However sympathetic they may be, I don't really understand the utility of trumpeting individual demonstrators' memorable quotes. Do they really tell us anything about the tenor of the debate within Iran?
I'm wary of using these incredible first-hand accounts to score cheap political points, particularly when it's done by pundits who have literally know knowledge of the broader context you're referring to.
I have no problem with showing solidarity with the protesters - as I said above, my heart goes out to them. But I do think we should be wary of cherry-picking quotes and pictures as part of some broader political program.
Fair point, but I think a society's aspirations are closely connected to its political traditions. Is it possible to extricate the South African Constitution from that country's turbulent political and cultural history?
Following Wilkinson's terminology, I was using private clubs as a synonym for nation states. So in terms of global poverty alleviation, I think nation-states are better actors than some ill-defined transnational body.
I guess I don't get where these universal obligations come from. If they're derived from the idea that we'd all be better off if we could speak, transact and associate freely with others, I'd say that's qualified by all sorts of pragmatic considerations about international stability, democratic transitions and so on and so forth. So can universal rights really be meaningful if their recognition is dependent on so many intervening factors?
Private, well-to-do clubs host charity events for unfortunate outsiders all the time. And they do good work, so as a rule, I'd rather leave poverty alleviation to the private clubs (however informal and ad-hoc their efforts may be) than impose some universal obligation that requires me to give money to unfortunate foreigners.
Well, I think I disagree with you, but if most Americans come to see things your way, and our approach to governance begins to reflect this viewpoint, I think a right to material well-being will eventually emerge.
Well said, Mark. I may write a longer post on this, but defending the status quo from a disruptive reform is a pretty conservative approach to jurisprudence, I think. Roberts' DNA decision may be wrong, but it's definitely conservative.
Given the state's near-monopoly on media output and the fact that Ahmadinejad et al have already accused Obama of "meddling," I think the best case scenario is that Iranian opinion on the extent of American involvement will be very muddled. I don't place much store in symbolic rhetorical gestures, and I think that Obama's restraint may do the protesters some good, but I think the real reason behind our current policy is a pretty straightforward realpolitik calculation.
A quick note: While movement conservatism isn't the same as philosophical conservatism, the two are related (however tangentially), and conservative insights often influence conservative policy. Which is why I think it's fair to attribute at least a few political successes to conservative ideas.
A difficult question to answer, largely because I don't identify all that closely with the conservative political movement. Having said that, I can think of a few beneficial trends/policies that are grounded in conservative insights.
1.) The shift towards de-regulation and decentralization in the late 1970s/1980s. Incidentally, this involved a lot of Democratic input from guys like Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:
My point isn't that conservatives were mistaken "just this once." The larger point is that, yes, conservatives tend to favor certain things - decentralization, tradition, deference to established authority etc. - that may have adverse consequences in all sorts of circumstances. I don't think that invalidates conservatism per se.
The question at stake is whether naval battle groups can practice submarine hunting off Southern California. Granted, this does relate to national security, but it's not as if homeland defense is entirely dependent on these naval exercises.
"That is an argument about our system of jurisprudence and law-making, not about this issue; if you generally oppose that system, as I keep saying, have at it. But it better apply to other issues than abortion."
I think you're conflating the legitimacy of the democratic process with the constitutionality of the decision. No one is arguing that the Court didn't have the right to decide Roe, only that their decision bypassed more established mechanisms for legislating abortion.
Incidentally, the fact that there is an extremely difficult and cumbersome mechanism for outlawing abortion (a constitutional amendment) that makes absolutely no allowance for local variation doesn't make the process democratically legitimate. I mean, I suppose the democratic process does offer some recourse, but the bar is set so impossibly high that the status quo is demonstrably less democratically legitimate than it should be.
I think the democratic process is some combination of robust constitutional protections, national democratic deliberation, and a decentralized approach to state and local government. We can disagree about the right balance between the three, but your narrative basically ignores the rights of states and localities to self-determine their approaches to abortion.
The "democratic process" is not a synonym for national majoritarianism. People like Douthat think that states and localities should be given a lot more leeway to restrict or liberalize abortion regulations, depending on what political conditions prevail. I tend to agree. I also think this is a more apt characterization of what the "democratic process" is about.
In cases where the law is ambiguous or unclear, I'd appreciate it if the courts exercised a bit of restraint and deferred to the legislature. Sometimes that's not possible. Sometimes it is.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “breaking news: people often feel racial panic”
For the record, I rather liked the anti-Apple dig.
On “Stop Prison Rape”
Well, plenty of other civilized countries manage to police their prisons. I'm not sure why we can't do the same.
On “Symmetrical Idiocy”
Chris -
However sympathetic they may be, I don't really understand the utility of trumpeting individual demonstrators' memorable quotes. Do they really tell us anything about the tenor of the debate within Iran?
"
Chris -
I'm wary of using these incredible first-hand accounts to score cheap political points, particularly when it's done by pundits who have literally know knowledge of the broader context you're referring to.
"
Freddie -
I have no problem with showing solidarity with the protesters - as I said above, my heart goes out to them. But I do think we should be wary of cherry-picking quotes and pictures as part of some broader political program.
On “Poverty and Human Rights”
Kyle -
Fair point, but I think a society's aspirations are closely connected to its political traditions. Is it possible to extricate the South African Constitution from that country's turbulent political and cultural history?
"
Freddie -
Following Wilkinson's terminology, I was using private clubs as a synonym for nation states. So in terms of global poverty alleviation, I think nation-states are better actors than some ill-defined transnational body.
"
I guess I don't get where these universal obligations come from. If they're derived from the idea that we'd all be better off if we could speak, transact and associate freely with others, I'd say that's qualified by all sorts of pragmatic considerations about international stability, democratic transitions and so on and so forth. So can universal rights really be meaningful if their recognition is dependent on so many intervening factors?
"
Private, well-to-do clubs host charity events for unfortunate outsiders all the time. And they do good work, so as a rule, I'd rather leave poverty alleviation to the private clubs (however informal and ad-hoc their efforts may be) than impose some universal obligation that requires me to give money to unfortunate foreigners.
"
Well, I think I disagree with you, but if most Americans come to see things your way, and our approach to governance begins to reflect this viewpoint, I think a right to material well-being will eventually emerge.
On “Creativity, Thy Name Is Not Landon”
Well said, Mark. How is it that Egypt can spank Italy and we can't?
On “a morningish quote”
Well said, Mark. I may write a longer post on this, but defending the status quo from a disruptive reform is a pretty conservative approach to jurisprudence, I think. Roberts' DNA decision may be wrong, but it's definitely conservative.
On “Some Home Truths About the Latest Iranian Revolution”
Matoko -
Given the state's near-monopoly on media output and the fact that Ahmadinejad et al have already accused Obama of "meddling," I think the best case scenario is that Iranian opinion on the extent of American involvement will be very muddled. I don't place much store in symbolic rhetorical gestures, and I think that Obama's restraint may do the protesters some good, but I think the real reason behind our current policy is a pretty straightforward realpolitik calculation.
"
Consumatopia -
My understanding is that many dissidents are calling for greater American assistance:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/19/silence-isnt-golden/
On ““the agenda””
Oh c'mon - NRO isn't *that* bad. Besides, I would read Maxim if they published Salam.
On “Sometimes We’re Wrong”
Mark -
A quick note: While movement conservatism isn't the same as philosophical conservatism, the two are related (however tangentially), and conservative insights often influence conservative policy. Which is why I think it's fair to attribute at least a few political successes to conservative ideas.
"
Bob -
A difficult question to answer, largely because I don't identify all that closely with the conservative political movement. Having said that, I can think of a few beneficial trends/policies that are grounded in conservative insights.
1.) The shift towards de-regulation and decentralization in the late 1970s/1980s. Incidentally, this involved a lot of Democratic input from guys like Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg1173.cfm
2.) The reduction of high marginal tax rates in the 1980s, as well as the simplification of the tax code in 1986 (another bipartisan achievement).
3.) Reagan's approach to the Soviet Union, particularly in his second term, when he eschewed confrontation for diplomacy.
"
Consumatopia -
My point isn't that conservatives were mistaken "just this once." The larger point is that, yes, conservatives tend to favor certain things - decentralization, tradition, deference to established authority etc. - that may have adverse consequences in all sorts of circumstances. I don't think that invalidates conservatism per se.
On ““The Persecution of Sarah Palin””
Katherine -
Good point. I guess I should withhold judgment until the book, err, actually comes out.
On “Judging is Hard”
Tim Kowal -
The question at stake is whether naval battle groups can practice submarine hunting off Southern California. Granted, this does relate to national security, but it's not as if homeland defense is entirely dependent on these naval exercises.
On “Abortion IS subject to the democratic process!”
"That is an argument about our system of jurisprudence and law-making, not about this issue; if you generally oppose that system, as I keep saying, have at it. But it better apply to other issues than abortion."
I think you're conflating the legitimacy of the democratic process with the constitutionality of the decision. No one is arguing that the Court didn't have the right to decide Roe, only that their decision bypassed more established mechanisms for legislating abortion.
"
Incidentally, the fact that there is an extremely difficult and cumbersome mechanism for outlawing abortion (a constitutional amendment) that makes absolutely no allowance for local variation doesn't make the process democratically legitimate. I mean, I suppose the democratic process does offer some recourse, but the bar is set so impossibly high that the status quo is demonstrably less democratically legitimate than it should be.
"
Freddie -
I think the democratic process is some combination of robust constitutional protections, national democratic deliberation, and a decentralized approach to state and local government. We can disagree about the right balance between the three, but your narrative basically ignores the rights of states and localities to self-determine their approaches to abortion.
Ryan -
I think that's spot-on.
"
The "democratic process" is not a synonym for national majoritarianism. People like Douthat think that states and localities should be given a lot more leeway to restrict or liberalize abortion regulations, depending on what political conditions prevail. I tend to agree. I also think this is a more apt characterization of what the "democratic process" is about.
On “Judging is Hard”
greg -
In cases where the law is ambiguous or unclear, I'd appreciate it if the courts exercised a bit of restraint and deferred to the legislature. Sometimes that's not possible. Sometimes it is.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.