There are some obvious targets for Republicans if they win big this year. Democrats have jacked up domestic spending sharply; some reversal should be possible. The many glitches in Obamacare, some apparent now and others as yet undiscovered, could form a basis for derailment if not repeal.
Giveaways to labor unions, like the $26 billion package for the teacher unions which the House is to be summoned back from its recess to pass, presumably will be off the table.
Larger issues need to be addressed. We’re overdue for a simplifying tax reform. And there is the looming crisis in entitlements –Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.
There is an assumption in the political world that spending cuts will be unpopular: Americans, it is said, are ideologically conservative but operationally liberal.
But there is some evidence that voters will back governors who cut spending, such as Mitch Daniels, re-elected while Barack Obama was carrying Indiana in 2008, and Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie, elected in Virginia and New Jersey in 2009 and now enjoying good job ratings.
One reason is that as candidates they let voters know what they would do. There are risks in taking stands. But there are also risks in looking […] clueless […].
As I keep arguing, it isn’t enough simply to win elections — or to concentrate on regaining power by refusing to take any kind of stand in order to avoid advancing policy positions that may be framed by your opponents as a willingness to hurt minorities, the elderly, blacks, the poor, women, gays, etc. Because they are going to frame you that way regardless — merely by virtue of your political party affiliation and the pre-defined narrative they’ve created that therefore defines you.
If “conservatives” lose elections because they promise to govern as conservatives, then we’ll know once and for all that the American experiment is, to put it bluntly, doomed — and it’s merely a matter of when the final collapse will happen. Because frankly, this idea many GOP boosters have about affecting a kind of Trojan Horse election strategy — in which the GOP gains power by virtue of promising to govern as Democrat lite, then turns around and acts the part of staunch fiscal conservatives — has the net affect of painting the GOP as either disingenuous with respect to presenting themselves to the electorate, or disingenuous to their ideological compatriots with respect to governing by their own supposed principles.
Which, there’s your pragmatism right there.
Because they are going to frame you that way regardless — merely by virtue of your political party affiliation and the pre-defined narrative they’ve created that therefore defines you.
That can’t be repeated often enough.
And the Trojan Horse effect is part of the problem that the Democrats are suffering from right now. Obama campaigned as a pragmatic moderate, but has governed (such as he has) as left and looking harder to the left. That level of disingenuousness is guaranteed to cause trouble pretty darn quickly and it has. I bet the Democrats are regreting letting the media pick their candidate for election 2008.
Contrast that to George W. Bush, the compassionate conservative. He governed pretty much as he had campaigned he would. He wasn’t hard right and never portrayed himself that way.
#1 Darleen:
No kidding. It’s confusing the marketing with the actual product. At some point the package is going to be opened and it better meet some of the hype or there is going to be heck to pay.
[F]rankly, this idea many GOP boosters have about affecting a kind of Trojan Horse election strategy — in which the GOP gains power by virtue of promising to govern as Democrat lite, then turns around and acts the part of staunch fiscal conservatives — has the net affect of painting the GOP as either disingenuous with respect to presenting themselves to the electorate, or disingenuous to their ideological compatriots with respect to governing by their own supposed principles.
The hell you say! Look how great the Obama Trojan Horse worked out for and the dems! Hope! Change! Me tooism! That’s the ticket! Up yours Cassandra.
A republican got elected to fight for conservative values. But once he got elected he was told that would not get him re-elected, so he stopped and became a pragmatic and voted to advance the democratic party agenda.
Man, these anti jokes are funny.
H/T: to Balko for finding this link.
Man, the greek is getting thick around here.
The other reason you run on a specific platform is that, in the event you lose and the electorate later comes to have buyer’s remorse, they have a basis for turning to you other than we’e not them. If the Republicans insist on trying a repeat of the Democrats’ 2006 game plan, they’re inviting a third pary challenge that guarantees Obama’s reelection in 2012.
Yeah, it’s like the GOP is on some kind of Odyssey.
this idea many GOP boosters have about affecting a kind of Trojan Horse election strategy
it follows then I think that it’s of no small import that there are Team R’s what should a lot not be elected
The questionable difference, Ernst, is that Od. set out with good-sense already in his possession and managed to learn things along the way. The GOP doesn’t seem to have the same capacity, so far.
I’m beginning to think that mandatory term limits for all elected officials is a great, great idea.
Getting Shelia Jackson Lee out of the House would just be a bonus.
An inadequate supply of good sense, sdferr, along with an overabundance of windbags blowing the the s.s. GOP off its course.
Same as it ever was, ‘feets: When things get this bad the right is split between national Republican liberalism and grass roots conservatism, which the lying Dems naturally take as a positive sign and capitalize on. Meanwhile at home folks elect the perceived moderate because they lack the cojones to wean themselves from their federal teat first. And the chronic dependents and thieves we have with us always.
Liberty-based self-governance was always a radical notion. Responsibility is a bitch.
I’ve never been a fan of baseball because I never really enjoyed the game. But I tried it, and I still encourage everyone to at least try the game. One of the greatest lessons my father ever taught me was from little league. That lesson was, when at the plate, it is always better to go down swinging.
Now, if there were some way to take the pitcher down with you I might like the game a little better…
If Responsibility is a bitch, how come it isn’t easy?
I’m not going to do my part to elect the perceived moderate I’m gonna go have tasty pancakes of liberty
#9:
Right. Because keeping the Democrats in so that they can finish burning the country to the ground is the most important thing ever! We can maintain staunchness and frolic in teh ashes!
Or how about send the Democrats packing, and if the Republicans don’t do what we want we send the packing, and keep repeating the cycle until some of the silly beggers figure out what the pattern is?
Or perhaps you like the crispy smell of a destroyed nation? It goes well with staunchness.
When reached for comment, Boehner mumbled something about unhelpful and said he was late for a meeting.
There’s a book about that.
I’m gonna go have tasty pancakes of liberty
where? Like Obama and ilk will let you?
On this topic, I was struck that Huckabee was given a soundbite in the movie trailer posted below.
THomasD – Once I struck out, and on the way back to the dugout, hit the dugout as hard as possible with my Easton, in frustration. My Coach grabbed me, and said “JD, it ain’t the bat’s fault”.
I just walk across the street! there’s a vegan thai place what makes the most wonderful pancakes I ever had in LA… you just can’t have bacons. Also they are way more austere than my regular pancake place so that’s value
As long as voters can vote themselves a share of their neighbor’s earnings … AND the public “morality” enforced by media and academia tells them that is their right cuz all them rich folk STOLE it … then yes, democracy will destroy itself from within.
Kinda why the Founders were intent on a Republic and Federalism. Though they erred by believing the strong faith in their values and principles would be held and reverently passed down through the generations within the citizenry.
We need to add “separation of business and state” to fundamental principles.
I think we need more ALL CAPS !
I think the idea of “limited government” encompasses the principle of separation of buisness and state, Darleen. The larger issue is to get back to the notion raised by JHo above: a free and responsible citizenry for provides for itself.
run on fiscal restraint and if you lose, so be it … go down fighting from your principals or don’t get into the fight …
Obama ran as a moderate and has certainly not governed from a moderate position … he has been proven to be a liar and no matter what he says going forward Independents will think he is lying again, EVEN if he really, really means it next time …
Obamas only tool is words … his actions have been 180 degrees at odds with his words … now that his words are seen as lies he is out of tools to run with in 2012 …
He will win in 2012, Jeff. I wish I was wrong, and I hope to acknowledge how wrong I was someday. But I doubt that day will ever come.
at this point there’s no reason at all to think he won’t
a free and responsible citizenry for provides for itself.
Agreed. But that implies a voluntarily embraced morality that encompasses individual responsiblity and an unwillingness to steal from one’s neighbors even when using the government as tool for such stealing.
Close to 50% of the citizenry no longer pay any federal income tax and a significant portion actually receive direct federal money (earned income credit) and they are STILL voting on policies that raise taxes on their neighbors.
Bread n circuses.
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “Because Barack Obama and the Democrats are destroying America and the Republicans are afraid to discuss the issues or take a principled stand.”
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says, “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “Because Barack Obama will win re-election in 2012.”
Most people are idiots, and Obama is clearly a man of the people.
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says,”I ain’t no horse. My name is John Kerry.”
A horse walks into a bar. Bartender says “Hey, why the long face?” Horse says, “I found myself agreeing with Darleen, but then she had to go an talk about morals where it is not necessary to do so.”
Yeah, because things are soooo damned good, how could anyone not vote for Obama? C’mon folks, even with the press cheering him on he is reach down into the low 40s on approval… to call an election in 2012 for him, now, is a bit on the utterly pessimistic side.
I am utterly pessimistic, LtC John.
Obamas only tool is words
Then I picture his tool box as one of those pink lady of the house tool boxes with the little tack hammer for hanging pictures
It’s only a matter of time ’til the NJ unions’ good fellows take out Chris Christie, and a very short time between that and the energetic backlash from those who pay the bills.
It’s gonna get interesting, I think.
Still liking the trend JD.
Whoever decided that there is a “right” to vote was a damn fool. If only property owners were allowed to vote, things would be different, but it’s too late. Note that I would not be allowed to vote, since I don’t own property.
Everyone needs to have some stake in the game. Everyone needs to pay.
“….the little tack hammer for hanging pictures…”
– It’s a high heeled shoe.
Oh, I like the trend too, sdferr. I just have faith in the Boehner/McCain/Romney/Fuckabee leaders of the Republican party to fuck things up, sans K-Y.
“Everyone needs to have some stake in the game. Everyone needs to pay.”
– Ultimately we all do, and we all do. Just that some don’t realize where wealth really comes from until its too late. A fair part of our electorate are imitating the fate of Easter Island. But they won’t understand until all the tree’s are gone, and the leftwards ideology has scarred off any sources that would plant new tree’s.
– The financial group is sitting on 2 trillion, that’s Trillion with a “T”, and they won’t do a thing until they see the country swing back toward free markets. That is not going to happen under Bumbblefuck and the Dems.
– When/if the majority of Americans realize that ideology isn’t going to count for squat.
JD
If you saw an opportunity to shoplift from a store with the guarantee you would never be caught, would you do it? Why/why not?
No. Because that is not something I would do.
You are of course correct, BBH, but the cost needs to be immediate and obvious, because most people are stupid.
JD
Because you honor your own personal code of principles, regardless of the circumstance you may find yourself in.
i.e. morality
and that you would behave according to those principles even when no one is around, that’s integrity
Unless one has a citizenry that voluntarily embraces a public set of civic of principles based around individual responsibility and not taking advantage of your neighbor, then clamor for more FREE STUFF! is not going to abate.
We can have this conversation without having to claim some kind of superior moral position.
What I would really like is an end to automatic withholding, but that won’t happen. How about instead all pay stubs prominently feature how much money is being taken, including the payroll tax paid by the employer which is really part of your wages? In bold letters, it should say “How much you really made: ” and “How much you get to keep: ” but that will never happen either.
– No, it’s not necessary to resort to moral integrity.
– If people were really educated in schools instead of indoctrinated they would know that even from the most cynical amoral standpoint, the wagon just grinds to a halt if you indiscriminately keep beating the lead horse.
– But try teaching that idea to a Progressive. Good luck.
claim some kind of superior moral position
Huh?
I’m calling something by its name. And some morals ARE superior to others. The morals (behavioral principles) of a thief are inferior to the morals (behaviorial principles) of a person who considers stealing wrong.
I have no interest in where people get their morals/principles. I’m only interested in what they are.
No where above did I talk about “superiority”, what I asserted is, I believe, a self-evident truth. There is no such thing as honor among thieves and the rot of democracy is inculcating among the citizenry a “right” to their neighbors’ earnings as long as they “vote” for it.
If you are claiming a moral position, I guess it is possible that you do not think the people that do not share your position do not hold an immoral position. And, as a result, no matter how you want to say it, you have claim a morally superior position. All I am doing is pointing out that this discussion can occur without the moral component. I need a lecture on what morals are about as much as I need another hole in my head.
BBH
from the most cynical amoral standpoint, the wagon just grinds to a halt if you indiscriminately keep beating the lead horse.
but for the person of no principles, it doesn’t matter that the wagon will stop — because a person of no principles cares neither for the horse nor anyone else on the wagon and even if it stops before that person dies, one can still loot from the other passengers.
JD
morals = principles.
How do we form a society, or rescue it, avoiding a dicussion of what constitutes sound civic principles on public behavior?
Hasn’t been part of the problems of late based on amoral/unprincipled pragmatism?
– I’m not for a second arguing against a moral baseline as the much preferred way of life for any society Darleen.
– What I’m saying is, that even the basest amoral Theist would do the right thing from a purely cynical self-preservation stance if he/she were properly educated in the realities of life.
– Of course were he properly educated in a true liberal sense, he most probably would not be amoral to begin with, either way it still works. But not when you have an illiterate populace.
#48 JD:
Too bad the left always does that with every position they take – the left position is always more fair, egalitarian, tolerant, compassionate, etc. which equals that the left position is more moral than the right position. Since failure to fight a battle is to guarantee losing it you merely concede that the left is more moral than the right, and how can you support the immoral position you greedy intolerant hater?
And how can you expect to win when you have conceded that your opponent’s position is good and yours is evil? How can you expect to convince people to support your position to give yourself the numbers to actually win?
We will agree to disagree, Darleen. I cannot stand being fucking lectured.
Mikey – If it is wrong for them to do it, then why should I do it?
no matter how you want to say it, you have claim a morally superior position
Are all principles equal? Are all behaviors equal? Are all political/economic ideologies equal?
– Also you cannot set guide lines based on the abject criminality of a portion of the populace. Overall you do well with the majority educated. The exceptions to the rule will always be with you.
I think conflating principles and morals is wrong too.
JD
I’m not lecturing, I’m attempting to discuss things as they exist regardless of how icky some find the semantics.
One can say they don’t believe in math, yet it is the adherence to the principles of engineering that keeps one’s home from falling down around one’s ears during a 3.2 earthquake or high wind.
Public human behavior is likewise built on a set of principles … some of it codified into law, some of it left to the personal choices of individuals.
Not wanting to talk about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, nor does it make it unworthy of being discussed and debated. Indeed, without revisiting the principles when something is demonstratively wrong with society, not can be moved towards resolution anymore than refusal to revisit the blueprints for a collapsed bridge will avoid future disaster.
If you can’t come up with ‘my position is morally better/more principled and therefore we should do this’ or worse, you don’t even try – then you concede the fight.
I think one of the greatest fibs ever was ‘you can’t legislate morality’ which is untrue, we do that all the time. What those pushing that really mean, I think, is ‘you can’t legislate a morality that is in conflict with my morality’.
“nothing can be moved towards resolution”
– You really can’t escape it JD. As soon as you make a law, you impose principles, and the vast majority of those principles are based on morality.
– The point I was trying to make is, you don’t have to resort to morality to teach people the basic skills of survival, and economic survival is a vital part of that list.
I think conflating principles and morals is wrong too.
What is the difference between them?
– The joining of principles and morality too closely smacks of religious dogma, and I can certainly understand how that would bother some.
– But surely some sort of communal principles evolved and flourished prior to organized religions, not based on morality as such, and yet we survived as a species.
As soon as you make a law, you impose principles, and the vast majority of those principles are based on morality.
And I do not have a problem with that, BBH. But that does not make principles and morality the same, and it does not make me want to listen to someone (not you) lecture about the superiority of their moral position.
BBH
I know many moral atheists. Morality is not dependent on religion, though it is the religious who make morals/principles — ie the formation of a code of behavior — and are more willing than the non-religious to talk about what is good or bad and WHY it is good or bad.
oh geez, unfinished thought…should be
“though it is the religious who make morals/principles — ie the formation of a code of behavior — the central tenet of their mission statement and …”
I don’t have a moral compass or lunch plans even I really wish NG would come back soon
*
I am faction-y, bh. And I have hard edges.
– Without a moral compass, however to you expect to make your way to that tuna on rye feets?
You’ll note what Madison says about the reliability of morality and religious virtue, JD.
Quote please, bh?
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
– Darleen.
– We all know people who. I know people who live their lives based solely on the Golden rule, quite happily in fact.
– Morality is certainly not the sole providence of religion, but from thousands of years of lecturing the populace, that is the most common perception, rightly or wrongly.
– When you hear some one proclaim heatedly, “You’re moralizing again”, you can almost bet its in response to some lectured religions advise or another.
– Some people like to believe they know the difference between right and wrong inherently, with no need for the lecture. In some ways it can be an insult.
That’s Madison, obviously. Forgot to blockquote.
I have no beef with that.
BBH – I hold no belief that I know right from wrong inherently. I just do not need Darleen preaching to me about morals.
I meant no slight JD. In fact I do believe that people know the difference inherently. They just don’t always act in the best interests of themselves and others.
I don’t know about that “more willing” stuff. I’m kinda skeptical, in fact.
Didn’t think you would, JD.
When you hear some one proclaim heatedly, “You’re moralizing again”, you can almost bet its in response to some lectured religions advise or another.
or some teenager implicitly telling mom or dad to bugger off about school night curfews.
JD
I haven’t preached a thing here. What have I said that is factually untrue?
I get it. You don’t like the word “morality” and would rather see its synonym “principles” instead.
Just because I call a thing by its name doesn’t constitute “preaching”. No where have I talked about the source of any particular code of principles, only which principles are necessary for a government based on individual responsibility.
Law is but a mere subset of morality. How much morality we codify and whose morality we codify is legitimate debate.
Go ahead and refuse to talk about engineering, but don’t be surprised when the house falls down.
They are synonyms in the way Mercedes and BMW are synonyms.
JD
You still haven’t told me the difference.
law is not a subset of morality that’s just not true there’s at least seven kabillion laws the upholding of which and the breaking of which are equally morally inert acts
Christ knows it won’t be when we attend to Hobbes, Spinoza, and Machiavelli, or amongst the ancients Cicero, Aristotle, and Plato, all of them telling us something slightly different about what the good is.
– Well yes. That too. We’ve spent three generations teaching our kids that principles are for suckers. what do you expect. (Not everyone of course, but too many.)
– I have a close friend, he’s Vietnamese. A cabbie with his own business. Form time to time he drives me where I need to go, since I’m too blind to do it myself safely.
– He’s proud he’s raised his kids to respect him and his wife, and the elders of the family. He says American kids are spoiled, want everything, get everything, and have no respect for anything. He says even more important, he’s taught them WHY respect is important and necessary for both their welfare and the family. He works 7 days a week, all around the clock. His wife takes care of their 5 kids. I’d trust this guy next to me in a foxhole any day.
– His most jarring comment. “I don’t want my kids to be like Americans, I want them to be good people”. Given things the way they are today, not much you can say to that.
– Back in the late 60’s I remember this all started with the warm fuzzy idea that we needed to be “friends” with our kids, give them what we never had and an easier life than we knew growing up.
– Hows that working out for us.
Darleen – If you do not know the difference, than I have given you far too much credit.
law is not a subset of morality that’s just not true
really? murder, theft, fraud, et al.
I’m talking about laws .. where legislation reflects what society has deemed wrongful behavior.
Any question that arises on behavior that considers the wrongness or rightness of it is a question that refers to morality/code of principles.
American libertarian/conservative principles re: the Law and Morality make a distinction between public and private behavior and that we attempt to craft law that deals with public behavior and leaves private behavior to individuals to settle. IE adultery is principly wrong, but it does not rise to the level of illegal behavior.
Proggs have blurred this distinction effectively to the point that they wish to control all manner of personal behavior (lightbulbs, diet, showers, etc) while sneering at the mere criticism (without call to law) of self-indulgent behaviors (drug use, promiscuous sex, teaching sexual restraint to grade schoolers, etc).
I think law is kinda arbitrary sometimes like how you can’t have a cupcake if you already had two already
unless there’s nobody around
JD
Why don’t you articulate what you believe is the difference? You keep acting as if the word “morality” is somehow publicly poisonous when I have explained it is merely a word that describes a code of principles by which an individual lives (whether expressly articulated or not).
This is something the atheist Ayn Rand had repeatedly written about.
Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.
Ayn Rand
More Rand
Of course the problem with Rand is that she thought that the font of morality lay in her own objectively determined preferences.
– You can have all the cupcakes you can eat feets, just as long as you pay for them.
– A weighty decision. Either you weigh the money you save or you weigh yourself.
I’m gonna go all week this week without
Poor Madison, ignored.
You would pick the week that geoffb has prodded me to think that it’s time I started making cupcakes. sheesh.
What if it happens that the good for fallible human beings consists of the knowledge that one doesn’t know what the good is but that nevertheless the good must be sought after more than anything else?
“I’m gonna go all week this week without”
– Probably to the good. It might mean you live longer to enjoy more cupcakes.
bh
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.
Kinda says it all, doesn’t it? Obama gets elected because those that voted for him thought it meant free gas and free homes.
Now I see a bloated old Andy Griffith on tv touting how the New Medicare under Obamacare is all about the free checkups.
Bread n circuses and nary an enlightened statesman in sight.
Blame it on Woodrow, bh.
I agree that’s possible theoretically but in America doing good just for the sake of doing good is a huge part of the problem
“What if it happens that the good for fallible human beings consists of the knowledge that one doesn’t know what the good is but that nevertheless the good must be sought after more than anything else?”
– Perfection is the sworn enemy of good enough.
doing good just for the sake of doing good
How does the doer KNOW it’s good? Because they feel it? Road to hell and all that.
Declaring something “good” doesn’t make it so. One has to rationally argue the case. As said above
His answer to the problem of the absent enlightened statesmen wasn’t morality, Darleen. He finds morality unreliable and posits republicanism as the answer. We can’t fix the cause we can only control the effects, he believes.
Actually, as far as Madison goes, assuming that Madison could wrap his head around the notion that buggerers had the right to state sanction for a life lived in conjoined buggery, I think his problem with the outcome here is that it was arrived at via the judicial process, and not by Federal legislative action. But that’s me assuming that Jack Rakove is accurately reflecting Madison’s concerns and not those of Jack Rakove’s Madison.
Wrong thread, perhaps, Ernst?
bh
chicken/egg but how can one posit republicanism as a public governance principle without principles to begin with?
Individual morality is often unreliable because humans compromise their oft stated principles. ‘Tis better to judge a person’s behavior, not what comes out of their piehole.
That is why a code of civic behavior, and the checks and balances of republicanism, is the best way to blunt the less-principled of the citizenry, as imperfect as the institutions might be.
He speaks to aggregate morality, Darleen. He says it’s even less reliable. It’s in the bolded section: “lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together”.
My mistake. It all starts running together after a while. Anybody know if Madison liked Wang Chung?
Let’s put it like this. If the Founders ever thought the public could be reliably moral, they wouldn’t have been so wary of democracy.
The tyranny of the majority was a concern from the beginning. We haven’t fallen into this position, we’ve always been here.
The tyranny of the majority is a much lesser concern on the other thread.
I don’t think Madison is claiming republicanism as he would something de novo, since after all res publica, the public things, had been around as a concept for a long time, longer even than the name maybe. He does seem to find something new in the idea of a vastly enlarged such republic though, with the encouragement of multitudinous factions to be recommended for the sake of their mutual cancellation.
– Other than the lessons of trial and error, and the fact that they gave us a blueprint that seemed to show promise, there’s not much point in arguing the thoughts of people who have been dead for over 200 years.
– The point that you come back to time after time is that whatever system you live under has to recognize at least two basic notions.
* It won’t last if the majority of people are not at least grudging;y accepting, if not outright happy with things. (Socialism fails because of that very weakness. The users never get enough, and the used are constantly pissed off.) You can’t avoid every possible instance of favoritism, but you can minimize it. Affirmative action may have served a good purpose at one time, but its time has come and gone. (We seem to lack the will to do the minimizing when the time comes.)
* Nothing is perfect. (That idea should be displayed on every school house, government house, and outhouse in America.)
– In the long run, majority rule in a Republic with representative governance is the only thing that seems to work the best for everyone, and keeping the majority basically civil is a pretty good way to go.
I take your correction, sdferr. You’re right.
The tyranny of the majority is there too hf, insofar as Madison is there. He doesn’t promise its entire elimination anyhow, I don’t think, but only a minimization as far as is possible.
If we ought there to condemn the awful Californian plebiscite system in order to foreground a tendency toward a tyranny of the majority inherent in such radically democratic practices, take this as an assurance that the lack is an oversight I’d be happy to correct.
thank you I think that is a very goodly thought what has found very little expression
– The tyranny of rule by majority is yes, in the words of Jefferson, “rule by mob”. But the mob can be both right and wrong and has the temporal opportunity to self-correct, something almost any other system lacks.
– Minorities can be just as right or wrong.
– With one you have a small group unhappy, with the other you have a large group unhappy.
– Common sense tells you which wat will last.
“…the mob can be both right and wrong and has the temporal opportunity to self-correct…”
See, not so much. They kill the guy one day, then repent of it some days later and decide to raise a monument to him. Some self-correction.
here is a neat thinger thinger about the obesitah
– Nothing is perfect. Just some ways are more imperfect than others.
– In a Republic we would hope that after a few such killings, someone would notice things were askew. (see Selma Ala. circa 1960-ish).
– In an Aristocracy (rule by a few) you would never hear about the murder, much less see a monument erected. Many years later you might when historical revisionism by edict had kicked in. But by then he would have been made a “patriot”, sadly misunderstood, or some such propaganda.
Declaring something “good” doesn’t make it so. One has to rationally argue the case.
Coming in for JD, lest he lose what remains of his patience and sanity, I’d posit that good and evil don’t enter into the discussion. Rather, the question is one of sustainability. Allowing the leeches to vote themselves ever-increasing freebies from the producers is not sustainable. Allowing the government to regulate and legislate itself ever-increasing scope and power is not sustainable.
BBH touches on it in #118 — you can’t maintain a system where the producers decide to sit it out. A certain amount of graft and inefficiency will be tolerated, but when the machine gets so big that it can no longer be reined in, everything falls down.
These are economic principles, which in many cases are the exact opposite of the morals that we were taught in Sunday School. It’s something we’ve discussed before — Christian charity works fine on an individual basis, because you can choose who to help and when to say enough is enough. But the sort of morality that works on an individual basis really sucks as a form of government, because you don’t get to choose who to help, the people giving away your money will always try to do more, and you can never stop giving except by going Galt.
So it’s not so much a matter of teaching our children to respect their elders, or not to steal or covet. It’s more a matter of teaching our children that if they insist on taking half of their neighbor’s income, their neighbor won’t work any more (or will work a lot less). There is no free money. It comes from somewhere, and at the end of the day, the “fatcat” that one is trained to hate is under no obligation to continue creating wealth.
Now, is an economic lecture better than a moralistic one? Only JD can say for sure…
“There is no free money.”
– Another truism that should be posted on every available flat surface.
– Just one of many the Proggs pretend have somehow magically changed.
– At their own peril, which I could live with. Problem is it’s at our own peril too.
It’s not an argument I think is particularly useful, in part because of intentionalism, but morality normally involves good and bad. Principles don’t. We can all list many that seem to have no moral component whatsoever.
Hence, that’s why Bentham speaks of the principles of morality (not the moralities of morality) and Kirk lists morality as a conservative principle (not morality as a conservative morality) and Rand (above) can use moral as a qualifier on principle. They’re not inherently synonymous.
“Goodness Mrs. Winehouse…I’ll have you know I have my principles…..if you don’t like them however, I have others.” – Groucho Marx
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
– Twenty months later and…..
It’s still Bushs FAULT!
Allowing the leeches to vote themselves ever-increasing freebies from the producers is not sustainable. Allowing the government to regulate and legislate itself ever-increasing scope and power is not sustainable.
In the long run. In the shortterm, its a happy thing to be a leech and get free things and covet your neighbor’s earnings.
Squid, even you start from the moral assumption that individuals are sovereign, that they have inherent rights. And to secure these rights and to have a long term functioning society based on those principles, different economic models must be explored to see which one fits your moral assumption.
Capitalism, though flawed due to operator err (deliberate or not), is still the most moral economic system if individual sovereignty is your guiding principle.
Howard “Democrats, unlike Republicans, don’t believe in starving children” Dean does not not have individual sovereignty as his guiding moral principle. He is a collectivist where Public Good means an individual’s right to their own labor (and therefore their personhood) can be and will be usurped for other more “needy” beings.
The sacrifice of the few for the “good” of the many. Human beings as herd animals.
How often do you hear Proggs proudly proclaiming their moral superiority because they will “take care of the poor and oppressed”? They are acting on their core principle. And being morally agnostic in the face of that is conceding the battlefield.
Christian charity is based on a voluntary acceptance of a duty. That duty is not imposed by any government. To be moral is to have choice. Compulsion to “do good” negates it. It makes the act, no matter how “noble”, amoral.
“Render unto Casear” was more than just a separation of church/state, but the recognition that the state is, and should be, neutral in the matters of private morality where behavior doesn’t have a public effect.
Robert Heinlein
morality normally involves good and bad. Principles don’t.
I humbly disagree. Morality is the theory, principles are the tools by which morality is expressed.
The blueprint and the execution.
If you find a principle troubling, examine the morality upon which it is based. Either the practioner of the principle is mistaken or the morality is flawed.
Go to google and type in “principle of” and see the suggested searches, Darleen. No moral component to many of them nor used as a moral tool.
Principle of individuation (few different fields). Principle of superposition (geology). Principium tertii exclusi (“excluded middle”, logic). And so forth.
I’m not going to tell you that you aren’t using the terms the way you feel you are. Not everyone else is using them the same way though. I don’t, for instance.
Principle of explosion.*
I’d say this fits well with Jeff’s post.
“I chose lying.” We noticed. Repeatedly.
I don’t know whether it would be accounted a moral thing as such, but the origin of modern natural right teaching certainly doesn’t look like some high thing on its face. Neither the term moral nor principle seems to appear here though.
bh
aren’t you being a bit pedantic? I’ve been talking about behavioral codes for human beings. I wasn’t using the alternate definitions of “principle” that speak to “orgin” or rules applying to scientific fields.
Since human beings have no instincts, they must develop codes of behavioral conduct in order to survive and thrive.
We can pretend all we want that “morality” is old fashioned or not worthy of modernity, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t an intrinsic part of our lives, acknowledged or not.
In another context above Darleen, you said “I have no interest in where people get their morals/principles. I’m only interested in what they are.”
How did you mean “no interest”? Like, it doesn’t matter to you? Or, knowing wouldn’t accrue to your interest as a plus, say? Or how? You can say.
I think though that where morals come from to human beings is actually a subject which should be of more than passing interest to us. In part as a thing of possible use and in part as a thing of intrinsic curiosity about ourselves, where we come from, what is our nature, and so on.
The second two paragraphs don’t respond to anything I’ve said here.
The first restricts your usage of principles to moral principles. How could I argue against that? Well, I could point out moral principles are a subset of principles. That people regularly use the word principle without any moral implications. But that’s pedantic, I guess.
Fine.
Tufts’ Perseus digital library has been down all day and it’s starting to bum me out.
How did you mean “no interest”?
Maybe it would be clearer to say while the origin of code is interesting in an academic/historical way; however the origin doesn’t carry for me any plus or minus of what the code actually says.
IE Just because someone declares themself a Christian doesn’t mean anything if the principle they proclaim is something I find anathema to individual sovereignty.
So you’d sooner Hobbes’ reading of human nature over Christ’s reading then?
At the risk of offending Darleen —
No, sdferr. She’s saying ‘andsome is as ‘andsome does, an ‘ow ‘e got ter be ‘andsome’s no matter first round, eh?
Regards,
Ric
Unfortunately I can’t interpret that in light of “anathema to individual sovereignty” Ric. Not that I’m comfortable with that English dialect itself either though.
bh
geez, I’m not trying to insult you, truly. I’m just talking about human behavior codes and I took your challenge within that parameter.
Yes, I agree, not all definitions of the word “principle” have anything to do with principles of morality.
ok?
sdferr
think of it as shopping in a supermarket and having to choose between brandname mayonaisse and housebrand.
I go with whatever tastes best
or
I’ve never been impressed with celeb endorsements … if the thing is a quality product, that’s what counts.
Ok.
And it is okay in the sense that I think I can generally understand what you’re intending to convey. But if I don’t point out my own usage, it’d be hard for others to do the same.
For instance, if I spoke of the principle of republicanism, I wouldn’t be intending any moral facet.
That would seem to boil down to an idiosyncratic preference Darleen, if I don’t misread it. Which, as ethical instruction goes, might get to be a bit sticky sooner or later.
If, on the other hand, you’re intending rather to make the choice dependent on an observable utility or something of the sort (something like evolutionary survival, I guess) then we’d be further along on the principle path, grounded in something recurrent to each decision.
For instance, if I spoke of the principle of republicanism, I wouldn’t be intending any moral facet.
Sure, if you are speaking of such principle in a purely academic way – examining it, discussing it.
However, I would posit the minute you endorse republicanism as a preferred principle, you are now judging it as better then some other principle.
Backing into a code of behavior fit for individuals in a societal setting.
I once spent a great deal of time studying anarcho-libertarianism or anarcho-syndicalism. I wanted to understand it, be able to describe it, even as I am adamentally opposed to its principles.
If there is a principle of morality, doesn’t that preclude them being synonymous?
Back up, people. I was hoping to learn the Republican marketing strategy, plain and simple; but I get nothing. So do you go with the national brand with a reputation to support and defend or do you go with the generic make-do brand?
Oh, thanks, Squid. Yes, well said.
sdferr
certainly observable utility enters into it. Words are not enough. Obama has sure underscored the disconnect between well crafted rhetoric and performance.
All hat/no cattle is as good as any phrase to describe judging behavior rather than speech.
But at the core of my own judgement, the unit of measure by which I evaluate, is my moral principle that holds Man as an end, not a means.
JD
can you have morality without principles? Can principles of behavior exist without a structure of right/wrong?
Can you build a structure without principles of construction and plan/blueprint?
I’d agree with that to the extent that if I was saying it was better on moral grounds — What constitutes a good government? That which stably provide my natural rights, rights which I define as good. — then it would naturally follow.
If I was saying that republicanism was better on some other basis, then it wouldn’t follow. Ranking items is just ranking items. Unless they’re ranked by a moral criteria.
Darleen: Principles are fungible. Morality is static. They are idealogically related, but functionally divorced.
Look, I disagree with your formulation. Apparently, you are invested in it. We don’t have to agree.
Everybody acts according to their own (internal) morality.
Some of the resulting behavior-sets are “better” than others — they tend to permit or encourage a cohesive society and both group and individual survival and prosperity. It is, to a first approximation, irrelevant what principles, reasoning, or feelings went into forming the moral code(s); what is important is the behaviors resulting from it.
On the second round of the analysis, we would like to know the principles underlying the formation of the moral code(s) so that we can encourage people to learn and take up the principles that lead to “good” behaviors, and discourage them from adopting principles that lead to moral codes that result in “bad” behaviors. At that point we may wish to know how those principles arose: chance and experiment? Decrees from On High, however that may be defined? It may be significant to the teaching process.
Nevertheless, principles -> moral code -> behaviors. What we’re after is influencing the behaviors, and the first thing we have to do there is decide which behaviors we want to encourage (“good”) and which discourage (“bad”). The source of the principles isn’t important for that part.
Regards,
Ric
Biscuits are good. But biscuits are not good in themselves, for to sit idly on a plate looking pretty and getting harder by the minute, but as objects to be eaten. And as objects to be eaten, they are good because they help preserve life (and use up jams and jellies otherwise cluttering up the refrigerator). So I will have some biscuits.
G’night, all. My generous neighbor moved, and it’ll be a while before I get Internet service at home; the Burger King is about to close.
Oh, and I got fired today. For sedition. What fun.
Regards,
Ric
Shit. That sucks, Ric.
OK ur a liar. BK dont hav wifi.
Ric, I was kidding. If that’s for real, how can I help? Unless of course, your internet access has ceased and you are wandering the streets. Then it depends on a chance encounter, and what are the odds?
Oh, and I got fired today. For sedition. What fun.
WTF?
Sedition?
A contrast of the two factions now in the GOP, starkly rendered.