Where are the Liberals?
The Atlantic is featuring three theories on why liberals haven’t been more effective under the Obama Administration, particularly given Democrats’ control of all three branches.
First up is Kevin Baker of Harper’s, who argues that liberals simply have no backbone, practicing what can only be called “learned helplessness.” Baker believes that while liberalism shows some life among our citizenry, the government / leadership class has all but forgotten its relevance. The “center-right” conventional wisdom has solidified and the mere utterance of “the L word” spells political disaster.
Second is the Center for American Progress’s Matt Yglesias, who claims that liberals fail to negotiate effectively. You can’t get the other side to budge unless they think you’ll walk away (I learned this mattress shopping), and since liberals obviously really want health reform, etc, opponents have no incentive to give any ground. If they want a deal, they should find issues that centrists care deeply about and which liberals are merely willing to along.
And third, blogger Chris Bowers suggests that liberals are too much of an easy win for Obama. He knows they’ll support him as the least-bad option no matter what, so they have no bargaining chips.
My sense is that Bowers and Baker are mostly right. And their points are connected: because liberals know they’re down and out in contemporary American politics, they’ll take whatever the Democrats give them. Why hold out for distant ideals when it could jeopardize the little gains they’ve made through a moderate Democratic majority?
The (im)possibility of secular judgment
Stanley Fish (whose articles consistently elicit a response from me) has an interesting piece up on two troublesome distinctions in liberal thought: the distinction between religious and secular reasons and the distinction between public and private reasons. As is often the case, the article is really a supportive book review in disguise - this time of law professor Steven Smith’s “The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse.”
“Classical Liberals,” according to Fish, have long argued that when it comes to political debate, religious or value-laden arguments are inadmissible, since they operate on assumptions that are not universally shared or provable. Instead, they argue, we should rely squarely on “secular reason” to do the job of here-and-now policy-making.
But according to Smith / Fish, “secular reason” can’t actually solve ANY of our political problems. At least not without “smuggling in” some of that which it despises - metaphysical assumptions, values, and comprehensive doctrines. Science and reason can’t tell us what to do with data; we must choose how to use the tools of reason, what to aim them at, how to interpret information, and which facts really matter. Reason alone can’t do all of that picking, choosing, and ranking - we need some kind of substantive value system to do that.
Kristol on “Don’t Ask”
Balancing liberalism and practical concerns
In a previous post Sam pondered whether the moral elements of the debate over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were as decided as many liberal commentators seemed to assume. In this week’s Weekly Standard Bill Kristol deals with both the practicalities and normative questions surrounding DADT, arguing that now is not the right time to address the policy.
Kristol begins the piece by citing public opinion polls that show that Americans profess high levels of faith in the military, but we can only draw dubious conclusions from these findings given that a majority of Americans also favor repealing DADT. The crux of Kristol’s argument, though, rests on the assertion that Obama is promoting broad principles while overlooking real world concerns: Read more
Government incentives revisited
The perfectionism-neutrality debate
Last week I wrote about government’s use of taxes, tax credits, fees and regulations, and legal punishment to incentivize and disincentivize personal behavior, such as the homebuyers tax credit, taxes on alcohol, parking meter fees and speeding tickets. As I noted, one of the key public philosophical questions that arises is “to what ends may government incentivize/disincentivize behavior?”. This question gets at the core of a philosophical debate over whether the state should promote certain conceptions of the good life (“goods”). One side of the debate - perfectionism - claims that the state can and should promote goods. Neutrality, on the other hand, argues that the state can and must refrain from promoting the good and instead promote only “the right.”
NYU Law Professor and sometimes public philosopher, Ronald Dworkin, posits that this debate ultimately sets liberalism, which Dworkin believes is grounded in neutrality, apart from other political theories. Other liberal theorists, such as Rice University philosopher George Sher, believe perfectionism can be compatible with liberalism. In this post I want to elaborate on this debate, though within the space limitations of a blog I will just get to skim the surface. Read more
Chambers and Trilling
At TNR.com, Damon Linklater writes an interesting review of Michael Kimmage’s book on Whitaker Chambers and Lionel Trilling, two thinkers whose mid-20th Century rejection of their early communism influenced the current American ideological marketplace. Linklater writes:
Until the mid-1950s, American conservatism was less a coherent ideology than an irritably reactionary mood: reflexively hostile to the federal government, staunchly isolationist, explicitly anti-modern, proudly agrarian, and incapable of distinguishing between communism and New Deal liberalism, which were treated as twin forms of modern tyranny. Thanks in no small part to Chambers—whose religiously inspired turn to anti-communism became a significant influence upon conservative ideology owing to his classic memoir Witness, his friendship with William F. Buckley, Jr., and his essays for National Review—mainstream conservatism eventually came to support the use of American power in the world and to accept the legitimacy of a strong (if strictly limited) role for the federal government in American life.
National identity
Bernard-Henri Lévy has an interesting post bemoaning the debate over “national identity” in France.
…the word “identity” applies to subjects, not to communities; it can be used in the plural, never in the singular. To forget that, to reduce a nation either to this collection of things in common or to this ossified catalogue of traits that are the two possible names of its supposed identity is to impoverish it, to kill it, all the while pretending to give it faith in its future.
Here Lévy uses the best liberal defense against both nationalism and relativism / multiculturalism, ironically. The easy riposte to the overeager nationalist is to say “We are a nation of many communities, ideologies, and faiths.” But the multiculturalist merely replaces one homogeneous culture with many. No one group can claim a monopoly on “identity” - the buck doesn’t stop anywhere.
So shouldn’t we just leave identity (whether religious, political, or cultural) up to individuals? I can hear Michael Sandel and the communitarians squirming already! Of course it’s not that simple; we aren’t born with fully-fledged self-concepts and we don’t just reason our way to them in a vacuum. We can, however, take care not to rigidify identity within groups, especially at the behest of their leaders. If there’s any common value worth having, it’s internal debate!
-Colin
Free market journalism
Do we need a “public option”?
Much has been made lately about the media’s incessant coverage of relatively unimportant matters (”Balloon Boy,” Sarah Palin’s new book, Tiger Woods’s affairs, Michael Jackson’s death) as compared to pressing policy debates (Afghanistan, global warming, health care reform, unemployment).
This phenomenon isn’t exactly new. The zealousness of the mainstream media for hype, controversy, and celebrity has been a well-worn punching bag for people like Jon Stewart for years. And from a broader vantage point, ridicule for the “mass diversions,” whether they consist in sports, gossip magazines, or low-brow comedy, is probably a cultural mainstay.
But some say that we are facing a crisis in journalism. Well, that’s what I say anyway. As large media companies and papers such as the New York Times and Washington Post fire thousands of employees, close bureaus, and migrate to the internet, it is becoming harder and harder to do the job. Meanwhile, the relative success of Fox News, which regularly outperforms almost all other cable news networks combined, is driving its competitors to emulate the Fox model - hot blondes, flashy headlines, and an emphasis on controversy over depth or accuracy.
This might all be traced back to basic market forces. Detailed, responsible journalism just doesn’t sell as well as polarized, simplistic coverage. Sure, the New York Times might do better work than The Drudge Report (I should hope so), but people want Drudge. Hemingway might be better reading than Danielle Steele, too, but I haven’t seen anyone carrying The Old Man and the Sea on the subway.
More on Minarets
The Swiss measure is a clear infringement on religious freedom
The ban on the construction of minarets in Switzerland has sparked a great deal of controversy and debate. As Sam correctly points out, whether this decision is justified hinges on what exactly freedom of religion entails. The political parties who introduced the measure argue that the decision does not infringe on religious freedom, contending that the minaret is not merely a religious symbol but “a political symbol against integration.” They explain that many Muslims associate the minaret with a rejection of the Swiss political and legal system in favor of Sharia law. Read more
Obama and Afghanistan
Déjà vu all over again?
On Tuesday night, President Obama addressed the nation from West Point and outlined his plan to commit more troops and resources to Afghanistan. After watching and reading the speech, as well as taking in reaction from (mostly liberal) commentators, it seems that the crucial question is this: Has Obama embraced the Bush Doctrine?
The Bush Doctrine, made famous posthumously as a result of Sarah Palin’s ignorance of it, was a widely criticized approach to foreign relations that allowed for pre-emptive aggression against states which are deemed potentially dangerous. Under these guidelines, we can - and should - invest American resources and lives in occupying territories that harbor suspected terrorists, even if they haven’t attacked us yet.
Liberals have responded to the Bush Doctrine in two ways. Some have rejected fear-based interventionism, replacing it with humanitarian interventionism. Let’s get to our enemies before they get to us, but let’s do it by promoting political reform, diplomacy, education, and human rights. Others have argued that our efforts are better spent at home; America can help others only if it helps itself, and most of our so-called “help” goes unappreciated anyway. Here’s Glenn Greenwald:
“The greatest cause of Terrorism is our endless wars, invasions, bombings, occupations and other means of interfering in the Muslim world, and our escalation will only fuel the anti-American hatred and resentment that — as even our own Government has recognized — is the primary fuel of the threat we’re supposedly trying to arrest.”
And Tom Friedman:
“Given our need for nation-building at home right now, I am ready to live with a little less security and a little-less-perfect Afghanistan.”
You were fired the day you were conceived
Genetic testing and employment
The ethical boundaries of the 21st century have increasingly focused on the rapid pace of scientific and technological advancement. The more we seem to know about how our world works, the fuzzier that world grows ethically.
In a week, one of those boundaries will be tested when the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act comes into effect. The Act prevents employers from either engaging in genetic testing or taking genetic information into account when deciding whether to hire, fire or promite someone. It will also bar health insurance companies from considering genetic information in decisions to provide coverage or set premiums.
This approach broadly reflects the sensibilities of modern liberalism, with one twist. Read more
-
Follow us on Twitter
