What never seems to dawn on these modern-day Freudians is the possibility that, after all, the public actually agrees with the principles involved, or that conservatives are earnest when they promote policy x.
Because generally the public doesn't agree with conservative policy. Polls consistently show it, and conservatives consistently lie about it. Conservatives who promote conservative policy are either (a) earnest and stupid, or (b) evil. Which are you?
First, I won't even attempt to address the second half of the post because in all honesty it is about as relevant to me as the price of tea in Madagascar.
As for the characterization drawn from Dionne's article, I--shockingly--disagree with you for the most part. Economic conservatives make strange but exigent bedfellows with social conservatives, whose agenda by no means enjoys popular support and at base (pun intended) is about as far right as Greanpeace is left. Do you think for a second that if Wall Street found its interests to be better served by the Democrats that it wouldn't jump ship in a heartbeat, or that Haliburton gives a rat's ass if gays book all the wedding dates in the Hamptons? There will be breaking point where the social conservatives grossly overplay their hand--or when their influence isn't as crucial (i.e., when either party ponies up a decent candidate. As for the armchair Freudian analysis, I think the Goldberg essay on this subject cited by Mouldy not so long ago provides a much more accurate characterization.
Considering most firms on the Street donate to both parties in a cover-your-a** mode, I don't think Deuce's point is quite accurate.
Nor do I think it accurate in stating that "generally the public doesn't agree with conservative policy"...which explains why conservatives aren't in most positions of leadership...oh, wait....
Obviously, the first comment above wasn't made by me.
Sure Wall Street (a very broad term used for corporate interests and mid to upper class individual who feed from them) may cover its ass, so to speak, but my point was is that they don't vote republican because their staunchly pro-life or because they think Adam and Steve are going to destroy the very fabric of our otherwise morally pure society; they do so for the economic benefits (e.g., tax cuts, etc.). I think a more accurate characterization of TP's comment that Mike cited would be that generally the public doesn't support social conservative policy insofar as it invades their private lives and tells them how to live (i.e., believe whatever you want to believe, but leave me the f*ck alone).
Because generally the public doesn't agree with conservative policy.
As election results aptly demonstrated. Oh, wait . . . awkward. Then again, considering the tenor of the rest of the comment, I wouldn't expect too much insight from you.
Wow, repeal couldn't be more grossly wrong about the actual public support of social conservative policy if he tried. In fact, time and again it has been proven that populism - ie economic liberalism and social conservatism - is generally the standard. It's basically the reverse of the thesis set forth in the Right Nation, ie that the public supports economically liberal (classical) policies but cringes at the social conservatism. No, not really.
Take it out of the abstract. People will support all sorts of things until you start telling them how they have to live, or what they can and can't do. Perhaps the electoral college yields a socially conservative result, but Americans generally really don't like being told how to lead their private lives (i.e., just because you're (abstract) Catholic and CHOOSE to live your life according to those a set of rules that represent what the Catholic faith is to you, that doesn't mean that I need to, or should have to, also).
But that is a gross mischaracterization of conservative beliefs. I'm not trying to tell people how to lead their lives at all, nor are most conservatives. This is a silly straw man that you guys have been perpetuating for years.
On abortion for example, the reason that I oppose it has to do with knowing that the fetus is a living being, and as such the state cannot permit the murder of an innocent human being. In other words, abortion is NOT a self-sustained act. It is an other-regarding action, and as such should be prohibited. Yes, I know you think differently on the issue, I'm just trying to explain how I differentiate it. Yet I have a fairly Millsian appraoch to actions that are not other-regarding. Thus I would not outlaw sodomy, birth control, etc. I have taken a softer view on marijuana, though I do think the state has an interest in prohibiting hard drug use because drug use does harm people other than the user, though even here I am somewhat ambivalent.
Essentially you have developed a caricature of what it means to be socially conservative. It's a grossly inaccurate one, but I really don't mind you peddling it as long as your side keeps losing.
A) Keep in mind that you are much more intellectually sophisticated than some of you socially conservative bretheren and that my comments, unless specified address social conservatives generally. There are plenty in that camp that would, and do in fact, advocate what would essentially be codifying the bible (or their interpretation thereof) into law. Unfortunately for them, we do not live in a theocracy and just as they are free to practice their relion, the rest of us are free to practice ours or fee to not do so at all.
B) What of gay marriage? Take religion out of it. It's discrimination, pure and simple. Again, not you personally, but certain religious groups actively preach of gays being sinners and hellbound, and would have no problem if gays had next to no rights in the eyes of the law--and in fact, fight to advance their position.
C) On abortion, I fully understand your position; but understand, to the extent that the absolutist variations of it (generally that life begins at conception, thus being, anti-stem cell, anti-plan B, anti-birth control) are wholly rooted one's religious beliefs, that is where the law must end.
D) "Intelligent Design" - no self-respecting scientist validates this "theory", which is, again, wholly rooted in religion. As such it has no business being taught as if it is tantamount to yes, agreeably incomplete, but the best SCIENTIFIC explanations available (i.e., big bang or not, we evolved from monkeys, period). Of course, social conservatives see no distinction and try and force-feed their own religious beliefs on everybody else through public policy.
a) I simply disagree here. There are very few out there that are trying to "codify the Bible." There are those of a more fundamentalist mindset that come close, but this is a distinct minority. But even here I think it's simply the rhetoric that is more troubling than the polices they advocate, when you get into it.
b) I do think there is an element that is anti-gay, but that's not what drives the majority of the anti-gay marriage movement. I happened to once support gay marriage, but I've been turned off primarily because of the people advocating on its behalf. The post a few weeks back that mouldfan linked to was perhaps the best argument for gay marriage that I have ever read, but I remain skeptical.
c) Again, I simply disagree that opposition to abortion is rooted in religious conviction. But all of us are shaped by our religious - or irreligious - background. You can't just shut off your religious sentiments. People opposed the war because of religious beliefs - are there views any less legitimate? I want to be cautious here - I am obviously not saying that one should attempt to impose their religous views on society, BUT, it's also true that religion will shape one's viewpoints to one degree or another. In a pluralistic society, that is legit.
d) I have mixed feelings on ID, honestly. As a Catholic I do believe that God created the universe, but not in the biblical way described in Genesis. Evolution is a part of God's design. You're right that it is a religious viewpoint, so I am not sure what place it should have - if any - in a classroom setting. I do think the anti-IDers have over-reacted and go on in a manner that indicates they fail to appreciate that their are indeed holes in the evolution theory. And, again, I don't think the push for ID is as substantial as you are led to believe.
a) While it may be distinct, it has a disproportionate amount of power due to its geographic placement, grass-roots network and willingness to blindly tow the party line on just about any issue.
b) What is there to be skeptical about exactly, from a purely legal perspective? I personally can get a bit uncomfortable with overt displays of physical affection between men, but that by no means justifies them being treated as second-class citizens under the Constitution.
c) I don't think we're that far apart on this one regarding the concepts we're discussing, but where my issue is that in what is supposed to be a "pluralistic society", if Group A believes that X is wrong (and at a certain point, i.e., conception = life, that view is wholly religious), and Group B does not, why should Group B be legally bound to adhere to the beliefs of Group A? Again, I'm not trying to get into a debate of degree on abortion, but there is a fine distiction between those who (can admittedly do so on wholly secular grounds) oppose the practice of abortion generally, and the more extreme viewpoint that life begins at conception and is thus inviolate the moment thereafter--as well as oppose any effort to prevent conception. What I'm saying is that the former isn't necessarily religious and can and frankly should be subject to a rationale policy debate, whereas the latter is really a religious and thus private and personal matter.
d) "And, again, I don't think the push for ID is as substantial as you are led to believe."
The State of Kansas legally changed the definition of "science" for f*ck's sake. While some may see the anti-IDs as overreacting, there are those of us that want to prevent our public schools cannot become non-violent madrassas.
correction... "public schools from becoming non-violent madrassas."
What of gay marriage? Take religion out of it. It's discrimination, pure and simple.
For the sake of getting work done, I was going to stay out of this string, but this one forces me to respond.
No, it is not discrimination, pure and simple. It is a group of people who are upset that a particular, age-old societal union does not bestow upon them economic and other benefits. I am sick and tired of hearing that because someone has biological characteristics that renders them different from everybody else, that society must therefore redefine itself to suit their needs. That is nonsense, and that is why your gay marriage provocation is a non-starter.
In GC's comment above:
Strike "a particular, age-old societal union" and insert in its place "based on their race society"; strike "gay marriage" and insert in its place "racial".
No one can argue that society has not constantly "redefined", or to put it a better way, modernized or otherwise enlighted, itself in the civil rights context, and I'm sure there are plenty people out there that are still not happy about having to share buses and schools with blacks, or that their WASP daughter can legally marry a Chinese man if she so chooses, or even that they can no longer slap their secretary on the ass. Just because these changes affected a necessary correction of memorialized or even traditional societal practices doesn't mean that there wasn't staunch opposition making very much the same personal viewpoint argument that those who now find themselves on the wrong side of history did at the time, which is essentially that the personal intolerance or disdain for according equal treatment to a certain group of people should trump the discrimination they suffer as a result.
The comparison doesn't really fit. Riding the bus or drinking from a waterfountain is just a tad different from marriage, don't you think? The former actions do not rely on the characteristics of the people involved, but marriage by definition necessitates at least and no more than two people of different sexes.
A couple of years back there was a golfer - Casey something - who sued the PGA because they wouldn't let him use a cart to play golf. He had some condition which caused him pain if he spent too much time walking. I sympathized with the guy, but the fact of the matter was that he was attempting to play a sport, and it was absurd to sue the proprietors of said sport because of a physical inability to play the sport. I mean, should a parapalegic sue in order to be allowed to use his wheelchair in order to participate in a track meet?
Similarly, gay men and women are not being discriminated against because of their orientation. They cannot be married because by definition they do not meet the qualifications that we have established for marriage, ie the two people must be of the opposite sex. It is a seeming tautology, but the point is that it is not discrimination to prohibit those from engaging in an activity when they cannot meet the eligibility criteria. Now you might say that the eligibility criteria stink, but that's a separate issue from the matter of discrimination.
How is it any different than saying that a black man and a white woman didn't meet the "eligibility criteria" as they were then defined? For sure, any religious organization is more than free to deny "eligiblity" for their sacrament or ceremony to anyone they so choose, but when the union is one that is defined by the state and benefits attach to the participants of said union that are not otherwise available, and the principal basis for the state denying legal recognition of the union and its benefits is the biological characteristics of the participants, then that is discriminatory, pure and simple. The "tradition," "institution of" and "eligibility" are are cut from the same pretextual cloth and cannot outweigh the discriminatory burden placed on the individuals denied the right to marry. Just because people didn't like interracial marriage didn't make its prohibition unconsitutional, and the same goes for gay marriage.
Because in the case of interracial marriage the couple otherwise met the eligibility standard, but the state placed an undue and unfair restriction upon them. In other words, it had long been accepted that a man and a woman should be permitted to marry and reap the rewards therof, but certain states instituted a barrier that had not previously been there, and it was based on a marker that had no bearing otherwise on the action.
But there has been no similar long-held tradition that two men or two women can enter into marriage. Now, you can argue that the tradition should be changed - but that's a different argument. The states have not placed an undue discriinatory burden on a couple that would have otherwise been eligible for marriage under the long-standing tradition.
More to the point, in the case of racial barriers, the states had changed the rules in the middle of the game to enact a racist barrier. In the current situation, homosexual couples are seeking the change.
just a question, paul. do you think that there was a long-standing tradition that would permit a man of african descent and a white woman to marry in this country?
I understand your point; that the prism through which to view the issue is of a man and a woman, with an "undue discriminatory" burden placed on it, but I tend to think that's a narrow way of defining the issue.
the 'undue discriminatory burden' you speak of can quite easily be defined as the deeply rooted tradition itself. it wasn't a newly enacted gloss on the traditional rule of marriage. it was the rule itself; black men and white woman shall not marry and procreate.
In the American context, perhaps (though I am actually wonder if miscenegation (sp?) laws predate the 13th Amendment, but marriage until then had throughout the millenia been understood to be open to all opposite-sex couples. So the unique American discrimination laws still flew in the face of years and years of tradition.
Discrimination on the basis of inate and/or inherent characteristics = unconstitutional.
___
The fact that there are those who themselves feel wronged because a tradition is being modified in a way that offends their personal beliefs have no legally congnizable injury--especially in light of the undue burden placed on the individual with the inate/inherent characteristics being discriminated against in the name of said tradition.
The name of the case escapes me (Rome v. X perhaps), but it's a case where Scalia's majority (again my recollection) opinion upholds the cause of action of a man who is being harassed for his let's just un-"manly" characteristics by his co-employees on a fishing vessel. Artful avoidance of certain labels aside, Antonin's opinion clearly supports the above proposition insofar as homosexuals are concerned--albeit the facts allow him not to go all the way to a place he, and realistically SCOTUS collectively, wasn't able to go 10-15 years ago (again, recollection).
These are people who didn't choose who they are with feelings and emotions as tangible as yours and mine, and despite religiously or traditionally rooted idealistic and personal notions of what some say "marriage" should be, probably feel about as hated and discrimated against as if those opposing gay marriage were saying n*ggers can't marry whites to blacks.
Worshipping the sun was TRADITION.
Prima noctur (the right of the noble to have the privigele of deflowing a newly betrothed peasant's wife on the wedding night) was a TRADITION.
Sacrificing live animals, even humans, was TRADITION.
Marriage kidnapping--YES, in many parts of the world, is a TRADITION.
I think this argument has been beaten to the ground, and is so far afielf of where we started that I'm too exhausted to respond anymore. I maintain that you are way off base on the discrimination angle, and I'll leave it at that.
Fair enough, but I'll leave you with this last thought. If someone close to you was gay and in a longstanding healthy monogamous relationship hoping to marry, how would you explain how and why they couldn't in a manner that wouldn't boil down to "it's because of who you are" and expect them not to actually think you anti-gay or discriminatory for believing in your own explanation? How would the offense to your beliefs if he/she were to marry as they chose be even remotely comprable to that experienced by he/she if they weren't allowed to do so?
Though I take your point about some traditions later being revamped because we later learned the error of our ways - and remember, I have never maintained that all traditions should be upheld simply because they are tradition - some of the things you cited (not all) are actually untrue. This is a great post that explodes some of the myths about what medieval people believed, including the flat earth, ius primae noctis, and chastity belts. Interesting reading particularly as I read C.S. Lewis's The Discarded Image, which also helps to better and more accurately understand the period.
I am an amateur medievalist (read about sixty books on the early and high middle ages), multiple courses on medieval history and medieval legal history, and there's nothing I hate more than the view of the middle ages as these benighted times which were enlightened through the renaissance. a bigger load of horsecrap you'd be hard-pressed to find.
I believe that Lewis calls the attitude you refer to as "chronological snobbery."
Any recommended reads, TP?
Yes, I've also heard "temporal provincialism," paul.
I've got tons of reads, but it really depends what time period you're most interested in. My 'period,' if you can call it that, is the High Middle Ages, which roughly goes from 1066-1300 or so. The 12th century in particular is an excellent "debunker" of the "benighted medieval times" myth, so much so that the great medievalist Charles Homer Haskins noted the existence of the Twelfth Century Renaissance (this is the title of his most famous book).
Haskins' book is the Bible on the subject, but it was also printed in the 1920s, and is seriously out-of-date and even offensive on some levels (recall some of the uglier intellectual trends of that decade).
As far as richness goes, nothing beats Amy Kelly's Eleanor and the Four Kings. I have never read any piece of serious academic history that is such entralling narrative, as well. History comes alive, and the story of the greatest western queen of the last 1000 years, the only woman to be both Queen of France and England in her lifetime, basically spans the entire 12th century, as she lived to a remarkably old age (84, from 1120-1204). Study of her life essentially is study of the major players and events of Europe during the 12th century.
What most people do not understand is that the modern world -- our world, the one we live in right now -- was created during the 12th century. Market economies, romantic love, the greatest vineyards in the world (the de Rothschild vineyards belonged to Eleanor 800 years ago), all of this flowered during Eleanor's lifetime.
The High Middle Ages is the best place to start, but I am also fascinated by the Early Middle Ages (woe betide the person who uses the phrase "Dark Ages" in my company), in particular, Anglo-Saxon England and the Normans, so I can recommend some good books there, as well as some standards on the Viking invasions of the 8th, 9th, and 10th centuries.
Anyway, I'll get off my horse for now, but I do love medieval history. I still half believe that I'll pursue a degree in it someday. Better start learning Latin and Occitan, huh?
Thanks for the suggestions. I love all forms of history, and it takes a lot of self-restraint when I walk into Borders or Barnes and Nobles not to buy up the entire History section. Hopefully, when I am finally done with my dissertation - which should be approximately between one and 40 years from now - I can sit down with a few of these.
You guys just made me super-nostalgic for my history major days.
Although I concentrated in American history, one of the coolest and most interesting classes I have ever taken was Medieval Warfare, which was really more of a thorough review of warfare (and the accompanying societal changes) from the split of the Roman Empire through the rise of musket and firearm technology (which effectively put a dead stop -- literally -- to armored combat).
how to play 7 card stud poker how to play 7 card stud poker how to play 7 card stud poker. defaulted help loan student defaulted help loan student defaulted help loan student.
I can shake off the mad chase murder metamorphosis, because I spend money on the line to buy a thousand miles of horse. I can easily get to the attack on pet; because I bought the pet will help me fight back. The most important is mabinogi online gold, it can help you kill others online.
Combatants victory does not depend on the power of their own, also buy Tibia coins. Resourcefulness can often meet with the rival panic, Like the kind of natural leadership quality.
I am looking for stimulation everyday, cheap priston tale Gold, Looking for so called passion.
when I came into contact with this game, found that it has more depth than the other online games which should buy Angels Online gold to beat monsters, collect goods.
I know I can also buy cheap silkroad gold for him. I feel satisfied with the present situation between us.
Until one day, he said to me that he had to leave Asda Story and this game had no sense to him. And then gave cheap Asda Story gold to me. I did not know what has happened.
Rolex Prince watches and replica Rolex Prince watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
If you have rose online zuly and rose online zulie and Arua ROSE zuly...You will experience a better life of the game!what are you waiting for?
Commenting by HaloScan
