Via James Poulos, George Will dislikes appeals to change.
What men like Will never seem to understand, of course, is that people want change-- and not just gradual change but great, earth-shaking change, revolution and revolt-- because they are suffering, and only change can end their suffering. For some people the status quo just can't continue. Only radical, life-altering change can end their suffering.
Now that doesn't mean we should always try to give it to them. Far from it. It doesn't mean that the plight of the suffering is society's only concern, though, yes, I find the elimination of suffering an absolute moral responsibility of a free and just society. There are always countervailing forces and other people with their own desires and needs.
But I grow increasingly tired of men like George Will pretending that some of us call for change just for change's sake. I am weary of the conservative principle of denying the suffering of the poor, or the oppressed. Advocate for limited change if that's what your conscience and your intellect tell you is appropriate. But stop ignoring the fact that the desire for change comes from genuine emotional and physical distress. Of course George Will doesn't want real change; George Will appears to live rather comfortably. I have no problem with others advocating a politics of naked self-interest, but I insist that they recognize that the desire to change comes from competing self-interests. Conservatives can be quite open on this point. When Dinesh D'souza said that the Democratic party is the party of losers, this is what he meant. That was a moment of important honesty, an honesty about the mainstream conservative project: that it is greatly concerned with keeping those in positions of power and wealth where they are. Whether the fact that this project so frequently denies enfranchisement and economic improvement to those who don't have them is a feature or a bug, I will leave an open question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
I agree with your general premise (that people who are content with life fear change) but a few points first:
I find the elimination of suffering an absolute moral responsibility of a free and just society
I find the absolute moral responsibility of a free and just society to be the realization that suffering cannot possibly be eliminated, it is an inherent aspect of sensory biological life, and thus we should not compound said suffering in a futile quest to eradicate it.
I am weary of the conservative principle of denying the suffering of the poor, or the oppressed. Advocate for limited change if that's what your conscience and your intellect tell you is appropriate. But stop ignoring the fact that the desire for change comes from genuine emotional and physical distress
Indeed there is a great percentage of peoples in this country who cannot see the proverbial forest for trees, but is not necessarily denial. Nor is it ignorance. It is self-interest however, and I would hypothesize that this is trait is a failure of American representative democracy and not political philosohpy. You are theorizing that people want change because they are suffering and they need "earth-shaking" change. If that is not self-interest, I don't know what is.
Were we all to stop looking to our elected representatives to either a) maintain the status quo or b) deliver the change we've been waiting for, I would argue that our pursuit of liberty and prosperity would improve greatly by sheer force of humanity.
That was a moment of important honesty, an honesty about the mainstream conservative project: that it is greatly concerned with keeping those in positions of power and wealth where they are.
This is a fact of American politics, beyond philosophy. Do you really want to state that Democrats, liberals, progressives, or socialists are NOT concerned with keeping "their folks" in power? If so, I trust that you've never lived in New England, worked with or for a union, or known an Italian.
Whether the fact that this project so frequently denies enfranchisement and economic improvement to those who don't have them is a feature or a bug, I will leave an open question.
Whatever happend to "we are the change we have been waiting for?" I thought the man couldn't keep us down anymore.
Whatever happend to "we are the change we have been waiting for?" I thought the man couldn't keep us down anymore.
Why bother to pretend to engage on any kind of substantive level if you're just going to engage in this kind of childishness? (Have I ever endorsed Barack Obama?)
I find the absolute moral responsibility of a free and just society to be the realization that suffering cannot possibly be eliminated, it is an inherent aspect of sensory biological life, and thus we should not compound said suffering in a futile quest to eradicate it.
We'll never stop murders, right? So then it follows, by your logic, that we should make no efforts to stop them. Right?
Why bother to pretend to engage on any kind of substantive level if you're just going to engage in this kind of childishness? (Have I ever endorsed Barack Obama?)
That certainly was a substantive comment. You opened up with a question as to whether the "conservative project" in designed for, or inadvertently results in, the denial of opportunity to those who seek "enfranchisment" and "economic improvement."
The current overarching meme produced by the non-conservative(?) candidate in the current Presidentional election is that we are the agents of change. If it is change we seek, we are what we've been seeking. Whoever made that catch phrase clearly believes that their is no system, philosophy, or machine that can impede change if those who seek it embody it.
And that was not an implication that you support B.O. Not sure how you got that out of there.
We'll never stop murders, right? So then it follows, by your logic, that we should make no efforts to stop them. Right?
On to the topic of childishness....no, but seriously, that's an excellent point. There's a reason some of us are opposed to the death penalty - a form of punishment that logically is supposed to deter people from committing murders. Now, if the death penatly could be quantitatively proven to prevent these horrific crimes, more people would be amenable to the practice. However this is not the case. As such, many people believe that capital punishment is compounding suffering in the vein hope of alleviating it, either by detering more murders or by satiating the victim's family.
Let me re-quote my comment:
"I find the absolute moral responsibility of a free and just society to be the realization that suffering cannot possibly be eliminated, it is an inherent aspect of sensory biological life, and thus we should not compound said suffering in a futile quest to eradicate it."
People like me do not deny human suffering. We all will, and indeed all of us do, suffer immensely at one point or another in life. People like me want peace, prosperity, and happiness for the greater public, and we want to needless suffering to mostly cease.
But there is a finite limit at which we can achieve these ends. There is a limit to how well our government and military can protect us from attack. There is a limit to how much we can consume, burn fossil fuels, spend money, and work. There are always limits. This is what Will is discussing. Who defines this limit? That is up for debate. My definition of the political limit is simple: infringing on indivdual liberties and constitutionally-protected freedoms.
That was a moment of important honesty, an honesty about the mainstream conservative project: that it is greatly concerned with keeping those in positions of power and wealth where they are.
To whose 'conservative project' are you referring? Dr. Will began his career as a quizzical observer of suburban life and is concluding it as the house intellectual of the Chamber of Commerce. In neither phase of his career was he a defender of some sort of fancied oligarchy. Libertarians are generally admirers of an entrepreneurship that implies a considerable quantum of upward and downward mobility. Social conservatives are practically indifferent to economic questions and social strata and are characteristically skeptical of elite culture and mores. The folks associated with the Committee for the Free World and the Project for a New American Century were generally vaguely social-democratic in their outlook (some being members of a descendant of the old Socialist Party of America) and primarily concerned with questions of foreign policy and the military.
-- I find the elimination of suffering an absolute moral responsibility of a free and just society.--
Buddhists and Christians believe that suffering is not only an inevitable part of the human condition, but a necessary component for spiritual growth and change. When we experience suffering as a result of events beyond our control (illness, death, acts of nature), our compassion for others in similar circumstances increases.
When we suffer as a result of events within our control (poor planning or a mistake on our part), we learn to modify our behavior to avoid future suffering. Strangely enough, a world without suffering would not be a world we would want to live in.
^^Thanks!!
徵徵徵婚前徵信徵婚姻感情徵大陸抓姦徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴徵婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚徵徵工商徵信徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵婚前徵信外遇抓姦感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦離婚家暴徵徵工商徵信法律諮詢徵徵徵跟蹤徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵工商徵信徵徵婚前徵信感情挽回外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴尋人大陸抓姦離婚徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵大陸抓姦徵外遇徵徵徵尋人徵徵家暴徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵工商徵信法律諮詢家暴感情挽回大陸抓姦外遇婚前徵信離婚徵徵尋人徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵工商徵信徵徵徵徵徵徵外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信大陸抓姦尋人感情挽回徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵外遇抓姦婚前徵信感情挽回尋人大陸抓姦工商徵信法律諮詢離婚家暴徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回大陸抓姦離婚徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵離婚感情挽回婚前徵信外遇抓姦家暴尋人徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵工商徵信外遇抓姦法律諮詢家暴婚前徵信尋人感情挽回">徵大陸抓姦離婚徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵婚前徵信工商徵信外遇抓姦尋人離婚家暴大陸抓姦感情挽回法律諮詢徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵徵
Thank you for an additional improbable blog. Where else may anyone get that kind of data written in such an ideal method? I've a presentation that I'm simply now working on, and I've been on the look out for such information.
Post a Comment