Yeah, I agree. See with my comments above and how I am mystified that many on the right or libertarians still seem to put Freedom of Contract above all despite the evils and wrongs of the Freedom of Contract era.
I know a lot of economic types who like to make the counterintuitive argument that sweatshops are good because it means lower prices in the West and even though there are long hours under brutal conditions, the pay is still good for the area where the factory is like rural China or the Philippines. This seems to completely ignore the Ghandian creed of "No economy without morality." I think we can design and have a system that encourages dignity and decency for people all over the world and you can have competitive factories in the developing world without brutal hours or working conditions.
There are concerns beyond Freedom of Contract and Macroeconomics.
I agree that Wilson was a horrible racist against Black-Americans. Though he did appoint Brandeis as the first Jewish person for the Supreme Court.
Though he did also appoint McReynolds who was so anti-Semitic that he refused to sit next to Brandeis or eventually Cardozo. It is also interesting to note that William Howard Taft was opposed to putting Brandeis on the Supreme Court and part of his reasoning was anti-Semitic. Despite the fact that Taft's father represented Jews in a famous case arguing that Cincinnati Public Schools should not teach the Bible or have prayer.
It is very problematic talking about past Presidents because they always get tagged with the prejudices of their era despite the good they did. Usually by the other side. Conservatives seem especially gleeful in saying "Wilson was a Progressive. Wilson was a Racist. Hence, all Progressives/Liberals are really racist."
Yes, I find it interesting and you are right that this kind of triablism (while possibly being part of human nature) is a cancer to political union. However, I think that the Bi-Partisan moderate-liberal majority of the post-WWII era was kind of a freak event. Historically, politics has always been extremely partisan. In some ways we are better, there aren't duels or beating in Congress anymore.
However, I am not sure that I fully agree with you on the second paragraph. What practical outcomes do you think both liberals and conservatives are aiming for that are identical?
I'm not sure that we have the same heritage. I look at the Republican Party and Conservatives and see them as being extremely Calvinist in their heritage and outlook. A belief in the elect and that worldly riches are a sign of God's good favor and being a member of the elect. This is the opposite of my Jewish heritage. I am not a Calvinist and do not believe in the myth of rugged individualism and the Jeffersonian fantasy of everyone being a self-sufficient yeoman. Large parts of the right-wing movement still seem stuck in the idea that we can all be little farmers in an agarian utopia and work for ourselves.
I also don't see our goals as being similar or identical in the long or short term. When I hear conservatives talk about "liberty" and "freedom" it sounds to be like it is almost exclusively about the rights of business to conduct business as they please. They don't talk about the liberty or freedom of being free from discrimination and bigotry, the right of non-conformity, the freedom from fear and economic insecurity, the liberty of a life of dignity and decency. I think a robust and governnment backed welfare state and social safety net can encourage more economic freedom and innovation because people would not be dependent on their employers for health care and pension. Maybe more people would feel free to go on their own if they had single-payer health care.
When a conservative says freedom, they mean Lochner. They mean 16 hours in a bakery and not recognizing disparate bargaining power. They mean contracts of adhesion and binding arbitration between unequal parties. A conservative has no problem with the steamroller of authority.
1. I think you will find that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have better track records on the 4th Amendment than the "originalists" and Federalist Society of Roberts, Scalia, and company. Most 4th Amendment cases seem to be a 5-4 and the four dissenters who usually side with the defendant tend to be the Democratic-appointed Supreme Court Justices.
2. That regulation of interstate commerce is not BS. It is only BS if you have a fetish for the Articles of Confederation and the strange Federalism which seems to infect certain parts of US politics and nowhere else in the developed world. Or the developed world. I find it absolutely shocking that the idea of decent or at least a reasonable minimum wage is still controversial in the United States. I find it shocking that so many people still worship the majority decision in Lochner and appalling work conditions under some false fantasy of Freedom of Contact. I find it revealing that many of the people who worship Freedom of Contract are absolutely silent when the contract is broken by CEOs when it comes to pension benefits or other employee rights.
There is no way to determine how the Founders would have applied the Constitution to cars or the Internet. There is no way they would have predicted what the Internet is or a post-Industrial society with an Information economy.
People are very bad at predicting how technology will change. Yes it is a cartoon but it is kind of interesting that the Jetsons had a robot maid but could not predict e-mail or a cellphone.
I think there are several things going on here. All sides (or almost all sides) of American (and possibly International) political debate use the language of defending freedom and liberty. The problem is that all sides have radically different notions of what liberty and freedom means and what it entails. Also what freedom and liberty allow the Government to do and not do.
Certain parts of the right are basically hardcore believers in negative rights. They practice a kind of "Don't tread on me" kind of liberty that is deeply rooted in a Jeffersonian agrarian utopia filled with self-sufficient yeoman farmers. Their version of liberty is largely or absolutely unworkable when combined with Industrial or post-Industrial nations where most people live in urban and suburban areas and are interdependent.
This form of right-wing liberty also seems to think that any attempt at government to make better citizens (or make things better for citizens) is a deeply evil social engineering. This includes public health, education, environmental and labor regulations to make sure that the backs and souls of people are not broken, etc. The government is seen as an evil Leviathan that will just not let the people be.
1. What is this "mode of thinking" that leads to racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia?
2. What is morally objectionable or wrong about eliminating racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc?
Yes we liberals want to mitigate the effects of racism but there is nothing morally wrong with going for the root of the cause and eliminating the beast itself. Just like the best way to fight crime is to attack the causes of crime (like poverty and lack of opportunity) instead of just locking people up.
It might work better for a liberal or Democratic President (FDR strikes me as a prime example) but I wonder why few politicians say something like: "Yes I grew up with a lot of advantages that many people do not have. I am very grateful for these advantages but realize that many were an accident of birth. I would like to help even the playing field or make sure that people do not struggle with basic necessities."
"Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama inbetween"-James Carville.
I have friends from both the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia-metro areas, the nickname that they give their homestate is "Pennsyltucky"
That being said, the Amish make some of the best ice cream I have ever eaten in my life, the Barnes Foundation is an A plus collection of art, and Bucks County is quite lovely in the Autumn. I really like the Philadelphia area.
I am a Vassar alum. Of course we are the Seven Sister that went co-ed. I still get surprised looks when I tell people I went to Vassar though.
But overall, your post is spot on. Montgomery and Bucks County are the type of formally Rockefeller Republican suburbs that the GOP is losing because of archly right-wing social policies.
Of course the best thing about the Mainline is still Uncle Willy doing weird and wonderful things in the pantry.
I would probably make Latin mandatory for at least a year or two if I were in charge of the setting the standards. Modern language is very important but so is Latin.
Erwin Cheminrinsky is one of the reigning deans of Constitutional Law. He also does the lectures of Bar Review.
He told a cute story about how he once told his sons to be quiet because they were bickering over toys or baseball cards and his son said he had a free speech right. Dean Chemerinsky told his son"The Constitution only applies to the Government." His son retorted "You are like the government to me"
I still think teaching kids to read time is useful. If only because there are still plenty of non-digital clocks and watches around. I use a non-digital watch (same one I've owned since I was 17. It was a high school graduation present).
If X and Y decide mutually that the extent of their relationship is going to be sex and nothing more on Tuesday and Thursday nights, I have no problem with it and do not see it as immoral.
"Lust is a moral problem because it inclines one to perceive and to treat another solely as an object of desire or enjoyment. The lustful heart beats for flesh, not for a person. It therefore hinders personal encounters and intimacy."
I would say that this is only a problem if one is deceitful about it or leads the other person on.
For example: Let's say we have X and Y (I would normally pick names but want to avoid making this gendered). X only physically desires Y and wants nothing more than sex from Y. However, Y is sincerely in love with X as a person and wants a more significant emotional relationship. If X pretends to be emotionally vested in Y just to get sex, X is being immoral because it is leading Y down a false path with false hopes intentionally.
However if X and Y are completely honest in expressing that it is just about sex and nothing more than it is not immoral.
In short, I see nothing wrong with a Friends with Benefit relationship or mutual hook-up if all parties are honest
"It’s not instrumental to maintaining a public image (voters could care less what time he ran)"
Perhaps it is. A reader to Andrew Sullivan's blog wrote in with a theory of Ryan. Basically almost everyone can agree that Ryan has the look of a nice, small-town, midwestern boy. Perpetually boyish and good-looking in a non-threatening way, always seeming earnest and sincere. He is very good at using his image to hide the radicalness of his proposals and vision for society. The reader theorized that there are a lot of people who respond so positively to Ryan's boyishness that they get defensive for him when he is challenged on his policies. A sort of "But Paul Ryan looks like the nice boy down the street, how dare people say these horrible things about him."
Perhaps Ryan's knows this and wants to troll the left into calling him out for lies, misinformation, and actual information on his policies. Perhaps Ryan knows that there are enough voters who will be defensive for him that such lies are beneficial. Especially the voters are a bit Republican leaning but not complete Partisans. "How dare those outsider lefties accuse Ryan of a misdeed!"
I think partisanship and tribalism go for explaining a lot.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “What Progressivism Is (Updated)”
Yeah, I agree. See with my comments above and how I am mystified that many on the right or libertarians still seem to put Freedom of Contract above all despite the evils and wrongs of the Freedom of Contract era.
I know a lot of economic types who like to make the counterintuitive argument that sweatshops are good because it means lower prices in the West and even though there are long hours under brutal conditions, the pay is still good for the area where the factory is like rural China or the Philippines. This seems to completely ignore the Ghandian creed of "No economy without morality." I think we can design and have a system that encourages dignity and decency for people all over the world and you can have competitive factories in the developing world without brutal hours or working conditions.
There are concerns beyond Freedom of Contract and Macroeconomics.
"
I agree that Wilson was a horrible racist against Black-Americans. Though he did appoint Brandeis as the first Jewish person for the Supreme Court.
Though he did also appoint McReynolds who was so anti-Semitic that he refused to sit next to Brandeis or eventually Cardozo. It is also interesting to note that William Howard Taft was opposed to putting Brandeis on the Supreme Court and part of his reasoning was anti-Semitic. Despite the fact that Taft's father represented Jews in a famous case arguing that Cincinnati Public Schools should not teach the Bible or have prayer.
It is very problematic talking about past Presidents because they always get tagged with the prejudices of their era despite the good they did. Usually by the other side. Conservatives seem especially gleeful in saying "Wilson was a Progressive. Wilson was a Racist. Hence, all Progressives/Liberals are really racist."
"
Yes, I find it interesting and you are right that this kind of triablism (while possibly being part of human nature) is a cancer to political union. However, I think that the Bi-Partisan moderate-liberal majority of the post-WWII era was kind of a freak event. Historically, politics has always been extremely partisan. In some ways we are better, there aren't duels or beating in Congress anymore.
However, I am not sure that I fully agree with you on the second paragraph. What practical outcomes do you think both liberals and conservatives are aiming for that are identical?
I'm not sure that we have the same heritage. I look at the Republican Party and Conservatives and see them as being extremely Calvinist in their heritage and outlook. A belief in the elect and that worldly riches are a sign of God's good favor and being a member of the elect. This is the opposite of my Jewish heritage. I am not a Calvinist and do not believe in the myth of rugged individualism and the Jeffersonian fantasy of everyone being a self-sufficient yeoman. Large parts of the right-wing movement still seem stuck in the idea that we can all be little farmers in an agarian utopia and work for ourselves.
I also don't see our goals as being similar or identical in the long or short term. When I hear conservatives talk about "liberty" and "freedom" it sounds to be like it is almost exclusively about the rights of business to conduct business as they please. They don't talk about the liberty or freedom of being free from discrimination and bigotry, the right of non-conformity, the freedom from fear and economic insecurity, the liberty of a life of dignity and decency. I think a robust and governnment backed welfare state and social safety net can encourage more economic freedom and innovation because people would not be dependent on their employers for health care and pension. Maybe more people would feel free to go on their own if they had single-payer health care.
When a conservative says freedom, they mean Lochner. They mean 16 hours in a bakery and not recognizing disparate bargaining power. They mean contracts of adhesion and binding arbitration between unequal parties. A conservative has no problem with the steamroller of authority.
"
1. I think you will find that Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have better track records on the 4th Amendment than the "originalists" and Federalist Society of Roberts, Scalia, and company. Most 4th Amendment cases seem to be a 5-4 and the four dissenters who usually side with the defendant tend to be the Democratic-appointed Supreme Court Justices.
2. That regulation of interstate commerce is not BS. It is only BS if you have a fetish for the Articles of Confederation and the strange Federalism which seems to infect certain parts of US politics and nowhere else in the developed world. Or the developed world. I find it absolutely shocking that the idea of decent or at least a reasonable minimum wage is still controversial in the United States. I find it shocking that so many people still worship the majority decision in Lochner and appalling work conditions under some false fantasy of Freedom of Contact. I find it revealing that many of the people who worship Freedom of Contract are absolutely silent when the contract is broken by CEOs when it comes to pension benefits or other employee rights.
"
This is why I am not an originalist.
There is no way to determine how the Founders would have applied the Constitution to cars or the Internet. There is no way they would have predicted what the Internet is or a post-Industrial society with an Information economy.
People are very bad at predicting how technology will change. Yes it is a cartoon but it is kind of interesting that the Jetsons had a robot maid but could not predict e-mail or a cellphone.
"
I think there are several things going on here. All sides (or almost all sides) of American (and possibly International) political debate use the language of defending freedom and liberty. The problem is that all sides have radically different notions of what liberty and freedom means and what it entails. Also what freedom and liberty allow the Government to do and not do.
Certain parts of the right are basically hardcore believers in negative rights. They practice a kind of "Don't tread on me" kind of liberty that is deeply rooted in a Jeffersonian agrarian utopia filled with self-sufficient yeoman farmers. Their version of liberty is largely or absolutely unworkable when combined with Industrial or post-Industrial nations where most people live in urban and suburban areas and are interdependent.
This form of right-wing liberty also seems to think that any attempt at government to make better citizens (or make things better for citizens) is a deeply evil social engineering. This includes public health, education, environmental and labor regulations to make sure that the backs and souls of people are not broken, etc. The government is seen as an evil Leviathan that will just not let the people be.
On “SRSLY?”
Your question was meant to be tongue in cheek but it is seriously getting me to think about free speech and free exercise cases.
What if a kid's religious practices required him or her to wear something that the school considered to be (and is) a wholly unrelated gang sign?
"
A plus to your numerology.
On “On the First Lady’s Speech”
Some questions:
1. What is this "mode of thinking" that leads to racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia?
2. What is morally objectionable or wrong about eliminating racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc?
Yes we liberals want to mitigate the effects of racism but there is nothing morally wrong with going for the root of the cause and eliminating the beast itself. Just like the best way to fight crime is to attack the causes of crime (like poverty and lack of opportunity) instead of just locking people up.
"
Agreed.
It might work better for a liberal or Democratic President (FDR strikes me as a prime example) but I wonder why few politicians say something like: "Yes I grew up with a lot of advantages that many people do not have. I am very grateful for these advantages but realize that many were an accident of birth. I would like to help even the playing field or make sure that people do not struggle with basic necessities."
On “What Not Getting It Looks Like”
"Pennsylvania is Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama inbetween"-James Carville.
I have friends from both the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia-metro areas, the nickname that they give their homestate is "Pennsyltucky"
That being said, the Amish make some of the best ice cream I have ever eaten in my life, the Barnes Foundation is an A plus collection of art, and Bucks County is quite lovely in the Autumn. I really like the Philadelphia area.
"
Hello fellow Seven Sister!
I am a Vassar alum. Of course we are the Seven Sister that went co-ed. I still get surprised looks when I tell people I went to Vassar though.
But overall, your post is spot on. Montgomery and Bucks County are the type of formally Rockefeller Republican suburbs that the GOP is losing because of archly right-wing social policies.
Of course the best thing about the Mainline is still Uncle Willy doing weird and wonderful things in the pantry.
On “Reading, Writing, and Ridiculous?”
IIRC (this was in the 1980s) we only had analog clocks. Plus all the nice watches are analog only.
"
I would probably make Latin mandatory for at least a year or two if I were in charge of the setting the standards. Modern language is very important but so is Latin.
"
If it is a public school, she is technically a government employee.
If I had a kid who said this, I would be rather impressed. You might still have to lecture them but I would be impressed and proud.
"
Erwin Cheminrinsky is one of the reigning deans of Constitutional Law. He also does the lectures of Bar Review.
He told a cute story about how he once told his sons to be quiet because they were bickering over toys or baseball cards and his son said he had a free speech right. Dean Chemerinsky told his son"The Constitution only applies to the Government." His son retorted "You are like the government to me"
On “Is Lust Really Immoral?”
Blinded Trials. A question about how professions are portrayed on film and TV turned into something about Hipsters.
On “Reading, Writing, and Ridiculous?”
Cursive might also teach fine motor skills!
"
I think we started cursive in third or fourth grade.
"
I still think teaching kids to read time is useful. If only because there are still plenty of non-digital clocks and watches around. I use a non-digital watch (same one I've owned since I was 17. It was a high school graduation present).
Cursive I am less sure about.
On “Is Lust Really Immoral?”
If X and Y decide mutually that the extent of their relationship is going to be sex and nothing more on Tuesday and Thursday nights, I have no problem with it and do not see it as immoral.
"
Yup
"
"Lust is a moral problem because it inclines one to perceive and to treat another solely as an object of desire or enjoyment. The lustful heart beats for flesh, not for a person. It therefore hinders personal encounters and intimacy."
I would say that this is only a problem if one is deceitful about it or leads the other person on.
For example: Let's say we have X and Y (I would normally pick names but want to avoid making this gendered). X only physically desires Y and wants nothing more than sex from Y. However, Y is sincerely in love with X as a person and wants a more significant emotional relationship. If X pretends to be emotionally vested in Y just to get sex, X is being immoral because it is leading Y down a false path with false hopes intentionally.
However if X and Y are completely honest in expressing that it is just about sex and nothing more than it is not immoral.
In short, I see nothing wrong with a Friends with Benefit relationship or mutual hook-up if all parties are honest
"
Something about knowing it in his mycordial valve.
On “Why (things like) Paul Ryan’s marathon lies matter (to me.)”
"It’s not instrumental to maintaining a public image (voters could care less what time he ran)"
Perhaps it is. A reader to Andrew Sullivan's blog wrote in with a theory of Ryan. Basically almost everyone can agree that Ryan has the look of a nice, small-town, midwestern boy. Perpetually boyish and good-looking in a non-threatening way, always seeming earnest and sincere. He is very good at using his image to hide the radicalness of his proposals and vision for society. The reader theorized that there are a lot of people who respond so positively to Ryan's boyishness that they get defensive for him when he is challenged on his policies. A sort of "But Paul Ryan looks like the nice boy down the street, how dare people say these horrible things about him."
Perhaps Ryan's knows this and wants to troll the left into calling him out for lies, misinformation, and actual information on his policies. Perhaps Ryan knows that there are enough voters who will be defensive for him that such lies are beneficial. Especially the voters are a bit Republican leaning but not complete Partisans. "How dare those outsider lefties accuse Ryan of a misdeed!"
I think partisanship and tribalism go for explaining a lot.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.