power over voters, but, in a functioning democracy, voters control the exercise of this power through the threat of replacing their leaders. Employers have power over employees, but, where a strong union is present, employees have power of their own as a result of their ability to collectively bargain. Where this reciprocity isn’t feasible—as may be the case with, say, a sergeant and a private—egalitarians still insist that the authority possessed by the superior must be justified in terms of the general good, and must be only that which is necessary to promote that good. (This is why the sergeant can order the private to charge an enemy position, but can’t order the private to hand over five dollars: Having the second power can’t be justified by military necessity.)...
"A final note about the role of government in left-wing policy proposals. Conservatives sometimes accuse progressives of having too much faith in government. I’ve already indicated my skepticism of those who hold power; that includes politicians. (Indeed, Democratic politicians routinely act in ways that are condemned by the egalitarian picture I’ve sketched here.) The reason to sometimes rely on government action is the same reason I sometimes rely on a mechanic: There are problems only they can fix (such as, in the government’s case, economic inequality). And the appropriate response to the possibility of government misconduct is the same as that to the possibility of your mechanic cheating you: Be attentive and keep them accountable. This means that justice will reliably be done only when there are movements of informed individuals who fight for it. But that was true anyway. While past successes are reason for optimism, justice is not inevitable, and it cannot be achieved by theory alone. It needs flesh-and-blood people to breathe fire into its principles. It needs us...
Though McIntosh overlooks threats to freedom like those just mentioned, he does worry about government tyranny. I agreed that we should be vigilant toward government power. In fact, I wish conservatives were more consistent here. McIntosh supports the death penalty. The power to execute is a tremendous power, and the government wields it unjustly: Defendants are vastly more likely to be sentenced to death if they are black rather than white, or if their victim was white rather than black. Another example: Though two-thirds of Americans support gay marriage, McIntosh thinks the government should deny marriage rights to gay couples. The main idea is apparently that this will encourage people to form the kinds of families he thinks are best for society. This seems a clear instance of “the social engineering efforts of elites” that McIntosh disparages. We can see that he doesn’t give the government less power than I do—just power in different areas. For instance, he does oppose most government action in the economic sphere, where I think it’s necessary."
Dustin, when it comes to weighing government against liberty, you seem to assume that our scales are balanced, and that I've just chosen different objects as weights (e.g., capital punishment). That seems sophistical to me. Pointing out areas where I think government is necessary, and you don't, in no way implies our scales are balanced, since you could (and I think clearly do) think there are far more areas where government is necessary than I do.
Dustin,
I did read your article and I understand what you said so I will only respond to the first of your 3 latest posts.
I admit, it seems odd to me that in an exchange where one party argues that we should default to *opposing* hierarchies, and the other argues that we should "simply presume that hierarchies, ubiquitous as they are, contribute to the common good unless proven to be oppressive," you would think that the *former* party supports "concentrating more and more power from the top down rather than the bottom up."
Of course I don't think it makes sense for leftists to demand anarchy and also to want to centralize power but that seems to be the case. I acknowledged that you don't necessarily support the former, but are you saying that the anarchist movement is more of a right wing phenomena?
More broadly, I extensively discuss in my pieces my "skepticism of those who hold power; that includes politicians." I argue explicitly that "we should be vigilant toward government power" and that McIntosh "doesn’t give the government less power than I do—just power in different areas." So of course I won't grant that I am the party of uncritical, centralized power while he is the party of distributed, bottom-up power.
It seems you're saying that since you both agree that *government* should have a certain amount of power that there is no difference between your positions regarding the distribution of that power. Do you favor subsidiarity then?
It seems to me that if one is truly are skeptical of those who hold power then one should take steps to limit that power rather than expand it. Being vigilant is not very useful if a central government decides, for instance, that your religion is deplorable.
Sorry. I didn't see Chad's reply before I posted.
I think it would be best that I stay out of since Dustin's and Chad's positions are the most interesting.
Hal,
Then we simply disagree.
Chad,
I'm not sure if I think government is necessary in more areas than you or not--how do we individuate areas?--but I really don't think you believe in a government with less *power* than I do, in any sense we should really care about. I agree that my examples don't themselves entail that, but I only had a thousand words.
bmiller,
My view, roughly, is that:
(i) if you think people, being prone to wrongdoing, tend to abuse advantages they have over other people, this should make you sympathetic to something like my broadly egalitarian picture.
(ii) this should also make you wary of giving power to the government.
(iii) but there are times when you have to give power to the government, whether because this is the only feasible way to combat private forms of domination, or for other reasons.
(iv) but power given to the government should be limited to only what is necessary, and subject to popular control and other constraints (e.g., constitutional ones).
"are you saying that the anarchist movement is more of a right wing phenomena?"
There are right anarchists and left anarchists. I don't quite get the point of the question.
"Do you favor subsidiarity then?"
Probably not in all the details, no. But sort of the spirit of it seems reasonable to me.
Although I truly believe that "right" and "left" (unless you're talking about your hands) are utterly meaningless terms, I'll accept them here for the sake of the conversation. That said, there are indeed both right and left anarchists.
Right wing anarchists are primarily libertarians and/or Ayn Rand devotees.
Left wing anarchists are mostly members of religious communes such as the Dukhobors, the Hutterites, and members of the Catholic Worker movement.
Dustin,
My view, roughly, is that:
Thanks. I think I understand what your view is, but I also don't think you are addressing your critic's concern.
For instance, although they may agree in principle to your (ii), (iii) and (iv) it seems you leave the term *government* ambiguous. Your answer to the subsidiarity question seems to imply that when you mention *the government*, you mean *the central government*. If that's the case, then your egalitarianism amounts only to the decree of what the central government decides it is today. That is something you may favor and your critics oppose yet you leave it unexamined.
There are right anarchists and left anarchists. I don't quite get the point of the question.
It seemed to me that you thought I was accusing you of being both for and against hierarchies. My point was that anarchism is commonly thought of as a position of the left, not the right. So I'm surprised that you actually do think anarchism is as common on the right as on the left.
Anarchism
Post-war era
Rojava is supporting efforts for workers to form cooperatives, such as this sewing cooperative
At the end of World War II, the anarchist movement was severely weakened.[35] However, the 1960s witnessed a revival of anarchism likely caused by a perceived failure of Marxism–Leninism and tensions built by the Cold War.[36] During this time, anarchism took root in other movements critical towards both the state and capitalism, such as the anti-nuclear, environmental and pacifist movements, the New Left, and the counterculture of the 1960s.[37] Anarchism became associated with punk subculture, as exemplified by bands such as Crass and the Sex Pistols,[38] and the established feminist tendencies of anarcha-feminism returned with vigour during the second wave of feminism.[39]
Around the turn of the 21st century, anarchism grew in popularity and influence within anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-globalisation movements.[40] Anarchists became known for their involvement in protests against the World Trade Organization, the Group of Eight and the World Economic Forum. During the protests, ad hoc leaderless anonymous cadres known as black blocs engaged in rioting, property destruction, and violent confrontations with the police. Other organisational tactics pioneered in this time include security culture, affinity groups, and the use of decentralised technologies such as the internet. A significant event of this period was the confrontations at the WTO conference in Seattle in 1999.[40] Anarchist ideas have been influential in the development of the Zapatistas in Mexico and the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, more commonly known as Rojava, a de facto autonomous region in northern Syria.[41]
bmiller,
"Your answer to the subsidiarity question seems to imply that when you mention *the government*, you mean *the central government*."
I mean what I think "the government" usually means in ordinary English, namely, the state. Is that "the central government?" I don't know. Is the mayor part of "the central government?"
"If that's the case, then your egalitarianism amounts only to the decree of what the central government decides it is today. That is something you may favor and your critics oppose yet you leave it unexamined."
Honestly, I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Obviously I don't favor "whatever the central government decides today," and obviously my version of egalitarianism does not just sanction "whatever the central government decides."
"My point was that anarchism is commonly thought of as a position of the left, not the right. So I'm surprised that you actually do think anarchism is as common on the right as on the left."
I don't know whether it's more common on the right or the left. But, I mean, there are anarcho-capitalists and so forth.
Dustin,
I mean what I think "the government" usually means in ordinary English, namely, the state. Is that "the central government?" I don't know. Is the mayor part of "the central government?"
A mayor is part of a local city government. In America, cities are organized under state governments and finally the federal government would be considered the central government. I'm sorry. I thought you knew all this. Left and Right are different in America than Europe, so maybe that's part of the communication problem.
Honestly, I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Obviously I don't favor "whatever the central government decides today," and obviously my version of egalitarianism does not just sanction "whatever the central government decides."
I understand that you aren't advocating that. My point is that you have not adequately explained what it is that will stop it from ending there. Have you ever read the Anti-Federalist Papers?
I don't know whether it's more common on the right or the left. But, I mean, there are anarcho-capitalists and so forth.
From the Wikipedia article:
Marshall 1993, p. 565: "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists.";
bmiller,
"A mayor is part of a local city government. In America, cities are organized under state governments and finally the federal government would be considered the central government. I'm sorry. I thought you knew all this. Left and Right are different in America than Europe, so maybe that's part of the communication problem."
I'm actually from Virginia, so I do know all this (thought Germany also has a federal system, anyway). If by "the central government" you mean "the federal government," then no, my usage of "the government" is broader than that--I mean the whole system of local and state governments, in addition to the federal government. I'm not sure what turns on this, though.
"I understand that you aren't advocating that. My point is that you have not adequately explained what it is that will stop it from ending there."
Civil resistance (including by non-governmental organizations: churches, unions, etc.), constitutional checks and balances, refusal to cooperate by other elements of the government, etc. Maybe what I'm not understanding is why this is supposed to be more of a problem for me than for anyone else who isn't an anarchist.
Dustin,
I'm not sure what turns on this, though.
OK. I thought it odd that someone who is writing articles about the differences between the left and right doesn't seem to be interested in what one side thinks are the actual differences or the root causes of those differences. But maybe that's par for the course.
Civil resistance (including by non-governmental organizations: churches, unions, etc.), constitutional checks and balances, refusal to cooperate by other elements of the government, etc. Maybe what I'm not understanding is why this is supposed to be more of a problem for me than for anyone else who isn't an anarchist.
Well I don't know if you are not understanding or are, but in any case it seems you're not interested in exploring it.
bmiller,
"OK. I thought it odd that someone who is writing articles about the differences between the left and right doesn't seem to be interested in what one side thinks are the actual differences or the root causes of those differences. But maybe that's par for the course."
I'm not sure what else to tell you. A dispute between McIntosh and myself over human nature objectively cannot be the source of our other disagreements since we don't have a serious dispute over human nature, and anyway, I think the view of human nature McIntosh describes supports my position, if anything.
"Well I don't know if you are not understanding or are, but in any case it seems you're not interested in exploring it."
I genuinely don't know what your objection is. For some reason, because my answer to
"Do you favor subsidiarity then?"
was
"Probably not in all the details, no. But sort of the spirit of it seems reasonable to me."
you think that I have no safeguard against a tyrannical government. I don't see what reasoning is supposed to get you to that.
Dustin,
A dispute between McIntosh and myself over human nature objectively cannot be the source of our other disagreements since we don't have a serious dispute over human nature,
I'm relieved then, that you agree that all innocent human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and deserve the protection of the state for the right to life from the moment of conception to moment of natural death.
Peace be with you.
bmiller,
I doubt that human *persons* come into existence at conception. But of course what I'm talking about is the stuff in McIntosh's section II--the stuff about human nature which *he* thinks explains the difference.
"I don't understand where bmiller is coming from with his anti-abortion message."
After a while, you'll realize that bmiller eventually turns everything into an anti-abortion message.
Dustin,
I doubt that human *persons* come into existence at conception
Oh, my mistake. But you do believe that people are created in the image of God though, right?
But of course what I'm talking about is the stuff in McIntosh's section II
So? I read section I also and that lays the foundation for human nature and why we should protect human life at all. You claimed you agreed with Chad regarding human nature. Now it seems not so much.
Hal, Starhopper,
The topic is the difference between the right and the left. This is a difference, no?
bmiller,
"Oh, my mistake. But you do believe that people are created in the image of God though, right?"
Yes.
"So? I read section I also and that lays the foundation for human nature and why we should protect human life at all. You claimed you agreed with Chad regarding human nature. Now it seems not so much."
Once again, I am talking about the material which Chad claims explains the difference, which is in section II. I doubt differences over when human personhood begins explain our differences over economic policy or whatever.
"The topic is the difference between the right and the left. This is a difference, no?"
I firmly believe that "left" and "right" are meaningless (at best) and incoherent (at worst) terms for describing people's beliefs. They are woefully bereft of nuance and serve no useful function in any serious conversation.
Starhopper,
You mentioned above that you accepted the terms for this discussion. We are still in this discussion.
You are correct, but I instantly regretted my doing so. People are just too complex to be pigeonholed into 2 opposing philosophies. I myself combine many positions which are considered "rightist" as well as many others which are labeled "leftist". So what am I? (Rhetorical question - the answer is "neither".)
I am unapologetically pro-life. Does that make me a right winger?
I am opposed to private ownership of guns, outside of those belonging to a well-regulated militia. Does that make me a leftist?
I am in favor of maximum governmental power at the most local levels and minimum interference at national levels. Does that make me a right winger?
I am definitely a proponent of the so-called "Green New Deal". Does that make me a leftist?
I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman by definition. Does that mean I am a rightist?
I am utterly opposed to any and all discrimination against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Does that make me a radical leftist?
My favorite president during my lifetime was Gerald Ford. Does that mean I should be a Republican?
I regard the greatest president of all time to be FDR. Does that mean I should be a Democrat?
I believe in the need for a strong social "safety net". Does that make me a leftist?
I have no patience for "political correctness". Does that make me a rightist?
As Walt Whitman (one of my favorite poets) wrote "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."
As do we all.
Dustin,
Yes.
Thanks, but belief in God is more rare among the left than the right, so you may be the unicorn.
Once again, I am talking about the material which Chad claims explains the difference, which is in section II. I doubt differences over when human personhood begins explain our differences over economic policy or whatever.
This is how Victor introduced the article:
If you want a good compendium of what people on the right believe, this is good, from Chad McIntosh.
On the liberal side, this is Dustin Crummett's presentation.
Honestly, I don't think you represent the "liberal side" very well. You don't seem to have any idea of the concerns that the "people of the right" have and assume they are thinking the same as you when they are not. You don't even honestly represent what people of the left think. So I think Victor got it half right.
Starhopper,
So what am I? (Rhetorical question - the answer is "neither".)
No. The answer is that you are a confused leftist. But aren't the all?
As Walt Whitman (one of my favorite poets) wrote "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes."
You cut off the rest of that quote: "and I've been diagnosed as a schizophrenic!"
bmiller,
Well, we've reached the point where you're just insulting me without providing any evidence for your claims, or really even making clear what your criticism is supposed to be. So I doubt there's much point in continuing this. Fortunately for me, the editor didn't agree with your assessment, and neither did the people who read the book and have written to me to say they felt I articulated their own views well.
Dustin,
Well, we've reached the point where you're just insulting me without providing any evidence for your claims, or really even making clear what your criticism is supposed to be.
The left is the party of atheism, abortion and anarchy. I've pointed all this out above. If you wrote a book about differences between left and the right and left these divisive issues out then I think you left the readers ill informed. Sorry if you consider the truth an insult. No need to respond, I'm sure none of this is clear to you.
"The left is the party of atheism, abortion and anarchy."
Keeping in mind my dislike of the labels, the "Left" is none of those three things. Daniel Berrigan and Dorothy Day, both considered by many to have been "leftists", were fierce opponents of abortion. The Civil Rights activists of the 60s would have been today lumped in with the left, and all were deeply committed Christians - many even members of the clergy. The Catholic Worker movement today is often called leftist, and its members are most certainly not atheists. Cornel West is one of the most eloquent Christian voices today, and bmiller would certainly call him a leftist.
As for anarchism, I believe I addressed that issue above. There are anarchists all across the political spectrum. It is a facet every "ism", yet belongs to none of them.
Starhopper,
Keeping in mind my dislike of the labels, the "Left" is none of those three things.
You're simply being dishonest.
"You're simply being dishonest."
How so? I just gave you verifiable examples of prominent persons who were not pro-abortion, atheists, or anarchists, and who are also leading figures in the American Left. So how is that being dishonest?
Perhaps it is you who cannot abide or even process information that contradicts your set-in-stone misunderstandings.
How so?
Because it doesn't matter if you can find a handful of exceptions to the fact that "The left is the party of atheism, abortion and anarchy." anymore than if you can find someone on the right who is an atheist, supports abortion, or who uses the work anarchy to describe themselves. You're being dishonest at least with yourself.
There are people that have tails.
There are dogs that have tails.
Therefore there are no distinctions between dogs and people.
What you just posted makes no sense whatsoever. But then you are a Trump cultist, and I recall him saying "Do not believe what you see or what you hear" (or words to that effect).
My last posting was posted prior to your comment about dogs.
Don't worry. I don't expect anything to make sense to you.
My posts are for readers that can think critically.
Hal,
I still don't like it. Labeling a position politically is a shortcut to tribalism. This is how we end up with people refusing to wear face masks, because doing so is "leftist" or somehow disloyal to Trump. People like bmiller will label something "leftist" and simply stop thinking about it, in terms of whether or not it has any merits. It's a means of ending a conversation. Right - bad; left - bad (or the reverse), but never "Let's see whether this idea works."
Starhopper,
You're a leftist that is whining about people recognizing it. Man up and own it.
Kindly explain to me (with specifics) why you think I am a "leftist", because I don't consider myself to be one.
Starhopper,
I really don't care if you gaslight yourself. I'm not interested in participating.
Hal,
Yeah. You're right. Starhopper is a real right-wing wingnut.
bmiller's binary outlook does not allow for him to recognize that a person can be neither left nor right. He thinks everyone has to be either one or the other.
Starhopper,
You can call yourself whatever you want. I call them as I see them.
You need glasses.
Hal,
I'd be willing to be serious if you were. Pretending that my reply to Dustin (which indicated that he was not honestly portraying some traits of the left) is anyone's exhaustive description of the left is not being serious.
You need glasses.
Hey, I'm not the one that blew the call at first base :-)
"Hey, I'm not the one that blew the call at first base"
Ouch!
Hal,
First of all Victor presented the article as if each author were presenting a "compendium" of thought from the right and the left. I agree that Chad did a pretty good job of that. I don't think Dustin did.
As far as snarkiness goes, this was his first reply to me after I acknowledged he wasn't an anarchist:
I admit, it seems odd to me that in an exchange where one party argues that we should default to *opposing* hierarchies, and the other argues that we should "simply presume that hierarchies, ubiquitous as they are, contribute to the common good unless proven to be oppressive," you would think that the *former* party supports "concentrating more and more power from the top down rather than the bottom up."
He basically called me an idiot. So he introduced disrepect into the conversation from the start. When people do that, I'm going to assume we aren't going to be having a polite conversation.
From then on it became hard to tell if he was arguing in bad faith or was truly that ignorant. For instance, the principle of subsidiarity is a key for thinking the right and when I asked him about it, it's as if he had never heard the term before and had to quickly look it up before giving a (intentionally?) vague answer. He ignored the evidence I provided regarding post-war anarchism. He actually asked if a mayor was part of a central government?
Regarding the quote you supplied, I still contend that he did a poor job of presenting a compendium of leftist thought. To keep it brief, he didn't explain how social egalitarianism leads to support for abortion, support for restrictions on religion or leftist anarchy.
bmiller,
A few points:
--The quote you've got there came after you started saying things like "It seems if one is going to write a rebuttal, one should address the major thesis of the piece that one is rebutting"--if I "basically called you an idiot," you basically called me incompetent--and characterized my view in a way that I assumed you knew I would reject, since I had explicitly rejected it in the piece.
--Obviously I know what subsidiarity is--not only did I spend seven years at Notre Dame, I did read Chad's essay and write a response to it. Perhaps we can distinguish here between the general principle that power ought to be decentralized and devolved insofar as possible (which I basically am happy with) and the specific, developed understanding of subsidiarity found in Catholic social teaching (which I would not agree with in all its details).
--Honestly, I just let the anarchy thing go because I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to have to do with anything.
--I asked if the mayor was part of the central government, in the sense you were using "central government," because I was trying to figure out how you got from me saying I thought subsidiarity was basically reasonable but didn't sign onto all the details to the conclusion that by "the government" I meant "the central government." As far as I can tell, I was trying too hard and it was just a non-sequitur.
--It's true, I didn't dedicate the essay to your particular bugbears. Well, you can't make everybody happy.
This will be my last comment. In fact, I won't read anything that's posted from here on, so knock yourself out. I will close by asking you to reflect on the fact that you have accused literally everyone you have interacted with on this thread (except Chad, I guess) of dishonesty, or of not being "serious," etc. At a certain point you might consider whether it's really everybody else that has the problem.
Hal,
OK I understand you won't respond but you left me with some things that I need to respond to.
That doesn't excuse you from not responding to what Dustin actually wrote rather than what you wanted him to write.
I felt free to criticize his work in the way I chose. You're free to disagree. Neither of us need excuses.
Reading that I wouldn't have thought Dustin was arguing for the 'leftist' position you referred to above.
The title of the piece was: Introduction to the Left and Right, and I even indicated that I disagreed with Victor's characterization of Dustin's side.
I'm a liberal and I certainly don't consider myself an anarchist.
I didn't accuse anyone on the thread of being an anarchist even though it is leftist thing. I would have thought the proper response from non-anarchist leftits would have been to condemn it rather than use a Tu Quoque fallacy.
Regarding Dustin's parting shot:
I criticized his work and he got mad and insulting from the start as he just admitted. Hal, here is your quote: Your exchange with Dustin started off fine, so apparently even you thought it was a civil discussion up till then. You and Starhopper started insulting me when the I brought up the topic of abortion, so at that point maybe all of you *might consider whether it's really me that has the problem*. I don't care if you want to insult me, but I reserve the right to give back in kind.
"Starhopper started insulting me when the I brought up the topic of abortion"
I did no such thing. I merely stated an observable fact, that with you everything eventually comes down to abortion. (At least you admit that "I brought up the topic of abortion.") Now, if you do consider that to be an insult, I would find that most interesting. I would have thought you'd take it as a compliment.
Oh good. Then none of us were insulting anyone.
So what's the fuss?
The fuss is that you insist on lumping everyone into one of two very artificial buckets. People are more complex than that. As I showed you with a (very partial) list of the various stands I take on issues, no label fits me personally at all. And I refuse to be labeled in such a fashion.
There may be said to be two classes of people in the world; those who constantly divide the people of the world into two classes, and those who do not. Both classes are extremely unpleasant to meet socially, leaving practically no one in the world whom one cares very much to know.
The reason why I classify you as a leftist, is because I've witnessed the joy you take in arguing with people who have classical liberal views (now classified as far right) while expressing those views. Also, while you claim to hold some views from the right side of the spectrum such as pro-life, your actual actions and affiliations make it glaringly obvious that you don't actually believe in the pro-life position. You've even admitted as much. It's imposed upon you as a requirement of being a member of your Church but you don't really believe it. Why don't you leave?
You've at various times accused me a racist anti-semite conspiracy theorist (yes, yes, I know I think like them) for disagreeing with you and/or pointing out that all media is biased. But you only hear that I think your media is biased. Frankly that's cultic and I'd say the same to anyone who says you can only trust Fox News.
You label me as a Trumpet or whatever just because I'll vote for Trump. So pot, meet kettle.
Meanwhile, while all the non-anarchist leftists happily ignore the anarchy happening all around them, some cities are taking measures to reduce taxpayer expenses to rebuild.
Post a Comment