On my first readings of various articles detailing the EPA's Pruitt and his decision regarding researchers on advisory panels, I basically arrived at asking WTF?
Scott Pruitt at the EPA several weeks ago announced that Scientists must now decide if they want to serve on an advisory board or do grant driven research, much of those grants from the EPA. They can no longer do both. Historically, they have been able to do both. Their removal from these panels will most likely allow for industry representatives to fill those roles.
Pruitt wants industry and local groups to participate, but scientists and researchers have no seat at that table. Most articles point to the idea that a scientist or researcher's offerings are tainted as their funding is often coming from the EPA. It is interesting that the other groups are perceived as having no dog in this race. Local representatives and industry representatives seem to have no interest, no conflicts.
So we have industry folks having a greater say on how the EPA proceeds. It appears that there is no conflict of interest in their case, despite the fact that it is industry which is typically regulated by the EPA. Strange.
Now I have some strong opinions on the above. I may also actually believe industry reps do deserve a seat at the table along with researchers and local folks, but lets hold that thought.
Pruitt uses a bible verse to introduce this subject. A bible verse, what is referenced as the Joshua Principle, which involves the Israelites being asked to choose between the true God or the idols they had come to embrace.
Pruitt is demanding that scientists choose between grant funded research or advisory panel. Which is your god? Is it science or advisory panel? One is the true God and one is a false idol?
And this is part crazy, but also part interesting. We do put scientific researchers in a privileged class. We do. They know the science. They know the truth. Are scientific researchers entitled to this privileged place. Is it appropriate that they be perceived as without bias?
Or forget bias for the moment. Is it the case that their knowledge actually does grant them access to the table? They have no personal interest in this matter. They have neither a horse nor a dog in this race. They have no stake in this game. They only have a rational offering - their research. The industry rep wants his industry to thrive, and the local representatives wants their region to likewise thrive. The researcher is not interested in either of these. He or she can only offer the conclusions of his research. He has knowledge, and the others have goals and intentions.
Perhaps it is not bias that is at issue, but rather that science is a false idol. It distracts us from what is in front of us. Its truths do not allow us to move or improve our lives, but only consume us with further research. Science has imposed itself between the local and industry reps who desire to push and advance their causes, the groups and the people in those groups.
To remove scientific researchers from the table seems a mistake. If they are not there, how is their research introduced? Obviously, all want to make an informed decision, which entails the latest research on the matter at hand. And to simply replace them with industry representatives is craven.
Now, this piece really requires more knowledge of these panels. Much of this is speculative, but at first blush we not only have the issue of bias to consider, but also the nexus of knowledge, policy, and life. How does the later work? It is possible that we are focused too much on knowledge, science and research? Yet, to totally deny a place at the table for science is just as problematic.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
Sunday, October 29, 2017
The Disease of Breitbart or Logic is not Everything. . .
For the past year or two we have heard references to Breitbart, the home of the alt-right or something along those lines. I largely ignored it. It probably was around longer, no doubt. They have made a name for themselves. They helped get a President elected. Today, they aim to do the same with the Congress, all the while basically offering up their take on what is happening in the world. They are basically a news site.
That said, they are not like any other news site. They offer an interesting perspective. They are supposedly the home of the alt right, right? Except they do not look like the alt right. There are no men in hoods, no swastikas. Again, they look like a news site. And that is the interesting thing. They have it is said repackaged some of the things offered by such groups. They have, it is said, taken the ideas and themes of the far or extreme right palatable without the odor or aftertaste of neo-Nazism and the Klan.
I have gone there at various moments and honestly I have not known what to think. They confuse me. I would read that they are the continuation or extension of the alt-right and I would arrive on their pages looking for attacks on Jews and blacks and so forth. It is not there. That stuff is not to be found.
I would read articles on the site, however, and just wonder where is this going? As I said, they puzzled me. Not because they were racist or anti-Semitic. No, the site simply puzzled me. I saw they were critical of the Obama administration and the like, but to what point? They were critical of social trends and cultural leaders and mores. So their site is not only a news, but social and cultural criticism. They look at various leaders and movements, initiatives and ask why? And it is a mix. There are news articles and there is commentary, like any newspaper or news site. They have a tone. They have a style, as does any paper or news site. This style, this tone, however, does make me pause.
So, I have largely chosen to ignore them. Just not my cup of tea. A few nights ago, however, courtesy of Facebook, I was given an article that allows some access. It took some time reading it to figure out the mechanics of it. And it is an older article or essay, written by one of their senior editors, Milo Yiannopoulos, who has since been fired earlier this year. He went too far, I guess. In this article he is provocative and insightful.
Milo has today risen perhaps to the notoriety of an Ann Coulter, but is much more interesting. He is gay, and he routinely acknowledges it. I like that he does. One of the best ways to disarm a critic is to just own it, put it out there. And he does. That said, though, to own being gay in conservative circles, is especially interesting. It seems to counter much of what conservatism is about. Again, I have this feeling of puzzlement, even in regard it seems to their writers.
Anyway, back to our story. Where are we going? Someone on Facebook shared one of Milo's essays with me. An essay, which can still be found on Breitbart. The title is,"Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy". It basically argues that there are consequences to women using birth control.
Those consequences range from cellulite to the damage done to the institution of marriage. In short, he argues that the side effects are not worth it. It reminded me of one of those commercials you see today for various drugs, where it lists all the side effects and you are left asking yourself, who would take this junk? The basic point is that birth control does not make one sexy and in fact does harm.
The interesting thing is how he argues here. He tells his audience at the start he is arguing for traditional values. How he argues this point though is not at all traditional. He takes our fascination for sex, and is able to turn it upon itself. He illustrates that birth control damages those things that make us sexually appealing. He takes our desire or need for sex and shows that birth control, the pill and all the rest, really do not lead to satisfaction. A woman might be able to have sex freely, but she wont be able to get laid. She will have become too ugly and too crazy for any man to consider as a partner.
He has taken our desire and our science and turned them against themselves. The conclusion is that we might be better off without them, to perhaps be chaste and unknowing.
And here in the case of this essay it is not only the use of new arguments, new premises, to arrive at his conclusions, but the fact that he uses science itself to arrive at the conclusion. It is kind of neat; the fact that he uses science to argue against birth control. This has the effect of not only challenging birth control but science. Science led to birth control, birth control is not good; therefore science is also flawed. It is an invalid argument, but still sufficient to raise doubts. You find a rotten apple, it raises concerns about the rest of the apples in the basket. And at the very least you look, you inspect the other apples. And he does not just imply this, he says as much in the beginning. Science is biased.
And as I said, it is not only science that is challenged here, but our obsession with casual sex, sex with no costs nor strings. How can you not question such as it led to birth control, and its consequences, including the sexual revolution. A revolution that largely destroyed the institution of marriage.
These are the wonders of this essay. This cute little essay talking bout cellulite and a woman's gate when she is fertile, ultimately is a challenge to sex and science. Cellulite and a neutered gate are the consequence of our sexual revolution, birth control, and ultimately our obsession for casual sex, and science. And how does he argue this? He argues against all of this with the results of scientific studies focused on cellulite and women's gates. As I said above a problematic argument. If the studies illustrate the problems of birth control, and birth control is a product of science, then both birth control and science have issues. However, if we grant that science is biased, then how can rely upon these scientific studies?
So the way in which Milo argues here is interesting. Perhaps this is what I was sensing in prior reads - a loose approach to fact and basic logic. Perhaps this explains my basic sense of disease or discomfort when reading Breitbart. There is, as I said, more going on here then an article challenging birth control. We have a site that claims to be a news and commentary site, which at least here in this essay suggests that science is biased. And does so using a series of what appear to be flawed and invalid arguments.
One last question and this again goes to my discomfort with the site. If not this world, then what? What is next? If your doubts regarding science are true, then what? Milo acknowledges in this essay he wants a return to the traditional family, but is that possible, even if desirable in today's world? And the family provides no remedy for the doubts he has cast regarding science.
There are other issues. The fact that he is gay. How do we return to the traditional family considering we have accepted and embraced those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and the like in today's world? Traditionally, members of the traditional family or those who have encouraged such have perceived such as a threat. No more?
The challenge, however, is bigger than that. If science is flawed, if it is in fact biased and not truthful, then what do we believe? Family, as I said, is not up to the task. Religion? There is a great deal to be found in both family, and religion, but regardless neither family nor religion do what science does nor vice-versa, a point that is often ignored or neglected. In the end, I have to conclude that a series of like essays hinting at or poking at these subjects will most likely not provide an answer to my questions and concerns, much less my disease and discomfort.
Below is my initial response to the essay, which I originally wrote in a post on Facebook:
"Yeah there is a lot of truth in that article. He is an observant little fag. He, like all of us, has seen those commercials. The ones listing all those side effects of drugs. Those side effects do make me wonder why we even take those drugs, but we do. He does the same thing regarding birth control.
Why do we take all those drugs, birth control pills and all the rest? He raises a good point. Why do we? Regarding birth control, so we can just get laid without consequence? That was the sexual revolution. And it did destroy the institution of marriage. Why did we embrace such things?
He takes our fascination for sex, and uses it here. If you really want to be sexy and hot, and to be bred again and again, well then skip the birth control. He wants women pregnant, married, and raising a family. That is what women do. That is what women do.
He is not sure how men really deal with women, but he does acknowledge that women are needed for such. He says all of that in the article.
And he arrives here not with bible parables, but with the use of science, and our fascination with sex. He uses science and sex to argue against birth control. If you really want good sex, forget the sexual revolution, forget birth control. They always said those Christian women were sweet."
That said, they are not like any other news site. They offer an interesting perspective. They are supposedly the home of the alt right, right? Except they do not look like the alt right. There are no men in hoods, no swastikas. Again, they look like a news site. And that is the interesting thing. They have it is said repackaged some of the things offered by such groups. They have, it is said, taken the ideas and themes of the far or extreme right palatable without the odor or aftertaste of neo-Nazism and the Klan.
I have gone there at various moments and honestly I have not known what to think. They confuse me. I would read that they are the continuation or extension of the alt-right and I would arrive on their pages looking for attacks on Jews and blacks and so forth. It is not there. That stuff is not to be found.
I would read articles on the site, however, and just wonder where is this going? As I said, they puzzled me. Not because they were racist or anti-Semitic. No, the site simply puzzled me. I saw they were critical of the Obama administration and the like, but to what point? They were critical of social trends and cultural leaders and mores. So their site is not only a news, but social and cultural criticism. They look at various leaders and movements, initiatives and ask why? And it is a mix. There are news articles and there is commentary, like any newspaper or news site. They have a tone. They have a style, as does any paper or news site. This style, this tone, however, does make me pause.
So, I have largely chosen to ignore them. Just not my cup of tea. A few nights ago, however, courtesy of Facebook, I was given an article that allows some access. It took some time reading it to figure out the mechanics of it. And it is an older article or essay, written by one of their senior editors, Milo Yiannopoulos, who has since been fired earlier this year. He went too far, I guess. In this article he is provocative and insightful.
Milo has today risen perhaps to the notoriety of an Ann Coulter, but is much more interesting. He is gay, and he routinely acknowledges it. I like that he does. One of the best ways to disarm a critic is to just own it, put it out there. And he does. That said, though, to own being gay in conservative circles, is especially interesting. It seems to counter much of what conservatism is about. Again, I have this feeling of puzzlement, even in regard it seems to their writers.
Anyway, back to our story. Where are we going? Someone on Facebook shared one of Milo's essays with me. An essay, which can still be found on Breitbart. The title is,"Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy". It basically argues that there are consequences to women using birth control.
Those consequences range from cellulite to the damage done to the institution of marriage. In short, he argues that the side effects are not worth it. It reminded me of one of those commercials you see today for various drugs, where it lists all the side effects and you are left asking yourself, who would take this junk? The basic point is that birth control does not make one sexy and in fact does harm.
The interesting thing is how he argues here. He tells his audience at the start he is arguing for traditional values. How he argues this point though is not at all traditional. He takes our fascination for sex, and is able to turn it upon itself. He illustrates that birth control damages those things that make us sexually appealing. He takes our desire or need for sex and shows that birth control, the pill and all the rest, really do not lead to satisfaction. A woman might be able to have sex freely, but she wont be able to get laid. She will have become too ugly and too crazy for any man to consider as a partner.
He has taken our desire and our science and turned them against themselves. The conclusion is that we might be better off without them, to perhaps be chaste and unknowing.
And here in the case of this essay it is not only the use of new arguments, new premises, to arrive at his conclusions, but the fact that he uses science itself to arrive at the conclusion. It is kind of neat; the fact that he uses science to argue against birth control. This has the effect of not only challenging birth control but science. Science led to birth control, birth control is not good; therefore science is also flawed. It is an invalid argument, but still sufficient to raise doubts. You find a rotten apple, it raises concerns about the rest of the apples in the basket. And at the very least you look, you inspect the other apples. And he does not just imply this, he says as much in the beginning. Science is biased.
And as I said, it is not only science that is challenged here, but our obsession with casual sex, sex with no costs nor strings. How can you not question such as it led to birth control, and its consequences, including the sexual revolution. A revolution that largely destroyed the institution of marriage.
These are the wonders of this essay. This cute little essay talking bout cellulite and a woman's gate when she is fertile, ultimately is a challenge to sex and science. Cellulite and a neutered gate are the consequence of our sexual revolution, birth control, and ultimately our obsession for casual sex, and science. And how does he argue this? He argues against all of this with the results of scientific studies focused on cellulite and women's gates. As I said above a problematic argument. If the studies illustrate the problems of birth control, and birth control is a product of science, then both birth control and science have issues. However, if we grant that science is biased, then how can rely upon these scientific studies?
So the way in which Milo argues here is interesting. Perhaps this is what I was sensing in prior reads - a loose approach to fact and basic logic. Perhaps this explains my basic sense of disease or discomfort when reading Breitbart. There is, as I said, more going on here then an article challenging birth control. We have a site that claims to be a news and commentary site, which at least here in this essay suggests that science is biased. And does so using a series of what appear to be flawed and invalid arguments.
One last question and this again goes to my discomfort with the site. If not this world, then what? What is next? If your doubts regarding science are true, then what? Milo acknowledges in this essay he wants a return to the traditional family, but is that possible, even if desirable in today's world? And the family provides no remedy for the doubts he has cast regarding science.
There are other issues. The fact that he is gay. How do we return to the traditional family considering we have accepted and embraced those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and the like in today's world? Traditionally, members of the traditional family or those who have encouraged such have perceived such as a threat. No more?
The challenge, however, is bigger than that. If science is flawed, if it is in fact biased and not truthful, then what do we believe? Family, as I said, is not up to the task. Religion? There is a great deal to be found in both family, and religion, but regardless neither family nor religion do what science does nor vice-versa, a point that is often ignored or neglected. In the end, I have to conclude that a series of like essays hinting at or poking at these subjects will most likely not provide an answer to my questions and concerns, much less my disease and discomfort.
Below is my initial response to the essay, which I originally wrote in a post on Facebook:
"Yeah there is a lot of truth in that article. He is an observant little fag. He, like all of us, has seen those commercials. The ones listing all those side effects of drugs. Those side effects do make me wonder why we even take those drugs, but we do. He does the same thing regarding birth control.
Why do we take all those drugs, birth control pills and all the rest? He raises a good point. Why do we? Regarding birth control, so we can just get laid without consequence? That was the sexual revolution. And it did destroy the institution of marriage. Why did we embrace such things?
He takes our fascination for sex, and uses it here. If you really want to be sexy and hot, and to be bred again and again, well then skip the birth control. He wants women pregnant, married, and raising a family. That is what women do. That is what women do.
He is not sure how men really deal with women, but he does acknowledge that women are needed for such. He says all of that in the article.
And he arrives here not with bible parables, but with the use of science, and our fascination with sex. He uses science and sex to argue against birth control. If you really want good sex, forget the sexual revolution, forget birth control. They always said those Christian women were sweet."
Saturday, October 21, 2017
A New Conspiracy Theory
Tonight we play conspiracy theorist. Just this once. . .
Imagine we have a President who is shrewd, who appreciates science, and does put America first. Perhaps more like Francis Underwood. Although Francis does not put America first, but that is a different story. . .
For now focus on the shrewdness, the believe in science, and is a nationalist. He believes that his first priority is to protect America,
What does that mean regarding global warming? What does it mean when you watch shows like Bill Weir's Wonder List on CNN? A show where tonight the host spoke with the Egyptian Secretary of the Environment regarding the fact that Alexandria, an ancient port city in Egypt, it is predicted will be devastated as the seas rise. The Secretary basically said to Weir he can do little. He has neither the resources nor budget. Further, neither he nor his country caused what will most likely happen in Alexandria. What is happening in Alexandria was caused by others he said, and they should be held responsible, they should come and assist in such projects.
I paraphrase. I was napping on my sofa, but I think I heard enough. If you have people in the world with such beliefs and you believe in organizations such as the United Nations, and you believe in validity of global treaties and agreements. If you believe in international courts that make decisions on trade agreements, and national disputes, and you accept the basic idea of an international court that can bring a country, a nation state before it, then a country that could be accused of being largely responsible for global warming is in legal jeopardy.
In short, if you believe that global warming is real and that it is a man-made phenomena, and you believe that there are international organizations and courts that can bring a legitimate nation-state before it, then a leader of a country that could be responsible for such better prepare for such situations - they better have a defense.
President Donald Trump may or may not personally believe in global warming. He may or may not personally believe in international organizations, courts and agreements. On the record and in his ten months as President, however. he has illustrated that he largely does not believe in global warming, he does not trust international organizations nor treaties. And, he does routinely make the claim that he wants to make America great again, put America first. Lastly, he does believe in legal suits and counter-suits.
Perhaps he is putting America first. Perhaps his whole position regarding Global warming, the United Nations, and various international agreements stems from his fear of potential suits related to global warming against the United States. Perhaps, his principle of America First also stems in part from such liabilities. His case is already out there. Global warming is a hoax, and there is no international organization or treaty that can bind a country. Further, we better get use to the concept of America First, because we will be an international pariah.
Imagine we have a President who is shrewd, who appreciates science, and does put America first. Perhaps more like Francis Underwood. Although Francis does not put America first, but that is a different story. . .
For now focus on the shrewdness, the believe in science, and is a nationalist. He believes that his first priority is to protect America,
What does that mean regarding global warming? What does it mean when you watch shows like Bill Weir's Wonder List on CNN? A show where tonight the host spoke with the Egyptian Secretary of the Environment regarding the fact that Alexandria, an ancient port city in Egypt, it is predicted will be devastated as the seas rise. The Secretary basically said to Weir he can do little. He has neither the resources nor budget. Further, neither he nor his country caused what will most likely happen in Alexandria. What is happening in Alexandria was caused by others he said, and they should be held responsible, they should come and assist in such projects.
I paraphrase. I was napping on my sofa, but I think I heard enough. If you have people in the world with such beliefs and you believe in organizations such as the United Nations, and you believe in validity of global treaties and agreements. If you believe in international courts that make decisions on trade agreements, and national disputes, and you accept the basic idea of an international court that can bring a country, a nation state before it, then a country that could be accused of being largely responsible for global warming is in legal jeopardy.
In short, if you believe that global warming is real and that it is a man-made phenomena, and you believe that there are international organizations and courts that can bring a legitimate nation-state before it, then a leader of a country that could be responsible for such better prepare for such situations - they better have a defense.
President Donald Trump may or may not personally believe in global warming. He may or may not personally believe in international organizations, courts and agreements. On the record and in his ten months as President, however. he has illustrated that he largely does not believe in global warming, he does not trust international organizations nor treaties. And, he does routinely make the claim that he wants to make America great again, put America first. Lastly, he does believe in legal suits and counter-suits.
Perhaps he is putting America first. Perhaps his whole position regarding Global warming, the United Nations, and various international agreements stems from his fear of potential suits related to global warming against the United States. Perhaps, his principle of America First also stems in part from such liabilities. His case is already out there. Global warming is a hoax, and there is no international organization or treaty that can bind a country. Further, we better get use to the concept of America First, because we will be an international pariah.
Sunday, October 15, 2017
"Defacto" White Supremacist?
The more I think about it the more I conclude that the President's administration is "defacto" white supremacist. Forget all the nonsense about the Klan support, the mess at Charlottesville, all the supposed "dog whistles" at his rallies or the rallies themselves. I would argue their policies make it obvious.
Their policy on immigration, both legal and illegal. they simply want to limit immigration, and when you look at who is immigrating it is mostly non-whites. Their desire for English speaking immigrants is also interesting. It points not to a racial bias but I would argue a cultural bias. Which goes hand in hand with the racial bias. If you are not white, at least speak English. Keep in mind that historically many first generation populations of immigrants did not speak English upon arrival.
These were the easy ones above. The bigger fish, which I am really after, are trade and diplomacy. Both international trade and diplomacy are deemphasized in this administration. Let us start with trade. The first thing he did was tear up the TPP. He has and continues to question NAFTA. Before he even took office he rescued several hundred jobs at Carrier, keeping them from crossing the border into Mexico. His tax reform is in part motivated by the desire to bring American companies and their bank accounts home. These are idea and goals expressed routinely by this administration. Each has its motivations, its reasons, but I would suggest that ultimately such rationales are garnish, the condiments or trimmings. I would argue he is far more interested in building a market in the United States as opposed to trading with other nations.
Likewise regarding diplomacy. I listed the trade agreements under trade, but they do go under this category too. Further, look at the massive cuts to the State Department. How many senior State Department officials have left? How many State Department positions have not and probably will not be filled? Further, there is North Korea. The President has largely asserted that there is no diplomatic solution there. Likewise, he questions the Iran nuclear deal and of course recently chose not to certify it this past week, leaving its fate in question. He has previously questioned our involvement with both the UN, and NATO. Time and again this administration has asserted in its first nine months in power that it does not believe in diplomacy.
Now of course he does preach America First. and he believes this is good not only for America but the UK and others. He fully endorsed Br-exit. Countries, of course, do have their interests and of course must act on them, must protect and defend them. He goes beyond that. No, regarding international trade in most cases he is found commenting routinely that America is getting the raw end of the deal, whether it be regarding China and the steel business, or Germany and autos.
I suggest that the underlying premise regarding his attitudes toward international trade and foreign relations is that they, those abroad, foreign powers, foreign leaders, and foreign companies cannot be trusted. They do not share our beliefs, our hopes, our aspirations. They desire to see their cultures, their families and their nations thrive and dominate. They do not wish the United States well. Their goals and agendas challenge and compete against us on the world stage. Two things are happening here.
One is that the world, including world trade and diplomacy are viewed as winner take all, or a zero-sum game. Meaning, there is only one winner. This administration does not believe that at the end of a negotiation both parties or both countries can be happy with the results. They do not subscribe to the idea that there can be two winners. With that, the winner will either be the US or not. Either we will win or we lose.
The second point and the one I am focused on is a distrust of the other. In this case this is anyone that is not an American. He routinely comments regarding domestic situations that we are all Americans. We should be able to recognize each other as Americans. That said, he did bring up at one point during his campaign that a US Federal Judge should not be allowed to preside over his case as the judge was of Mexican descent. Again the clash of culture, of race.
I would argue that this administration's positions on trade and diplomatic relations, treaties are driven by similar concerns. We are unable to communicate nor work with others countries and peoples. they do not understand us, now we them, and further we in fact are competing, This is not a cooperative project at all. It is purely a competitive venture. And when we do engage another nation, these are the assumptions this administration arrives with. If and when we do go abroad, we put ourselves at risk. And ultimately it is best to just stay home.
This is what America first translates to I am afraid. I hope that the next three years or perhaps seven prove me wrong, but based on my observations this is what I see. Is the Trump administration "defacto" white supremacists? To answer that one properly probably does require digging into domestic policy. Next time. . . Regardless, I would say that they seem xenophobic and have a sad view of business and foreign relations, which is disappointing considering their business background and history.
Sunday, September 10, 2017
One Take on Mr Bannon's 60 Minutes Interview
What or who exactly is Mr Bannon? As he described it, he ran a little website. Oh, he is a street fighter. He wants to return America to the policies of 1840? And his take on immigrants - they have done nothing for the US. Nothing.
He sees not the 20th century but the 19th century as the century to look to. He mentioned Henry Clay - the great compromiser. I actually like that, we could use some of that. Clay is also the author of the American Plan - High Tariffs limiting competition from abroad, a strong central bank, and large investments on infrastructure. Aside from the tariffs, the other two sound reasonable, palatable. That is my quick take on Henry Clay. It does not sound at all like Mr Bannon. My initial impression of this history lesson is that it unthoughtful and mainly a smoke screen. It is certainly not what Breitbart is about.
The interview continues and Mr Bannon is certainly angry that Clinton, Bush, and Obama allowed China into the WTO. This is what Breitbart is about. These administrations facilitated NAFTA, and world trade in general. And keep in mind that immigration jumped during these administrations. Trade and immigration are their cardinal sins as per Breitbart. And the deep state? The Deep State is the state, the government agencies and people that implemented and perpetuates those policies. The 19th century comes into focus here. Limited immigration, especially pre-Civil War, (though the Irish were starting to arrive even then!), and a very controlled and regulated trade policy.
And then he could not say anything against his man in the White House. He knows, I guess that his man is the only man he has a chance with. He still sticks to the story that there is no Russian conspiracy or collusion. Though in online "Overtime" he did say that firing Comey was the biggest mistake in recent political history. In the network / tv interview he says several times that either you are with him or not. He is still all in regarding his support of this President, even though he is not there anymore. On these matters during the TV interview he was sending a message to one man.
His acknowledgment that his man is focused on personalities versus institutions was interesting. He says that is changing. We will see. His man did do that deal with the Democrats. His speech in MO and his comments regarding Claire McCaskill could have been another case of that turn. We will see on that one. Considering how he is man attacks the judiciary and urges that the Senate just go nuclear, and the way in which he pardoned Sheriff Joe, etc. . . I do not think he understands the institutions that make up the US Government sufficiently to function in that way. It simply is all personalities for him.
Bannon claimed in another interview in 2016 that Breitbart was the platform for the Alt Right. What he was and is offering in Breitbart, courtesy of his vision of American history, is a sanitized presentable version of what the Alt Right is largely after. He dreams of something that what Breitbart offers could consume the Republican Party. It is the the return of something, he wants to argue, that the Republican Party once was. Mr Bannon, though, is not a Whig and this is not 1840.
He sees not the 20th century but the 19th century as the century to look to. He mentioned Henry Clay - the great compromiser. I actually like that, we could use some of that. Clay is also the author of the American Plan - High Tariffs limiting competition from abroad, a strong central bank, and large investments on infrastructure. Aside from the tariffs, the other two sound reasonable, palatable. That is my quick take on Henry Clay. It does not sound at all like Mr Bannon. My initial impression of this history lesson is that it unthoughtful and mainly a smoke screen. It is certainly not what Breitbart is about.
The interview continues and Mr Bannon is certainly angry that Clinton, Bush, and Obama allowed China into the WTO. This is what Breitbart is about. These administrations facilitated NAFTA, and world trade in general. And keep in mind that immigration jumped during these administrations. Trade and immigration are their cardinal sins as per Breitbart. And the deep state? The Deep State is the state, the government agencies and people that implemented and perpetuates those policies. The 19th century comes into focus here. Limited immigration, especially pre-Civil War, (though the Irish were starting to arrive even then!), and a very controlled and regulated trade policy.
And then he could not say anything against his man in the White House. He knows, I guess that his man is the only man he has a chance with. He still sticks to the story that there is no Russian conspiracy or collusion. Though in online "Overtime" he did say that firing Comey was the biggest mistake in recent political history. In the network / tv interview he says several times that either you are with him or not. He is still all in regarding his support of this President, even though he is not there anymore. On these matters during the TV interview he was sending a message to one man.
His acknowledgment that his man is focused on personalities versus institutions was interesting. He says that is changing. We will see. His man did do that deal with the Democrats. His speech in MO and his comments regarding Claire McCaskill could have been another case of that turn. We will see on that one. Considering how he is man attacks the judiciary and urges that the Senate just go nuclear, and the way in which he pardoned Sheriff Joe, etc. . . I do not think he understands the institutions that make up the US Government sufficiently to function in that way. It simply is all personalities for him.
Bannon claimed in another interview in 2016 that Breitbart was the platform for the Alt Right. What he was and is offering in Breitbart, courtesy of his vision of American history, is a sanitized presentable version of what the Alt Right is largely after. He dreams of something that what Breitbart offers could consume the Republican Party. It is the the return of something, he wants to argue, that the Republican Party once was. Mr Bannon, though, is not a Whig and this is not 1840.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Two Concepts of Freedom (Version 2.0)
Roughly a week ago I published an essay titled "Two Concepts of Freedom". This is simply an edited less verbose version of that essay. RGS
A few weeks back I wrote an essay looking at some of the cultural dynamics found in the Scorcese flick, "The Age Of Innocence". I contrasted some of the themes found in that movie with a picture of a transgendered mother and son, which was making the rounds on social media. Both mother and child had decided to transition. Mother was now father, and son was now daughter. I found that intriguing. Specifically, I saw in that picture that the act of transition for a transgender person is an act of pure will. To initiate and complete that process simply requires an amazing amount of will.
This individual will, this drive, which led a mother and son to transition to father and daughter, cannot be found in "The Age of Innocence".
The willful individual in The Age of Innocence, which takes place in 19th century New York, is controlled and dealt with through social convention. Such individuals are not welcome in this world. In this world, it is not the individual will, which drives decisions. In this world of the Age of Innocence, it is what is right, it is what is proper, that determines what one does, how one behaves. It is social norm, convention, and tradition that drives what is done.
What I drew out of these two scenes in the earlier essay were two theories of value, or meaning. In the case of the mother and son or father and daughter, meaning is determined by the individual. Both are compelled by something very much unique and inside them. It is something they must express. It is almost an artistic or creative act. In short, meaning is created through the expression of will, of self.
In the Age of Innocence and 19th century New York, that is not the case. Meaning is not created by the expression of self, nor will. In fact, the expression of self is controlled and largely negated. In this world the expression is perceived as a challenge or even a threat to that which is valuable, that which has meaning. Individual wants and needs are fitted into the social fabric or negated, or simply ignored. The expression of self is of value only if it can be applied or brought into or is applicable to the social norms of the time.
Value and meaning in 19th century New York, as per the Scorcese movie, is based on social norm, on tradition and custom. Here what is done is determined by one's place in society, one's family, one's business dealings, one's place in the church, within one's community. It is in this dynamic that meaning and value are derived. If there is a passion, it must be controlled and directed. Passion does not control or drive one. Further value is not created here, but preserved. The intent is to preserve community, its norms, and customs.
So from the Scorcese movie and from the image of father and daughter, we arrive at two very different theories of value and or meaning. One originating from the self or will, and the other from within the community. In my earlier essay I suggested that these can be applied loosely to the liberal and conservative traditions. Specifically, the focus on self or the will is to be tied to liberalism, and community is to be associated with conservatism. No doubt some explaining is required. At first blush the liberal is often seen as socialists or communists - communal. Is it not the liberal that value community?
Likewise, is it not the conservatives who typically values liberty, which is often associated with the individual? There is some work to be done here, but it is through this 'work' that we arrive at the two concepts of freedom referenced in the title of this essay.
So how does one begin with acts of will and arrive at liberalism? Typically, liberalism is associated with big government, the environment, Black Lives Matter and LGTB. How are these related to the expression of self, to the will? These things are largely products of the will. They are expressions of self. To come out and say I am gay or I am transgendered again is an expression of self. The political movements and groups listed above originate out of such acts. The environment or our interest in environment is again an expression of self. In the mid to late 20th century the US became conscious of the environment. And again, through that consciousness it became a social and political movement.
Another criticism is that I am conflating the liberalism of the enlightenment with the contemporary. That said, I want to suggest the two are still connected. The technocratic state based upon reason and science, is inspired by and propelled by its citizens and ultimately their citizen's passions and wills. Much of our "big government" in all its varieties, begins with or points back to acts of will.
A bigger issue perhaps is my suggestion that only liberals act on their will. Surely, conservatives can offer up their own social movements, driven just as much by willful individuals. This is a valid point, however, I would argue that conservative social movements are driven not by inspiration but by preservation. Again, conservatives certainly have social and political movements, but their movements are responses to the social change, often the movements originated by liberals. The conservative's social movement is intent upon preserving the social structure, the world as they know it.
Regarding environmentalism, conservatives defend factories, plastics, and cars as our way of life. In response to feminism, they advocate the family. The NRA and those who advocate the 2nd Amendment want to protect and defend their right to bear arms. In each case they want to protect their commerce, their families, their way of life. There is a correspondence to the Age of Innocence in their focus on and a desire to preserve the existing social norms, traditions, and conventions.
This leads us to progress. Liberals are often referred to as progressives. The two terms in today's vernacular are largely equivalent and there has been a relation between the two for roughly the last one hundred years. Conservatives, however, do not embrace progress, certainly not the progress advocated by the various social movements of liberals. Likewise, they do not embrace the progress of science. Now conservatives will certainly contest this. I would argue however, that the anti-intellectualism often associated with the conservative movement is rooted in the desire to preserve their world. They want to preserve the norms, conventions they hold dear. Their skepticism regarding science is rooted in those norms, traditions, and conventions.
In short, the liberal state, "big government", and science both challenge the world as it is. Both were devised or inspired to some degree with that intent of progress, of overcoming what is. For conservatives however, progress offers a series of challenges. It offers things such as Roe vs Wade. With science and the state we have the EPA, which wants to dismantle our factories and markets. Transgender transitions would not be possible without advances in medicine. All are the result of liberalism and ultimately the will.
I know I paint with an extremely large brush here. Those around me have already pointed this out, but sometimes it behooves us to go to the satellite image, unless of course it is overcast. The question I am left with here, is this: Does reason come from the will or from social convention and norms? For our purposes I offer up that reason for liberals is inspired, it is transcendent. It originates from the will, but it is also universal. All have will and all have reason. Once discovered, the products of the will can be seen by and embraced by others. Will and reason cut across culture, convention, and norm.
For the conservative reason is common sense. That which is reasonable is in fact reasonable among a particular group. Reason for the conservative is not universal. What one culture believes might overlap the beliefs of another culture. There might be a great deal of overlap of belief, but no two cultures are identical. Each has their own values and practises and likewise what is reasonable. And that is why we must protect our beliefs and consider how we engage the world. Such engagements with other cultures do put at risk who we are, and what we value. By engaging others, we risk who we are, we risk losing our traditions.
Finally, we arrive at our two concepts of freedom, derived from the story I tell above. Both liberalism and conservatism value freedom, but if the stories I offer of each have any validity, they will impact upon how each defines freedom. Now the basic definition of freedom is the ability to act. Accepting this, the question then becomes how does each of them, liberalism and conservatism, view the ability to act? What is it for each of these to be able to act?
For liberalism, freedom, the ability to act, is the ability of the individual to express their will. The goal is to enable the individual to express themselves. Whether it is the pursuit of a college degree, or gender reassignment surgery, each is an act of will and an act of freedom. The state and science become prosthetic devices enabling the individual's will to be expressed. And as was pointed out earlier, this is universal. To be human is to have a will, a voice and we must allow its expression. Not only allow it but nurture and facilitate it.
And for conservatism? Here, freedom is not the ability to express one's self. Freedom, for the conservative, is not the ability to create or express. The ability to act here is to be free from intrusion. Both conservatives and liberals will agree that freedom is the ability to live one's own life. The conservative, however, sees life not as will, but as communal, as social. They see life as defined by family, church, commerce, ultimately engagement with a community. In short, freedom is the ability to engage those closest to you, embracing the customs, norms and traditions that nurtured those relationships. To deny one freedom here is to deny one access to those vital relationships, and the customs, norms and traditions they are based upon.
Lastly, the state and likewise science are seen by conservatives not as prosthetic devices to facilitate the will but as intrusions into one's life. They prevent one from properly engaging others. They take away from and disrupt one's life as they not only prevent one from embracing custom and tradition, but destroy and uproot custom and tradition. They, like the will, destroy life.
A few weeks back I wrote an essay looking at some of the cultural dynamics found in the Scorcese flick, "The Age Of Innocence". I contrasted some of the themes found in that movie with a picture of a transgendered mother and son, which was making the rounds on social media. Both mother and child had decided to transition. Mother was now father, and son was now daughter. I found that intriguing. Specifically, I saw in that picture that the act of transition for a transgender person is an act of pure will. To initiate and complete that process simply requires an amazing amount of will.
This individual will, this drive, which led a mother and son to transition to father and daughter, cannot be found in "The Age of Innocence".
The willful individual in The Age of Innocence, which takes place in 19th century New York, is controlled and dealt with through social convention. Such individuals are not welcome in this world. In this world, it is not the individual will, which drives decisions. In this world of the Age of Innocence, it is what is right, it is what is proper, that determines what one does, how one behaves. It is social norm, convention, and tradition that drives what is done.
What I drew out of these two scenes in the earlier essay were two theories of value, or meaning. In the case of the mother and son or father and daughter, meaning is determined by the individual. Both are compelled by something very much unique and inside them. It is something they must express. It is almost an artistic or creative act. In short, meaning is created through the expression of will, of self.
In the Age of Innocence and 19th century New York, that is not the case. Meaning is not created by the expression of self, nor will. In fact, the expression of self is controlled and largely negated. In this world the expression is perceived as a challenge or even a threat to that which is valuable, that which has meaning. Individual wants and needs are fitted into the social fabric or negated, or simply ignored. The expression of self is of value only if it can be applied or brought into or is applicable to the social norms of the time.
Value and meaning in 19th century New York, as per the Scorcese movie, is based on social norm, on tradition and custom. Here what is done is determined by one's place in society, one's family, one's business dealings, one's place in the church, within one's community. It is in this dynamic that meaning and value are derived. If there is a passion, it must be controlled and directed. Passion does not control or drive one. Further value is not created here, but preserved. The intent is to preserve community, its norms, and customs.
So from the Scorcese movie and from the image of father and daughter, we arrive at two very different theories of value and or meaning. One originating from the self or will, and the other from within the community. In my earlier essay I suggested that these can be applied loosely to the liberal and conservative traditions. Specifically, the focus on self or the will is to be tied to liberalism, and community is to be associated with conservatism. No doubt some explaining is required. At first blush the liberal is often seen as socialists or communists - communal. Is it not the liberal that value community?
Likewise, is it not the conservatives who typically values liberty, which is often associated with the individual? There is some work to be done here, but it is through this 'work' that we arrive at the two concepts of freedom referenced in the title of this essay.
So how does one begin with acts of will and arrive at liberalism? Typically, liberalism is associated with big government, the environment, Black Lives Matter and LGTB. How are these related to the expression of self, to the will? These things are largely products of the will. They are expressions of self. To come out and say I am gay or I am transgendered again is an expression of self. The political movements and groups listed above originate out of such acts. The environment or our interest in environment is again an expression of self. In the mid to late 20th century the US became conscious of the environment. And again, through that consciousness it became a social and political movement.
Another criticism is that I am conflating the liberalism of the enlightenment with the contemporary. That said, I want to suggest the two are still connected. The technocratic state based upon reason and science, is inspired by and propelled by its citizens and ultimately their citizen's passions and wills. Much of our "big government" in all its varieties, begins with or points back to acts of will.
A bigger issue perhaps is my suggestion that only liberals act on their will. Surely, conservatives can offer up their own social movements, driven just as much by willful individuals. This is a valid point, however, I would argue that conservative social movements are driven not by inspiration but by preservation. Again, conservatives certainly have social and political movements, but their movements are responses to the social change, often the movements originated by liberals. The conservative's social movement is intent upon preserving the social structure, the world as they know it.
Regarding environmentalism, conservatives defend factories, plastics, and cars as our way of life. In response to feminism, they advocate the family. The NRA and those who advocate the 2nd Amendment want to protect and defend their right to bear arms. In each case they want to protect their commerce, their families, their way of life. There is a correspondence to the Age of Innocence in their focus on and a desire to preserve the existing social norms, traditions, and conventions.
This leads us to progress. Liberals are often referred to as progressives. The two terms in today's vernacular are largely equivalent and there has been a relation between the two for roughly the last one hundred years. Conservatives, however, do not embrace progress, certainly not the progress advocated by the various social movements of liberals. Likewise, they do not embrace the progress of science. Now conservatives will certainly contest this. I would argue however, that the anti-intellectualism often associated with the conservative movement is rooted in the desire to preserve their world. They want to preserve the norms, conventions they hold dear. Their skepticism regarding science is rooted in those norms, traditions, and conventions.
In short, the liberal state, "big government", and science both challenge the world as it is. Both were devised or inspired to some degree with that intent of progress, of overcoming what is. For conservatives however, progress offers a series of challenges. It offers things such as Roe vs Wade. With science and the state we have the EPA, which wants to dismantle our factories and markets. Transgender transitions would not be possible without advances in medicine. All are the result of liberalism and ultimately the will.
I know I paint with an extremely large brush here. Those around me have already pointed this out, but sometimes it behooves us to go to the satellite image, unless of course it is overcast. The question I am left with here, is this: Does reason come from the will or from social convention and norms? For our purposes I offer up that reason for liberals is inspired, it is transcendent. It originates from the will, but it is also universal. All have will and all have reason. Once discovered, the products of the will can be seen by and embraced by others. Will and reason cut across culture, convention, and norm.
For the conservative reason is common sense. That which is reasonable is in fact reasonable among a particular group. Reason for the conservative is not universal. What one culture believes might overlap the beliefs of another culture. There might be a great deal of overlap of belief, but no two cultures are identical. Each has their own values and practises and likewise what is reasonable. And that is why we must protect our beliefs and consider how we engage the world. Such engagements with other cultures do put at risk who we are, and what we value. By engaging others, we risk who we are, we risk losing our traditions.
Finally, we arrive at our two concepts of freedom, derived from the story I tell above. Both liberalism and conservatism value freedom, but if the stories I offer of each have any validity, they will impact upon how each defines freedom. Now the basic definition of freedom is the ability to act. Accepting this, the question then becomes how does each of them, liberalism and conservatism, view the ability to act? What is it for each of these to be able to act?
For liberalism, freedom, the ability to act, is the ability of the individual to express their will. The goal is to enable the individual to express themselves. Whether it is the pursuit of a college degree, or gender reassignment surgery, each is an act of will and an act of freedom. The state and science become prosthetic devices enabling the individual's will to be expressed. And as was pointed out earlier, this is universal. To be human is to have a will, a voice and we must allow its expression. Not only allow it but nurture and facilitate it.
And for conservatism? Here, freedom is not the ability to express one's self. Freedom, for the conservative, is not the ability to create or express. The ability to act here is to be free from intrusion. Both conservatives and liberals will agree that freedom is the ability to live one's own life. The conservative, however, sees life not as will, but as communal, as social. They see life as defined by family, church, commerce, ultimately engagement with a community. In short, freedom is the ability to engage those closest to you, embracing the customs, norms and traditions that nurtured those relationships. To deny one freedom here is to deny one access to those vital relationships, and the customs, norms and traditions they are based upon.
Lastly, the state and likewise science are seen by conservatives not as prosthetic devices to facilitate the will but as intrusions into one's life. They prevent one from properly engaging others. They take away from and disrupt one's life as they not only prevent one from embracing custom and tradition, but destroy and uproot custom and tradition. They, like the will, destroy life.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Two Concepts of Freedom
A few weeks back I wrote an essay looking at some of the cultural dynamics found in the Scorcese flick, The Age Of Innocence. I contrasted some of the themes found in that movie with a picture of a transgendered mother and son, which was making the rounds on social media. Both mother and child had decided to transition. Mother was now father, and son was now daughter. I found that intriguing. Specifically, I saw it and still see it as an amazing act of will for both of them. The reality is that in their situation, with both of them deciding to transition, it might actually be easier as they can provide support to each other. Regardless, I imagine that typically, when a person decides to transition from one gender to the other, it is purely an act of individual will.
This individual will, this drive, which led a mother and son to transition to father and daughter, cannot be found in The Age of Innocence.
The willful individual in The Age of Innocence, which takes place in 19th century New York, is controlled and dealt with through social convention. Such individuals are not welcome in this world. In this world, it is not the individual will, which drives decisions. In this world found in the Age of Innocence, it is what is right, it is what is proper, that determines what one does, how one behaves. It is social norm, convention, tradition that drives what is done.
What I drew out of these two scenes in the earlier essay were two theories of value, or meaning. In the case of the mother and son or father and daughter, meaning is determined by the individuals. Both are compelled by something very much unique and inside them. It is something they must express. It is almost an artistic or creative act. In short, meaning is created through the expression of will, of self.
Going back to the Age of Innocence and 19th century New York, that is not the case. Meaning is not created by the expression of self, nor will. In fact, the expression of self is controlled and largely negated in this story. The will, or the expression of self, is perceived as a challenge or a threat to that which is valuable, that which has meaning. Specifically, individual wants and needs are fitted into the social fabric or negated, or simply ignored. The expression of self is of value only if it can be applied or brought into or is applicable to the social norms of the time.
Value and meaning in 19th century New York, as per the Scorcese movie, is based on social norm, on tradition and custom. Here what is done is determined by one's place in society, in one's family, one's business dealings, one's place in the church, within one's community. It is in this dynamic that meaning and value are derived. If there is a passion for something or someone, it is applied within this realm. It is directed. One's passion must controlled and directed. They do not control or drive one. The individual within the group, within one's family, or among one's neighbors, one's peers, determines what is acceptable to express and share within those groups, and likewise what is not by looking to those groups, their traditions, norms and customs.
Again, the value here is found in the norms and customs of these communities. And value is not created, but preserved in this world. Here, we look not for the creation of value, but rather the preservation of value. We desire to preserve the community, its norms, and customs. Anything new, anything different, is valued only if it preserves and supports what we have, who we are. If the new item challenges those things, if it harms the social fabric of our community and those within it, it is discarded. It is abandoned. Rarely is the new embraced, and if it is embraced it is over time.
So from the Scorcese movie and from the image of father and daughter, we arrive at two very different theories of value and or meaning. One originating from the self or will, and the other from within the community. In my earlier essay I suggested that these can be applied loosely to the liberal and conservative traditions. Specifically, the focus on self is to be tied to liberalism, and community is to be associated with conservatism. No doubt some explaining is required. At first blush the liberal is often seen as socialists or communists - communal. Is it not the liberal that value community? Is it not Hillary Clinton who with her book suggested that it takes a village?
Likewise, is it not the conservatives who typically values liberty, which is often associated with the individual? There is some work to be done here, but it is through this 'work' that we arrive at the two concepts of freedom referenced in the title.
First off, why do I suggest that liberalism is tied to pure will or the self? Typically liberalism is associated with big government, things such as tax and spend programs, the environment, and the support of feminists, various minority groups, and today movements such as Black Lives Matter and LGTB. How are these related to the expression of self, to the will?
My response is that these things flow from liberalism. They are largely products of the will. They are expressions of self. To come out and say I am gay or I am transgender are truly expressions of self, and the political movements I have listed here came out of such expressive acts.
The environment or our interest in environmental issues is again an expression of self. (This is truly a topic or essay unto itself!) For now though, let me point to a prima facie case. In a nutshell, Take the first line of America the Beautiful,
Of course the other perception of America the Beautiful and its environment are the tears of Iron Eyes Cody. Cody was the actor in that classic commercial with the native American looking up and down the roadway, cars whizzing by. The roadway littered with trash and in the end there is a tear in Cody's eye. That commercial, it could be said of course was not will, but marketing.
Regardless, at a certain point in our history, we became conscious of how our environment was being harmed. And with that, the defense of the environment became an act of will. It became a social movement. That movement though started with an individual perceiving what had become and sharing that with others. Some first person had to perceive and express that we were damaging the environment. Likewise, Rosa Parks on her bus, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott which followed. This is another example of an individual expressing their will and the consequences of such.
I know I am conflating the liberalism of the enlightenment with the contemporary. That said, I do want to suggest the two are still connected. The technocratic state based upon reason and science, is inspired by and propelled by its citizens and ultimately their citizen's passions and wills. Much of our "big government" in all its varieties, I would argue begins with or points back to acts of will.
A bigger issue perhaps is my suggestion that only liberals act on their will. Surely, conservatives can offer up their own social movements, driven just as much by willful individuals. This is a valid point there, however, I would argue that typically conservative social movements are driven not by inspiration but by preservation. Let me restate that. Conservatives certainly have social and political movements, but their movements are responses to the social movements originated by liberals. The conservative's social movement is intent upon preserving the social structure, the world as they know it. The liberal movement wants to change the way in which we live and engage. they want to change the world. The conservative movement largely wants to preserve and conserve.
For example, to make claims that we are harming our environment is to challenge our industries, our factories, our capitalist system, our way of life. The conservative response to feminism is and was to advocate for the traditional family. Those who are Pro-Life are basically challenging the woman's right to choose. They want to eliminate abortion, which was not legally available until 1973. They want to return to what was. The NRA and those who are advocates of the 2nd Amendment want to protect and defend their right to bear arms. In each case they want to protect something they have. (Interestingly, it could be argued they did not originally have it the case of the 2nd Amendment. . .) Again, in the Age of Innocence it is a focus on and a preservation of the existing social norms, traditions, and conventions.
This leads us to another interesting space - Progress. Liberals are today often referred to as progressives. The two terms in today's vernacular are largely equivalent and there has been a relation between the two for roughly the last one hundred years. In the little comparison which I have sketched between that which is liberal and that which is conservative, we can see that conservatives are not going to have it. They do not embrace progress, certainly not the progress advocated by the various social movements of liberals.
Likewise, they are not going to have the progress of science. Now conservatives will certainly contest this, but I would argue that the anti-intellectualism often associated with the conservative movement is rooted in the desire to preserve what we have, the norms, conventions and traditions which make us who we are. Their skepticism regarding science is rooted in their norms, traditions, and conventions which facilitate and enable the relationships, and the world in which they live.
In short, the liberal state, "big government", and science all challenge the world as it is. Both were devised or inspired to some degree with that intent of progress, of overcoming what is. For conservatives however, progress offers challenges such as abortion and the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973. With science we environmentalism, less global warming, both of which attempt to dismantle our factories and our markets. Transgender transitions would not be possible without advances in medicine. Racial justice would not be feasible without a state to impose such. All are the result of liberalism and ultimately the will.
I know I paint with an extremely large brush here. Those around me have already pointed this out, but sometimes it behooves us to go to the satellite image, unless of course it is overcast. The question I am left with here, and this is again another tangent, is this: Does reason come from the will or from social convention and norms? For our purposes I offer up that reason for liberals is inspired, it is transcendent. It originates from the will, but it is also universal. All have will and all have reason. Once discovered, the products of the will can be seen by and embraced by others. Will and reason cut across culture, convention, and norm.
For the conservative reason is common sense. That which is reasonable is in fact among a particular group. Reason for the conservative is not universal. What one culture believes might overlap what another culture might believe. There might be a great deal of overlap of belief, but no two cultures are not identical nor are the logical propositions embraced by them. Each has their own values and practises and what is reasonable and logical are different in each. And that is why we must protect our beliefs and consider how we engage the world. Such engagements with other cultures do put at risk who we are, what we value, and what we believe.
Finally, we arrive at our two concepts of freedom, derived from the story I tell above. Both liberalism and conservatism value freedom, but if the stories I offer of each have any validity, they will impact upon how each defines freedom. Now the basic definition of freedom is the ability to act. Accepting this, the question then becomes how does each of them, liberalism and conservatism, view the ability to act? What is it for each of these to be able to act?
For liberalism, freedom, the ability to act, is the ability of the individual to express their will. The goal is to enable the individual to express themselves. This translates to various government initiatives allowing individuals to achieve various goals, whether those goals entail getting a mortgage, an education, The pursuit of a student loan, to gender reassignment surgery, to applying for Social Security at age 65 - each of these is an act of will and an act of freedom. Each of these becomes a prosthetic device enabling the individual's will to be expressed. And as was pointed out earlier, this is universal. To be human is to have a will, a voice and we must allow its expression. Not only allow it but nurture and facilitate it.
And for conservatism? Here, freedom is not the ability to express one's self. Freedom, for the conservative, is not the ability to create or express. The ability to act here is to be free from intrusion. Both conservatives and liberals will agree that freedom is the ability to live one's own life. The conservative, however, sees life not as will, but as communal, as social. They see life as defined by family, church, commerce, ultimately engagement with a community. In short, freedom is the ability to engage those closest to you, embracing the customs, norms and traditions that nurtured those relationships. You are defined by these relationships. How you maintain these relations tells us what kind of person you are. Self is defined by those relationships. And to deny one freedom is to deny one access to those relationships along with the customs, norms and traditions they are based upon.
Lastly, one footnote of sorts, the state and likewise science are seen by conservatives not as prosthetic devices to facilitate the will but as intrusions into one's life. They prevent one from properly engaging others. They take away from and disrupt one's life as they not only prevent one from embracing custom and tradition, but destroy and uproot custom and tradition. They like the will, destroy life.
This individual will, this drive, which led a mother and son to transition to father and daughter, cannot be found in The Age of Innocence.
The willful individual in The Age of Innocence, which takes place in 19th century New York, is controlled and dealt with through social convention. Such individuals are not welcome in this world. In this world, it is not the individual will, which drives decisions. In this world found in the Age of Innocence, it is what is right, it is what is proper, that determines what one does, how one behaves. It is social norm, convention, tradition that drives what is done.
What I drew out of these two scenes in the earlier essay were two theories of value, or meaning. In the case of the mother and son or father and daughter, meaning is determined by the individuals. Both are compelled by something very much unique and inside them. It is something they must express. It is almost an artistic or creative act. In short, meaning is created through the expression of will, of self.
Going back to the Age of Innocence and 19th century New York, that is not the case. Meaning is not created by the expression of self, nor will. In fact, the expression of self is controlled and largely negated in this story. The will, or the expression of self, is perceived as a challenge or a threat to that which is valuable, that which has meaning. Specifically, individual wants and needs are fitted into the social fabric or negated, or simply ignored. The expression of self is of value only if it can be applied or brought into or is applicable to the social norms of the time.
Value and meaning in 19th century New York, as per the Scorcese movie, is based on social norm, on tradition and custom. Here what is done is determined by one's place in society, in one's family, one's business dealings, one's place in the church, within one's community. It is in this dynamic that meaning and value are derived. If there is a passion for something or someone, it is applied within this realm. It is directed. One's passion must controlled and directed. They do not control or drive one. The individual within the group, within one's family, or among one's neighbors, one's peers, determines what is acceptable to express and share within those groups, and likewise what is not by looking to those groups, their traditions, norms and customs.
Again, the value here is found in the norms and customs of these communities. And value is not created, but preserved in this world. Here, we look not for the creation of value, but rather the preservation of value. We desire to preserve the community, its norms, and customs. Anything new, anything different, is valued only if it preserves and supports what we have, who we are. If the new item challenges those things, if it harms the social fabric of our community and those within it, it is discarded. It is abandoned. Rarely is the new embraced, and if it is embraced it is over time.
So from the Scorcese movie and from the image of father and daughter, we arrive at two very different theories of value and or meaning. One originating from the self or will, and the other from within the community. In my earlier essay I suggested that these can be applied loosely to the liberal and conservative traditions. Specifically, the focus on self is to be tied to liberalism, and community is to be associated with conservatism. No doubt some explaining is required. At first blush the liberal is often seen as socialists or communists - communal. Is it not the liberal that value community? Is it not Hillary Clinton who with her book suggested that it takes a village?
Likewise, is it not the conservatives who typically values liberty, which is often associated with the individual? There is some work to be done here, but it is through this 'work' that we arrive at the two concepts of freedom referenced in the title.
First off, why do I suggest that liberalism is tied to pure will or the self? Typically liberalism is associated with big government, things such as tax and spend programs, the environment, and the support of feminists, various minority groups, and today movements such as Black Lives Matter and LGTB. How are these related to the expression of self, to the will?
My response is that these things flow from liberalism. They are largely products of the will. They are expressions of self. To come out and say I am gay or I am transgender are truly expressions of self, and the political movements I have listed here came out of such expressive acts.
The environment or our interest in environmental issues is again an expression of self. (This is truly a topic or essay unto itself!) For now though, let me point to a prima facie case. In a nutshell, Take the first line of America the Beautiful,
"O beautiful for spacious skies, For amber waves of grain,"And then jump to the recent TV series Madmen, when Don and Betty Draper go on a picnic circa the early 1960s, and abandon their soda cans and all else right there where they had picnicked. The problem was right there. It just took us awhile to see it. When I watched it in 2012 I certainly saw it. The US in 1960 had to be shown it. Such practices had to be pointed to in 1960. We were not conscious of such issues in 1960, it required an act of will.
Of course the other perception of America the Beautiful and its environment are the tears of Iron Eyes Cody. Cody was the actor in that classic commercial with the native American looking up and down the roadway, cars whizzing by. The roadway littered with trash and in the end there is a tear in Cody's eye. That commercial, it could be said of course was not will, but marketing.
Regardless, at a certain point in our history, we became conscious of how our environment was being harmed. And with that, the defense of the environment became an act of will. It became a social movement. That movement though started with an individual perceiving what had become and sharing that with others. Some first person had to perceive and express that we were damaging the environment. Likewise, Rosa Parks on her bus, and the Montgomery Bus Boycott which followed. This is another example of an individual expressing their will and the consequences of such.
I know I am conflating the liberalism of the enlightenment with the contemporary. That said, I do want to suggest the two are still connected. The technocratic state based upon reason and science, is inspired by and propelled by its citizens and ultimately their citizen's passions and wills. Much of our "big government" in all its varieties, I would argue begins with or points back to acts of will.
A bigger issue perhaps is my suggestion that only liberals act on their will. Surely, conservatives can offer up their own social movements, driven just as much by willful individuals. This is a valid point there, however, I would argue that typically conservative social movements are driven not by inspiration but by preservation. Let me restate that. Conservatives certainly have social and political movements, but their movements are responses to the social movements originated by liberals. The conservative's social movement is intent upon preserving the social structure, the world as they know it. The liberal movement wants to change the way in which we live and engage. they want to change the world. The conservative movement largely wants to preserve and conserve.
For example, to make claims that we are harming our environment is to challenge our industries, our factories, our capitalist system, our way of life. The conservative response to feminism is and was to advocate for the traditional family. Those who are Pro-Life are basically challenging the woman's right to choose. They want to eliminate abortion, which was not legally available until 1973. They want to return to what was. The NRA and those who are advocates of the 2nd Amendment want to protect and defend their right to bear arms. In each case they want to protect something they have. (Interestingly, it could be argued they did not originally have it the case of the 2nd Amendment. . .) Again, in the Age of Innocence it is a focus on and a preservation of the existing social norms, traditions, and conventions.
This leads us to another interesting space - Progress. Liberals are today often referred to as progressives. The two terms in today's vernacular are largely equivalent and there has been a relation between the two for roughly the last one hundred years. In the little comparison which I have sketched between that which is liberal and that which is conservative, we can see that conservatives are not going to have it. They do not embrace progress, certainly not the progress advocated by the various social movements of liberals.
Likewise, they are not going to have the progress of science. Now conservatives will certainly contest this, but I would argue that the anti-intellectualism often associated with the conservative movement is rooted in the desire to preserve what we have, the norms, conventions and traditions which make us who we are. Their skepticism regarding science is rooted in their norms, traditions, and conventions which facilitate and enable the relationships, and the world in which they live.
In short, the liberal state, "big government", and science all challenge the world as it is. Both were devised or inspired to some degree with that intent of progress, of overcoming what is. For conservatives however, progress offers challenges such as abortion and the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973. With science we environmentalism, less global warming, both of which attempt to dismantle our factories and our markets. Transgender transitions would not be possible without advances in medicine. Racial justice would not be feasible without a state to impose such. All are the result of liberalism and ultimately the will.
I know I paint with an extremely large brush here. Those around me have already pointed this out, but sometimes it behooves us to go to the satellite image, unless of course it is overcast. The question I am left with here, and this is again another tangent, is this: Does reason come from the will or from social convention and norms? For our purposes I offer up that reason for liberals is inspired, it is transcendent. It originates from the will, but it is also universal. All have will and all have reason. Once discovered, the products of the will can be seen by and embraced by others. Will and reason cut across culture, convention, and norm.
For the conservative reason is common sense. That which is reasonable is in fact among a particular group. Reason for the conservative is not universal. What one culture believes might overlap what another culture might believe. There might be a great deal of overlap of belief, but no two cultures are not identical nor are the logical propositions embraced by them. Each has their own values and practises and what is reasonable and logical are different in each. And that is why we must protect our beliefs and consider how we engage the world. Such engagements with other cultures do put at risk who we are, what we value, and what we believe.
Finally, we arrive at our two concepts of freedom, derived from the story I tell above. Both liberalism and conservatism value freedom, but if the stories I offer of each have any validity, they will impact upon how each defines freedom. Now the basic definition of freedom is the ability to act. Accepting this, the question then becomes how does each of them, liberalism and conservatism, view the ability to act? What is it for each of these to be able to act?
For liberalism, freedom, the ability to act, is the ability of the individual to express their will. The goal is to enable the individual to express themselves. This translates to various government initiatives allowing individuals to achieve various goals, whether those goals entail getting a mortgage, an education, The pursuit of a student loan, to gender reassignment surgery, to applying for Social Security at age 65 - each of these is an act of will and an act of freedom. Each of these becomes a prosthetic device enabling the individual's will to be expressed. And as was pointed out earlier, this is universal. To be human is to have a will, a voice and we must allow its expression. Not only allow it but nurture and facilitate it.
And for conservatism? Here, freedom is not the ability to express one's self. Freedom, for the conservative, is not the ability to create or express. The ability to act here is to be free from intrusion. Both conservatives and liberals will agree that freedom is the ability to live one's own life. The conservative, however, sees life not as will, but as communal, as social. They see life as defined by family, church, commerce, ultimately engagement with a community. In short, freedom is the ability to engage those closest to you, embracing the customs, norms and traditions that nurtured those relationships. You are defined by these relationships. How you maintain these relations tells us what kind of person you are. Self is defined by those relationships. And to deny one freedom is to deny one access to those relationships along with the customs, norms and traditions they are based upon.
Lastly, one footnote of sorts, the state and likewise science are seen by conservatives not as prosthetic devices to facilitate the will but as intrusions into one's life. They prevent one from properly engaging others. They take away from and disrupt one's life as they not only prevent one from embracing custom and tradition, but destroy and uproot custom and tradition. They like the will, destroy life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
