Competition and cooperation play together in nature. Some like to emphasize the competition that pits the gazelles against each other, the loser becoming lion lunch. Others like to emphasize the cooperation that enables the lions to bring down the gazelle or that prompts the mother to raise the child.
So which should we bring into our social and economic life? Should we emphasize competition or cooperation?
I'd like to offer this suggestion: competition between systems and cooperation between people.
Let companies go bankrupt, political parties, ideologies, and administrations lose power, and educational approaches go out of favor. Let systems compete to win or lose based on how well they do. Meanwhile, ensure cooperation between people, doing what we can to ensure that everyone thrives.
To reverse this - to have no competition between religious or political or educational systems (essentially some kind of a monopoly) while forcing competition between people is to create a system that arrests progress and makes even the winners miserable, worried as they are that they might lose their place.
One of the problems with this goal, though, is that people become the system they are a part of. It is hard to become intimate enough with a system to use it and yet not become defined by it. "I am a Stanford grad ... a mechanical engineer ... a Pentecostal ... a Republican ... a Jungian ..." we say and these systems we've adopted become less our tools than our selves. With such a belief, it is hard to casually accept the failure of systems and not see it as, somehow, a threat to ourselves.
The religious martyr may be the most extreme example of someone who no longer holds the system loosely in hand but, instead, is held tightly by the system. For them, Islam or Christianity or the cult has become more important than life itself and they will die for it.
This might be the biggest challenge we have in our education system: raising children to learn how to use systems without becoming defined by those systems. I'm convinced that we're not going to make much progress with our current definitions of liberal or conservative, for instance, and as long as major swaths of the polity or politicians define themselves this way, progress will be slow. And yet people need some orientation, even if it is one they'll abandon as goals or processes change. As long as people define themselves rigidly by these systems, competition between systems will equal competition between people.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal. Show all posts
15 May 2009
Why Conservatives Will Always Think It's a Liberal Media
Given the conservative agenda, they will always see the media as liberal. The problem is, the media doesn’t report what should be but, instead, report what is. (The media that matters, anyway.) The same is true of education (but I won't bother to make that argument in this post).
We can compare the "liberal" media with conservatives on two topics: abstinence-only education and poverty.
For a good reporter, there would be no obvious solution to the problem of teen pregnancy. A really good reporter wouldn't even automatically accept the notion that teen pregnancy would itself be a problem. (It would make a great story for some reporter if he could report that teen mothers were actually happier than older mothers and their children went on to have better lives. What shocks conventional wisdom makes for better headlines.) If it turns out that sex-education that suggests but does not rely on abstinence turns out to more effectively protect teens from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, this is the story a good reporter will file. Outcomes dictate the story.
For the conservative, outcomes don't matter. Unmarried teens having sex is wrong. If sex education that explains the use of contraceptives and takes the stigma out of sex encourages even one more teen to have sex, it is a bad thing. The numbers, or facts, surrounding the occurence of disease or pregnancy don't matter. The story is not what happened but what should happen.
A similar thing happens with poverty. For the reporter, statistics matter (or ought to). Some policies lift more people out of poverty than others: the numbers of unemployed and homeless go down in the wake of certain tax and spending policies or education and outreach programs.
For the conservative, being homeless or unemployed is more likely to be a story of morality. If someone gets sick and is uninsured, they should have taken better care of themselves (do you see how fat those poor people tend to be?), or should have put more effort into a career and been able to afford insurance or ...
For the reporter, the story of poverty is objectively reported as changing in reaction to certain kinds of policy choices: theocracies, anarchies, and totalitarian regimes create more poverty than democracies, for instance, and democracies with welfare states have less poverty than democracies with no safety net. For the conservative, there is no question about what policies are best (fewer taxes and less government), therefore a rise in poverty offers a lesson to people to be more careful, industrious, and better at saving. It never calls into question which policies ought to be enacted, though, because those are already known.
Given that conservatives care so deeply about what SHOULD be and less about what is, they'll always see good reporting as having a liberal bias.
We can compare the "liberal" media with conservatives on two topics: abstinence-only education and poverty.
For a good reporter, there would be no obvious solution to the problem of teen pregnancy. A really good reporter wouldn't even automatically accept the notion that teen pregnancy would itself be a problem. (It would make a great story for some reporter if he could report that teen mothers were actually happier than older mothers and their children went on to have better lives. What shocks conventional wisdom makes for better headlines.) If it turns out that sex-education that suggests but does not rely on abstinence turns out to more effectively protect teens from STDs and unwanted pregnancies, this is the story a good reporter will file. Outcomes dictate the story.
For the conservative, outcomes don't matter. Unmarried teens having sex is wrong. If sex education that explains the use of contraceptives and takes the stigma out of sex encourages even one more teen to have sex, it is a bad thing. The numbers, or facts, surrounding the occurence of disease or pregnancy don't matter. The story is not what happened but what should happen.
A similar thing happens with poverty. For the reporter, statistics matter (or ought to). Some policies lift more people out of poverty than others: the numbers of unemployed and homeless go down in the wake of certain tax and spending policies or education and outreach programs.
For the conservative, being homeless or unemployed is more likely to be a story of morality. If someone gets sick and is uninsured, they should have taken better care of themselves (do you see how fat those poor people tend to be?), or should have put more effort into a career and been able to afford insurance or ...
For the reporter, the story of poverty is objectively reported as changing in reaction to certain kinds of policy choices: theocracies, anarchies, and totalitarian regimes create more poverty than democracies, for instance, and democracies with welfare states have less poverty than democracies with no safety net. For the conservative, there is no question about what policies are best (fewer taxes and less government), therefore a rise in poverty offers a lesson to people to be more careful, industrious, and better at saving. It never calls into question which policies ought to be enacted, though, because those are already known.
Given that conservatives care so deeply about what SHOULD be and less about what is, they'll always see good reporting as having a liberal bias.
01 April 2009
Now This is Too Much Government
I am a moderate liberal, not a conservative or socialist. Conservatives believe that markets always work and big companies are better to be trusted than big government. Socialists want economic equality and trust big government more than big business. A moderate liberal - as I define it - thinks that government and business need each other as checks on excess and both need to be regularly and seriously questioned by the angry - or even just curious - masses who will otherwise become tools of these institutions. Conservatives believe that individuals have to make it on their own and socialists believe that the individual is merely a product of the state. We liberals believe that the role of government is to provide opportunities (e.g., health care, education, and well regulated markets) for the individual because no one can make it on their own but the individual should nonetheless be free to define his own life. Not the controlling government of socialists or the abandoning government of conservatives but, instead, a government that enables individuals.
One of the problems with being a moderate liberal is that one can't simply say that government or private sector is the solution. For me, the answer is "it depends." Markets fail and we need to intervene at times (for instance, the market for educating children living in poverty is almost nonexistent and we need the government to step in with money), but markets are generally the best way to allocate scarce resources (children and their parents should have choices about educational philosophy and schools and these schools should thrive or fail based on how well they shape and/or meet demand).
So, when it comes to CEOs and the power they should wield, I think that the current power structure is tilted towards CEOs. Someone needs to intervene. I'm not exactly a conservative on this matter of leaving companies to behave as they wish. But I don't think that Obama - or his staff - have any uniquely qualifying abilities to choose the CEO who'll enable an automobile company to prosper. For me, the notion of Obama and company making the decision to oust GM's CEO Wagoner is the low point in his presidency.
What is the quip? You can trust a man who knows his limitations? If Obama is now pretending to have expertise in corporate management, he's certainly failed that test.
One of the problems with being a moderate liberal is that one can't simply say that government or private sector is the solution. For me, the answer is "it depends." Markets fail and we need to intervene at times (for instance, the market for educating children living in poverty is almost nonexistent and we need the government to step in with money), but markets are generally the best way to allocate scarce resources (children and their parents should have choices about educational philosophy and schools and these schools should thrive or fail based on how well they shape and/or meet demand).
So, when it comes to CEOs and the power they should wield, I think that the current power structure is tilted towards CEOs. Someone needs to intervene. I'm not exactly a conservative on this matter of leaving companies to behave as they wish. But I don't think that Obama - or his staff - have any uniquely qualifying abilities to choose the CEO who'll enable an automobile company to prosper. For me, the notion of Obama and company making the decision to oust GM's CEO Wagoner is the low point in his presidency.
What is the quip? You can trust a man who knows his limitations? If Obama is now pretending to have expertise in corporate management, he's certainly failed that test.
30 April 2008
Bernard Explains Political Parties
"The problem with the parties," Bernard said matter-of-factly, "is that they think that moving left or right is the same thing as moving forward."
"That sounds cute," I retorted, "but that's sort of without meaning, isn't it?"
"No. Political parties and the electoral process are set up to frustrate progress."
"How could that be? Competition brings out the best ideas, the best people."
"Really?" Bernard paused while we watched a tiny flock of pedestrian birds run after the receding waves and peck into the sand. "I guess that's true for, say, sprinters. It's not so obvious when you're trying to find someone who can best lead communities. But that's not what I wanted to talk about," he said.
"Progress?" I asked.
"Yes. Progress. The electoral process basically ensures that politicians will move to the right or left but not move forward."
"So you say," I offered calmly. It was too difficult to become annoyed at the beach. I listened instead.
"The whole purpose of a campaign is to say, 'gotcha,'" he lunged forward, startling the birds. "So any smart politician avoids making mistakes. And, they need to appeal to the base. So, they embrace left or right mantras and they try to perfect a message. They try to avoid mistakes and try to look good."
"Makes sense," I say. "But how does that obfuscate progress?"
"If you are going to make progress, you are going to do new things. If you are going to do new things, you are going to do them poorly. You are going to look foolish, not in control. You will not look good if you're really making progress."
"And?"
"And you'll lose the election. It's simply too awkward to make progress and win elections. You can't do both."
"So, to win an election is to turn right or left but not move forward," I repeat.
"My point exactly," said Bernard. And with that, we turned west to watch the sunset. There is something so spectacular about the demise of a day. We watched the sun elongate and then disappear all together. I can't tell you why it looked so beautiful.
"That sounds cute," I retorted, "but that's sort of without meaning, isn't it?"
"No. Political parties and the electoral process are set up to frustrate progress."
"How could that be? Competition brings out the best ideas, the best people."
"Really?" Bernard paused while we watched a tiny flock of pedestrian birds run after the receding waves and peck into the sand. "I guess that's true for, say, sprinters. It's not so obvious when you're trying to find someone who can best lead communities. But that's not what I wanted to talk about," he said.
"Progress?" I asked.
"Yes. Progress. The electoral process basically ensures that politicians will move to the right or left but not move forward."
"So you say," I offered calmly. It was too difficult to become annoyed at the beach. I listened instead.
"The whole purpose of a campaign is to say, 'gotcha,'" he lunged forward, startling the birds. "So any smart politician avoids making mistakes. And, they need to appeal to the base. So, they embrace left or right mantras and they try to perfect a message. They try to avoid mistakes and try to look good."
"Makes sense," I say. "But how does that obfuscate progress?"
"If you are going to make progress, you are going to do new things. If you are going to do new things, you are going to do them poorly. You are going to look foolish, not in control. You will not look good if you're really making progress."
"And?"
"And you'll lose the election. It's simply too awkward to make progress and win elections. You can't do both."
"So, to win an election is to turn right or left but not move forward," I repeat.
"My point exactly," said Bernard. And with that, we turned west to watch the sunset. There is something so spectacular about the demise of a day. We watched the sun elongate and then disappear all together. I can't tell you why it looked so beautiful.
09 January 2007
Political Primer: Institutions and Reactionaries, Conservatives, Liberals & Radicals
It helps me to understand politics from the perspective of institutions. I would argue that all political struggle has to do with what we institutionalize or not. From that perspective, here's a way to look at four groups: reactionaries, conservatives, liberals, and radicals. I'll use the church in the 16 to 18th century to illustrate each group.
Reactionaries felt that things had gone badly because society had strayed from the true church. For them, the Inquisition and the return to theocratic rule over wayward kings and princes would help to restore social order. Burn a few witches and philosophers to appease God and all would again be well.
Conservatives wanted to preserve the church but not necessarily return to its early state of complete illiteracy and crackdown on science and witches. They were quite happy with the church as the dominant institution but still saw a role for stronger states, and a modicum of commerce and science - just not any commerce (e.g., charging usury) or science (e.g., notions like the earth circling around the sun) that contradicted church teachings. Further, they didn't particularly trust the masses, preferring to see the power of the church retained in the hands of the elite (e.g., the pope).
Liberals wanted to transform the church, make it subordinate to the state. Put it in its place and it would no longer be a catalyst for killings or archaic practices in regards to business and commerce. And they wanted to disperse the power of the church, not trusting the elites and preferring the misjudgment of the masses to the abuse of power by the elites, best represented by Luther's cry: "we are all priests."
Radicals, finally, wanted to do away with the church, seeing it as a source of evil with a history of oppression, forcing Europeans to live in ignorance and squalor.
Four groups, each defined by their relationship to the dominant institution. Reactionaries wanting to return to a time when the institution in transition returned to its previously clear domination and clear rule by elites; conservatives wanting to stop change and maintain order by maintaining power among the elites; liberals wanting to encourage a dispersion of power outwards and to subordinate the institution to the community; and, finally, radicals who simply wanted to be rid of this anchor to the past, feeling that along with its domination, its reason for being had passed.
This perspective has helped me, a liberal, to understand American politics of today. The conservative movement is really a coalition, all wanting to preserve the power of the dominant institution; where they break down is in their agreement about which institution is (or should be) dominant. One sector, the social conservatives, seems to believe that the church is the institution that should be protected in its earlier (or at least current) form, decrying attacks to its authority and pronouncements on social standards. Another sector, the patriots, seems to believe that the state is the institution that should be protected in its earlier form of powerful military and high-waving flag. Finally, the business conservatives seem to believe that what needs defending is the American way of life as exercised through its corporations. All share in common a notion that the institutions need defending from the individual.
By contrast, the liberal seems to believe that the individual needs protecting from the institution. Perhaps the simplest way to see this contrast is in the issue of crime or welfare. The conservative is afraid that the individual will abuse the institution, cheating the state of money that he or she doesn't deserve, or abusing rights. The liberal is afraid that the institution will abuse the individual, ignoring his or her needs and rights.
It seems as though the real question is whether we're prepared to adopt fluent and changing institutions in order to accommodate individuals or whether we're planning to force individuals to conform to institutions. It's always a dance and any society needs to do both. The question is, Who is leading?
Some reading this would say that American conservatives actually want to shift more power to the individual and less to the institution. That, of course, depends on what one accepts as the dominant institution. Many conservatives want less state intervention, less state power, but the reason for that is because they trust markets and corporations more than they trust elections and governments. For them, the underdog is the corporation and the dominant institution is the state. But if the corporation has become the dominant institution, then the definition of conservative applies as it does in the example of the church: conservatives want to maintain the power of the corporation, allowing it to work with fewer encumbrances, regulations, and taxes. And, to complete the picture, they are perfectly content with the status quo of powerful elites running those corporations, a privileged few who get disproportionate benefits.
The alignment that would be very powerful is the alignment between liberals of every sector. By the definition given, many “conservatives” are actually liberals in terms of church, state, and even bank but are truly conservatives only in the matter of the corporation. If they were to see the parallels between these institutions, see how one constant through the history and progress of Western Civilization is the diffusion of power from elites to the many, they could likely be persuaded to consider a more liberal view of the corporation, working for reforms that would match the power over corporations with the composition of owners (via both equity capital as represented by stock and intellectual capital as represented by employee involvement).
Liberals who have reversed themselves in terms of state power, seeing a strong state as the one viable option for countering a strong corporation, might also find a common ground with conservatives within this perspective. The point is not to tradeoff power between corporations and governments; the one leads to abuses that lines the pockets of politicians and the other to abuses that lines the pockets of senior executives. Better to diffuse power to the grassroots in every forum, subordinating these institutions to the community rather than vice versa.
We have before us a possibility for a period of enormous social innovation – a period of history when society becomes as pliable as our technology. Accomplishing this will require a myriad of changes. One change that is essential is that we all become liberals, forcing our institutions to emerge, disappear and change as best suits individual and community goals.
Reactionaries felt that things had gone badly because society had strayed from the true church. For them, the Inquisition and the return to theocratic rule over wayward kings and princes would help to restore social order. Burn a few witches and philosophers to appease God and all would again be well.
Conservatives wanted to preserve the church but not necessarily return to its early state of complete illiteracy and crackdown on science and witches. They were quite happy with the church as the dominant institution but still saw a role for stronger states, and a modicum of commerce and science - just not any commerce (e.g., charging usury) or science (e.g., notions like the earth circling around the sun) that contradicted church teachings. Further, they didn't particularly trust the masses, preferring to see the power of the church retained in the hands of the elite (e.g., the pope).
Liberals wanted to transform the church, make it subordinate to the state. Put it in its place and it would no longer be a catalyst for killings or archaic practices in regards to business and commerce. And they wanted to disperse the power of the church, not trusting the elites and preferring the misjudgment of the masses to the abuse of power by the elites, best represented by Luther's cry: "we are all priests."
Radicals, finally, wanted to do away with the church, seeing it as a source of evil with a history of oppression, forcing Europeans to live in ignorance and squalor.
Four groups, each defined by their relationship to the dominant institution. Reactionaries wanting to return to a time when the institution in transition returned to its previously clear domination and clear rule by elites; conservatives wanting to stop change and maintain order by maintaining power among the elites; liberals wanting to encourage a dispersion of power outwards and to subordinate the institution to the community; and, finally, radicals who simply wanted to be rid of this anchor to the past, feeling that along with its domination, its reason for being had passed.
This perspective has helped me, a liberal, to understand American politics of today. The conservative movement is really a coalition, all wanting to preserve the power of the dominant institution; where they break down is in their agreement about which institution is (or should be) dominant. One sector, the social conservatives, seems to believe that the church is the institution that should be protected in its earlier (or at least current) form, decrying attacks to its authority and pronouncements on social standards. Another sector, the patriots, seems to believe that the state is the institution that should be protected in its earlier form of powerful military and high-waving flag. Finally, the business conservatives seem to believe that what needs defending is the American way of life as exercised through its corporations. All share in common a notion that the institutions need defending from the individual.
By contrast, the liberal seems to believe that the individual needs protecting from the institution. Perhaps the simplest way to see this contrast is in the issue of crime or welfare. The conservative is afraid that the individual will abuse the institution, cheating the state of money that he or she doesn't deserve, or abusing rights. The liberal is afraid that the institution will abuse the individual, ignoring his or her needs and rights.
It seems as though the real question is whether we're prepared to adopt fluent and changing institutions in order to accommodate individuals or whether we're planning to force individuals to conform to institutions. It's always a dance and any society needs to do both. The question is, Who is leading?
Some reading this would say that American conservatives actually want to shift more power to the individual and less to the institution. That, of course, depends on what one accepts as the dominant institution. Many conservatives want less state intervention, less state power, but the reason for that is because they trust markets and corporations more than they trust elections and governments. For them, the underdog is the corporation and the dominant institution is the state. But if the corporation has become the dominant institution, then the definition of conservative applies as it does in the example of the church: conservatives want to maintain the power of the corporation, allowing it to work with fewer encumbrances, regulations, and taxes. And, to complete the picture, they are perfectly content with the status quo of powerful elites running those corporations, a privileged few who get disproportionate benefits.
The alignment that would be very powerful is the alignment between liberals of every sector. By the definition given, many “conservatives” are actually liberals in terms of church, state, and even bank but are truly conservatives only in the matter of the corporation. If they were to see the parallels between these institutions, see how one constant through the history and progress of Western Civilization is the diffusion of power from elites to the many, they could likely be persuaded to consider a more liberal view of the corporation, working for reforms that would match the power over corporations with the composition of owners (via both equity capital as represented by stock and intellectual capital as represented by employee involvement).
Liberals who have reversed themselves in terms of state power, seeing a strong state as the one viable option for countering a strong corporation, might also find a common ground with conservatives within this perspective. The point is not to tradeoff power between corporations and governments; the one leads to abuses that lines the pockets of politicians and the other to abuses that lines the pockets of senior executives. Better to diffuse power to the grassroots in every forum, subordinating these institutions to the community rather than vice versa.
We have before us a possibility for a period of enormous social innovation – a period of history when society becomes as pliable as our technology. Accomplishing this will require a myriad of changes. One change that is essential is that we all become liberals, forcing our institutions to emerge, disappear and change as best suits individual and community goals.
30 November 2006
What Nobody Says About Social Security
One of the reasons that social security is projected to be a problem is that our population is aging. This problem of more retirees per working person is even worse in places like Italy and Japan. Whereas as one point about 7 - 10 people all chipped in to fund the social security payments of the retired, the projection is that once baby boomers retire the ratio will be more like 4 - 5. Obviously this strains the system.
But system boundaries can be redefined. If you instead define the problem of one of working to non-working population, the problem is less onerous. It is not just those over, say, 65 who working people have to carry; they also carry those under, say, 20. It is worth remembering that as the number of children drops, the ratio of working people to children will raise. If at one point there were about 4 - 5 working people chipping in for the schooling, etc., of every minor, the projection is that it'll be more like 7-10 in the future.
Looked at as a problem of working age population to not-working population (a group made up of school-age children and Winnebago-driving seniors alike), the problem is easier to solve.
(Blogger's note - I'm quickly writing this note in between breakfast and the start of my work day. My researcher has yet to show up for work (and I'm not sure what year they are scheduled to start but apparently it isn't this year), so the numbers I've used are for purposes of illustration only and would match reality only by coincidence. Further, the cost of funding retirement is greater than the cost of funding schooling, so the ratio doesn't have to neatly flip in order for the funding to neatly flip. The point is, you get the point.)
Conservatives don't point this out because they don't want to save social security. Like a man who doesn't wake up his wife in a house fire - not because it would have been too dangerous but because he already had his eye on a younger, sexier wife - conservatives are hell-bent on private accounts (a bad idea that deserves its own posting).
Liberals don't point this out because it suggests shifting money from education to retirement, a budget change that sounds like they're giving up on the future - or at least it sounds like they are giving up on the teacher's unions, one of their stronger supporters.
But system boundaries can be redefined. If you instead define the problem of one of working to non-working population, the problem is less onerous. It is not just those over, say, 65 who working people have to carry; they also carry those under, say, 20. It is worth remembering that as the number of children drops, the ratio of working people to children will raise. If at one point there were about 4 - 5 working people chipping in for the schooling, etc., of every minor, the projection is that it'll be more like 7-10 in the future.
Looked at as a problem of working age population to not-working population (a group made up of school-age children and Winnebago-driving seniors alike), the problem is easier to solve.
(Blogger's note - I'm quickly writing this note in between breakfast and the start of my work day. My researcher has yet to show up for work (and I'm not sure what year they are scheduled to start but apparently it isn't this year), so the numbers I've used are for purposes of illustration only and would match reality only by coincidence. Further, the cost of funding retirement is greater than the cost of funding schooling, so the ratio doesn't have to neatly flip in order for the funding to neatly flip. The point is, you get the point.)
Conservatives don't point this out because they don't want to save social security. Like a man who doesn't wake up his wife in a house fire - not because it would have been too dangerous but because he already had his eye on a younger, sexier wife - conservatives are hell-bent on private accounts (a bad idea that deserves its own posting).
Liberals don't point this out because it suggests shifting money from education to retirement, a budget change that sounds like they're giving up on the future - or at least it sounds like they are giving up on the teacher's unions, one of their stronger supporters.
23 November 2006
Fourteen Categories of People
There are a variety of reasons that my politics tend left. One is my sincere confusion about the absolutes that seem so absolutely clear to so many on the right.
For instance, the conservative may think that some are worthy of some kind of public assistance - perhaps orphans and widows - and others should fend for themselves. That is not so clear to me. It seems to me that there is, instead, a spectrum and the lines one draws, the categories that are useful, depends on the situation.
I don't consider myself needy but there was a stage in life when I greatly benefited from public assistance. My parents provided for me. I have no obvious physical handicaps (you have to watch me engage in sports before my lack of celerity, coordination, and skill become glaringly apparent). To a certain brand of conservative, I would likely be an example of someone who needed no public assistance. And yet I could have never afforded to pay for college myself - not private college that is. I was only able to get university degrees because my education was subsidized by the government. Could I have made a living without university degrees? Yes, but I doubt that I would have done as well.
To neatly categorize people as those who need help and those who do not is to set arbitrary categories that ignore the subtleties and grays of reality. As I listen to some conservatives offer their stark truths I think of the delightful (and fictional) Chinese encyclopedia, the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge that Jorge Luis Borges pretends to quote, as follows:
"For your consideration, friends, the fourteen kinds of animals: those that belong to the Emperor, embalmed ones, those that are trained, suckling pigs, mermaids, fabulous ones, stray dogs, those included in the present classification, those that tremble as if they were mad, innumerable ones, those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, others, those that have just broken a flower vase, those that from a long way off look like flies."
I realize that much of liberal policy can seem wishy-washy, to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. I suppose that if the world seemed to me more clearly black and white, I would more readily embrace a philosophical stance that was less nuanced, less full of caveats. But I do know that there are about as many categories of things as there are people to categorize them. Some people look embalmed, some are trained, some are pigs, and some tremble when they are mad. Along this spectrum of people one has to draw the line differently for different reasons.
If we are serious about freedom, we have to allow each individual this most personal of freedoms – the freedom to categorize the world as he or she sees fit. It is this element of freedom of religion that still so few understand. In such a world, to have one group stand up and pretend to talk for everyone is not just scary – it seems as though their description of reality is as odd as Borges’ fourteen categories of animals.
For instance, the conservative may think that some are worthy of some kind of public assistance - perhaps orphans and widows - and others should fend for themselves. That is not so clear to me. It seems to me that there is, instead, a spectrum and the lines one draws, the categories that are useful, depends on the situation.
I don't consider myself needy but there was a stage in life when I greatly benefited from public assistance. My parents provided for me. I have no obvious physical handicaps (you have to watch me engage in sports before my lack of celerity, coordination, and skill become glaringly apparent). To a certain brand of conservative, I would likely be an example of someone who needed no public assistance. And yet I could have never afforded to pay for college myself - not private college that is. I was only able to get university degrees because my education was subsidized by the government. Could I have made a living without university degrees? Yes, but I doubt that I would have done as well.
To neatly categorize people as those who need help and those who do not is to set arbitrary categories that ignore the subtleties and grays of reality. As I listen to some conservatives offer their stark truths I think of the delightful (and fictional) Chinese encyclopedia, the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge that Jorge Luis Borges pretends to quote, as follows:
"For your consideration, friends, the fourteen kinds of animals: those that belong to the Emperor, embalmed ones, those that are trained, suckling pigs, mermaids, fabulous ones, stray dogs, those included in the present classification, those that tremble as if they were mad, innumerable ones, those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, others, those that have just broken a flower vase, those that from a long way off look like flies."
I realize that much of liberal policy can seem wishy-washy, to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. I suppose that if the world seemed to me more clearly black and white, I would more readily embrace a philosophical stance that was less nuanced, less full of caveats. But I do know that there are about as many categories of things as there are people to categorize them. Some people look embalmed, some are trained, some are pigs, and some tremble when they are mad. Along this spectrum of people one has to draw the line differently for different reasons.
If we are serious about freedom, we have to allow each individual this most personal of freedoms – the freedom to categorize the world as he or she sees fit. It is this element of freedom of religion that still so few understand. In such a world, to have one group stand up and pretend to talk for everyone is not just scary – it seems as though their description of reality is as odd as Borges’ fourteen categories of animals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)