Me:
If you truly believe a policy isn't in your interest, than you really should oppose it. I like Andrew and all, but I don't support gay marriage because I expect him to recant on the Bell Curve. I support it because I think family is a societal good--which benefits me individually. Raise your kid right, and I don't have to worry about him sticking up my kid. Pool your resources, and maybe I don't have to worry about you defaulting on your home. More abstractly, I simply don't enjoy living in a country that discriminates. That's my feeling. That's about what I want, how I want to live. I don't expect a reward for it. I don't expect a cookie.
DJ Moonbat responds to the point about not voting for policy that isn't in your interest:
No, you really shouldn't. You should try to behave in keeping with some sense of morality. American democracy, contrary to popular misconception, was not so spectacularly designed that it can produce good outcomes with a completely amoral populace.
Morzer:
This depends on how you understand interest, not to mention morality. After all, it may be in my interest to get eg. my rabid fox bite treated in hospital, but my morality may insist that such treatment is forbidden because of some religious imperative. Equally, one might argue that by being polite to the guy on the street one gets better directions, while one's morality might insist that a sincere, blunt request for information would be more appropriate.Jamal:
Do you really mean this? That seems like a really cold way to look at politics, and it's certainly not the way I and a lot of other folks in my particular slices of the demography see things.
I'm an Arab-American (and a Muslim-American, albeit a secular one), and I can tell you that there's a tremendous amount of goodwill towards the black community for sticking by us on Palestine and on profiling and on all the other bullshit national security issues of the Bush years.
And so on...
Perhaps this is where I break with my fellow lefties, I don't know. But I don't think people really do things--en mass and maybe even individually--that isn't in their interest. I don't believe whites began supporting Civil Rights in the 60s strictly out of an attack of moral conscience--they were not interested in being a member of a community which sanctioned the fire-hosing of children. It's clear that Jim Crow and segregation worked to the immediate advantage of some white people, but I've never believed that it worked to the long-term advantage of most white people. The price of international embarrassment, of essentially shrinking the middle-class, of destroying valuable brain-power, of sowing resentment amongst a substantial minority of the populace, of creating ghettos is high.
I firmly believe that the case against racism is not just that it's unfair to black people, but that it doesn't benefit the country as a whole. When I look at the large numbers of black men in the justice system, I'm not very interested in how much the justice system hates blacks. I'm interested in whether our justice policy is in the best interest of the country.
Perhaps, I define "interest" too broadly. I include in that definition, not simply your short and long-term well being, but how you want to live your life. I hear people say that they support "black issues" even when they aren't in their interest. Hmm, I guess. But that's like saying it wasn't in my interest to be a writer. I should have gone to law school. Certainly I would have made more money. But I include in my interest what I want to see out the world, what makes me happy, what makes me smile, what I like and love. I guess it's not in my interest to spend a whole day watching football games--I could be making money. But it certainly makes me happy.
[MORE]
I disagree with the "What's The Matter With Kansas" argument because I think people are rarely fooled--even when they act like they've been fooled. They may chose to be ignorant, but that's a choice that they have to answer for. In terms of "gay marriage," I think black people in California actually are voting what they believe their interest to be. Conservatives haven't conned these people. They have deeply rooted beliefs on how they want to live, individually, and what sort of country they are interested in living in, collectively. The white working class folks who helped disenfranchise blacks in post-bellum America were not tools of the evil planter class--they literally believed that blacks were inferior, and had forged an identity based on that belief.
Our challenge is not to appeal to some soft, mealy-mouthed, mushy, "we're all in this together" sentimentalism, but to make a strong, direct argument for why A.) Discriminating against gays directly hurts you, individually B.) Why, collectively, they should want to live in a country that encourages family--sexual orientation aside. The evidence for both claims is not hard to come by--just look at the HIV rates in the black community. Look at how black folks are constantly afraid that their families are falling to pieces. Look at how many of us have gay family members. What do we want for them? What do we want for our children should they turn out to be gay? What sort of world are we interested in creating?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I think your broad definition of self-interests is sort of tangling up interests and morals.
"I simply don't enjoy living in a country that discriminates."
Basically, you're saying that you selfishly prefer to live in a country that doesn't discriminate, so you'd vote no on Prop 8. But, I think it's fair to assume that the reason you don't want to live in a discriminatory country is because you think discrimination is immoral.
So, your morals are informing your interests.
Talk of what is in ones interest, when it is not a fairly concrete interest, runs the risk of descending into vacuousness. There would seem to be little doubt that it is in Phelps interest to make an ass of himself at his various twisted protests, because he seems to have as his interests to attract attention, to feel important without having to do anything worthy of being important,etc.
Obviously it would be good if everyone got such satisfaction from doing the right thing that it was always in people's interests to do the right thing from a self-interested perspective. That seems to have been Plato's view. But there doesn't seem to be any non-question begging reason to think that people are actually better off from having done the right thing. Although it is always possible to define self interest to make it the case that one is.
But ultimately if one tries to take the self-interest as basic the actual force of the argument will get smuggled in somewhere along the line of determining what is in ones self-interest.
After all, the critique of slavery above depends on the fact that the rest of the world looked down on slavery. But through most of history the rest of the world did not look down on slavery (actually the point is made above with Jim Crow post slavery issues, but seems clearer with slavery). It is still possible to argue that people would be pursuing their self-interest in opposing slavery in the 1600's too, but the case would have to be more strained.
And it seems that what one is ultimately doing is saying that people should act according to their values, while smuggling in the self-interest as a kind of cover. Odd because that seems somewhat backwards like a cartoon of a nerdy boy with a dirty magazine hiding the fact that he has a text book that he is actually reading.
I have a real problem with the argument DJ Moonbat put forward when he said this: "No, you really shouldn't. You should try to behave in keeping with some sense of morality. American democracy, contrary to popular misconception, was not so spectacularly designed that it can produce good outcomes with a completely amoral populace."
Here's the problem--who defines what is moral and amoral? Religious people will tell you that they do, but their definitions vary as much as anyone else's--perhaps more--and as an atheist that doesn't sit particularly well with me, as you might imagine. I mean, the logical extension of that argument is that I am necessarily amoral, and I tend to disagree with at. Violently, as a matter of fact.
And what has legislation based on so-called morality gotten us today? Bans on gay-marriage, sure, but it's also gotten us blue laws, restrictions on abortion clinics so stringent that women in a number of states have no real choice, bans on interracial marriage until 1967, current bans on gays being able to adopt kids, et cetera. And don't forget that the slave trade was justified as a way to "bring savages to God." So I'd be much obliged if we keep morality out of the equation when it comes to legislation--it doesn't have a stellar track record.
My big question when it comes to stuff like this is what does the most good for the most people, and letting gay people marry each other certainly makes for a stronger society, as you have pointed out, TNC. Moral, schmoral.
I am in the tank for this post. It is rare for people to act entirely altruistically and it would be silly to base politics on the hope that they do.
The goal is to demonstrate to people, including white and black social conservatives that it is in fact a good thing for society if people are encouraged to make public commitments to care for each other. It is in all our long term enlightened self-interest for people's actually family structures to be recognized and given legal protection.
Clearly this is not a self-evident fact or Proposition 8 would not have passed. That is why the people who supported the No on 8 campaign, gay and straight, need to think intelligently about how best to appeal to the real interests of the majority.
Pronk,
My morals are my interest. My morals reflect what I want out of my life and my world. I don't see the difference. The thought of a world where people are free to marry makes me feel good--just like the Cowboys whipping up on the Redskins makes me feel good, just like getting a check in the mail makes me feel good. The kinds of "good" are different, but I find them all pleasing. They're all in my interest, because they reflect my desires. They reflect what I want.
"Conservatives haven't conned these people."
Yes, they have. I have heard everywhere since the Prop passed that somehow without it that churches would be forced to marry gay couples. This was a lie purposely spread by the yes on 8 supporters that has now become "fact" in the mainstream. (The ladies on the View were openly saying that the good of their fried Ellen being married just wasn't worth their preacher going to jail).
This is a con to make people believe that gay marriage directly hurts them.
dh,
Good point. I overreached. Perhaps I feel that these folks were willing to be conned, though, that they wanted to believe they were "under attack."
I think the term "Enlightened Self-Interest" is the term often used for the type of self interest you describe.
Overcoming the inbred tribal sense that this life is a zero sum game is hard and is what I think at the route of a lot of racism and bigotry. The enlightened bit refers to the recognition that your personal well being is highly dependent on the well being of of others.
To take issue with DJ Moonbat, the object of Democracy isn't to make good outcomes. Its to furnish legitimacy - which must otherwise come from the Grace of God or the barrel of a gun.
On the specific question of gay marriage, I think its an Equal Protection issue. To the extent this legal arrangement provides benefits to the participants, it should be availible to all. We all have a self-interest in ensuring equal protection under the law.
Yes, they have. I have heard everywhere since the Prop passed that somehow without it that churches would be forced to marry gay couples.
If conservatives could so easily con the black population, they wouldn't have just expended that effort on a ballot proposal in California. They would have conned black voters in chosing Bush and Dole over Clinton instead.
I think the term you're looking for is "enlightened self-interest."
Because I don't have kids, unenlightened self-interest says that I shouldn't have to pay taxes to support schools. Enlightened self-interest says that the society in which I live will be better (safer, more economically healthy) if other people's kids are properly educated, and that I should be willing to support their education with my taxes.
Similarly, enlightened self-interest tells me that society is healthier if people who want to form stable families are allowed (encouraged!) to do so. That belief is somewhat independent of my (neutral) moral position on homosexuality.
"Yes, they have. I have heard everywhere since the Prop passed that somehow without it that churches would be forced to marry gay couples."
Sorry, if somebody is that easily fooled, then you are choosing to be ignorant. I think TNC addressed this...
"I think people are rarely fooled--even when they act like they've been fooled."
I agree completely. Anyone who claims to be opposed to gay marriage because their church would be forced to marry gay couples isn't being honest. With themselves especially.
"then you are choosing to be ignorant"
Sorry, dh, I wasn't referring to you when I said 'you.' Just wanted to be clear.
"I don't believe whites began supporting Civil Rights in the 60s strictly out of an attack of moral conscience--they were not interested in being a member of a community which sanctioned the fire-hosing of children."
Ok, but the reason they weren't interested in being part of a community that would behave in that manner is that they understood that to fire-hose children is fundamentally and essentailly IMMORAL. Hence, their unwillingness to allow that unacceptable behavior to be representative of the community.
And actually, I simply disagree with you: moral conscience was at the heart and soul of the Civil Rights movement.
"Our challenge is not to appeal to some soft, mealy-mouthed, mushy, "we're all in this together" sentimentalism, but to make a strong, direct argument for why A.) Discriminating against gays directly hurts you, individually B.) Why, collectively, they should want to live in a country that encourages family--sexual orientation aside."
I think convincing people of the practical benefits of allowing gay marriage is certainly part of the equation. But the great weakness of the American left ever since, I'd say, the assassination of the Kennedys has been that it's really not much more than a gaggle of small groups bound together because the only other place to go is the not-so-welcoming embrace of the zero-degree white, rural, nationalistic right. It's a coalition forged of political self-interest, then, and not necessarily the genuine feeling of solidarity that would allow it to take concerted action without worrying about pissing off one group or another.
Part of the beauty of Obama's rhetoric is that he's consciously trying to convince the different component pieces of the American left that we ARE in this together, using not only the language of practicality and results but also the language of morality: I think the most powerful line in his speeches is when he says, forthrightly and without apology, "I am my brother's keeper". It'll surely be difficult, but I think if Obama can convince blacks and Latinos and gays and union-members and "others" that they have not only a vested interest in but also a moral obligation to help each other it could be his most lasting legacy.
Ta-Nehisi, you mention kids but I think you've skated past an important point. Our children bring out the best aspirations that our natures are capable of and direct these enhanced moral interests into a longer term perspective.
Kids generally make us better people and broadly expand what we recognise as our self interest.
Perhaps, I define "interest" too broadly. I include in that definition, not simply your short and long-term well being, but how you want to live your life.
Then what's an example of a view held on "moral" grounds against your own interest?
It's certainly possible to classify the desire not to be a member of a community that fire-hoses children as an "interest" rather than a "moral view", but why would you want to? Why erase a distinction that can often be useful?
To my ear it's needlessly cynical. Here is an example where many people acted with integrity because they cared about how their country treats others, even though the issue had few or no implications for their own material well-being. Is it really useful to say they just "acted in their own interest"? Doesn't it just reinforce cynicism about politics -- and even about human nature in general?
Katherine and Matt are spot on.
A timely example of people acting out of a sense of "enlightened self-interest" can be found in Massachusetts, where a ballot question to repeal the state income tax was just defeated at the polls.
Unenlightened self-interest says, it's my hard-earned money and I shouldn't be compelled to give any of it to the government. Enlightened self-interest says, this money goes to pay for fire engines and roads and other public services that make my society better.
I don't know why "self-interest" is cynical. To me, it's cynical to reduce "well-being" to simply meaning material goods.
Let us look at this another way: Where do morals come from? Why do we have them? Why is it immoral to murder? Why is it immoral to covet thy neighbors wife? I highly suspect that it's because, at some point, society realized that these were norms that promoted the welfare of the community. In other words, it was in the community's interest. I can't think of a single moral that doesn't have an immediate--or long-term--self-interest at its heart.
I appreciate TNC's inclusion of what feels good in the broader range of self-interest. I agree that for me watching little kittens play is part of my self-interest even if I am not getting much out of it in terms of a longer life or more money.
I am not sure, though, for those whose root reaction to gays and lesbians is to see them as icky will ever feel particularly good about them being able to happily get married. For those still stuck with visceral homophobia, an argument directed to their more material enlightened self-interest, that marriage equality leads to better communities and fewer social problems for gay people and their children, may have some traction.
Alternatively, exposure to more and more happy gay couples may eventually make a dent in their feeelings of ick. Which is why the No on 8's campaign decision not to feature married gay couples in their ads seems particularly mistaken.
Oh and in an earlier post I meant to write:
"It is in all our long term enlightened self-interest for people's actual [not actually] family structures to be recognized and given legal protection"
Typos make me feel bad.
I mean to I can hope anyway.
I actually think you were on stronger footing in the first post - that we should only do things (politically or in life in general) that are in our own self-interest, defined as our long-term well-being.
I'm pretty convinced that morality is nothing but social cues that encourage us to act in ways contrary to our short-term self-interest in favor of our long-term self-interest. In other words, morality is simply one more evolutionary adaptation that increases our fitness for passing on our genes. How could it possibly be otherwise?
Thus, long-term self-interest (or enlightened self-interest as some call it) and morality become EXACTLY the same thing, and there is no longer any tension in choosing between the two.
Yeah, this is a tautology. If you include morality in your self-interest, you're just saying "Vote the way you want because you want to vote that way."
As it happens, the last words in my previous message "I mean to I can hope anyway." were also a typo.
Here's another way to think about it.
Society: Should we permit the firehosing of children?
Unenlightened self interest: Sure. They're not firehosing me or my kids, so whatever.
Enlightened self interest: No, because if they're firehosing *those* kids today, what's to stop them from firehosing *my* kids tomorrow?
Moralism: No, because the firehosing of kids is morally abhorrent.
--
The first time someone explained the term 'enlightened self-interest' to me, I immediately thought of Martin Niemöller's poem "First they came..."
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
"And what has legislation based on so-called morality gotten us today? Bans on gay-marriage, sure, but it's also gotten us blue laws, restrictions on abortion clinics so stringent that women in a number of states have no real choice, bans on interracial marriage until 1967, current bans on gays being able to adopt kids, et cetera."
This is a really weird argument where you seem to be expressing the idea that legislation you don't like is morality based while legislation you do like isn't.
But it seems to me that almost all legislation is morality-based. It isn't fair to imprison innocent people? That is a moral statement/concept. Legislation against discrimination? That is morality-based. Extending marriage to gay people? Sounds morality based to me.
And you can't get away with saying that they are 'equality' based or 'produce wealth' or whatever because the method of weighing 'rights' against each other always ends up being morality based.
Once you get beyond government standards for weights and measures or whatever, almost all government action is deeply 'morality' based in the sense that it reflects moral judgments put into action. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that most of the time you hear a 'bad government' story, it is a case of the law being enforced in contradiction to its moral backing. (Think FDA being stingy with drug approval to people who are going to die anyway if they aren't allowed to try it).
Good post. I am a Paultard though so anytime people start talking about acting in one's best interest I get all excited.
I think perhaps an important difference is in saying this:
"If you truly believe a policy isn't in your interest, than you really should oppose it."
And in saying "people tend to [consciously or unconsciously] vote in their own self-interest?
Because the first is advice, where the second is more of an objective observation of a trend.
It is horribly, awfully simple TNC.
You do things for the good of the tribe, for the survival or increased reproductive fitness of your genetic or memetic reps.
Now, your tribe can be your consanguinous kin, or your memetic kin, like your religious tribe, or your politcal tribe, or your local tribe, like your neighborhood, or the tribe of your state, or your country.
But for the especially gifted among us....like TNC I think.....your tribe is homosapiens sapiens.
;)
But it seems to me that almost all legislation is morality-based. It isn't fair to imprison innocent people? That is a moral statement/concept. Legislation against discrimination? That is morality-based. Extending marriage to gay people? Sounds morality based to me.
See, I think that the word morality itself is too flimsy to be used as the actual basis for anything--in the universe of abstract terms, it's particularly abstract-y, because there really is no way to define whether or not something is moral without taking particular time and circumstance into account. So when people invoke morality as a reason for legislation--any legislation, mind you--the hair on the back of my neck stands on end and I get a little abrasive, because they're generally talking about imposing some religious position on me, and doing so using the flimsiest of excuses. If you don't have a real argument, you resort to morality, in other words.
TNC, I don't disagree with your sentiment but I also think that the most liberal of people who don't support gay marriage don't think that denying people the word marriage is a big deal. They think civil unions is enough. How do you appeal to people that civil unions are not enough and then get them to turn that thought into action? I think this is easier said and said and said and said and said and said and said than done. I'm not trying to be cynical but I think people don't realize that this assumption of common humanity in people who don't want to live in a world where discrimination exists is a very broad assumption. I know people who don't think denying gay people marriage is discrimination because they have civil unions. And even when trying to explain separate but equal to them and how that doesn't work, they still look at me with glassy, indifferent eyes. I don't know how to argue with these people anymore. Which is why I think gay marriage proponents need to adopt a by-any-means necessary attitude in the face of that. What that would be, I have no idea--hire Karl Rove? Who, incidentally, I have heard whispered--is gay!!! But knowing our luck, he's probably one of those log cabin gays who thinks civil unions are enough.
Where do morals come from? Why do we have them?
People disagree about the answer to these questions. You believe that "morality" exists entirely to promote our long-term interests; others don't. But we don't need to resolve the disagreement as long as we hold on to the "morality"/"interest" distinction that your way of speaking erases. Everybody can agree that some political positions are taken on moral grounds. You just have the added belief (which lots of people disagree with) that those "moral" positions only exist to promote our long-term self-interest. What purpose would be served by trying to resolve that disagreement? Why adopt a way of speaking that requires us to do that?
The cynicism lies in encouraging an "is it good for me" approach to policy evaluation. In your mind "good for me" may encompass more than my material well-being, but I think many and probably most people would hear the statement differently. Again, it just sounds needlessly cynical to me to say that people who don't want to live in a country that firehoses children are just acting out of self-interest. I just don't get the point of putting it that way.
(Btw: When you say that "moral" behavior is behavior that promotes "long-term welfare", whose welfare? "The community's"? Everyone in the community? The majority of the community's members? The majority of the community's members, subject to the constraint that the minority shouldn't be trampled on in unseemly ways -- for example by imposing deep suffering on them in order to provide tiny but widely-shared benefits on everyone else? Are we re-inserting "morality" here?)
I think some key truths most of the comments are missing is:
When an imposed moral code is NOT in the interest of the society upon which it has been foisted, what possible justification could be given to continue it's enforcement?
When a society is governed using the holy text of the predominant religion, and frankly only one of many interpretations of that text, can it truly call itself pluralistic?
Case in point: I can get married in tens of thousands of legitimate Christian Churches across the country. Why are these churches being excluded from the conversation? Why doesn't our government recognize the sanctity of a marriage supported by tens of millions of devout Christians? Because it's opposed by tens of millions of devout Christians? So - some Christian worshippers are "more Christian" than others? Or is this a "real America" vs. "fake America" debate?
I read somewhere that the only real reason that LGBT people continue to be stripped of their humanity is because two guys kissing gives lots of people the "heebie jeebies". It continues to be the only rational argument against gay rights I've ever heard.
Of course, it's always possible to find a reason why any action, no matter how self-sacrificing or morally justified, is really a matter of self-interest. As it's equally possible to offer an high-minded excuse for virtually any act of selfishness or cruelty. The great Nietzschean "Gotcha!" versus the street-smart cynicism of "Everyone always has his reasons."
But where do these sophistries get us? Nietzsche was clear about it: a self-interested morality is nihilism wearing a banker's pin stripes. And when the cash runs out, enlightened self-interest gets dumped along with all the other low-return investments.
"Interest" isn't really the marked card here. It's "self" that's the blind spot. No self, no human animal at all, without another such -- to paraphrase Levinas, perhaps. We look to each other to see who we are. And without that ontological given, neither "interest" nor "good" nor "evil" nor any of the other chips in the game has a table to play.
Btw, I now see Sebastian's comment and it captures much of my interest in this topic. Somehow the right coopted the term "morality". The fights for equality, civil liberties, the social safety net, and most other leftist causes are moral issues. Somehow the right has convinced the electorate that fighting for "morality" means something else.
If anyone is more knowledgeable about anthropology or evolutionary psychology please correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't throughout history morality served as a mechanism for societies to get people to engage is behaviors that may be against their own biological self interest?
The conservative argument put forward most famously by Burke and Hayek was that we shouldn't put to much faith in our own reason to solve the collective action problems of society. That our ability to recognize what is in our own enlightened self interest is often obscured and biased by our biological impulses.
Of course how we reconcile this problem with our need to adapt and progress towards a better society is the great question...
"When an imposed moral code is NOT in the interest of the society upon which it has been foisted, what possible justification could be given to continue it's enforcement?"
I'm not sure if there is one...
Somehow the right has convinced the electorate that fighting for "morality" means something else.
They did it because the word "morality" doesn't really mean anything, not in a concrete, definable way. Even the dictionary definitions are exercises in circularity, using abstracts to define abstracts. Politicians of every stripe love using abstract words because listeners get to overlay their personal definitions onto them and find themselves in agreement, even though there's never been a specific policy mentioned. Who doesn't love freedom? Who doesn't want liberty? But what do those words mean? It depends on the specific time and place and conditions under which they are being used.
Here's a thought:
Could it be that it is in the interest of society that some segments tend to be marginalized? I would be interested in hearing from someone who knows what they're talking about what vital roles marginal cultures play in maintaining the vibrancy and relevance of their dominant society.
I'm certainly not trying to advocate for the marginalization of any group, but human history seems littered with moments of profound insight propelled by the oppression of a minority...
Broken record here:
Q: "When an imposed moral code is NOT in the interest of the society upon which it has been foisted, what possible justification could be given to continue it's enforcement?"
A: I just don't like it.
Gay marriage is one of those things that has no great consequence on people who aren't trying to get gay married's or have gay sex's bank accounts or how they run their lives. So when voting on these issues, they don't need to dig deep into their "hearts" (ironic quotes again). They only have to decide whether it's to their taste or not. Gay marriage and gay sex is not to a lot of people's taste and so, as long as those people are in the voting majority, things will stand as they are.
Aside from the scare tactics, Prop 8 promoters drew on the self-interest of religious and traditionalist voters who imagine a world where every child is raised in a nuclear family with his biological mommy and daddy. These voters happily deluded themselves into believing that Prop 8 would somehow make this a reality, or at least forestall the otherwise-inevitable decline into moral chaos. Eliminating the rights of a strange, immoral minority are a small price to pay for such an outcome.
They did it because the word "morality" doesn't really mean anything
If that is supposed to be a reason for leaving "morality" to the conservatives, I don't buy it.
READ THIS:
http://www.playbill.com/news/article/123235.html
This is from Scott Eckern, the California Music Theatre and Sacramento Music Circus Artistic Director, who contributed $1000 to prop 8.
The part of it that interests me is this part of his statement:
"I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction. [I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage,"] Eckern said in a statement.
See how easily and seemingly rationally he arrives at that conclusion and then casts a vote on this issue? No one is torn on this issue. No one is losing sleep on this issue. No one is praying to God for guidance on how they should cast their vote on this issue. It's like, "hmm, it's not tradition and so, no marriage for you!"
The simple rebuttal is thus:
I am interested in supporting policies that follow my moral compass.
"Gay marriage and gay sex is not to a lot of people's taste and so, as long as those people are in the voting majority, things will stand as they are."
Well, it's good to hear it out loud and proud: "As long as two hairy men going at it makes me feel icky, I'm going to deny them the right to marry."
I don't suppose anyone here watches "Big Gay Sketch Show" on LOGO, but they have a great skit where a bunch of brand experts try to take the "sex" out of Homosexuality so LGBT people can have equal rights. Jokes and shenanigans aside, the final verdict is that the only way to take "sex" out of Homosexuality is to call it... Heterosexuality.
The radical right's co-opting of the word "traditional" to define heterosexual marriage strains credulity.
Does anyone who actually has a knowledge of history think that 20th-century American marriages even vaguely resemble the marriages of our ancestors? They were essentially sanitized property collateral transactions, and often involved pre-pubescent girls being repeatedly raped and bred like animals.
Our notion of the marriage as anything more than a demographic and reproductive necessity (i.e. having anything to do with "romantic love") was invented by novelists in the 18th century.
TNC --
You shouldn't've gone to law school. The only reason to go to law school is if you want to have a career in politics, and, frankly, there's no way that a black man with a self-evidently African name would have any sort of chance at a political career.
-- ACS
objectivism gone pop. first Freakonomics, then Bioshock, and now this.
If that is supposed to be a reason for leaving "morality" to the conservatives, I don't buy it.
Not at all. If anything, it's an argument for calling bullshit when conservatives trot it out as a reason for some action. Spin it around on them--point out how, according to your view of morality, allowing same-sex marriage is the only moral option, and that hetero-only marriage is immoral. I'm very much a fight-fire-wth-fire person.
"You shouldn't've gone to law school. The only reason to go to law school is if you want to have a career in politics..."
There's a suspiciously high number of rather wealthy lawyers who never go near politics, you know. Just sayin'.
I was making a lame joke.
The distinction you want to draw, between supporting civil rights on moral grounds and being 'interested' in performing an act of self-definition that opposes you to something you think is (morally) ugly, is pretty trivial.
Also: I want the right to marry, and I think I deserve it, but I'm not sure that it's substantially in the general interest that I have that right, on any normal understanding of that term. Victimizing gays is a source of joy in a lot of people's lives. I don't know that I could make it up to them by forming a sturdy family. And I don't see why we can take it as a article of faith that there will always be available some cogent argument that forming a more just society is in the majority interest.
It seems like some folks believe that short-term self-interest is the only sort there is.
It's entirely reasonable, and consistent with self-interest, to oppose a policy that you think benefits you directly in the short term, but has a broader, long-term negative impact on society which you believe will leave you worse off over time.
Opposing such policies can still be done out of self-interest. Doing so might even be called wisdom.
It strikes me that there is a lot of different kinds of self interest. There is a tunnel blind variety that, for example, allows someone like Andrew Sullivan, to fall for the bell curve nonsense from a shallow, self-serving, ignorant understanding of evolutionary biology, social Darwinism and eugenics in their historical context. However, I think in Sullivan's case it comes from a conservative rather than racist tunnel vision.
But there is another kind of self interest that has to do with becoming the kind of human being one admires. I was quite fortunate as a youth in having both a sister and uncle who had a sense of social justice, but more, I naturally or intuively found their views both admirable and in tune with my instincts, while my dad, whom I loved, but was filled with prejudices served as an antirole model. That is, I think my liberal, egalitarian outlook and impulses have to do with what I consider integrity as a human being.
Of course, hearing every weekend in temple during my youth in the 1950s about the holocaust for me sent a strong message about the evil of not having that integrity, and almost every Jewish holiday seemed to be about overthrowing dictators that hated Jews, but for others the lesson was never give anyone who is not a Jew an inch.
Still, I think selfishness is not for many, many people self interest for reasons that go beyond material benefit. What if it were people I love is always the yardstick for me.
Re: They were essentially sanitized property collateral transactions, and often involved pre-pubescent girls being repeatedly raped and bred like animals.
That's way overstating it. First of, most human beings in the non-recent past didn't own any property so their marriages had nothing to do with "collateral" or any such thing. Secondly very few societies have ever allowed prepubescent children to marry (though many have allowed childhood, even infant, betrothals) for the very good reason that such marriages are of no real use and may even be harmful. Now to be sure, adolescent marriages (post-puberty) were frequently allowed, but in the not-so-distant past people were generally acknowledged as adults as soon as Mother Nature endowed them with the necessary parts and pieces and hormones. Finally, even where arranged marriages have been the norm, it has also been the norm to make sure that the partners are compatible since, again, a fractious marriage is not in anyone's interests.
Re: Our notion of the marriage as anything more than a demographic and reproductive necessity
Practical necessity played (and still plays) a big role too. In the pre-modern world the chores of daily life were hard-- very hard. The rich could get by with servants, but most people, if they wanted to live in their own household, had to have another adult with them to make a go of it. If that adult was also a sex partner, so much the better.
Morality and self-interest are slippery concepts. I think that among most people, there is a general feeling of affiliation with their fellow humans. It's very easy to feel on an individual level, and much less so on a group level. I think some people just don't feel that affinity at all, but not really that many. However, I think the individual impulse to see another person as fully human slowly informs groups and "the arc of history... bends toward justice." It will for homosexuals in California and elsewhere, and probably not that long from now in historical terms, but there are setbacks along the way.
I'm not sure what I'm describing as "affinity" is moral or self-interested - certainly self-interest can be hard to determine when the consequences of something like a law are myriad.
In other words, as simple as this sounds, the fact that discrimination is cruel is what slowly motivates people, and a whole society, to move away from it. Maybe some kind of self-interest, or even self-preservation, underlies the sense that discrimination is cruel. Perhaps it is moral, but I agree with commenters above that morality is something that is built to make sense of conflicting impulses.
Tribalism is powerful, but I think what I'm lamely calling "affinity" is just slightly more powerful. Call it morals or self-interest and attendant shame or fear, but I think in the Civil Rights era, people just finally acknowledged the suffering of other humans enough to tip the scale. Credit the millions of small and large acts, and great leadership at the critical time, for it happening. Obama has similarly and masterfully inspired and harnessed another moment of affinity to break another racial barrier. The same thing will happen for gay rights. The millions of large and small acts have been happening and have made huge progress, and the arc of history is bending. The effort will continue and will be successful, despite the pain of this moment.
Racism isn't just unfair to blacks, as you said in your responses. Racism is unfair to anyone that it's being directed against.
Let's also not forget that racism, as a word and/or accusation, has become the "r-word" and carries the full weight of pain and historical context, when directed at a white person, as the "n-word" does for blacks.
But the great weakness of the American left ever since, I'd say, the assassination of the Kennedys has been that it's really not much more than a gaggle of small groups bound together because the only other place to go is the not-so-welcoming embrace of the zero-degree white, rural, nationalistic right. It's a coalition forged of political self-interest, then, and not necessarily the genuine feeling of solidarity that would allow it to take concerted action without worrying about pissing off one group or another.
This is a feature, not a bug. It makes it hard to pursue the sort of utopian policies that worked out badly for Europe in the 20th century.
"Our challenge is not to appeal to some soft, mealy-mouthed, mushy, "we're all in this together" sentimentalism, but to make a strong, direct argument for why A.) Discriminating against gays directly hurts you, individually B.) Why, collectively, they should want to live in a country that encourages family--sexual orientation aside."
No, no, no. Those are emotional pleas. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince somebody that it's really good for our society as whole to let gays marry (well, I might, but that's not going to get anywhere). We have courts for a reason. You think interracial couples got anywhere with the bigots by telling them that interracial marriage encourages family? Hell no. They went to court to fight for their rights, and the bigots were left to stew in their own bitterness. That's why we these things shouldn't be decided through ballot measures, but left to the juris prudence of our courts.
I think I may have overshot it a bit, but...
Marriage has never been the pure sacred thing the radical right has been branding it since this whole kerfuffle erupted. My overarching point (and probably how I should have argued) is that until very recently the prevailing wisdom was that a man's wife was his property, and actions we would today consider nauseatingly brutal were par for course.
This question of self-interest v. morality seems even more pertinent when framed in the context of who pays for Prop 8. Essentially, for a heterosexual to believe that gays shouldn't marry is an effortless position - it requires no sacrifice on the part of the person who adheres to that moral. It is passive.
Can you classify a position as "moral" when there is no question of "self interest", and still keep meaning in the word?
It would seem to me that instead of voters in California making a "moral" choice on Prop 8, they were making a insignificant choice. For a happy heterosexual man or woman, does it really matter if 7-10% of the population can't marry? So the thought goes: I think that's icky, so I'll vote against it.
To that voter, an insignificant decision with insignificant results. To their gay neighbor, a kick in the gut, a deported soulmate and one more degree of isolation and shame. The two experiences are so different it seems impossible to bridge that gap.
So I think by saying voters were weighing morality and self interest vs. the interest of society at large is giving them far too much credit: they didn't get that far because they aren't stakeholders in the outcome.
What is so striking about Prop 8 may not be what it says or doesn't say about morality, but what it says about the banal cruelty of an indifferent majority.
No, no, no. Those are emotional pleas. I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince somebody that it's really good for our society as whole to let gays marry (well, I might, but that's not going to get anywhere). We have courts for a reason. You think interracial couples got anywhere with the bigots by telling them that interracial marriage encourages family? Hell no. They went to court to fight for their rights, and the bigots were left to stew in their own bitterness. That's why we these things shouldn't be decided through ballot measures, but left to the juris prudence of our courts.
@ Tessa - HOLLA AT ME!!
What is so striking about Prop 8 may not be what it says or doesn't say about morality, but what it says about the banal cruelty of an indifferent majority.
@ John - YOU GOT IT, DUDE!
What is so striking about Prop 8 may not be what it says or doesn't say about morality, but what it says about the banal cruelty of an indifferent majority.
Wow. That might be the most powerful quote I've seen today.
At the end of the day, I doubt very many people at all voted for prop 8 to preserve "Traditional Marriage". I suspect the most prevalent reason for a yes vote was the fear (usually unarticulated) that the more accepting society is of gays, the more gays there will be. And specifically, that there will be a greater chance of one's own kids being gay. Those ads that talked about kids being taught about gay marriage in elementary school were essentially saying "don't let them expose your kid to gayness (cause then he might turn out that way)". I see the traditional marriage argument as just a lame, innocent-sounding excuse that folks latched onto because they didn't want to expose their prejudices.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a morality that is purely self-interested.
Maybe I'm naive but I think at some level people understand this. They may be mislead - organized religion is prone to this - or deny it at times or may be pathological, but eventually they will see the light.
I'm not religious or homosexual. I would have voted no. I do think homosexuals should have a right to marry in a legal sense. However, no church should be required to marry them if they are against it.
For me, a.) I don't think someone's sexual orientation should deny them the same rights that everyone other tax-paying citizen has, b.) i don't think religion should be the end all and be all of public policy. If so, let's make lying, adultery, war (mass killing), and keeping up with the joneses crimes. Be consistent.
Re: separate but equal BAD
Here's some good rhetoric to illustrate the point: What's so terrible about riding in the back of the bus? The bus still goes to all the same places? Or let's say you wanted to transfer your children to a different school, but the district wouldn't let you. Not that ones better, but it's better for you. That would be a problem, right?
@ John Henry--hmm that has me thinking--could someone come up with a proposal or bill or something that says something to the effect of: men may marry men and women may marry women and IF YOU DON'T WANT TO MARRY THEM AT YOUR CHURCH NO LEGAL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU AND IT [marriage nor sexuality] WILL NOT BE TAUGHT IN YOUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS--UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH. Maybe that would tip the scales?
I am sure that this has been said before, but your thinking here is pretty bad.
Consider the following argument:
1) I do what I want
2) I want to help people because they are being discriminated against.
3) Doing what one wants is selfish
Therefore 4) Helping people who are being discriminated against is a selfish action.
Clearly, the argument is problematic because the sense of "want" in "I do what I want" is not the sense of "want" in "doing what one wants is selfish."
Ditto with your argument. Simply because I have an interest in acting a certain way doesn't mean I am acting out of "self-interest."
Unless, of course, you want to suggest that every action has a meaningfully selfish motivation and intent, not just "we want to do it." You need to fill out what constitutes "meaningfully self-interested" or "selfish" in a way that doesn't refer to the triviality that "we do what we want" or "we act out of the interests we have."
The white working class folks who helped disenfranchise blacks in post-bellum America were not tools of the evil planter class--they literally believed that blacks were inferior, and had forged an identity based on that belief.
Hmm. This example made me wonder if what you're talking about isn't a binary (tool OR motivated by self-interest) but somehow symbiotic. Why can't it be true that the white working class believed that blacks were inferior AND were tools of the planter class? Both were true at the same time. To me, it's not that important to know if the planter class fooled the working class or just took advantage of a belief the poor whites already had. The point is that segregation lasted as long as it did because the planters and the white working class had a symbiotic relationship where both parties benefited. From what I've studied of segregation in the South, it's no so much that the working class whites suddenly found that it was in their interest to stop supporting Jim Crow laws. It was that the planter class had lost the power to hold this symbiotic relationship together.
I don't know if this has any applications to the gay marriage issue. I think the analogy breaks down, actually.
Still, your larger point - that people generally act according to their interests - is one I agree with. Our morality is just another "interest." But I also think that acting based on our interests (including our moral interests) can sometimes leaves us vulnerable to more powerful forces. That's because we tend to define our interests too narrowly and because we think in the short term.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
How come no one can argue in favor of gay rights on the merits of gays alone? I notice that everything has to pertain to slavery, interracial marriage, and everything that black people went through for the last 400 years.
Folks, it ain't even in the same universe.
I saw a couple of verses up there linking homophobia to the Holocaust.
Come on, now.
For once, I'd like to see a coherent, cogent explanation as to why and what-for about gay marriage. Frankly, I'm rather indifferent to it, but it'd be interesting to see an intelligent argument for it. I have yet to see one.
I believe gay marriage will succeed in the future, because heterosexuals (the majority of which are blacks) just cohabit. They have children. They live like they're married. Why bother about a certificate? It's not necessary. Live together for 3 years or so, and be a common-law spouse.
In future, heterosexual concern and interest in marriage will decline, and gay marriage will continue to expand.
I think the self-interest v. morality debate gets more interesting (and difficult) when you are faced with a choice which either violates your morality but is in your self-interest v. a choice which is moral but against your self-interest (or perhaps even harmful to you). I think that it is in these hard choices that we truly find our strength and what is important to us.
As for the issue at hand, I believe that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principal of the fabric of our country and the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the few or of the many have no place in our policy and government. It is why I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.
John -
Wow...just...wow. From what I recollect, the US was founded in the 18th century. Built from the colonies until today, marriage was between a man and a woman. Here, rather than in Europe, there was very little concern about a wife's father's land or position. I'll grant you there may have been some of that in the pre-Civil War south, but that's a whole other can o' worms.
So, if one-man/one-woman marriages were the norm when the colonies became the U.S., for us, the decedents, the traditional form of marriage IS one-man/one-woman. Give it another couple of hundred years and the pendulum could swing either direction and back again, but if tomorrow marriage magically became two-men/two-women, and two hundred years hence someone was fighting for one-man/one-woman rights, the 2-fers would be completely comfortable saying, "look, it's traditional and it's been this way for hundreds of years."
You're painting with too broad a brush and trying to incorporate the span of human history into a contemporary argument that, frankly, civics really never should have gotten involved with in the first place.
TNC - I completely agree with you on this one. One of the themes of "Invisible Man" by Ralph Ellison reflects this idea of racism hurting not just black people in the U.S., but everyone. A number of times I have thought that your ideas reflect this sentiment.
I am also happily surprised by the strong comments in posts such as these. I say keep them coming.
I question the wisdom of having these hot button issues decided by ballot proposition. Wasn't the point of setting up a (small-r) republican style government rather than a directly (small-d) democratic government so that we could solve problems like this in the legislature where both sides of the issue could be hammered out and a compromise could be reached?
While I agree that most people act in what they perceive to be their self-interest, I don't think our powers of perception are all that good.
How many cats have you known that have fallen head over heel over the wrong girl, or vice versa? Yeah, she's hot, and she looks good naked...but she steals all your money!
Or yeah, I know Big Macs are bad for me...but they're oh-so-tasty.
I know you're going to try and tell me that smoking a cigarette isn't in my best interest....but I'm really REALLY dying for a smoke.
There are many forces forces in this world, both external and internal, telling us that things that aren't in our interests are "in our interests."
It's everywhere, man. Using self-interest as a guide just guarantees we're going to be wrong a lot of the time.
Scott -
I agree that I painted with a sandblaster on that comment - this is a subject that inspires hot emotions - BUT...
We can argue until we're blue in the face about the "invisible" caste structure that exists in the USA and has since our inception, the treatment of women by the law and their husbands in this country, and what marriage means to people of difference classes, from the out-of-sight rich to the working poor. But to inject class into this discussion is to open a real can of wyrms (typo intended).
For a more pertinent history of marriage and persecution, I shall (ironically) turn to the travails of a small group of Christians under the leadership of Joseph Smith. Essentially, they were forced to flee Illinois in part because of their perverse practice of polygamy (which is a millenia old practice of human society seen all over the world - but I digress) and the threat of violence against.
Joseph Smith and his followers settled in Utah and founded the Church of Latter Day Saints. A hundred-odd years later, the same church would lead the way in persecuting yet another minority group for having alternative views of marriage.
Ain't that a kick in the pants?
"Traditional Marriage", like most "Traditional" things, has never been terribly traditional. It's one of those words - like "moral" "God" "family" etc - that radical theocrats trot out on a regular basis to shut down dialogue.
Fact of the matter is, the ultimate solution to this problem may be the elimination of civil marriage and its subsequent replacement with civil unions. That way, the government can wipe its hands of deciding who can get "married", provide benefits to all citizens equally, and let churches make their own decisions about what unions are made inside or outside the sight of God.
John -
I won't argue with you about invisible caste structures except to point out that you pointed out that it "exists in the USA and has since our inception". Please point to one nation-state in history where that wasn't the case. I cannot think of one off-hand.
Second, you seemed to defend polygamy on the basis that it's a millenia-old practice see all over human society. So is the systematic oppression of women. So is slavery. So is the invisible class system you're speaking against. So is tyranny, etc etc. Not a sound basis for the somewhat roundabout point you were trying to make with the Mormans.
Something becomes "traditional" if it becomes the norm for a long time. You cannot argue that man/woman marriages were not the norm, regardless of what you claim as the basis for that practice. The "traditional" nature of the issue is all I was pointing out.
Also, while I'm not zealot, you're really only beating the bush on one side when you said that terms like family, God, etc are used by radical theocrats to stifle discussion. Maybe, but do you also agree that political correctness (a staple of the radical progressive) has stifled just as much, if not more, contemporary discussion and has taken on shades of a religion all it's own...at least in the worst cases.
I have long advocated that the most simple and pragmatic solution is to remove the word "marriage" from all statutes and regulations, local and federal. I'm libertarian enough to care less if Bob has a civil union with Tom. But I'm also logical enough to ask...what then? Using the equal protection and seperate-but-equal arguments currently bandied about by gay-marriage proponents, why are a man-man or woman-woman more valid than man-woman-woman or woman-woman-woman or (insert configuration of your choice here)?
Ultimately we seem to agree that "radical" for the most part inspires the least rational behavior in our fellow man. The frustrating part, at least for non-radical progressives (and many think that anyone who is progressive is radical) is that the religious and divisive radicals on the right control a majority of the conversation in this country.
Now, that could be because we're a center-right nation, as so many demagogues on the right are wont to say. Personally, I think it's because they have mastered the co-opt and the shut-down, two debating tactics that are a) about as low as they come b) totally unproductive and c) fun in political science classes around the world, but not much use when it comes to constructive governing and problem solving.
So, while you hold up "political correctness" as the left's "God" etc. argument, the history of that phrase is much the same as "Partial Birth Abortion" or "Clean Air Act" - a co-opting and warping by the right of anti-harassment legislation from the 80s and 90s.
The problem here is this: there may be a better solution to workplace and residential discrimination than tough anti-harassment and discrimination laws - but the right isn't interested for the most part in having a constructive conversation that generates new, unexpected solutions. It's so much easier to just shut-down or co-opt an idea politically and use it to maintain power.
Which brings us to 2004 and the strategic placement of anti-gay measures on ballots in swing states by republican lawmakers to drive voting in their unarguably bigoted base. Which brings us back to the co-opting of "traditional" and "family".
You see, their use of these terms is co-opting because there's nothing traditional about breaking up families, regardless of their constituent parts. There's nothing pro-family about stripping people of their children, denying them basic visitation, and classifying an entire population as legally separate. There's nothing in God that supports major politicians comparing gay relationships to bestiality and pathological theft. These are key words, stripped of meaning, used to manipulate simple people.
To bring it back around to the point of this thread, there's nothing moral about it either.
Oh, and I have no problem with polygamy. Just with selective memory and revisionist history...
John Henry,
The golden rule is not acting out of self interest without some additional non-obvious assumptions.
The fact that you do unto others as you want them to do unto you does not mean that others will actually do unto you as you want. It could as easily mean that you set yourself up as a sap who everyone knows they can walk over because you will continue to treat them well anyway.
Obviously this will turn a bit on how you define the circumstances under which you decide what you want. Kant's Categorical Imperative modifies the Golden Rule in part so that one can get outside ones own position and want that you yourself would get the shit beaten out of you if you acted in certain ways, so that you in turn could beat the shit out of others who act in those ways.
But the Golden Rule as it has usually been understood is more about remaining a good person (that is not beating the shit out of people) even if those people are bad people.
If one takes being a good person as ones interest then this could still count as self-interest, but that does seem to make the term somewhat vacuous as any behavior could be counted as self-interested. I would tend to draw the line at bringing on martyrdom as being in ones self-interest.
John -
To say one side or the other is more guilty of co-opting words to score political and cultural points would border on naive. You have to admit that is a two-way street and I don't believe I said otherwise. You'll have to explain a bit better, though, how the right co-opted partial-birth abortion. What term do you use?
No argument whatsoever on the GOP's strategy in 2004. It's not alone, though, by any means, in the sphere of dirty political tricks drummed up to incite the base. I'd ask you to be careful about things like "unarguably bigoted" base. Again, you're painting with an awfully big brush. As Sam Clemens said, "generalizations are generally useless."
As to co-opting, the left accomplished a huge win in the political realm by convincing everyone that somehow to be a Nazi or fascist was to be right-wing. I still hear that today in nearly every spectrum. The Nazi's were brutal, bigoted historical failures, but there's nothing inherently right-wing about them. There's nothing inherently right-wing about violence or coercion, in my opinion. That opinion is founded on the view that in the political spectrum, the further left you go, the bigger the government gets and the further right you go, the smaller it gets. Thus, a tyrant is the extreme left and the anarchist is the extreme right. Calling the Nazi's, who were socialists, right-wing, or otherwise claiming that violence exists on the right is the height of hypocrisy. History is littered with violence on the left.
Just an observation based solely on life-experience; I believe the country to be center-right because I believe humans are, in general, creatures of comfort-zones and at least slightly conservative in nature when it comes to upsetting the applecarts of their lives. Not making a judgement on if that's good or bad, just making the observation as you seem to disagree with the notion out of hand. On the other hand,
I also don't see an innate virtue in "new, unexpected solutions". Nine out of ten new and exciting computer hardware "solutions" turn out to be dead-ends and eventually end up in the bargain bin if not the garbage can. Being a speculative fiction fan, I'm not inherently against "new and unexpected" in general, but I am when it comes to things like my family's budget, for instance, I'm pretty much the old coot (at 38).
I suppose I don't consider the right-wing of this country to be conservative. At least, they haven't been in the last 20 years or so. Old associations of "liberal" and "conservative" to political parties are dead, as is evidence by our most recent national election.
"Partial-birth abortion" is a branding term, so ubiquitous that it has actually replaced the correct term, which is late-term abortion. Can you see the distinction? It's all about perception.
It's not the first nine solutions that count, Scott. it's that tenth, built by consensus and respect. As I'm sure you'll agree with your conservative bent - most of the best solutions tend to be in the middle of the spectrum. But if one side co-opts and shuts-down - we never get there.
Ah, the politics of divisiveness. Have you palled around with any terrorists lately?
As for the 'icky' argument as a rational for being against gay marriage -- I can think of a lot of 'icky' people having sex, but that doesn't mean I want it made illegal (ugly fat people with bad skin having sex is much more 'icky' to me then too handsome gay dudes doing it).
Most importantly, all of the attempts at a deep understanding of the issue are a kind of intellectual masturbation, but have almost no relevance to the reality of the problem -- gay marriage would be legal if not for the negative power of religion combined with the tendency for religious people to just accept foolish arguments without consideration.
People who don't like to use their brains to think can't be convinced by any argument, and to make things worst, they sure as heck aren't reading these posts.
John -
Partial-birth abortion is branding term? You mean like radical theocrat? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Partial-birth abortion is a procedure, as I understand the term, versus late term abortion, which refers to WHEN it happens, regardless of what method is used to kill the baby. Partial-birth has to do with partially evacuating the baby's body from the birth canal and killing it before it's completely out...which would equal a birth, I suppose, and therefor the broohaha over the practice. I've always wondered, though, what the difference in personhood is between a baby that's killed with its body outside, but head inside, versus a baby who's head has cleared the birth canal. It's always puzzled me why there's a difference. But I digress.
While I agree that the Republicans are generally NOT conservatives these days, I would still say there are office-holders of the GOP that are still conservative...they're just lost in the noise. However, on the Democratic side, I would have to assert that there are plenty of liberal public statements from current office-holders, so I don't think the same thing holds true for that side of the isle. Frankly, I'm less anti-Democart or pro-Republican than I am becoming anti-Boomer.
And there, I believe, is the problem. We have an entire generation of Boomers who don't know anything about compromise and are a very all-or-nothing crowd. Raised in affluence, given everything, cut their teeth in the sixties, and haven't got their heads out of it since (both sides). This is the primary reason I'm optimistically "wait-and-see" about Obama.
The problem with your 9/10th's point is that when you're dealing with public money, you're spending 90% of it with little or no return. That's worse than casino odds. I'm all for new and interesting solutions, but I want them to be vetted before we just unleash them on, say, grammer schools.
Your terrorist comment made no sense at all given the context.
Partial-birth abortion is NOT the correct medical term. Medical doctors find it infuriating, because it was invented by pro-life radicals to polarize the public around a procedure that is a) rarely if ever used and b) is absolutely necessary when it is used. It is the politics of distraction and division, which is where the "palling around with terrorists" comment came from - Palin and McCain were trying to distract from their abysmal lack of substance by impugning Obama's character.
The only thing I have to say about the "10th idea" is that, when it's something like penicillin or nuclear physics or the discovery of DNA, that 10th idea is worth exponentially more than the 90% we "wasted" finding it. Were we able to eliminate hunger or poverty or disease in some way that was efficient, easily accessible and universal - well, even the prospect of that idea being found is worth the trillions of dollars spent finding it. That it wouldn't be worth it to you or to other conservatives is something that I have difficulty wrapping my head around.
Though - I would be curious as to how you would "vet" a truly ingenious idea differently that we do now - primarily through limited rollouts with accountability.
I didn't say it was the correct medical term. I was pointing out that you were wrong, to which you did not respond. Whatever the correct medical term for partial-birth abortion, it is a procedure and NOT the same thing as a late term abortion, which defines WHEN it happens. You also didn't answer my other question (as we highjack a gay-marriage thread for abortion banter) about the difference in personhood between a baby who clears the birth canal vs one who's head is still inside when it's killed, but neither here nor there.
Your paragraph on the 9/10 thing...you're talking about scientific study. That's WORLDS away from social engineering or public policy. Aside from the stem-cell crowd, which I don't traffic with, I don't think dyed-in-the-wool conservatives have any problems with scientific advancement. In fact, scientific advancement is the measured, deliberate way to come up with new answers.
My point was "new and unexpected" in the terms of progressive public policy...such as non-merit-based education. Every person I have ever talked to that came up through a school system that tried that out, including my wife, says that they were behind when they went back into the main student body the following year. You cannot deliberately and carefully study public policy because it's not a sterile, controlled laboratory environment. If someone was indeed against scientific study, as you said, I, too, would have trouble wrapping my head around it. Other than that, I believe your point falls short.
Your vetting comment embodies a great deal of what we understand the policy tug-of-war between conservatives and progressives. I think progressives get exasperated for the same reason you mentioned...how do we find out if it works unless we try it...while the other side says, we can't try it until we know it will work. And this goes back to the center-right point from earlier in the thread. I believe most people error on the side of caution and that tends to be a center-right point of view.
Besides, ingenious ideas are only ingenious in hindsight after they're proven to BE ingenious through trial and error or experimentation. In the sphere of public policy, however, I don't think public children should be subjected to experimentation.
If you have a private institution and people pay to be there knowing you're going to try different things with their kids whilly-nilly, more power to you (that liberarian streak in me again). However, I don't believe it's an office-holder's job to force children, who in most cases are forced to be there in the first place, to experimental and untested (or worse, tried before and failed) policies in education. Just as an example.