September 12, 2009: John Locke’s Woodstock
He talks of a utopia just around the bend, some just symmetry of people and government that can be had if the dullards would just listen.
Under the leftist’s nose? A million individuals marching as a coherent whole to uphold each individual member’s right to self-determinism. I cannot picture a more beautiful manmade symmetry, but to the leftist it is simply not perfect enough, and in fact quite ugly.
The marchers promise: A life where one’s failures and triumphs are one’s own; where charity comes from genuine kindness, not confiscation; where a life of abject failure, a penniless wretch can still claim the pride of ownership of his mistakes and his risks taken. The right to own one’s fate, or one’s luck, trading the right to lay blame for the chance at fulfillment. The opportunity to have dreams actualized, deferred, or unrequited, accomplishment not being the yardstick of a life, but the vigor put toward the pursuit.
The marchers promise you the opportunity to give every worldly strength you’re blessed with towards anything, anything at all, without an intrusive government to rue or corruption to hamper you.
For the leftist, Locke isn’t pretty enough. He isn’t superior to his leftist idea even when the two movements and their results — almost precisely 40 years apart — are visible and tangible to every sense.
He lives each day in a utopia, spotting greener grass everywhere and rejecting the millennia of struggle and sacrifice resulting in the wonder at his feet.
- For the leftist, Locke isn’t pretty enough. He isn’t superior to his leftist idea even when the two movements and their results — almost precisely 40 years apart — are visible and tangible to every sense. He lives each day in a utopia, spotting greener grass everywhere and rejecting the millennia of struggle and sacrifice resulting in the wonder at his feet.
There’s a reason for this. And it has far more to do with human development than political ideology.
Dude. There were only 60,000. The dude on the TV said so. I mean who are you to argue with the big dude on the TV?
Indeed, leftist leadership always promises that prosperity and peace are just around the corner. The windmill will be finished next year, we will surpass Great Britain in iron production and the U.S. in wheat production.
It sometimes seems as though the ideology that our nation was founded upon has been lost or even discarded intentionally. This nation has become great because of ideas such as liberty and freedom and concepts such as “The American Dream.” The American dream idea was that of anyone being able to better their station in life through hard work and determination. A good idea and some serious effort can accomplish anything. America doesn’t give or guarantee you success or a better station, but simply guarantees your ability to do so on your own. Government is only there to make sure we have the freedom to chase that dream.
The Leftist is an individual perpetually dissatisfied and angry, someone who longs for authoritarian leadership to impose a system onto humankind that will bring all down (in the words of Winston Churchill speaking of the ends of socialism) to the same level of shared misery.
There is another picture similar to yours, comparing the National Mall yesterday and the National Mall following Obama’s swearing in spectacle.
Emblematic of Liberal v. Conservative: They say a picture is worth 1000 words
excellent piece David.
…truly the ignored majority. 2010 / 2012 cann’t come soon enough.
“The marchers promise: A life where one’s failures and triumphs are one’s own; where charity comes from genuine kindness, not confiscation; where a life of abject failure, a penniless wretch can still claim the pride of ownership of his mistakes and his risks taken.”
Hey, Davie, are you on the lecture circuit? I think there’s a meeting of Madoff victims who’d just love to hear your spiel.
The lack of cleanliness and respect for property by the Lefties is revolting.
5. tanstaafl:
“The Leftist is an individual [...]”
Leftist individual? Oxymoron.
The liberal agenda has fostered government dependency instead of self-reliance; government direction instead of self-determination; moral indulgence and relativism instead of moral rectitude; coercive collectivism instead of cooperative individualism; indentured servitude instead of genuine altruism…It has undermined the sanctity of marriage and the cohesiveness of the family. It has undermined the natural harmony that exists between individual, family and community. It has weakened the obligations of promises, contracts, ownership and property rights. It has disconnected rewards from merit and desert. It has corrupted the moral and ethical basis for civilized living. It has polarized the population into warring classes with false claims of victimization and villainy and contrived needs for political rescue. With enormous growth beyond the definition of government and its functions set forth in the U.S. Constitution, modern American liberalism has created the idealized parental and administrative state and endowed it with vast managerial, caretaking and regulatory powers.
…The liberal agenda is the liberal neurosis made manifest. It is not a rational program for the organization of human action. It is instead an irrational conglomeration of neurotic defenses which the modern liberal uses for his mental and emotional equilibrium. By attacking the sovereignty of the individual and the institutions essential to ordered liberty, the agenda attacks the very foundations of a free society. In fact, modern liberalism does not seek authentic freedom, despite its historical association with that ideal, nor does it foster the individual’s growth to competence. It does not promote the virtues of individual liberty: not self-reliance, responsibility, dependability or accountability; not cooperation by consent or initiative or industry; not high moral standards or caring or altruism. It does not seek a society of sovereign citizens, but fosters instead a society of allegedly victimized dependents under the custodial care of the state.
Some interesting thoughts from this MD.
It’s the psychology, stupid
Very well stated! A sleeping giant has stirred and as the left, MSM, and the idiot Axlerod in the W.H. fail to comprehend enough is enough, and we will not remain quite any longer while this “new” corrupt administration falls.
According to a friend who attended the march, there were “well over a million people there.” He said he’d “never seen anything like it.” And that “Even after the march itself reached the mall, more and more kept coming. They just kept coming.”
Stop listening to the MSM and start listening to the people who were there, on the ground.
The stark comparison between the leftovers from Woodstock and Ibama’s inauguration, and the almost pristine leavings of the 9/12 marchers are tangible evidence of the difference inherent between self-achievers and bib-wearers. The former takes care of things himself. The latter expects others to do it, therefore, big government is a good thing to them.
We wear aprons and roll up our sleeves; they wear bibs and poo in their pants.
“Madoff’s victims.” There’s another oxymoron for you.
Still not sure how many attended on saturday either…heard 60 grand to over a million. And one of the commenters was correct, there was hardly any coverage by the national media, which I do not think is correct. Also, correct me if I am wrong but the only thing I noticed was that this march was about not wanting any taxes or was there more to it? And last, the bad news the right will realize is that a protest march rarely ends in getting any real power or change. Just ask all the woodstock folks and other marching attendies from the sixties or seventies. The national press should have covered it more in depth though.
… and he rejects God.
The marchers promise: A life where one’s failures and triumphs are one’s own; where charity comes from genuine kindness, not confiscation; where a life of abject failure, a penniless wretch can still claim the pride of ownership of his mistakes and his risks taken. The right to own one’s fate, or one’s luck, trading the right to lay blame for the chance at fulfillment. The opportunity to have dreams actualized, deferred, or unrequited, accomplishment not being the yardstick of a life, but the vigor put toward the pursuit.
That, my friends, is as powerful a summary as I have ever read and is what the 9-12 protest was all about. Personal responsibility and Personal accountability. What a well written article!
While the marchers were kind enough to clean up the trash outside of the capitol, I am more interested in the cleaning up we will be doing inside the capitol in 2010.
Bravo! Excellent piece and a much needed revisting of the basic principles that define what it means to be truly free on this earth. Of course there are always the people that aren’t happy unless they are able to point out specific wrongs in society or failures of government to acheive that neverland of perfection.
What people like Bibio44 consistently fail to understand is that there will always be crooks like Madoff who can defraud people out of large sums of money no matter which political party is in power. The only kind of government that is capable of proactively preventing any and all such calamities is one which becomes overwhelmingly powerful, restrictive and intrusive in citizens’ lives to the point that it squeezes the life out even honest people’s ability to make a living. Then of course we do achieve that grand dream of equality of outcome: we’re all equally impoverished, disprited and utterly subservient to politicians and their whims.
The argument of the Left with the Lockean project – which is the most accurate two word definition of America – is that there is no grandeur in it. That’s probably true. Except for the fact that all the places where grandeur has taken center stage have been hellish for “the little people.”
And last, the bad news the right will realize is that a protest march rarely ends in getting any real power or change. Just ask all the woodstock folks and other marching attendies (sic) from the sixties or seventies.
Is Poor Citizen so historically challenged and intellectually bereft that he doesn’t know Woodstock was a gigantic (and highly commercial) music festival ?
Held over 3 days on on a dairy farm in New York state ?
The country is in deep trouble, and some of our shallowest ideologues are at the helm.
With an entire army of Useful Idiots working tirelessly on their behalf.
No wonder you don’t know what’s going on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/14/912-tea-party-photo-false_n_286082.html
although I generally agree with a no troll feeding policy, I must acknowledge a stunning and remarkably childish rebuttal by one bibio
libber-newt. we are all impressed bibbi with your grasp of names and your peerless repartee. u stand alone in this delightful crowd.
That is what is called, ‘raising the level of the debate.’
Well done, Mr. Steinberg.
What is so significant about the “tea party protests” is the courtesy of the protestors. There is no demand for rights which they do not have. They demand that government get out of their lives. They do conceive of abortion of a living fetus; or “same sex marriage”; or “assisted suicide”; or use of drugs as “constitutional rights”. They see political activists using public office as a vehicle for imposing THEIR
ideas without any approval of the electorate.
sorry for the typos: They do not conceive of abortion etc as a constitutional right.
The argument of the Left with the Lockean project – which is the most accurate two word definition of America – is that there is no grandeur in it.
For most of history, the masses have had to draw symbolic sustenance from the “grandeur” of the governmental elites, i.e. their monuments to themselves, while those same elites consumed all real substance. America is supposed to be averse to all that and to give the masses the tools to erect their own monuments to themselves, in the form of their vocation, their family and their local communities.
People on the Left who get caught up in the idea of being part of something “bigger than themselves” need to get a hobby and stop using their own lives’ emptiness as an excuse to reach into my wallet.
Uh, now and then, you have to understand that there was more than one photograph taken of the crowd on the mall.
That first picture gives a clear indication of how tiny the protest really was. Thanks for a small dose of reality here.
Peace.
DS
@1. goy:
Good of you to link to direct evidence of your authoritarian streak, and the nature of your disregard for your fellow man. Kudos for honesty. But don’t kid yourself. Authority has nothing to do with morality.
Peace.
DS
- For the leftist, Locke isn’t pretty enough. He isn’t superior to his leftist idea even when the two movements and their results — almost precisely 40 years apart — are visible and tangible to every sense. He lives each day in a utopia, spotting greener grass everywhere and rejecting the millennia of struggle and sacrifice resulting in the wonder at his feet.
There’s a reason for this. And it has far more to do with human development than political ideology.
#21 Now & Then:
That’s pretty lame and as usual, utterly irrelevant. So some unknown blogger puts a deceptive image on his Twitter page. And this means what? Your link from HuffnPuff lists no well-trafficked blogs or media outlets who ran with that picture. No one in the mainstream media ran it. I’ve never seen that photo on any of the more well-known blogs associated with conservatives.
That really is pathetic grasping on your part; very much like last big discovery lefties breathlessly unveiled in July when the intial round of “Tea Parties” started to get attention. Someone working for MediaMatters found out that some “conservative PAC” had been “behind the organization and orchestration of the rallies.” This group (or cabal, as you might call it) was trotted out all across the mainstream media and cited as proof positive that the Tea Party Rallies were strictly Astro-Turf exercises stage-managed by the vast, monied right-wing conspiracy. Trouble is, NO ONE actually in the vast, right-wing conspiracy had ever heard of them.
Wish I could remember that group’s name, but the hilarious upshot was that upon closer examination it was discovered that this group had five members and TOTAL assets of less than $1,000.
You are certainly free to put your hands over your ears (and eyes) and pretend that a grassroots protest of depth and breadth is not building. So as my grandpa would have said, “aw, go suck a bug!”
First, they ignore you
Second, they make fun of you
Third, they attack you
Fourth, YOU WIN
Ghandi
Vamos companeros, arriba los conservadores!
“There’s a reason for this. And it has far more to do with human development than political ideology.”
DS
Don’t leave us hanging: Please enlighten our tragically flawed proclivities with your peerless reason. All beings desire to know.
Typical
This one came from Quincy, Illinois, where according to the right-wing blogosphere 12,000 people showed up to condemn Obama. That’s right: 12,000 in the relatively small town of Quincy, Ill.
Fact: Divide that number by six and you might be right.
From the Quincy Herald Whig:
Quincy police estimated Saturday’s crowd at between 2,000 and 2,200
No, we don’t believe you or in you.
MisterH: I was just explaining to Now and Then that I own horses that are older, smarter and more useful than he is. Too funny, eh?
Soon clowns like Now and then will have to pay their own way, and nobody will do anything but laugh at their self-importance. It will be a wonderful tig to behold.
Like everything else, he has it just backwards; Soon it will be a case of Then and Now, and Now will be pretty grim.
How quickly you all forget 9/11.
@31. MisterH:
… NO ONE actually in the vast, right-wing conspiracy had ever heard of them.
I’m glad we have someone here with privileged access to the right-wing conspiracy. Apparently FreedomWorks was not invited to the cabal? Do tell.
These are pure astroturf protests – the organizers and protesters mostly are aware of this, too, aside from the true believers.
If you enjoy the fantasy that Americans are outraged at the prospect of change, you may have missed a recent election.
Peace.
DS
That first picture gives a clear indication of how tiny the protest really was. Thanks for a small dose of reality here.
By David S’s logic, there were about 50 people at Woodstock.
Clearly, that’s an “after” picture, dumbass.
Peace.
You sound like a parrot for David Axelrod’s talking points, David S (#37)
The other David has been clanging the same bell since before the first big Tea Parties, all over the nation, on April 15.
Americans are, in fact, outraged at the prospect of Obama style change, now that the man has tipped his hand all over the past 8 months.
At the very least, even a down the line Democrat-talking- points-guy like yourself can’t ignore dropping poll numbers.
David Axelrod is spinning and dancing trying to keep the fantasies alive.
You sound like his clone.
“If you enjoy the fantasy that Americans are outraged at the prospect of change, you may have missed a recent election.”
Why Americans are not the least bit outraged at the prospect of change! To change Obama for something less haughty and a bit more sensible, a sprightly haberdasher perhaps, is a prospect I’m confident most Americans would not find the least bit rebarbative. A most sensational suggestion, think you not? Do tell.
30. David S: – Authority has nothing to do with morality.
Gotcha. But you’re a tad late, Zippy, as usual. Haidt had offered a $1000 reward to anyone who could back up an assertion like yours with actual clinical data. I’m sure you had plenty of evidence to support your drivel, but unfortunately you lose out on the bucks due to tardiness. Sorry. Just pay closer attention next time.
Sorry this theory frightens you so much. A little too close to home?
Maybe you should stick to stuff that’s more on your level – like whatreallyhappened.com. SuperMike seems pretty convinced that 9/12 was the largest rally ever held in D.C.
Heh.
If the Left was intelligent, this resistance could be turned into a temporary obstacle, to be maneuvered around–step back, do some popular things for a while, get Congress re-elected, and then try again, more carefully. But the Left has no discipline or self-restraint: they have been out of power too long, nursing resentments, developing schemes for once they go back into power, drawing up an enemies list–they can’t stop now. They are going to barrel full speed ahead into what will be, if it isn’t already, a solid majority of Americans against Obamacare (whatever it actually is). They know they are hurt, and the Van Jones, NEA and ACORN incidents have shown that they know that the MSM can no longer protect them. They can, though, push this through, consequences be damned, and that will intensify social antagonisms to a point not seen since the 1960s, and even more than the 60s. Once the die is cast, they will have to keep over-reaching, going after the “inciters” in talk radio and Fox. They will crash, but the question is how we can minimize the damage while making them crash as soon as possible. (I don’t think the 2010 elections will settle things–I hope I’m wrong, but the Democrats will most likely continue to hold their Congressional majorities, and the Republicans can’t be trusted. They don’t like all this tea party stuff either.)
Excellent article. The pictures speak loudly. Statist utopia is non-existent and can never be achieved – it’s a thirst that’s never satisfied, a journey that never ends, a destination that’s never reached. Our country is headed down the tubes – and fast – unless Congress is fired.
The leftists currently in charge will not rest until our once-great beloved America is reduced to a third-world nation, where everyone is poverty-stricken & miserable. Sadly, many of the Woodstockers are running our colleges & universities & corrupting impressionable young minds.
37. David S.
“These are pure astroturf protests – the organizers and protesters mostly are aware of this, too, aside from the true believers.”
“Pure” and “mostly”, somewhat of a contradiction?
“Pure astroturf”… haven’t seen that since ’67 at Speedway Meadows.
“If you enjoy the fantasy that Americans are outraged at the prospect of change, you may have missed a recent election.”
Aren’t all elections about change? How many elections have you missed?
@38. venividivici:
Clearly, that’s an “after” picture, dumbass.
Apparently you have no concept of what happens when 10,000 people gather on a lawn. The after picture tells the story of a non-event.
@41. goy:
Sorry this theory frightens you so much. A little too close to home?
Hypotheses are not frightening. What’s scary is how you seem inclined to distort this study for your own ends, and in ways that the author (or any reasonably intelligent observer) finds abhorrent.
Respect for authority is not a moral virtue – it is what enables atrocities like the holocaust, and the abuse of prisoners under our previous President.
Advertising your closed-mindedness and calling it a virtue is something you will get over, I hope.
Peace.
DS
Main difference in the two events: overly intoxicated children vs. sober-minded adults
Noob troll “Now and Then” has been here before. Probably as “one of my own.” The snark is weak with you, Marxist Moby.
OK, it looks like the consensus number is between 60,00 and 70,000 people. Bad news, there were more people than that when I saw Pink Floyd in Soldier Field. Good news, you mustered nearly TWICE the numbers that the LAST Klan march had. Well done! Wait, more good news. Michelle Malkin found a homeless man and paid him to hold a sign, so no, it wasn’t technically 100% white.
Apparently you have no concept of what happens when 10,000 people gather on a lawn. The after picture tells the story of a non-event.
I’ll save myself some time by not listing all the things you have no concept of and just say, keep telling yourself that, dumbass.
http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=292256
Peace.
It seems to me a very good thing that the Left psuedo-aristocratic culture insists upon constructing a reality that utterly excludes the beliefs and experiences of conservatives and, increasingly, Americans of basic common sense and decency. Those who were in D.C Saturday know what they saw, and will tell others; they will classify the legacy media’s reporting of the event along with its (non) reporting of Van Jones, ACORN, Obama’s Leftist associations going all the back, etc., and they will simply stop listening. Conservatives will develop a powerful lore and sense of solidarity that will immunize them from the simulations of the profession media and the increasingly pathetic excuses politicians make for their depredations; the Left, meanwhile, desperately trying to maximize and make permanent this last grasp of power, has, and will continue to have, no idea of the motivations, thinking and actions of conservatives. They can sputter “racism” all they want, but something is happening here and they don’t know what it is–and that’s all to the better.
@45. David S: – Hypotheses are not frightening.
Your serial, fear-ridden responses notwithstanding. Don’t be afraid of growing up – it’s happening all around you.
- …ways that the author (or any reasonably intelligent observer) finds abhorrent. … Respect for authority is not a moral virtue…
Clearly you’ve never read anything Haidt’s written on the subject, because everything he’s written contradicts your frightened, desperate mischaracterizations. Best go read his work and come back when you’ve grown an actual clue, Zippy.
@50. adam: – Those who were in D.C Saturday know what they saw, and will tell others; they will classify the legacy media’s reporting of the event along with its (non) reporting of Van Jones, ACORN, Obama’s Leftist associations going all the back, etc., and they will simply stop listening.
Heheheh. Too late – already happened:
50
It seems to me a very good thing that the Left psuedo-aristocratic culture insists upon constructing a reality that utterly excludes the beliefs and experiences of conservatives and, increasingly, Americans of basic common sense and decency.
In the late 19th and early 20th century in Europe, a lot of youngsters read Nietzsche and, as one author put it, after reading him, “There was no small attorney’s son or small farmer’s daughter who had been to a school where their parents had to pay, or had studied painting or music, who did not imagine themselves barons or baronesses, on the spot.”
Substitute Chomsky for Nietzsche and “intellectuals” for “barons and baronesses” and you have the same phenomenon happening among college students in America.
@51. goy:
Don’t be afraid of growing up – it’s happening all around you.
It’s not the grown-ups that scare me. It’s the self-righteous folks like yourself. According to your idol Haidt, this “righteous mind blinds us to the truth”. That is your problem in a nutshell.
Clearly you’ve never read anything Haidt’s written on the subject, because everything he’s written contradicts your frightened, desperate mischaracterizations. Best go read his work and come back when you’ve grown an actual clue, Zippy.
Your disrespect for me, Haidt, his work, and yourself, is palpable. Watch the video that you posted to your own blog. I understand his work, and the ramifications. So does Haidt. Why can you not understand that the common ground is the leftist position?
Authority, loyalty and purity are arbitrary – that is why they can never be the basis for a universal shared moral framework. Harm and fairness are universal and operate equally for all. I can appreciate your need to identify with an in-group, but I would rather that you direct this impulse toward humanity generally, rather than dividing and attacking the rest of the world. The vestiges of tribal society that you champion are a burden, not a benefit. The sooner you learn this, the better.
Peace.
DS
54. “Authority, loyalty and purity are arbitrary – that is why they can never be the basis for a universal shared moral framework.”
The only universal characteristic of men is his being a flawed creature, in christian terms his being a sinner.Virtues as authority, loyalty and purity are there to make the best out of this situation. Your “common ground” of fairness and brotherly love is indeed the leftist position. It is the hallucination of the noble savage invented by Rousseau, an idea which leads directly on the guillotine and into the gulags and the killing fields. In case you grow up sometimes you will hopefully find out that peace is only available if you are prepared for battle.
@54. David S: – Your disrespect for me, Haidt, his work, and yourself, is palpable.
Zippy, your adolescent penchants for lies, self-righteous arrogance and hyperbole are nothing but pure entertainment. They constantly reinforce the implications that derive from Haidt’s research and Seligman’s observations on unwarranted self-esteem.
1. Respect is earned. You haven’t earned it. Just the opposite. This is no surprise, given your baseless proclamations regarding authority, loyalty and purity – all of which involve an element of respect. My lack of respect for you had darned well better be palpable or I’m not doing a very good job of getting my point across.
2. I wouldn’t be promoting Haidt’s work if I didn’t respect him, and it, enormously. It’s your insipid, adolescent, straw man misinterpretation of Haidt’s work – a result of the fact that you’ve never actually read or understood any of it – that I have no respect for. Your frightened, desperate lies in that regard only reinforce #1.
3. Projecting your lack of respect for yourself onto me is wholly in keeping with your morally adolescent manner of dealing with reality. I’ve already lived a full life and successfully reached generativity. I’ve nothing left to prove to myself or anyone else. You, on the other hand, don’t seem to have an interest in living much life at all, and thus have good reasons to disrespect yourself – they’re glaringly apparent with even a cursory read of the sophomoric drivel on your various web sites. Rather than dealing with others as though they’re all fixated at that same point as you, you should consider how best to become un-stuck, not attack others because of your own feelings of inadequacy. Sorry Zippy, I understand your psyche all too well, but I’m not your therapist. Tough love is all I can offer you.
- Why can you not understand that the common ground is the leftist position?
It’s not a question of understanding, Zippy. The very notion is utter nonsense, and Haidt’s research has already made that clear. But don’t listen to me, you’ll just become more fearful, defensive and arrogant (it’s a narcissism thing – just watch BHO). Here (emph. mine):
Haidt make two inescapable points here, which you can’t deny so you’ll either dismiss them or try to deconstruct and misrepresent them:
1. Democrats – that is, “liberals” and leftists trapped in the Moral Matrix (like you) don’t understand the comprehensive foundation upon which American moral concerns are based.
2. The left needs to understand that comprehensive morality and endeavor to use that more holistic framework themselves.
Clearly you need to watch Haidt’s TED video a few more times and realize what he’s actually saying, rather than cherry-picking the bits that reinforce your own adolescent neurosis.
@56. goy:
(ad hominems deleted for brevity)
1. Respect is earned. You haven’t earned it.
That’s your opinion, which is worth approximately jack squat. If you can’t even offer a modicum of civility and respect, how can you pretend to lecture others on morality? Oh, that’s right – your righteous mind blinds you to the truth. How about that.
2. I wouldn’t be promoting Haidt’s work if I didn’t respect him, and it, enormously.
Well, then, why do you insist on twisting his work to your ends with such terms as “moral adolescence”? That’s the insecurity that you would like to pin on me showing in your own hyperbole. Respect for the man and his work would require that you refrain from such manipulations.
3. Projecting your lack of respect for yourself onto me is wholly in keeping with your morally adolescent manner of dealing with reality.
Is that why you keep calling me Zippy and denigrating my intelligence while avoiding the massive holes in your so-called theory of moral adolescence? Because you are so much more mature and respectful of your fellows? Please, my side is hurting from laughing so hard. Knock it off.
I’ve already lived a full life and successfully reached generativity. I’ve nothing left to prove to myself or anyone else.
So why do insist on returning here to prove your ignorance and closed-mindedness on a daily basis? If you have nothing left to prove – prove it.
Tough love is all I can offer you.
Love requires respect, which you have already shown is beyond your capacity. So sad.
If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns.
I don’t deny that Democrats could do well to understand the mechanisms of authoritarian, in-group and purity – I’ve already indicated to you that I agree that they could be useful if directed toward humanity as a whole. Anything short of that is just a recipe for disaster. These are powerful tools, and have been used to great effect throughout history, but they are not a rational basis for moral decision making.
Haidt make two inescapable points here, which you can’t deny so you’ll either dismiss them or try to deconstruct and misrepresent them:
1. Democrats – that is, “liberals” and leftists trapped in the Moral Matrix (like you) don’t understand the comprehensive foundation upon which American moral concerns are based.
2. The left needs to understand that comprehensive morality and endeavor to use that more holistic framework themselves.
I don’t doubt that the left could find great success manipulating the fears and prejudices of the American people as the GOP has been doing for decades. However, that is a big part of the difference between the left and the right. The left does not believe that such manipulation serves the long-term interests of the Republic. So while there may be value in recognizing the nature of the Moral Matrix, there is no imperative to accept the right’s notion of morality as more comprehensive. The right’s moral matrix is in fact a mere subset of the universal morality espoused by the left. Again – it is the overlap that will provide a holistic basis for a common moral framework.
Clearly you need to watch Haidt’s TED video a few more times and realize what he’s actually saying, rather than cherry-picking the bits that reinforce your own adolescent neurosis.
I encourage you to keep working on your understanding of the problem – but you ought to drop the “moral adolescence” bit, because it is not only inaccurate – it also makes you look bad. The closed minded nature of your authoritarian mindset is going to make it difficult for you to come to grips with the nature of your own blindness.
Peace.
DS
@57. David S: – 1. Respect is earned. You haven’t earned it. That’s your opinion, which is worth approximately jack squat.
LOL!! No, really – respect IS earned. If not, then it certainly doesn’t make much sense to whine about the respect you haven’t earned and haven’t received, does it. So why are you whining about it?
- If you can’t even offer a modicum of civility and respect, …
Your mindless, adolescent idolatry of socially suicidal ideology is given far more civility and respect in this forum than it deserves, Zippy. And as for your sophomoric, arrogant demeanor, even my 20-year-old daughter is better at suppressing the passive-aggressive manner you choose to spew your nonsense here. You reap what you sow.
- Well, then, why do you insist on twisting his work to your ends with such terms as “moral adolescence”?
Coming from someone who’s clearly never read anything Haidt’s done, much less expended the intellectual energy necessary to understand it, that’s a fairly meaningless question. Not to mention – another straw man. I haven’t twisted anything. And it’s an outright lie to claim that I have. You rely on that lie because my conclusions, based fairly on Haidt’s work, frighten you.
But why does that term bother you so much? Why can’t you just laugh and ignore it? Because Haidt’s research and the findings from his research AND the conclusions he’s drawn from his research – based on his own words – support the correlation between leftist ideology and an incomplete moral framework that denigrates 3/5ths of the intuitive ethics societies have used to thrive. It’s blatantly obvious TO ME that this phenomenon is driven by science and the psychology of human development, which is an area where you’re demonstrably ignorant (don’t feel badly – it’s not for everyone). Therefore I choose to elaborate on it in those terms. If you don’t like it, I can’t help you. But I’m not going to ignore the obvious just so you can feel better about yourself.
I’ve never claimed that Haidt supports the idea of moral adolescence, and I’ve made it clear that I don’t agree with the philosophical tangent he pursues once his own leftist sensibilities seem to hijack his intellectual honesty, sending him off on the path of moral relativism. But Haidt has already publicly observed the hypocrisy of the left and proclaimed that observation directly to their faces. I have faith that HE will come around, because that observation isn’t compatible with the Yin/Yang explanation he’s used to rationalize the dichotomy. You, not so much.
- Is that why you keep calling me Zippy …
No. I affectionately refer to you as “Zippy” because I once had a dog that used to run straight into the wall for no reason any vet could ever figure out. He wasn’t blind. He did everything else dogs do and was otherwise perfectly normal. But he kept running into the wall. You remind me of him.
- …and denigrating my intelligence…
Don’t think I’ve ever discussed your intelligence, Zippy. What I’ve observed and commented on is your ignorance, gullibility and self-righteous arrogance. While those may indicate sub-par intelligence, I haven’t drawn that conclusion in your case.
- So why do insist on returning here…
I enjoy the exchange.
-… to prove your ignorance and closed-mindedness on a daily basis?
That’s your fantasy, bub.
- I don’t deny that Democrats could do well to understand the mechanisms of authoritarian…
Woops!!! There you go again – reading what your college tattooed on the inside of your forehead instead of what’s on the page. Authority and authoritarian have very different meanings, Zippy. Get familiar with the difference. It’s related to the fact that the fire department doesn’t put out fires for “free”.
- … [authority], in-group and purity – These are powerful tools, and have been used to great effect throughout history, but they are not a rational basis for moral decision making.
Precisely!! You’re so close, but you’re still resisting. You’ve apparently duped yourself into thinking that morally mature individuals reject the intuitive ethics that leftists value. Not so – look at the chart again.
What you’ve accidentally recognized here is exactly why morally mature individuals also apply the other two intuitive ethics of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity, to form a holistic moral framework. That holistic framework is the ONLY basis on which social policies can be developed which will result in a sustainable society. And that is exactly what Haidt is saying in his TED talk when he refers to using “all the tools in the toolbox”.
- I don’t doubt that the left could find great success manipulating the fears and prejudices of the American people …
More intellectual dishonesty. Or maybe its blindness. You pick. That’s hardly what Haidt is recommending, and you know it, Zippy.
The left’s entire platform is based firmly on the politics of fear – and hypocrisy. Go read a transcript of BHO’s health care speech the other night. Early on he lies, chastising opponents of socialized medicine with “Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.” Notably, BHO and his minions are the ones who refuse to engage in honest debate. In fact, they didn’t even want anyone READING their health care bill, much less honestly debating the details. Later, he lies some more, using his own scare tactics: “Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.“.
- The right’s moral matrix is in fact a mere subset of the universal morality espoused by the left.
Now you’re just quite literally talking out of your ass. The “universal” morality espoused by the left dead-ends in Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the social detritus left behind in the aftermath the Soviet Union. The holistic morality espoused by morally mature adults who respect individual liberty, individual responsibility and the Republican form of Government our Constitution guarantees led to Disneyland.
Oops, my bad – that last link should have pointed here.
They’re both awesome though – be sure not to miss either one of them.
@58. goy:
Your mindless, adolescent idolatry of socially suicidal ideology is given far more civility and respect in this forum than it deserves, Zippy.
How you equate single payer healthcare with social suicide is unclear. Your in-group is not the end-all of us.
And as for your sophomoric, arrogant demeanor, even my 20-year-old daughter is better at suppressing the passive-aggressive manner you choose to spew your nonsense here. You reap what you sow.
Too bad her old man hasn’t learned a thing from her. I’m sure she’s a nice young lady, and not half as loony as her dad.
I haven’t twisted anything. And it’s an outright lie to claim that I have. You rely on that lie because my conclusions, based fairly on Haidt’s work, frighten you.
I don’t think you respect his yin/yang concept, or understand the idea that moral progress depends on the progressive impulse to transcend in-group, purity and authority. I have no doubt that this phenomenon is driven by the psychology of human development, and it’s blatantly obvious that you don’t grasp the historical dialectic at play. There is little more to be said on the matter. I recognize the dependence of insular cultures on the xenophobic traits that you claim constitute a complete moral framework. I reject the way in which you would apply these insights.
I’ve never claimed that Haidt supports the idea of moral adolescence, and I’ve made it clear that I don’t agree with the philosophical tangent he pursues once his own leftist sensibilities seem to hijack his intellectual honesty, sending him off on the path of moral relativism.
Here is where your “righteous mind” hijacks your reason. You agree with the evidence only until it diverges from your preconceived notions, at which point you assert that the researcher is no longer reliable. This is so classic, it truly is comedy.
But Haidt has already publicly observed the hypocrisy of the left and proclaimed that observation directly to their faces. I have faith that HE will come around, because that observation isn’t compatible with the Yin/Yang explanation he’s used to rationalize the dichotomy. You, not so much.
From where do you derive your faith? You reject his interpretation based solely on your own self-righteousness.
I affectionately refer to you as “Zippy” because I once had a dog that used to run straight into the wall for no reason any vet could ever figure out. He wasn’t blind. He did everything else dogs do and was otherwise perfectly normal. But he kept running into the wall. You remind me of him.
I might guess he was trying to escape his abusive owner, but that would be a wild supposition.
Don’t think I’ve ever discussed your intelligence, Zippy. What I’ve observed and commented on is your ignorance, gullibility and self-righteous arrogance. While those may indicate sub-par intelligence, I haven’t drawn that conclusion in your case.
You don’t even accept your own best sources. You accuse me of cherry-picking while you make bald-faced assertions in direct contradiction of the research you cite. Thanks for the affectionate nickname, but really, I can’t hold a candle to you when it comes to arrogance.
I enjoy the exchange.
Good. We’ve got common ground.
The “universal” morality espoused by the left dead-ends in Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the social detritus left behind in the aftermath the Soviet Union. The holistic morality espoused by morally mature adults who respect individual liberty, individual responsibility and the Republican form of Government our Constitution guarantees led to Disneyland.
You’ve again encapsulated the bald-faced ignorance and arrogance of your ideology in one short paragraph. Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the Soviet Union all relied on exploiting the authority, purity and in-group ‘ethics’. The rejection/transcendence of these ethics is the only means to achieve an enlightened and egalitarian future.
You misunderstand ethics and morality in a very fundamental way, but you show an interest in learning. It is fundamentally dishonest to claim that Stalin represents the ideal of the left. It is also fundamentally dishonest to deny the critical role that these three ‘intuitive ethics’ have played in the conflicts and violence that have marred the millennia of human history. It may not be possible to immediately transcend these intuitions, but there is no reason to intentionally perpetuate a source of misery.
Peace.
DS
The right’s moral matrix is in fact a mere subset of the universal morality espoused by the left.
The fact that the Left was a historical latecomer and actively denied an organic connection to the prior history of the West (e.g. the French Revolution starting the calendar anew) and acted similarly in other contexts, shows that the Left is superfluous in the setting in motion the moral relationships necessary for functioning societies.
Historically, the Left’s moral code, as it is, not as the Left imagines it to be, isn’t even a subset of the Right. It’s a set of pseudo-moral injunctions that have never been necessary or sufficient for an ordered society, nor, if implemented, could it result in an ordered society.
It is fundamentally dishonest to claim that Stalin represents the ideal of the left.
Boy, that Stalin sure had every single Leftist on the planet fooled. Either they were complicit, e.g. people like Duranty, who knew what was going on, or, and I would grant that this is probably more the case, they were so fundamentally ignorant of human nature, society, economics, politics, and about 100 other subject matters, to understand that the only way Stalin could accomplish what he accomplished was through mass murder. In either case, I don’t want any Leftists anywhere near power, because they either kill you, lie through their teeth or don’t know WTF they are doing. I couldn’t give two shiats about the Left’s “ideals”. I deal in reality.
You want to see “fundamentally dishonest”? Look in the mirror at the person who wrote what I just quoted. If it’s not “fundamentally dishonest” you see, it’s “fundamentally ignorant” or “fundamentally sadistic”. Those are the quintessential (even though there’s only three) elements of the Left’s persona.
[Sure wish this damned thing had a PREVIEW BUTTON.]
@60. David S: – How you equate single payer healthcare with social suicide is unclear.
It’s only unclear because you haven’t thought it through.
When a People give their government that much control over their lives (and deaths), and the truly corrupt, amoral actors in that society float to the top levels of government, like fatty feces (as they always do – see earlier about Stalin), you have the equivalent of suicide on a national, societal scale.
- I don’t think you respect his yin/yang concept, …
Well that’s just the thing – it’s not his concept, it’s a concept he’s borrowed from eastern mysticism to discuss a very complex dichotomy to self-righteous, arrogant adolescents like you who don’t want to hear it because they’ve duped themselves into believing that “the right’s moral matrix is a mere subset of the universal morality espoused by the left”, when exactly the opposite is true.
Straying off into that mysticism, Haidt leaves the world of science, psychology and his data behind. So it doesn’t deserve a whole lot of respect, in fact. I could launch into a lecture about Christian mysticism here (although former leftist Bob Godwin is much better at that), noting how leftists consistently browbeat conservatives whenever we use the mysticism of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and religion to justify a position, but I won’t since I’m sure you get my point.
– … moral progress depends on the progressive impulse to transcend in-group, purity and authority.
Again, that’s your unsupported opinion which is 180° out of phase with the historical record as explained in Haidt’s TED presentation. Moral progress leading to sustainable societies has only ever resulted from the application of holistic morality, which incorporates all five intuitive ethics relatively equally. In essence, by incorporating all five, one “transcends” the negative aspects of all five.
- You agree with the evidence only until it diverges from your preconceived notions, …
That’s not true at all, Zippy. And I’m happy to explain…
The evidence does not support the Yin-Yang / moral relativist silliness at all. That’s Haidt’s self-described atheist-liberal-academic speaking (at least, as far as he wants his audience to know). Nowhere does he cite any evidence in his research to support this notion. It’s just something he uses as a suggestion to his liberal audiences to get them to consider understanding and using more of what conservatives already understand and use: a more holistic moral maturity, which has led to sustainable societies. Whether consciously or not, Haidt is turning moral relativism on its head (at least from the way it’s typically used by the left) to lecture the left on their lack of moral diversity and tell them that they need to expand their horizons and include other moral frameworks.
- From where do you derive your faith?
Oh, that’s simple. I look back and see how I went through the same maturation process myself, which included the arrogant, I-know-everything, socialism-is-the-answer stage you’re in right now. And I’ve now lost count of the number of people I know who’ve gone through a similar growth process – sometimes with great difficulty, depending on how completely they fall into the trap of identity politics, to the point where their ego becomes directly involved. Call it an expectation if you have a problem with the word “faith”. That’s one of the things that led me to the idea of moral adolescence/maturity in the first place – it became obvious that, absent confounding factors, moral maturity develops over time like all other types of maturity (e.g., sexual, sensual, chronological, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, etc.).
- … you make bald-faced assertions in direct contradiction of the research you cite.
Er, no. I disagree with the recommendations the researcher has made. Specifically, I disagree with the recommendations that are not based on the actual results of his research. Once again – I urge you to actually READ Haidt’s work rather than endlessly criticizing my take on something you are obviously clueless about. Clearly, all you know about Haidt’s work is what you’ve read in my writing and the snippets you could stand to listen to in the video I posted. Read his book, white papers and lecture transcripts. You’ll get a much better – more holistic – idea of the difference between the research and the recommendations Haidt makes when faced with the reality presented by his research (i.e., that leftist ideology is only attractive to a moral mind that is fundamentally incomplete – he’s a self-described “liberal”, how do you think that realization made HIM feel).
- Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the Soviet Union all relied on exploiting the authority, purity and in-group ‘ethics’.
No. They relied on brute force, coercion and murder to impose a marxist – leftist – ideology.
- It is fundamentally dishonest to claim that Stalin represents the ideal of the left.
That may be true, since it’s hard to know what Stalin’s real ideological beliefs were, if he had any. But it’s irrelevant because that’s not what I’ve done. Go back and read for comprehension. All I’ve said is that Stalin’s gulags are where the left’s broken ideology ultimately leads.
This is an aspect you’re going to need to study – by learning the actual history – to really understand the socially suicidal aspect of leftist, totalitarian ideologies like socialism, fascism, communism, corporatism, etc.
In a nutshell, it’s this: moral adolescents will ALWAYS be exploited by corrupt actors who are more street-smart than they, and who know how to manipulate their incomplete moral framework to create a mob they can direct to achieve their own ends.
Stalin did it. Mao did it. Woodrow Wilson and FDR did it. Mussolini did it. Hitler did it. The Clintons tried to do it. Bush would have done it (a little), but he was detoured by 9/11. And now Obama and the Democrats are doing it.
And I’m not talking about Wikipedia. You can start here, if you have the courage. Don’t waste your money if you’re not going to open your mind a crack though.
- It is also fundamentally dishonest to deny the critical role that these three ‘intuitive ethics’ have played in the conflicts and violence that have marred the millennia of human history.
That may also be true but, again, I haven’t done that.
Zippy, since you maintain a willful blindness to this fact, it’s probably pointless to bring it up again, but I’m patient: you’re only kidding yourself if you insist on maintaining the illusion that conservatives reject the two intuitive ethics that leftists rely upon for their entire moral framework. That’s not what we do. Morally mature individuals value ALL FIVE of the intuitive ethics, relatively equally, as part of their moral framework (as Haidt has demonstrated through extensive research).
One does not “transcend” the three intuitive ethics you find so distasteful by rejecting them. One neutralizes their negative aspects and amplifies their positive aspects by incorporating the additional two ethics into the framework. The same is absolutely true going the other way. That is the definition of moral maturity, and that is the only moral framework capable of producing social policies that lead to sustainable societies.
I’m making a dent. I can tell.
Goy,
thank you for your sustained discourse in this page. You have brought much verve and insight to this discussion.
I grew out of my leftist / utopian delusion phase about a year ago BTW. And just like age 10 comes before 11 it came before my current moral understandings.
@63. goy:
@60. David S: – How you equate single payer healthcare with social suicide is unclear.
When a People give their government that much control over their lives (and deaths), and the truly corrupt, amoral actors in that society float to the top levels of government, like fatty feces (as they always do – see earlier about Stalin), you have the equivalent of suicide on a national, societal scale.
That’s funny – Europe doesn’t seem to have died – in fact, after fifty years of socialist health care, Europe now is healthier and wealthier than the USA. Go figure.
I could launch into a lecture about Christian mysticism here (although former leftist Bob Godwin is much better at that), noting how leftists consistently browbeat conservatives whenever we use the mysticism of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and religion to justify a position, but I won’t since I’m sure you get my point.
Yes, I get it. You don’t fully understand the difference between philosophy and religion. You can use mysticism to justify whatever you like, but facts are the currency I’m dealing in here.
Moral progress leading to sustainable societies has only ever resulted from the application of holistic morality, which incorporates all five intuitive ethics relatively equally. In essence, by incorporating all five, one “transcends” the negative aspects of all five.
Without defining moral progress or your vision of a sustainable society, you’ve said little. Obviously your vision of morality and sustainability is at odds with mine. I don’t think it is sustainable to pursue intuitive ethics that encourage societal discord based on arbitrary associations. Your contention that the morality of conservatives is “more holistic” doesn’t answer the question of whether it is more effective, or more desirable. In my view, a morality that depends on in-group, purity and authority is anathema. It is a recipe for disaster.
I appreciate your confidence in expecting that Haidt and myself will come to appreciate your point of view on this issue. However, you have failed to make a compelling argument that this will occur, and have only provided the anecdotal evidence of your conversion and witness. I can just as easily point to my parallel experience as a former libertarian who has come to appreciate the value of some government intervention in securing basic rights for the People. I’ve lost count of the number of people I know who similarly support government social programs. It’s not a matter of identity politics – simply enlightened self-interest. I know plenty of folks who exercise the intuitive ethics of authority, in-group and purity – but they are universally unpleasant persons to spend time with, because they fail to appreciate the diversity and tolerance that undergird civil society.
Your contention that the leftist mind is morally incomplete is merely your unconventional interpretation of Haidt, which you use as a safety blanket when called on the immorality of your ideology. There is no basis in his work to assert that the left is deficient – and looking at the international data, it is quite clear that there are two universal moral intuitions, and three that are vestigial remnants of our tribal past. My moral mind is complete – I understand the concepts of authority, in-group and purity – but I have intentionally set them aside as irrelevant to morality. They are counter-moral impulses.
- Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the Soviet Union all relied on exploiting the authority, purity and in-group ‘ethics’.
No. They relied on brute force, coercion and murder to impose a marxist – leftist – ideology.
Brute force, coercion and murder are not compatible with the two intuitive ethics of harm and fairness. One can only countenance such behavior by activating the authority, in-group and purity ethics, which can be manipulated to override the fundamental moral intuitions we all share. A person whose morals are based solely on the harm and fairness ethics would not find such behavior moral. You are willfully ignoring the consequences of your own arguments.
- It is fundamentally dishonest to claim that Stalin represents the ideal of the left.
That may be true, since it’s hard to know what Stalin’s real ideological beliefs were, if he had any. But it’s irrelevant because that’s not what I’ve done. Go back and read for comprehension. All I’ve said is that Stalin’s gulags are where the left’s broken ideology ultimately leads.
Except that the left’s ideology rejects authoritarianism, which is fundamentally in conflict with Stalinism. The left’s ideology only ‘goes there’ when it is broken – and it is only broken when it relies on the intuitive ethics that the left rejects. What you claim is a flaw in leftist ideology is in fact the central flaw in an ethical system based on immoral precepts.
This is an aspect you’re going to need to study – by learning the actual history – to really understand the socially suicidal aspect of leftist, totalitarian ideologies like socialism, fascism, communism, corporatism, etc.
Socialism is not totalitarian. Democratic socialism is in fact one of the most successful political arrangements ever conceived. When you assert that corporatism is a leftist ideology, you have truly jumped the shark. Authoritarianism is the problem here – not the left’s morality. You’ve identified the common thread of totalitarianism, but you fail to connect this phenomenon to the root cause – a morality that accepts authority, in-group and purity as fundamental values.
In a nutshell, it’s this: moral adolescents will ALWAYS be exploited by corrupt actors who are more street-smart than they, and who know how to manipulate their incomplete moral framework to create a mob they can direct to achieve their own ends.
Replace “moral adolescents” with “Republicans”. That’s better.
- It is also fundamentally dishonest to deny the critical role that these three ‘intuitive ethics’ have played in the conflicts and violence that have marred the millennia of human history.
That may also be true but, again, I haven’t done that.
You continue to pretend that authoritarianism can thrive in the absence of the ethics of authority, in-group and purity – but it can’t. These are the three ethics that make possible all political oppression. And you claim they are the solution, rather than the problem. I agree that they need to be understood, but not for the sake of encouraging them – instead, it is important to understand them so that proper action can be taken to mitigate the damage done.
I am not pretending that conservatives reject harm and fairness – only that they rely on ethics that are not universal. There is common ground, but it cannot be located in terms of authority, in-group and purity. These are divisive and immoral intuitions.
One does not “transcend” the three intuitive ethics you find so distasteful by rejecting them. One neutralizes their negative aspects and amplifies their positive aspects by incorporating the additional two ethics into the framework. The same is absolutely true going the other way. That is the definition of moral maturity, and that is the only moral framework capable of producing social policies that lead to sustainable societies.
Your opinion on the nature of sustainable societies is welcome, but wrong. Your personal definition of moral maturity is merely a reflection of your own preconceived notions about what morality consists of. Meaningful moral maturity cannot rest on the foundation of arbitrary associations.
I’m making a dent. I can tell.
You may be making a dent – I expect some observers here have come to realize that your twisted concept of the moral mind you espouse is utterly without merit. Keep up the good work and I am certain we can reach a few more.
Peace.
DS
@65. David S: – That’s funny – Europe doesn’t seem to have died –
That’s what you said about the Soviet Union in 1973, wasn’t it? Oh wait – you were what… like two years old then? not even born yet?
As Europe devolves into the EU that is morphing into the EUSSR – and will ultimately be forced to merge with Putin’s reimagined USSR (because they’ve chosen to make an enemy of the U.S.) – it is dying in every way that matters: demographically, economically, spiritually, culturally and morally. This is what happens when a People rely on government as a surrogate for Mommy, looking for support from cradle-to-grave… emphasis on the grave.
- facts are the currency I’m dealing in here.
Well then I’m sure you’ll be happy to leave mysticism out of it. We’ll leave aside that you clearly have no understanding of Christian mysticism as philosophy. For instance, I think it unlikely that Schuon ever came up at school, except perhaps as the brunt of a liberal joke. You can take that up with Bob (see link in previous post) if you’re really interested in learning.
- Without defining moral progress or your vision of a sustainable society, …
I don’t need to. Haidt has already defined those in the context of his research. I will say that up until about 1992 we had the best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in all of history right here in the America that was built on conservative principles of respect for individual freedom/responsibility, the Republican form of Government Guaranteed by our Constitution and a capitalist economic engine that literally unleashes the power of the individual to improve the median quality of life. Demonstrably so.
But then the effects of creeping socialism, initiated back in the 30s and further entrenched in the 60s and 70s, really started to take hold. Since then we’ve become fatter, more ignorant, more apathetic, less liked and more feared abroad, more corrupt, less patriotic and more conflicted at home, more vulnerable to outside terrorist attack, more vulnerable to internal social rot, deeper in debt, less happy, more angry and generally more like Europe. With the current administration and Congress, the slide will only accelerate.
- I appreciate your confidence in expecting that Haidt and myself will come to appreciate your point of view on this issue. However, you have failed to make a compelling argument that this will occur…
That’s why I call it “faith”. I don’t need to make a compelling argument because I don’t feel compelled to compel you to believe it. It’ll happen or it won’t. My expectation – based on decades of experience and seeing daily expressions like Inrptrn’s above (YO Inrptrn!!) – is that it will.
- Your contention that the leftist mind is morally incomplete is merely your unconventional interpretation of Haidt, …
Again, that’s not MY interpretation, unconventional or otherwise. Haidt himself has indicated this directly every time he speaks to the leftists he chides for lacking in moral diversity, telling them that they need a more holistic moral mind in order to remain relevant. He softens that with some mystical hand-waving, but his point is clear: the left lacks critical ethical sand, and the place they need to look for it is in conservative morality.
- Brute force, coercion and murder are not compatible with the two intuitive ethics of harm and fairness.
Now you’re getting an inkling of what I was talking about earlier.
- Except that the left’s ideology rejects authoritarianism, which is fundamentally in conflict with Stalinism.
If the left rejected authoritarianism, they wouldn’t have elected BHO, whose policies and utter lack of leadership experience demand authoritarian management of the entire population in order to meet his “social justice” goals. So the question YOU need to ask yourself is this: how did the leftist ideology of Marx become so utterly corrupted at the hands of Stalin, who claimed (emphasis on claimed) to support it? Same with Mao, et al. When you figure that out, you’ll be halfway to understanding why your moral framework is far from complete and why leftist ideologies are socially suicidal.
- Socialism is not totalitarian.
Ultimately, given the current Darwinian status of homo sapiens, socialism must be totalitarian by definition. People aren’t bees and they’re not ants and they’re not termites. The human species has selected for selfish, self-preserving, self-interested, individualistic behavior over millennia to become the overwhelmingly dominant species in existence (that we know of). You won’t change the behavior driven by millions of years of evolution with a slogan or a warm-and-fuzzy-sounding ‘ism’. You’ll need a gun. History is replete with proof that while human beings are by nature social, they are by nature averse to socialism.
- You continue to pretend that authoritarianism can thrive in the absence of the ethics of authority, in-group and purity – but it can’t.
I haven’t asserted anything about authoritarianism. You’re the one who seems to be stuck on that term. Obviously you never looked up the difference between authority and authoritarian. Do so. When you finally stop projecting straw men onto me – and conservatives in general – in that context, you’ll start to understand what’s real and what’s (your) fantasy.
- These are the three ethics that make possible all political oppression.
Here you’re clearly delusional. A social policy based solely on “fairness” and “reciprocity”, for instance, requires an unimpeachable, reliable arbiter of what’s “fair”. Here’s the problem: there is no such being. And unless you believe in an all-powerful God made manifest – like, say, Christ – there will likely never be one.
The only available alternative to an unimpeachable, reliable arbiter of what’s “fair” is arbitrary redistribution of wealth based on discredited, zero-sum economics that recognize nothing but “need”, “equal shares”, “equality of outcome”, etc. – oh, with a hefty extra share provided to those who are playing the role of God, of course (it’s a tough job replacing God). Such a system completely ignores the concepts of reward for individual effort, reward for willingness to take on individual risk and reward for individual productivity. Such a system replaces those concepts with a single tenet: reward for breathing, where the reward is derived from the fruits of others’ efforts. That is the most politically oppressive arrangement imaginable. That’s socialism.
- I am not pretending that conservatives reject harm and fairness…
Sure you are; that’s the very basis of your irrational diatribe here. If you weren’t you’d recognize what Haidt recognizes: the value of the holistic moral framework that defines conservative morality.
- Your opinion on the nature of sustainable societies is welcome, but wrong.
Wrong… based on your opinion and willful blindness to centuries of human progress? Heh. Okay.
- Your personal definition of moral maturity is merely a reflection of your own preconceived notions about what morality consists of.
Again, no. It’s based on clinical research in moral psychology based on tests specifically designed to measure morality, coupled with the science of human psychological development and the manner in which different aspects of one’s psyche mature. Before being exposed to all that I never even HAD a notion – preconceived or otherwise – that morality (per se) had anything to do with one’s choice of ideology. But it turns out that ideology – at least when it comes to sustainable social policy – is more like phlogiston. The key to understanding why the flame burns out is to recognize that it’s caused by a lack of oxygen (i.e., holistic morality).
@66. goy:
As Europe devolves into the EU that is morphing into the EUSSR – and will ultimately be forced to merge with Putin’s reimagined USSR (because they’ve chosen to make an enemy of the U.S.) – it is dying in every way that matters: demographically, economically, spiritually, culturally and morally. This is what happens when a People rely on government as a surrogate for Mommy, looking for support from cradle-to-grave… emphasis on the grave.
European societies are not dying – they are evolving. That’s what societies do. No society is stagnant, because success requires being adaptable to the changing material circumstances of the world. A society that does not embrace the inevitability of demographic, economic, spiritual, cultural and moral progress is less adaptable – that is why the left’s moral vision has been the guiding principle of representative governments since the enlightenment. So-called conservative moral intuitions serve to frustrate efforts at building a truly sustainable society.
I will say that up until about 1992 we had the best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in all of history right here in the America that was built on conservative principles of respect for individual freedom/responsibility, the Republican form of Government Guaranteed by our Constitution and a capitalist economic engine that literally unleashes the power of the individual to improve the median quality of life. Demonstrably so.
Your definition of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society is a joke. If you really believe that the USA circa 1992 fulfills these three criteria, my work here is going to be more difficult than I expected.
But then the effects of creeping socialism, initiated back in the 30s and further entrenched in the 60s and 70s, really started to take hold.
Ah, yes, not only are you entertaining the fantasy that Reaganomics were the answer to all of our troubles, but you are trying to avoid the obvious role of the New Deal, Great Society and Labor in crafting what you call the “best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in history”. Ideology has truly blinded you.
It is only with the reversal of liberal policies under Nixon, Reagan and Bush that our country experienced an increase in income inequality, massive government indebtedness, and unrestricted economic speculation that led to our current worldwide recession. The slide in fitness, education, motivation and international relations can be traced almost entirely to the poverty-inducing policies of the GOP. All of the ills you cite are the results of folks with conservative moral foundations who have worked to sow division based on group identification.
- Your contention that the leftist mind is morally incomplete is merely your unconventional interpretation of Haidt, …
Haidt himself has indicated this directly every time he speaks to the leftists he chides for lacking in moral diversity, telling them that they need a more holistic moral mind in order to remain relevant. He softens that with some mystical hand-waving, but his point is clear: the left lacks critical ethical sand, and the place they need to look for it is in conservative morality.
Haidt indicates no such thing. He doesn’t chide leftists for lacking in moral diversity, but for failing to appreciate the importance of the intuitive ethics that drive others, and the opportunity they represent to deepen understanding. FYI, building your ethics on sand is not smart – that’s why rejecting the three conservative ethics is the best solution – they represent only the shifting sands of current practice.
If the left rejected authoritarianism, they wouldn’t have elected BHO, whose policies and utter lack of leadership experience demand authoritarian management of the entire population in order to meet his “social justice” goals.
In case you haven’t noticed, BHO was elected democratically, by a rather large margin. His policies and legislative experience, and his knowledge of the Constitution, are the perfect antidote to the truly authoritarian regime that he replaced. Warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial detention, and illegal torture are all elements of authoritarianism that came from the GOP – and are being reversed under Obama. So keep telling yourself how authoritarian he is. Just remember it was the GOP guy that decided habeas corpus was optional.
So the question YOU need to ask yourself is this: how did the leftist ideology of Marx become so utterly corrupted at the hands of Stalin, who claimed (emphasis on claimed) to support it? Same with Mao, et al. When you figure that out, you’ll be halfway to understanding why your moral framework is far from complete and why leftist ideologies are socially suicidal.
The question itself is silly – Marxism is not a political or ideological system, it is a theory of history based on economic and political observations. There have certainly been a diversity of movements that have used Marx as their inspiration, or have claimed to. Students of Marx recognize the difference. In answer to your question regarding Stalin: absolute power corrupts absolutely. That has nothing to do with Marx.
- Socialism is not totalitarian.
Ultimately, given the current Darwinian status of homo sapiens, socialism must be totalitarian by definition.
Socialism need not be totalitarian, despite your opinion on the matter. Democratic socialism is actually quite popular.
The human species has selected for selfish, self-preserving, self-interested, individualistic behavior over millennia to become the overwhelmingly dominant species in existence (that we know of). You won’t change the behavior driven by millions of years of evolution with a slogan or a warm-and-fuzzy-sounding ‘ism’. You’ll need a gun. History is replete with proof that while human beings are by nature social, they are by nature averse to socialism.
Ah, but your own moral intuitions put the lie to this. Despite the selection for self-interest, there has been a parallel selection occurring based on collective interests. You defend a stone-age morality, claiming that it can’t be changed without a gun – but those of us on the left have managed to abandon these failed intuitions, and move forward with a rational and enlightened morality. What you are really saying is that you are willing to use violence to enforce your own interpretation of morality – exactly the kind of moral reasoning that led to Stalin and Mao.
- These are the three ethics that make possible all political oppression.
Here you’re clearly delusional. A social policy based solely on “fairness” and “reciprocity”, for instance, requires an unimpeachable, reliable arbiter of what’s “fair”. Here’s the problem: there is no such being. And unless you believe in an all-powerful God made manifest – like, say, Christ – there will likely never be one.
Of course there is no perfect solution – but our judicial system is a workable means of providing a practical answer to this question, and has functioned reliably in this capacity for many generations. Democracy doesn’t need God to work.
You apparently don’t appreciate that an economy can combine elements of socialism and capitalism, and that the most effective economies do this well. Socialism comes in many flavors, friend. Single payer health care doesn’t mean there is no longer room for the free exchange of other goods and services.
Both the left and the right can agree on the importance of the Fairness and Harm ethics. I agree with you that the authority, in-group and purity ethics are very strong motivators of behavior for many, typically those on the right. I disagree with your interpretation that this indicates a lack on the part of those on the left, or that a moral framework that includes all five of these ethics is superior in any objective sense. I cannot deny that there may be a competitive or evolutionary advantage to groups that make use of the conservative ethics – but I believe these advantages are not sufficient to outweigh the negative results of relying on these ethics overall.
From Haidt:
To the extent that conservative ethics promote intergroup conflict, they detract from human flourishing, and the wise course is to therefore reject them. Our common grounding in the Fairness and Harm ethics as embodied in contractual societies is the ultimate answer to this problem. The stone age tribal religions of the world cannot be reconciled on their own terms – they must come to a common understanding of morality that does not respect authority, in-group and purity as moral considerations.
Peace.
DS
67:”European societies are not dying – they are evolving”
Sweetheart, it seems useless to dive into all your naiveties and delusions. But just a few things. Since I am German I know first hand that socialism is totalitarianism and democratic socialism is an oxymoron especially designed for “useful idiots” like you. And European societies are indeed evolving. Into a collapsing social welfare state accompanied by the tunes of civil war. Peace is over.
@67. David S: – European societies are not dying – they are evolving.
Heh. Heheh. Willfully blind to the end, aren’t you Zippy. Yes… they’re “evolving” alright – into a cross between Eurabia and a rerun of the Soviet Union. I’ve seen both those movies. I only needed to see them once to remember that they don’t end well.
- Your definition of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society is a joke.
Obviously you either (1) failed to follow the link or (2) covered your eyes when faced with the truth. Keep running into the wall, Zippy.
- not only are you entertaining the fantasy that Reaganomics were the answer to all of our troubles,
Straw man fallacy.
- but you are trying to avoid the obvious role of the New Deal, Great Society and Labor in crafting what you call the “best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in history”.
Not at all – I described in lots of detail what the welfare state has brought to America: ruin.
- Haidt indicates no such thing.
Refusing to hear it doesn’t mean he hasn’t said it and written it, in multiple forums. Sticking fingers in ears and shouting “LALALALALA” like you are – that’s what adolescents do.
In case you haven’t noticed, BHO was elected democratically, by a rather large margin.
30% of the voting-eligible public isn’t a “large margin”, Zippy. And as has already been demonstrated by Bill Whittle – using the words of BHO’s lying, entrenched, Fifth Column media shills – BHO was elected by a sycophant press that showered his every utterance and swagger with adulation and attacked his opponents like rabid ferrets on meth…. for over a year.
- His policies and legislative experience, and his knowledge of the Constitution, are the perfect antidote to the truly authoritarian regime that he replaced. Warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial detention, and illegal torture are all elements of authoritarianism that came from the GOP
Most or all of which he has been continuing. Good plan.
- The question itself is silly …
Of course you think it’s silly – it’s the only important question. You have to dismiss it because you can’t address it.
- Ah, but your own moral intuitions put the lie to this. Despite the selection for self-interest, there has been a parallel selection occurring based on collective interests.
Where? Oh yeah – at the point of a gun… like I said.
- You defend a stone-age morality,
Straw man fallacy.
- – but those of us on the left have managed to abandon these failed intuitions,
Right. Soros and Moore and all the celebrities who jealously guard what they believe to be the moral high ground in Hollywood have abandoned capitalism, and given away all their money because they don’t deserve to have more than others. Dream on.
- You apparently don’t appreciate that an economy can combine elements of socialism and capitalism,
Of course it can, Zippy. Ours already does. That’s why it’s in so much trouble. A capitalist economy doesn’t function when it’s distorted by overweening government to reward sloth, corruption or even mere existence.
- From Haidt:
…contractual societies such as those of Western Europe offer the best hope for living peacefully together in our increasingly diverse modern nations
This is it for you, Zippy – did you think NO ONE would go look up that quote??? Your cherry-picked snippet constitutes a COMPLETE LIE. You’ve intentionally misrepresented Haidt’s intent here – exactly like Mofo did a few days ago by crypoquoting Madison. HERE is what Haidt wrote, with the necessary context restored (my emphasis):
You’re now a proven liar, Zippy. And to boot, here’s the meat that you missed when you seized on the first string of words that matched the ones tattooed on the inside of your forehead (same cite, my emph.):
You lied. You got caught. You got pwned.
Game. Set. Match.
David, a society that has more parents and childless couples than children is dying by definition. If you don’t breed, you die out.
@69. goy:
- You apparently don’t appreciate that an economy can combine elements of socialism and capitalism,
Of course it can, Zippy. Ours already does. That’s why it’s in so much trouble. A capitalist economy doesn’t function when it’s distorted by overweening government to reward sloth, corruption or even mere existence.
Our economy has been most productive when tax rates have been most progressive. The exact opposite of your hypothesis. A capitalist economy is, again, a fantasy – no such thing exists. All economies are mixed – it’s just a matter of the proportions, and you and I happen to differ on the balance of yin and yang that we prefer. No biggie. That’s why we have elections.
This is it for you, Zippy – did you think NO ONE would go look up that quote??? Your cherry-picked snippet constitutes a COMPLETE LIE.
Not at all, I expected you to come back with a lame attempt to justify your interpretation.
You’re now a proven liar, Zippy.
Except you can’t cite a lie I told. Just more of the same hyperbole. As Haidt clearly states, contractual societies are the best hope for living peacefully together. Religious people may be happier,etc. – but that’s not what’s at issue. We’re talking about morality, and the basis for moral society.
You lied. You got caught. You got pwned.
No such thing. Haidt is describing exactly what I did above. Morality in stone age/traditional societies is deeply concerned with the binding intuitions – as I noted above. Moreover, as I noted, the failure to recognize these moral intuitions can lead to cases like Stalin – not because he employed a leftist moral framework, but because he exploited a society that was still functioning primarily on a tribal moral framework. So no, it can’t be dismissed – it must be recognized, and seen for the dangerous cultural force that it can become.
I recognize the existence of these moral intuitions – but I see no argument here to accept them as an organizing principle for an egalitarian society.
Game. Set. Match.
You can send me my winnings at the usual address.
Peace.
DS
You lied. You got caught. You got pwned.
You’ve rendered your own commentary irrelevant, Zippy.
David, admit it, you want a one world government. What you’ll get is the Tower of Babel, the Kingdom of the Antichrist.
73. myth buster:
“David, admit it, you want a one world government. What you’ll get is the Tower of Babel, the Kingdom of the Antichrist.”
Seems to me if you simply don’t believe in the Abrahamic Old Man in the Sky all you get is World Government – and about time. We’ve all seen that it is just one little blue rock that we all live on – something old Abraham couldn’t have known so we can forgive him and move on.