Ooops, also meant to add that I recall several anti-magic dystopias... but they all seemed allegorical to race issues. Were there others that contemplate magic as a purely exploitable resource? I haven't dipped into modern fantasy (other than GoT) in decades, so quite possibly, yes?
Not to be contrarian, but why wouldn't we just harness this Low-Cost Extradimensional Energy with Mage Drones heating massive boilers of Water for near endless steam power?
Not to mention toasty warm public baths?
You see them as the elite, why not see them as a highly exploitable minority?
This being tomato season, my wife whipped up a batch of homemade fermented catsup... as uncular said, it had an excellent cinnamon/clove/nutmeg background that goes extremely well with butcher crafted Bratworst (where you can still taste the spices). In subsequent batches we further reduced the sweetness to make it even better. The fermenting extends its life a bit, so she typically makes a batch that lasts 30-45 days... about 3 per year; but hardly a hardship as catsup is not really eaten year round, or oughtn't be.
I dropped you a note with some thoughts... mostly derivative with the biggest change making the center "Classical Liberal" and everything else a deviation thereof.
Finally the Libertarians have their home and can call the rest of us deviant splitters - out loud, anyway - I expect this is common talk at libertarian ice-cream socials (Bring Your Own Ice-Cream, of course).
Well, I suppose I have to wait for Mr. Wall below to comment on why Burke and MacIntyre ought not be included, for otherwise I should think the term hardly controversial if understood in Burkean/MacIntyrean fashion.
Fundamentalism is a habit of thought that is found in all stripes of political philosophies. That is why it is a loaded term and not doing the work you want it to do.
I hate to reply to myself, but since I can't edit...
Also think you've got Crunchy-Cons in the wrong spot... they are probably conservative communitarians, but their outlook is fundamentally Traditional, not Progressive.
The Nexus between Conservative and Progressive seems really to be the classic definition of Neo-Con; and when you change Fundamentalist to Traditionalist, you really do see the Neo-Con / Paleo-Con split in the right light.
I think it might be worth considering changing Fundamentalist to Traditionalist... it unloads a loaded term and serves as a much better opposite to Progressive.
If you do that, then Communitarian is a better fit between Traditional/Liberal than Reactionary (which I think is just wrong there). What you then put in the vacated nexus between Liberal and Progressive is up to you.
Thanks James... I tracked down the quotation to a public address quoted in part in the Wanderer in 1983. The limited context appears to be the strongest possible rejection of contraception qua contraception (which I believe he would have said). Tacking on the "seems to imply" part is in my opinion disingenuous and an attempt to lend magisterial authority to their argument.
The rest of the article is really arguing a very narrow case about the proportionality of using contraception "to regulate a woman’s menstrual cycle when they are irregular or to reduce the severity of extreme menstrual pain." And that is precisely the prudential proportionality that would need to be weighed.
It is a matter of prudence, not doctrine, so there will be many formulations and thoughts on the principles involved. The USCCB puts out one such guideline:
"Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."
Surely you are correct that no one is *that* consistent.
In fact, I'd suggest that the real issue is authority and modern American understanding of it and its proper uses. In my experience, most conservatives are actually quite unhinged by authority... in that sense they are more or less identical to certain liberal notions of authority. So, my anecdotal evidence actually points to generational variances on authority with certain "conservatives" being positively phobic of all authority (including their own rightful parental authority) and it shows in their children and parenting styles.
As a communitarian type fellow, I think getting authority and its limits right is quite important; but mostly I observe an almost uniform incoherence that is actually worse on the right. This is not so say that I think the Left "get it" with regards authority...they are just unhinged in their own special ways. But parental notions of authority are fundamentally what you are observing and that does not really correspond to conservative and liberal self-identification because authority and its (ab-)uses is incoherent at the party level.
I think you might be misinterpreting what you are observing.
Some conservatives (and liberals) believe that subsidiary authority ought to be distributed throughout the social commonwealth; such that, parents ought to exercise authority in families so that the family might participate properly in a community, which helps to enable better governance at a local level, and so forth. In essence, any "small government" philosophy is really a small government(s) philosophy... and the smallest of those governing units is the family.
Conversely, the "freedom" of the so called liberal parents is (perhaps) a fundamental trust in the single state/single culture model that is really what folks mean by "big government." The overwhelming power of "youth culture" is the thing to which these parents entrust their child's upbringing. If you are ok with the current dominant culture (whether or not you are sensitive to Youth Culture and where it differs) you are more likely to allow those forces to educate and shape your child for participation in that political culture.
But, absent the mitigating structures of subsidiary institutions and the various claims to authority external to the dominant state/culture there is no need to "govern" children for participation in communities other than the One-Big-One... you are seeing "liberal" parents employing a big government style of parenting. Just a thought...
J.L. outstanding post; personally I think you've nailed why the rhetoric strikes a chord, but is fundamentally incomplete. It is subsidiarity without the sub.
Father of five, including a five-year-old girl piling on:
We were early adopters of Tivo precisely for *children's* TV... the problem as I recall it was not so much that this show or that show *might* have been ok, but that I sat in front of the TV and watched them all without any sort of discretion - and most were pretty horrible. Tivo helped us to give the children the idea/habit that TV is for watching a specific show, not something that you just do.
Oh, and Little Bear is positively therapeutic... I make them watch it in my office with me.
Taken alone, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is interesting to speculate how the final product might have been different if we had all known in advance that the "republican idea of a mandate" (based on the commerce clause) was unconstitutional from the start.
Yes, I can watch Stewart with regularity (I actually DVR his show) even though we would not really be fellow-travelers, politically...
Perhaps you've hit on the next LoOG symposium here: "The degree to which they can’t is underlined by Stewart near the end, as he laments that they both seem to live in “separate universes.” The obvious world one sees directly before them seems a completely alien fabrication to the other. "
Working title: At what point does Diversity become Heresy?
p.s. is something wrong with the RSS feeds? I haven't had an update from the "Don't Eat the Marshmallow" story in about 2-weeks... are sub-blogs promoted to main page not triggering the feed? Seemed to go kitty-wampus after the Inequality seminar... probably Hanley's fault.
Hmmn, tough call. The hat is definitely JEB Stuart, and the picture with the bigger beard, excessive plumage and pose suggests Stuart... but can't quite rule out NBF and I can't positively google one way or another. But at first glance (even with your comment in mind) I'd guess Stuart. Here's a link to Hat and Stuart on same page.
Not that it matters overmuch... the blog is pretty spooky (and the author is quite possibly a fan of Forrest anyway). But hey, let's get the art right.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Political Economy of Low-Cost Extradimensional Energy”
Ooops, also meant to add that I recall several anti-magic dystopias... but they all seemed allegorical to race issues. Were there others that contemplate magic as a purely exploitable resource? I haven't dipped into modern fantasy (other than GoT) in decades, so quite possibly, yes?
"
Crony-Magism? Co-opt the Mage-Makers, exploit the drones?
"
Not to be contrarian, but why wouldn't we just harness this Low-Cost Extradimensional Energy with Mage Drones heating massive boilers of Water for near endless steam power?
Not to mention toasty warm public baths?
You see them as the elite, why not see them as a highly exploitable minority?
On “Actually, Re-Writing History Is a Bit More Complicated”
Pics or it didn't happen.
On “Ketchup”
This being tomato season, my wife whipped up a batch of homemade fermented catsup... as uncular said, it had an excellent cinnamon/clove/nutmeg background that goes extremely well with butcher crafted Bratworst (where you can still taste the spices). In subsequent batches we further reduced the sweetness to make it even better. The fermenting extends its life a bit, so she typically makes a batch that lasts 30-45 days... about 3 per year; but hardly a hardship as catsup is not really eaten year round, or oughtn't be.
On “An Incorrect Venn Diagram of Liberal and Conservative Progressivism”
I dropped you a note with some thoughts... mostly derivative with the biggest change making the center "Classical Liberal" and everything else a deviation thereof.
Finally the Libertarians have their home and can call the rest of us deviant splitters - out loud, anyway - I expect this is common talk at libertarian ice-cream socials (Bring Your Own Ice-Cream, of course).
"
Well, I suppose I have to wait for Mr. Wall below to comment on why Burke and MacIntyre ought not be included, for otherwise I should think the term hardly controversial if understood in Burkean/MacIntyrean fashion.
"
Why would you exclude Burke and MacIntyre?
"
That's what I am saying... you are elevating the "heresy" of adherents of traditionalist thought to a Philosophy that does not exist to be opposed.
"
No we do not so agree.
Fundamentalism is a habit of thought that is found in all stripes of political philosophies. That is why it is a loaded term and not doing the work you want it to do.
"
I hate to reply to myself, but since I can't edit...
Also think you've got Crunchy-Cons in the wrong spot... they are probably conservative communitarians, but their outlook is fundamentally Traditional, not Progressive.
The Nexus between Conservative and Progressive seems really to be the classic definition of Neo-Con; and when you change Fundamentalist to Traditionalist, you really do see the Neo-Con / Paleo-Con split in the right light.
"
I think it might be worth considering changing Fundamentalist to Traditionalist... it unloads a loaded term and serves as a much better opposite to Progressive.
If you do that, then Communitarian is a better fit between Traditional/Liberal than Reactionary (which I think is just wrong there). What you then put in the vacated nexus between Liberal and Progressive is up to you.
On “Whose Religious Liberty? What Value Pluralism? What Attention Span?”
Thanks James... I tracked down the quotation to a public address quoted in part in the Wanderer in 1983. The limited context appears to be the strongest possible rejection of contraception qua contraception (which I believe he would have said). Tacking on the "seems to imply" part is in my opinion disingenuous and an attempt to lend magisterial authority to their argument.
The rest of the article is really arguing a very narrow case about the proportionality of using contraception "to regulate a woman’s menstrual cycle when they are irregular or to reduce the severity of extreme menstrual pain." And that is precisely the prudential proportionality that would need to be weighed.
"
On the point of order, yes.
It is a matter of prudence, not doctrine, so there will be many formulations and thoughts on the principles involved. The USCCB puts out one such guideline:
"Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/upload/Ethical-Religious-Directives-Catholic-Health-Care-Services-fifth-edition-2009.pdf
"
Point of order; one is permitted to take medical action to remedy a serious condition, (even) if a side effect is contraceptive.
On “Observed ***UPDATED***”
Surely you are correct that no one is *that* consistent.
In fact, I'd suggest that the real issue is authority and modern American understanding of it and its proper uses. In my experience, most conservatives are actually quite unhinged by authority... in that sense they are more or less identical to certain liberal notions of authority. So, my anecdotal evidence actually points to generational variances on authority with certain "conservatives" being positively phobic of all authority (including their own rightful parental authority) and it shows in their children and parenting styles.
As a communitarian type fellow, I think getting authority and its limits right is quite important; but mostly I observe an almost uniform incoherence that is actually worse on the right. This is not so say that I think the Left "get it" with regards authority...they are just unhinged in their own special ways. But parental notions of authority are fundamentally what you are observing and that does not really correspond to conservative and liberal self-identification because authority and its (ab-)uses is incoherent at the party level.
"
I think you might be misinterpreting what you are observing.
Some conservatives (and liberals) believe that subsidiary authority ought to be distributed throughout the social commonwealth; such that, parents ought to exercise authority in families so that the family might participate properly in a community, which helps to enable better governance at a local level, and so forth. In essence, any "small government" philosophy is really a small government(s) philosophy... and the smallest of those governing units is the family.
Conversely, the "freedom" of the so called liberal parents is (perhaps) a fundamental trust in the single state/single culture model that is really what folks mean by "big government." The overwhelming power of "youth culture" is the thing to which these parents entrust their child's upbringing. If you are ok with the current dominant culture (whether or not you are sensitive to Youth Culture and where it differs) you are more likely to allow those forces to educate and shape your child for participation in that political culture.
But, absent the mitigating structures of subsidiary institutions and the various claims to authority external to the dominant state/culture there is no need to "govern" children for participation in communities other than the One-Big-One... you are seeing "liberal" parents employing a big government style of parenting. Just a thought...
On “I Want The World To Know Nothing Ever Worries Me”
J.L. outstanding post; personally I think you've nailed why the rhetoric strikes a chord, but is fundamentally incomplete. It is subsidiarity without the sub.
On “As it turns out, half may be an overstatement”
Father of five, including a five-year-old girl piling on:
We were early adopters of Tivo precisely for *children's* TV... the problem as I recall it was not so much that this show or that show *might* have been ok, but that I sat in front of the TV and watched them all without any sort of discretion - and most were pretty horrible. Tivo helped us to give the children the idea/habit that TV is for watching a specific show, not something that you just do.
Oh, and Little Bear is positively therapeutic... I make them watch it in my office with me.
On “Big Thursday Announcements”
Taken alone, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is interesting to speculate how the final product might have been different if we had all known in advance that the "republican idea of a mandate" (based on the commerce clause) was unconstitutional from the start.
On “Whatever our opinions about the SCOTUS ruling…”
"You could argue it’s the more governmental country, but that’s not the same thing as being socialist."
Socialism without the social? Sounds even worse to me, then.
On “Big Thursday Announcements”
Great... now we get the heath care we deserve, not the health care we need.
On “Jon Stewart and Marco Rubio Do Political TV the Right Way”
Seems fixed now... you are off the hook.
"
Yes, I can watch Stewart with regularity (I actually DVR his show) even though we would not really be fellow-travelers, politically...
Perhaps you've hit on the next LoOG symposium here: "The degree to which they can’t is underlined by Stewart near the end, as he laments that they both seem to live in “separate universes.” The obvious world one sees directly before them seems a completely alien fabrication to the other. "
Working title: At what point does Diversity become Heresy?
p.s. is something wrong with the RSS feeds? I haven't had an update from the "Don't Eat the Marshmallow" story in about 2-weeks... are sub-blogs promoted to main page not triggering the feed? Seemed to go kitty-wampus after the Inequality seminar... probably Hanley's fault.
On “Conservatives, pop culture, and the language of the right”
Hmmn, tough call. The hat is definitely JEB Stuart, and the picture with the bigger beard, excessive plumage and pose suggests Stuart... but can't quite rule out NBF and I can't positively google one way or another. But at first glance (even with your comment in mind) I'd guess Stuart. Here's a link to Hat and Stuart on same page.
Not that it matters overmuch... the blog is pretty spooky (and the author is quite possibly a fan of Forrest anyway). But hey, let's get the art right.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.