|
Return to Protein Wisdom homepage
« Somewhere, H. L. Mencken is laughing [Darleen Click] | Home | Era of O: I guess it’s ok to be a Mom today [Darleen Click] »
May 9, 2009
Liberty vs Equality [Darleen Click]
How do classical liberals make things clear? Prager’s first in a series of five-minute lectures starts with a succinct summary of basic American values, contrasting them with European values. This will be old-hat with many regulars here, but this is the stuff Leftists refuse to discuss and which they are determined not be taught to American youth. Got teens in the house? Have them watch it. 52 Comments ::: Post a comment »RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI: http://proteinwisdom.com/wp-trackback.php?p=14856 Leave a commentIf you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below. |
||
|
Comment by router on 5/9 @ 8:50 pm #
gotta to da arms first:
?
Comment by Darleen on 5/9 @ 8:52 pm #
router
I saw that…and, dayum, but my gag factor just wasn’t strong enough to post on it yet.
ick ick ick
Comment by router on 5/9 @ 8:56 pm #
pining for aunt esther’s arms
Comment by router on 5/9 @ 8:59 pm #
where’s fred sanford? i mean “thebigdummylamont” can’t be the star? priorities people.
Comment by B Moe on 5/9 @ 9:53 pm #
She has come under attack? For real? I must have missed that.
Comment by Abe Froman on 5/9 @ 10:08 pm #
She has come under attack? For real? I must have missed that.
They have a rich fantasy life do these white liberals on an over the top race guilt bender. It feels crass to boil everything down to that but I’m at a loss for any other explanation as to why media members have sunk to such embarrassing depths.
Comment by B Moe on 5/9 @ 10:23 pm #
That is rather beyond fantasy, that is flat out delusional.
Comment by pdbuttons on 5/9 @ 10:52 pm #
arm
and hammer
Comment by Bod on 5/9 @ 10:59 pm #
pdfbuttons forgot to mention the sickle.
Comment by pdbuttons on 5/9 @ 11:07 pm #
ur on!
sickle down economics
or/ rino
recovery in name only
Comment by pdbuttons on 5/9 @ 11:13 pm #
wot u got for mom wit one happyfeet in
grave?
a michelle tricep tool/fool
Comment by Abe Froman on 5/9 @ 11:24 pm #
Yeah, that particular comment is delusional. I meant that they can only be this creepy and over the top in their adoration because they’ve conjured up all manner of forces that are against Chewy and teh Lightworker on account of their pigmentation. Heaven forbid we all just think Obama is a socialist piece of shit. White liberals need to believe that there’s something darker at work within us because it lends nobility to their racist desire to treat blacks like helpless children. But that’s hardly a revelation to anyone here.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/10 @ 4:41 am #
Just a little quibble for Mr Prager; the term “égalité” as enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” does not refer to equality of wealth or status. It refers to equality before the law:
It is an explicit condemnation of entrenched privilege and the division of France into the Three Estates, and seeks to establish the Rechtsstaat or Rule of Law that is at the very heart of our notion of clasical liberalism. See Chapter 6, Planning and The Rule of Law, The Road To Serfdom.
Comment by Joe on 5/10 @ 5:49 am #
Many successful people in this country are self made and not necessarily of privilege. Although connections on schools obviously helps, such as Obama going to Punahoe and then Columbia and Harvard Law.
Comment by Pablo on 5/10 @ 6:44 am #
WTF? Since when does a woman have to be courageous to…let alone apologize for…making her family her top priority?
Oh yeah, fucking progressives. Elsewhere, in the real world, that’s pretty much the default position. And she can only do this because she’s intelligent, accomplished and healthy? There’s only one possibility here.
Sally Quinn is emotionally retarded.
Comment by SBP on 5/10 @ 7:45 am #
#5: Shouldn’t a theologian, like, try his best not to lie?
Comment by JD on 5/10 @ 7:52 am #
Any of y’all watch Wanda Sykes last night? Political advocacy dressed up in lousy comedy.
Comment by LTC John on 5/10 @ 8:06 am #
#16 – depends. Would a theologian of the Reform Church of Satan be bothered by lying? A worshipper of Kali?
Comment by Darleen on 5/10 @ 8:58 am #
JD
No, but I wandered by Politico where they posted she made a “joke” about Limbaugh being the 20th hijacker and his kidneys “should fail” … on Politico’s huge front page headline on how Obama was the “shining star” at the dinner (headling now gone)
Wonderful comedy in an Obama “roast” don’t ya think? She also made some sort of joke about Palin and abstinence.
Yeah because a Governor should be in DC kissing The One’s feet when there is a natural disaster to be attended to in the home state.
Gangsta Government
Comment by BuddyPC on 5/10 @ 9:23 am #
Did Wanda Sykes ask Obama he won’t let her marry?
Comment by Sdferr on 5/10 @ 9:26 am #
Far from clarifying, the introduction of values talk (or perhaps better, the fact-value distinction) may tend to bear a freight that the Classical Liberal principles of American government cannot admit. As an illustration of that absence from our foundational principles and as a demonstration that it may be a concept foreign to them, for instance, we won’t find this term in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. The word “value”, however, is in the Constitution, twice, at Art.1, Sec.8: “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin…” and at Amendment VII: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars…”
Comment by Jonas Sedlar on 5/10 @ 11:51 am #
But Sdferr — they’re the same thing:
When you wrote “principles,” you merely deployed a synonym of “values.” Your argument is tautological.
Now, Prager indeed may have been better served by using “principles” rather than “values,” simply because the word “values” is now too easily misinterpreted by some, especially on the left. (This is merely a point about rhetorical strategy, and I don’t want to inadvertently veer off into an intentionalism discussion here.) But the bottom line is that he could have substituted “principles” for “values” in that video and not altered his meaning in any way. “Principles,” “values” — either way, he’s simply identifying the foundation of the American idea.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/10 @ 12:23 pm #
No Jonas, they are not the same thing. Principles are not a synonym for values. If they were, certainly in the context of founding American principles, we would see them used in that way. We do not. That is likely, I’d guess, because the sociological concepts underlaying the fact-value distinction, (which you’ve unfairly left out of your quote, btw), had not yet been propounded, no? For the more complete analysis I’m referring to, see Chapter 2 of Leo Strauss’ Natural Right and History.
Comment by Jonas Sedlar on 5/10 @ 2:08 pm #
But it is a synonym when Prager is using it as one, which I think he is. You can certainly accuse him of sloppiness, or even of ignorance about language, but accusing him of a rhetorical error is different from accusing him of a philosophical one. (Heck, maybe this is an intentionalism debate, after all.)
My first post didn’t properly make my point, which is simply: Is it clear that Prager is using the word “values” in a way that’s substantively different from “principles”?
As I see it, he’s describing the underlying tenets of (what he calls) the American experiment. “Underlying tenets” sounds like “principles” to me. Again, calling them “values” may be sloppiness by Prager, but he still means what he means.
That’s why, regarding Prager’s meaning, I think this …
“the introduction of values talk … may tend to bear a freight that the Classical Liberal principles of American government cannot admit”
… really translates to this:
“the introduction of [America's underlying tenets] … may tend to bear a freight that [America's underlying tenets] cannot admit”
Which, of course, doesn’t make sense. (I snipped the “fact-value” parenthetical only for brevity, which I think is OK because it’s not ultimately relevant to my point.)
Let me know if I’m overlooking something from your argument.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/10 @ 2:31 pm #
It is sloppiness on Prager’s part, it is a philosophical argument (after all, that seems to me appropriate in a context in which Prager would purport to communicate to others what American principles are, which again, seems to me to be as good a place to be careful — not rhetorically sloppy — as any such instance might be) I think you’ve got that right Jonas. That would be my charge against him, were he and I to talk about it. I don’t think you are wrong that he is using the term in a sloppy way to mean some sort of equivocal “principle”, the problem is that the terms “values” and “value system” used in this way were not among the terms the founders would have been familiar with, whereas, our contemporaries (to whom Prager speaks) have been hearing them slung about in this sloppy fashion all their natural lives and yet, for the most part, have no idea where they came from, nor whether they’ve anything at all to do with our scheme of government, nor what sort, if any, untoward consequences they may bring along with them (from their unexamined origins). That’s bad ju-ju, it seems to me. And more or less easily repaired by Prager himself, either by explaining where these terms do come from and why they are valid when used in the sense in which he wants to use them (which we could then address as a separate issue should we disagree) or better, don’t use them at all, stick to the terms that are used by the founders, clarify them where the need arises and etc.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/10 @ 2:49 pm #
In addition to my argument with Mr Prager on the meaning of the word “égalité” that he takes exception to, I would also argue on the use of it as representing “European” principles. The Founding Fathers were products of the European Enlightenment – they weren’t eared in a vacuum. This misunderstanding of “égalité” as “equality” may well represent modern Europe, but it is a distiction I feel wouldn’t have impressed the Founders.
Comment by Darleen on 5/10 @ 2:57 pm #
SW
I believe Prager’s highlighting of “égalité†is spot on … the French Revolution devolved into terror because of it.
The American experiment is unique, not because it is a “classless” society (with such “classlessnes” forced from above) but because it is classless in that people can choose their destiny [mostly] unfettered by their birth or beginnings.
American is the land of second chances.
Comment by Jonas Sedlar on 5/10 @ 3:14 pm #
Well, that sounds sensible enough to me. Yes, it’s quite likely that “values” — as a synonym for “principles” — carries more baggage than is worth it, as evidenced by this very discussion. I just don’t think its use indicts Prager’s point, because I’m pretty sure he’s using it in precisely the way you’re using “principles.”
Of course, maybe not — maybe he really does mean “values,” which would be too bad, because it would undermine a perfectly good point. There’s nothing arbitrary about the tenets (inalienable rights, etc.) that guided the Founders, and it sucks if he’s implicitly asserting that there is.
Comment by Jonas Sedlar on 5/10 @ 3:16 pm #
(Above #28 was response to Sdferr.)
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/10 @ 3:17 pm #
Darleen,
As I pointed out above, “égalité†means equality before the law – the Rule of Law. It does not refer to equality of wealth or status. It is a misunderstanding to present it as such, and was not the intent of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, whose meaning is plain: “The law “must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.†Not a precursor to social justice, but a foundational principal of classical liberalism.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/10 @ 3:21 pm #
As an argument about intentionalism, perhaps the question we want to address is “whose” intentions are we intent on honoring here, the founders’ or Mr Prager’s? Both are on offer, looks like. If we honor Mr Prager’s, we do dishonor to the founder’s. If we honor the founder’s, we’re gonna call Mr Prager to account on charges of getting the founder’s intentions wrong.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/10 @ 3:27 pm #
Sdferr,
I think it is a fairly common misperception, and wouldn’t be especially hard on Mr Prager for holding it.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/10 @ 3:34 pm #
Silver Whistle, I’m not sure about the antecedent to your “it is”? If you mean specifically my complaint about the “values” talk, I’d say I don’t think I’ve been all that hard on him, calling him rhetorically sloppy and whatnot. (I mean, I could have groused the stupid musical background, for instance, among other things. :-) )
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/10 @ 3:41 pm #
All the above.
Comment by Jonas Sedlar on 5/10 @ 3:56 pm #
I’m not going to traipse into the debate about “égalité” (I’ve done my bit of Prager-rhetoric analysis for the afternoon, thanks), but I will say: In the battle to halt progressivism, it’s absolutely crucial to find a way to convey the liberty-equality dichotomy to a broad audience. As in, really, really, really important.
Step one in the battle against progressivism, of course, is ending the left’s strangehold on language and culture. This has to be step two. Americans already grasp it on an intuitive level in their day-to-day lives: They know there’s something weird about, say, political correctness, that it doesn’t really fit what America was supposed to be about. They know there’s something weird about being called racist or sexist for opposing affirmative action. I think they even understand that there’s a bigger force behind this stuff, that these are merely symptoms of something greater. But I doubt most people can identify it — namely, that the left has pushed a brand of equality ahead of liberty, and this equality is the enemy of liberty.
That truth needs to be exposed, needs to become an everyday conception. I have no idea what shape such a meme would take. Taking aim at a concept like “equality” in the 21st century is damned risky business because, well, the left has had a stranglehold on language and culture. But there are far better communicators out there than me. And I really hope some of them can figure it out, and get it rolling, because ultimately it’s the key to the whole thing.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/10 @ 4:03 pm #
Jonas,
I agree with you wholeheartedly – I’m just being pedantic about the use of the French revolutionary slogan as indicative of something that it isn’t.
Comment by Darleen on 5/10 @ 4:15 pm #
SW
was not the intent of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, whose meaning is plain: “The law “must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, shall be equally eligible to all high offices, public positions and employments, according to their ability, and without other distinction than that of their virtues and talents.â€
That’s not how the Jacobins saw it.
Sdferr
If we honor Mr Prager’s, we do dishonor to the founder’s
Excuse me?
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/10 @ 4:19 pm #
Darleen,
Please read Article VI of the Declaration. It is what is says.
Comment by Jonas Sedlar on 5/10 @ 4:20 pm #
That one threw me as well, Darleen. I thought we had agreed that Prager’s intentions were fine, that he may simply have used sloppy language. No, Sdferr?
Comment by Sdferr on 5/10 @ 4:34 pm #
I’m merely making the claim that Prager, with his rhetorical sloppiness, is dragging into an account of America’s founding principles a raft of political doctrine which doesn’t belong (whether he knows — and I’ll bet he does know and is in fact just being sloppy — or doesn’t know and is actually ignorant of the origins of this language, which I’ll bet he isn’t), namely the “values and value system” talk (among a number of other things, one of which Silver Whistle is pointing out) actually gets the founder’s intent wrong. It could even turn out to have adverse effects on the argument he wants to make. That’s all.
Comment by Darleen on 5/10 @ 4:51 pm #
a raft of political doctrine which doesn’t belong
again, excuse me? What specifically in Pragers summary is NOT something conceived by the Founding Fathers?
Comment by Sdferr on 5/10 @ 4:54 pm #
Read above Darleen, I see no need to write it all again.
Comment by Joe on 5/10 @ 6:31 pm #
That picture is too Planet of the Apes for my taste…a sign of things to come??
Comment by The Monster on 5/10 @ 7:28 pm #
It would be lovely if that were the case. But, you see, one of the things we’re constantly fighting here is the redefinition of terms so that they mean something different from what they meant to the person who said/wrote them.
And I submit that is exactly what happened to “égalité”: Despite what the authors of that Declaration may have thought its meaning was, the current understanding of it, particularly in European social democracies, is as Prager says. And the average American voter probably considers “equality” to be equality of outcome, more than equality of opportunity or equality under the law. On the other hand, “liberty” is far more resistant to being morphed into something else.
Comment by Darleen on 5/10 @ 8:40 pm #
Please read Article VI of the Declaration. It is what is says
Sdferr
What Monster says. The French Revolution couldn’t wait to devour its own, “equality” soon encompassed “equality” of outcome.
Lordy, how many times do I have to point out what Vagina Warriors keep saying — variations of “women will ONLY be ‘equal’ when they receive ‘equal pay’ for ‘equal work’ and quality childcare is ‘affordable’” The Socialist Democrats of Europe fully embraced an “egalitarian” model that is ultimate at odds with Liberty.
American opportunity is more fully expressed with E Pluribus Unum.
Why is religion so vibrant in America? Because of religious competition and a vibrant religious society lends vigor to society as it inculcates to its members the VALUE that Life has meaning.
Europe is full of lotus eaters, herd animals … people marking time as pleasantly as possible from chemical activation to chemical deactivation.
Herd animals ignore predators and want strong herdsmen.
THAT is what faces America if we don’t get off our asses and challenge the Left on VALUES.
Comment by pdbuttons on 5/10 @ 8:46 pm #
i know too many people who don’t know
who is on the twenty dollar bill
i shove it there face/confrontational like
and get a shrug…
then i buy scratch tickets!
Comment by pdbuttons on 5/10 @ 8:54 pm #
story
i was working at the charlestown navy yards
w/ a guy from arizona
i pointed out a window/ u could see the uss constitution..
then i pointed out the other window to bunker[breeds) hill
and said to him/ ur standing in history mo fo’
he couldn’t care less
just venting on pw/tanks
Comment by Silver Whistle on 5/11 @ 1:18 am #
And Monster, as well as Darleen, as I said in #26 above, the comparison between present European principals of equality and American principals of liberty may well be valid. Just not the twisting of meaning of the original intent behind the words liberté, égalité et fraternité.
Comment by Yackums on 5/11 @ 6:53 am #
Darleen,
If? I would say that we’re sadly already there. Or at least the other 52% of us are.
Time for us to be seen, and not herd.
Comment by Sdferr on 5/11 @ 8:40 am #
seen in over in the corner muttering something about incorrigibility…
Comment by Jeff G. on 5/11 @ 10:35 am #
Sdferr’s critique is correct: “values” is a poor choice by Prager from the standpoint of explaining classical liberalism. I suspect, though, that his position will veer more socially conservative as the series progressives, and if that’s the case, his use of “values” rather than principles will become important. He’s looking ahead.
Too, it would have only taken a second to note that egalite, once it has morphed into egalitarianism, has had its original intent completely inverted. Much like “tolerance” with respect to the First Amendment.
It is a nice effort at an overview, but its simplicity leaves it open to easy deconstructions — the kind that impress people with superficial dazzle. Deconstructing the word “values” in this case would be quite easy.
Pingback by Rhetoric and Pedagogy on 5/11 @ 12:08 pm #
[...] those of you who missed it, an interesting argument broke out in response to Darleen’s posting of Dennis Prager’s Prager University “American Trinity” [...]