Bob, no dammit! You're supposed to keep arguing! We're supposed to fight to the bloody death! No capitulation, no reasonable terms of understanding! Fight, damn you! ;-)
I agree, Christians are not Jews. But let’s go here. Fords are not Hondas. Both, however, offer a means of transport. Would you ever say? “Honda, by any definition, does not offers a means of transport.” I doubt it.
That's a terrible analogy. Replace "means of transport" with religion and we'd agree. Mormonism and Christianity are both "means of transport" but just like Fords and Hondas, they're not the same brand...
I imagine an Orthodox Jew might say, “Reform Judaism, by any definition, is not Judaism.”
Actually, while the Orthodox might consider the practices of Reform Judaism as having strayed from the purer form they practice, they still consider Reform Jews to be Jews. Big difference there, too. They have different beliefs in who constitutes a convert to Judaism, however...
First off, Bob. I'm not being "objective" at all, nor am I positing on the "truthiness" of any religion vs another. I'm simply pointing out that in order for one religion to be distinguished from another religion we must have some basic criteria. This is why Christians aren't Jews. Christians have adopted other beliefs that distinguish them from Jews. Am I "ignorant" for stating this? Muslims aren't Jews either, despite a shared Abrahamic heritage. Is stating this ignorant?
And no, I have no anti-Catholicism. I actually come from a Catholic family. I've actually found that my own Christian experience was always the most profound in the Catholic fold. That doesn't mean I much care for the notion of papal infallibility. Plenty of Catholics don't either (back to Sullivan there).
In any case, I'll re-state this has nothing to do with objective truth. For all I know the Mormons have the truth of it. That still doesn't make them Christian.
Rob--I think I tried to explain your question in this post, and your example of the logical fallacy is spot-on.
Sidereal--see Rob's logical construct to see how your example falls short. Also, buddhism grew out of a hindu tradition not a jainist tradition, which is the answer to that question.
Cascadian, yes there are many within the Christian faith that believe other Christians are not "true" Christians. I'm arguing from a purely doctrinal and very basic set of beliefs. Mormons simply add on so much to Christianity that it's totally transformed. Catholics have organizational differences and a few minor liturgical differences from protestants, but they certainly don't differ in any fundamental way as Mormons surely do...
Okay, here's my response to the notion that Mormons are Christians (which is utterly false, by the way).
William, I agree that Christianist is too broad a term and too much a bludgeon when the situation really demands more specificity. That's really what I was driving at here, but perhaps I didn't go far enough or clarify. I think there are certain groups of people that might very well be labeled as such, and generally they fall into the very politically active bracket, but really it is less effective than more specific terms...thanks.
Bob, Mike, sidereal-- I'm not too strict on the definition of Christian, but Mormons simply aren't. There's no two ways about it, but read my follow-up for further elucidation on the matter.
You may think it's "ignorant" Bob, but I can assure you nothing is further from the truth.
Man, I wish someone had come up with a different term than "liberaltarianism." I keep missing that little "l" when I read it...the two words look so much alike! Maybe that's the problem with the idea!
No but seriously:
By treating any and all social safety nets as irreversible steps on the Road to Serfdom, we allow liberals and progressives to shape those policies in ways that are inefficient, ineffective, and overbroad - even though Adam Smith, Hayek himself, and Friedman each advocated for a form of social safety net, demonstrating that social safety nets can be consistent with libertarianism.
Yes! This is a huge problem with not only libertarianism, but with the resistance from within the conservative movement to any and all governance since it obviously would entail the dreaded State!
Right, Freddie, which is why at this point in time I oppose vouchers. I think they would only do more harm. However, I think we do need to come up with alternative methods to improve education, including trade schools, charter and magnet schools, etc. Eventually, should we increase the living standards of more people, then maybe we can look into systems such as Sweden's, but that time is not now, and typically the proponents of vouchers are being driven by pure ideology (cut all things public from the world, and privatize the bloody universe!) and not by a strong knowledge of how education works.
That said, the current state of affairs in my local school system is making me seriously consider sending my daughter to Catholic school....
I’m sympathetic to a lot of what you have to say, E.D., but comparing Sweden’s educational system to the United States’ is a bit too apples to oranges for my taste.
Indeed, Will. That's exactly the problem. Still, it's important to find examples of functioning systems around the world and then cull what we can from them to use to self-improve. This goes for healthcare as well.
Joseph and Calvin, I completely agree. This is my concern with how we fund schools--both in terms of the faulty property tax model, and with the local dependence on State and Federal help. It's all well and good when a pro-education governor or President is in office, but then when that changes BAM! everything drops off. So we either need to start pushing for Constitutional changes that protect education funding, or we need to find a way to become less dependent on the state and federal government for funding. I don't know how viable that option is, but right now in AZ we're feeling such enormous budget pinches it's unreal. it's truly devastating.
Yeah, I saw you on that thread when I read this piece Jack. Small world. You make a very good point, by the way. There is a striking difference between Kaus and Larison's positions, and I couldn't put my finger on it, but I think you've summed it up quite well. Essentially, it's not style, it's platform. Regardless of the contempt Kaus may use, he is coming from a position decidedly to the right of basically everyone on the Left, and doesn't even bother to hide the fact....
Well, exactly Patrick. The point I'm making is that regardless of any doubt about say, the cause of climate change, or the methods we should take, a healthy dose of concern would do us all good. It certainly can't hurt to cut back on emissions can it, except possibly financially, and isn't that worth the cost in the long run? Isn't the outcome should the skeptics be wrong a far worse one than the other way around?
I think Gore uses dishonest tactics as well, actually, which also happen to help him sell DVD's. Like purchasing carbon credits from a firm he is part owner of...or like the very notion of carbon credits, the new green version of indulgences and equally absurd...
Hey, I'll agree post-haste that Kaus is a real jackass which is precisely why I don't read him that often. That said, I'll just say again that I spend the vast majority of my time bashing conservatives even though I consider myself to be one. I don't know if that means the conservative movement should ridicule me, but I guess I'm not sure it matters. I'm a whole lot nicer than Kaus, so maybe it's just a matter of style as I said before...
Okay, so it's more a matter of style than substance here? That makes sense, I suppose. But even if that's the case, how does saying "then Mickey Kaus isn't a liberal" do anything? Wouldn't it be more effective to critique his style if that's the essential problem?
Kaus is contemptuous– contemptuous, utterly and completely, and I choose that word with care– of liberalism. Not of what has become of liberalism, not of where liberalism is headed, but of liberalism himself.
I didn't realize liberalism was a "he."
But in all seriousness, I mean look at all the conservatives who are quite literally contemptuous of conservatism, or at least the conservative movement. And I wonder if there is some liberal movement that Kaus may be contemptuous of, rather than of liberalism in general. Just speculating here.
Yes, but Malkin does so from the position that it’s better to be conservative than to be liberal.
Right and you're operating from the stance that it's better to be liberal than to be conservative. I fail to see how, other than being on opposite sides of the spectrum, it's any different...? I don't mean to compare you to Malkin--simply the tactic of decrying someone from the center as a "traitor" or as unfit to be "one of us."
But put that compendium together. I'm sure that essentially you're correct that such centrists can cause the base of either Party a good deal of trouble. Kaus may indeed have done some damage to the liberal cause, just as Arlen Specter has probably hurt some rightish causes, too.
Hmmm...well, like I said over at Larison's blog, I guess I just don't read Kaus enough. Then again, isn't it possible that Kaus, in his mind at least, is working to better his ideology? That he believes a centrist variety of liberalism is actually best?
I only go back to this because it so irks me when say, Michelle Malkin or someone in her far-right coalition lambastes a centrist conservative in this very same way.
But Freddie, it seems to me that you're arguing that unless a liberal is "liberal enough" then they're not really liberal at all. So neoliberals worked across the aisle with Bush and co. so what? So hopefully some centrist Republicans will work with Obama, too. Does that mean they're working to defeat the conservative cause? Whether or not you like the guy, I just fail to see where the distinction between liberal or not really matters.
So critique neoliberalism, or Clintonian centrism...bickering over self-imposed labels seems to be a distraction from larger issues.
Really interesting post, Chris. I, too, believe in placing limits on the free market--I may even be a little more extreme in my call for this than you are--and namely because I view mass-marketization as easily as destructive to humanity as Big Government. Conservatives are all too often calling for the privatization of this or that public function--be it our schools, our roads, etc.--and what I think they fail to realize, is people don't function properly in a world where everything is for sale. There is a dehumanizing effect. They don't function well in a totalitarian state either, or in a socialist state where the natural flow of goods, the natural potential of the individual is quashed. But I believe in striking a balance, and perhaps you've struck on something I've been missing in my thoughts on this balance: the Commons.
However, I would like you to expand not merely on this concept, but on how you see it implemented.
The coalition that President Obama built was an impressive one, but I believe a fragile one as well. Surely some disaffected groups will peel off over the next four years, but if the GOP is not there to accept them, who will?
The British.
But in all seriousness, you raise a very valid point, and I have no answer for you. I really don't.
Okay, interesting data. Looks like the countries with higher levels of education, literacy, etc. answered the most positively (or the least anti-Semitically). The further East you go, the further the misconceptions about Jews rises.
I think Obama has proved in many ways that he's a savvy politician and smart enough to do the job, however he may differ ideologically from many on both the Left and Right. It's simply too early to tell how well he'll govern. And watching GW's first press conference was much more painful. Obama may be in a bit over his head, true, but he's a quick learner. So far, those who have underestimated him have been wrong...
I'll take that bet. Hopefully inflation isn't such that said doughnut ruins me five years from now. But I'll add, the death of the music industry as we know it may be a very real thing, however I doubt that means the same thing as the death of professionally recorded music. There will still be a demand and a supply for that...
Okay, I'll have to write a longer post on this, but here's a couple quick thoughts:
1) Mark, I agree that any trade agreements need to be made mutually through trade-treaties as it were to protect both players from cheating. This often is not the case, and is often hampered by the players cheating nonetheless--which is why I said in an earlier post that I don't believe in free trade because it doesn't truly exist. Everybody plays some protection card or another.
2) Economists may "all" agree on free trade, but they agree in economics theory terms, not real-world terms. In other words, it's all well and good to say that free trade and globalism lead to the allocation of labor to the cheapest (most efficient) regions, leading to the distribution of cheaper goods, and so forth, right? Cheap labor, better profits, cheaper goods, and thus more goods, higher prosperity, etc.
Now, the moral qualms I have with this are manifold. First of all, I think there is a problem with a society being driven by consumerism, and with a capitalist economy driven by constant growth rather than relative stability. Quarterly profit reports, the constant demand for fast-paced growth--these things are simply not sustainable. In theory they may be. In theory constantly finding cheaper labor and resources to provide cheaper goods sounds great. But in the real world we have limited resources. We have certain populations (our own, for instance) whose labor we should place higher value on than those of other nations.
I understand your concern with developing nations, Mark, but if those nations protected their farms from our cheap, subsidized crops then they wouldn't have to worry about us undermining their economy. Hell, even if our crops weren't subsidized we might be able to dump them on an African nation and still undermine their agriculture if they didn't erect barriers against it. In other words, take away "free" trade and those countries have a chance of self-sufficiency. Introduce it, and you see these massive urban shanty towns erected as the farmers go to the cities to find work, and don't find it...
I think healthy trade combined with a strong internal economy is much more sustainable. It might mean we can't buy things quite as cheap, but it does mean we could sustain a larger middle class. And as Deneen wrote recently, perhaps we'd start thinking of ourselves as workers or citizens instead of consumers.
So much to think about on this. I'm not against trade. I think if one country makes great cars, they should be able to sell those to other countries. And I think there are deals to be made, like we have with the Japanese who now build many of their cars on American soil. But this theoretical utopian system of free trade is in practice a much more chaotic creature.
More later. I just think it's important to distinguish between economic theory and real world practice. And when we just talk economics, we sometimes leave out morality altogether....
Hey, I'm all for accountability. It's the loss of perspective (both in elevating Obama unrealistically before, and now in casting his administration in this ridiculous light of "failure") that irks me about the media.
In any case, you're completely right, and no I'm not at all surprised...
Mark, far be it from me to judge the political parties of Canada or their motives, actions, histories. I'm woefully ignorant of these things. I only mean to show how certain basic precepts in both conservative and progressive ideology can indeed work in tandem to achieve a stable society. Of course, as others have pointed out, it's far from rosy up North, but that's to be expected in a globalized economy.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On ““by no definition of the word…””
Bob, no dammit! You're supposed to keep arguing! We're supposed to fight to the bloody death! No capitulation, no reasonable terms of understanding! Fight, damn you! ;-)
"
Bob wrote:
That's a terrible analogy. Replace "means of transport" with religion and we'd agree. Mormonism and Christianity are both "means of transport" but just like Fords and Hondas, they're not the same brand...
Actually, while the Orthodox might consider the practices of Reform Judaism as having strayed from the purer form they practice, they still consider Reform Jews to be Jews. Big difference there, too. They have different beliefs in who constitutes a convert to Judaism, however...
"
I'm going to address these in reverse order.
First off, Bob. I'm not being "objective" at all, nor am I positing on the "truthiness" of any religion vs another. I'm simply pointing out that in order for one religion to be distinguished from another religion we must have some basic criteria. This is why Christians aren't Jews. Christians have adopted other beliefs that distinguish them from Jews. Am I "ignorant" for stating this? Muslims aren't Jews either, despite a shared Abrahamic heritage. Is stating this ignorant?
And no, I have no anti-Catholicism. I actually come from a Catholic family. I've actually found that my own Christian experience was always the most profound in the Catholic fold. That doesn't mean I much care for the notion of papal infallibility. Plenty of Catholics don't either (back to Sullivan there).
In any case, I'll re-state this has nothing to do with objective truth. For all I know the Mormons have the truth of it. That still doesn't make them Christian.
Rob--I think I tried to explain your question in this post, and your example of the logical fallacy is spot-on.
Sidereal--see Rob's logical construct to see how your example falls short. Also, buddhism grew out of a hindu tradition not a jainist tradition, which is the answer to that question.
Cascadian, yes there are many within the Christian faith that believe other Christians are not "true" Christians. I'm arguing from a purely doctrinal and very basic set of beliefs. Mormons simply add on so much to Christianity that it's totally transformed. Catholics have organizational differences and a few minor liturgical differences from protestants, but they certainly don't differ in any fundamental way as Mormons surely do...
On “Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate”
Okay, here's my response to the notion that Mormons are Christians (which is utterly false, by the way).
William, I agree that Christianist is too broad a term and too much a bludgeon when the situation really demands more specificity. That's really what I was driving at here, but perhaps I didn't go far enough or clarify. I think there are certain groups of people that might very well be labeled as such, and generally they fall into the very politically active bracket, but really it is less effective than more specific terms...thanks.
Bob, Mike, sidereal-- I'm not too strict on the definition of Christian, but Mormons simply aren't. There's no two ways about it, but read my follow-up for further elucidation on the matter.
You may think it's "ignorant" Bob, but I can assure you nothing is further from the truth.
On “The Promise of Liberaltarianism”
Man, I wish someone had come up with a different term than "liberaltarianism." I keep missing that little "l" when I read it...the two words look so much alike! Maybe that's the problem with the idea!
No but seriously:
Yes! This is a huge problem with not only libertarianism, but with the resistance from within the conservative movement to any and all governance since it obviously would entail the dreaded State!
But balance is tricky, isn't it?
On “Phony in-house Conservative Battles”
matoko_chan:
i wasn’t going to comment here anymore
Well you are more than welcome to any time....
On “the invisible heart”
Right, Freddie, which is why at this point in time I oppose vouchers. I think they would only do more harm. However, I think we do need to come up with alternative methods to improve education, including trade schools, charter and magnet schools, etc. Eventually, should we increase the living standards of more people, then maybe we can look into systems such as Sweden's, but that time is not now, and typically the proponents of vouchers are being driven by pure ideology (cut all things public from the world, and privatize the bloody universe!) and not by a strong knowledge of how education works.
That said, the current state of affairs in my local school system is making me seriously consider sending my daughter to Catholic school....
"
Indeed, Will. That's exactly the problem. Still, it's important to find examples of functioning systems around the world and then cull what we can from them to use to self-improve. This goes for healthcare as well.
Joseph and Calvin, I completely agree. This is my concern with how we fund schools--both in terms of the faulty property tax model, and with the local dependence on State and Federal help. It's all well and good when a pro-education governor or President is in office, but then when that changes BAM! everything drops off. So we either need to start pushing for Constitutional changes that protect education funding, or we need to find a way to become less dependent on the state and federal government for funding. I don't know how viable that option is, but right now in AZ we're feeling such enormous budget pinches it's unreal. it's truly devastating.
On “the continuing fraud of Mickey Kaus”
Yeah, I saw you on that thread when I read this piece Jack. Small world. You make a very good point, by the way. There is a striking difference between Kaus and Larison's positions, and I couldn't put my finger on it, but I think you've summed it up quite well. Essentially, it's not style, it's platform. Regardless of the contempt Kaus may use, he is coming from a position decidedly to the right of basically everyone on the Left, and doesn't even bother to hide the fact....
On “climate partisanship”
Well, exactly Patrick. The point I'm making is that regardless of any doubt about say, the cause of climate change, or the methods we should take, a healthy dose of concern would do us all good. It certainly can't hurt to cut back on emissions can it, except possibly financially, and isn't that worth the cost in the long run? Isn't the outcome should the skeptics be wrong a far worse one than the other way around?
"
I think Gore uses dishonest tactics as well, actually, which also happen to help him sell DVD's. Like purchasing carbon credits from a firm he is part owner of...or like the very notion of carbon credits, the new green version of indulgences and equally absurd...
On “more on Kaus”
Hey, I'll agree post-haste that Kaus is a real jackass which is precisely why I don't read him that often. That said, I'll just say again that I spend the vast majority of my time bashing conservatives even though I consider myself to be one. I don't know if that means the conservative movement should ridicule me, but I guess I'm not sure it matters. I'm a whole lot nicer than Kaus, so maybe it's just a matter of style as I said before...
On “the continuing fraud of Mickey Kaus”
Okay, so it's more a matter of style than substance here? That makes sense, I suppose. But even if that's the case, how does saying "then Mickey Kaus isn't a liberal" do anything? Wouldn't it be more effective to critique his style if that's the essential problem?
"
Kaus is contemptuous– contemptuous, utterly and completely, and I choose that word with care– of liberalism. Not of what has become of liberalism, not of where liberalism is headed, but of liberalism himself.
I didn't realize liberalism was a "he."
But in all seriousness, I mean look at all the conservatives who are quite literally contemptuous of conservatism, or at least the conservative movement. And I wonder if there is some liberal movement that Kaus may be contemptuous of, rather than of liberalism in general. Just speculating here.
"
Yes, but Malkin does so from the position that it’s better to be conservative than to be liberal.
Right and you're operating from the stance that it's better to be liberal than to be conservative. I fail to see how, other than being on opposite sides of the spectrum, it's any different...? I don't mean to compare you to Malkin--simply the tactic of decrying someone from the center as a "traitor" or as unfit to be "one of us."
But put that compendium together. I'm sure that essentially you're correct that such centrists can cause the base of either Party a good deal of trouble. Kaus may indeed have done some damage to the liberal cause, just as Arlen Specter has probably hurt some rightish causes, too.
"
Hmmm...well, like I said over at Larison's blog, I guess I just don't read Kaus enough. Then again, isn't it possible that Kaus, in his mind at least, is working to better his ideology? That he believes a centrist variety of liberalism is actually best?
I only go back to this because it so irks me when say, Michelle Malkin or someone in her far-right coalition lambastes a centrist conservative in this very same way.
"
But Freddie, it seems to me that you're arguing that unless a liberal is "liberal enough" then they're not really liberal at all. So neoliberals worked across the aisle with Bush and co. so what? So hopefully some centrist Republicans will work with Obama, too. Does that mean they're working to defeat the conservative cause? Whether or not you like the guy, I just fail to see where the distinction between liberal or not really matters.
So critique neoliberalism, or Clintonian centrism...bickering over self-imposed labels seems to be a distraction from larger issues.
On “Commonhood Liberaltarianism”
Really interesting post, Chris. I, too, believe in placing limits on the free market--I may even be a little more extreme in my call for this than you are--and namely because I view mass-marketization as easily as destructive to humanity as Big Government. Conservatives are all too often calling for the privatization of this or that public function--be it our schools, our roads, etc.--and what I think they fail to realize, is people don't function properly in a world where everything is for sale. There is a dehumanizing effect. They don't function well in a totalitarian state either, or in a socialist state where the natural flow of goods, the natural potential of the individual is quashed. But I believe in striking a balance, and perhaps you've struck on something I've been missing in my thoughts on this balance: the Commons.
However, I would like you to expand not merely on this concept, but on how you see it implemented.
Thanks!
On “Young Turks and Defeatists”
Mike:
The British.
But in all seriousness, you raise a very valid point, and I have no answer for you. I really don't.
On “Israel, Alone”
Okay, interesting data. Looks like the countries with higher levels of education, literacy, etc. answered the most positively (or the least anti-Semitically). The further East you go, the further the misconceptions about Jews rises.
But this really doesn't speak to my larger point.
On “The Failed Obama Administration”
I think Obama has proved in many ways that he's a savvy politician and smart enough to do the job, however he may differ ideologically from many on both the Left and Right. It's simply too early to tell how well he'll govern. And watching GW's first press conference was much more painful. Obama may be in a bit over his head, true, but he's a quick learner. So far, those who have underestimated him have been wrong...
On “The Death of Art?”
I'll take that bet. Hopefully inflation isn't such that said doughnut ruins me five years from now. But I'll add, the death of the music industry as we know it may be a very real thing, however I doubt that means the same thing as the death of professionally recorded music. There will still be a demand and a supply for that...
On “Can The (Economic) Ladder Be Restored?”
Okay, I'll have to write a longer post on this, but here's a couple quick thoughts:
1) Mark, I agree that any trade agreements need to be made mutually through trade-treaties as it were to protect both players from cheating. This often is not the case, and is often hampered by the players cheating nonetheless--which is why I said in an earlier post that I don't believe in free trade because it doesn't truly exist. Everybody plays some protection card or another.
2) Economists may "all" agree on free trade, but they agree in economics theory terms, not real-world terms. In other words, it's all well and good to say that free trade and globalism lead to the allocation of labor to the cheapest (most efficient) regions, leading to the distribution of cheaper goods, and so forth, right? Cheap labor, better profits, cheaper goods, and thus more goods, higher prosperity, etc.
Now, the moral qualms I have with this are manifold. First of all, I think there is a problem with a society being driven by consumerism, and with a capitalist economy driven by constant growth rather than relative stability. Quarterly profit reports, the constant demand for fast-paced growth--these things are simply not sustainable. In theory they may be. In theory constantly finding cheaper labor and resources to provide cheaper goods sounds great. But in the real world we have limited resources. We have certain populations (our own, for instance) whose labor we should place higher value on than those of other nations.
I understand your concern with developing nations, Mark, but if those nations protected their farms from our cheap, subsidized crops then they wouldn't have to worry about us undermining their economy. Hell, even if our crops weren't subsidized we might be able to dump them on an African nation and still undermine their agriculture if they didn't erect barriers against it. In other words, take away "free" trade and those countries have a chance of self-sufficiency. Introduce it, and you see these massive urban shanty towns erected as the farmers go to the cities to find work, and don't find it...
I think healthy trade combined with a strong internal economy is much more sustainable. It might mean we can't buy things quite as cheap, but it does mean we could sustain a larger middle class. And as Deneen wrote recently, perhaps we'd start thinking of ourselves as workers or citizens instead of consumers.
So much to think about on this. I'm not against trade. I think if one country makes great cars, they should be able to sell those to other countries. And I think there are deals to be made, like we have with the Japanese who now build many of their cars on American soil. But this theoretical utopian system of free trade is in practice a much more chaotic creature.
More later. I just think it's important to distinguish between economic theory and real world practice. And when we just talk economics, we sometimes leave out morality altogether....
On “The Failed Obama Administration”
Hey, I'm all for accountability. It's the loss of perspective (both in elevating Obama unrealistically before, and now in casting his administration in this ridiculous light of "failure") that irks me about the media.
In any case, you're completely right, and no I'm not at all surprised...
On “God keep our land…”
Mark, far be it from me to judge the political parties of Canada or their motives, actions, histories. I'm woefully ignorant of these things. I only mean to show how certain basic precepts in both conservative and progressive ideology can indeed work in tandem to achieve a stable society. Of course, as others have pointed out, it's far from rosy up North, but that's to be expected in a globalized economy.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.