A Curious Troll asks: What is a Liberal?

I am looking for suggestings of sources that clearly define a heirarchy of Liberal Principles and Values. I want to understand the principles and values that drive liberals/progressives and the logical process used in turning those principles into practical decisions.

I have read Dr.Lakoff's works and have some questions about them:

1. Do Liberals/Progressives generally feel that "Nurturant Morality" is a good description of the basic values of Progressive/Liberals? If not, where does it miss the mark?

2. Dr. Lakoff doesn't seem to provide a description of the heirarchy of progressive values. When there is a conflict between one value and another, by what process is that conflict resolved? Is it more important to nurture individuals or the society? If honesty in a given situation is destructive to community, which value is more important?

3. I have a similar difficulty in understanding how moral authority is granted. If everyone nurtures everyone else via empathy, they implicitly all have the same level of moral authority-- how are conflicts resolved when the empathy for two different parties conflict? (As a contrived example - when a pedophile and a minor are in "love", does empathy for the lovers come first, or empathy for the parent who is tasked with protecting a "minor" (for my purposes here read : person not competent to make individual decisions.) Who serves as the judge to decide the fate of the parent/child or the couple? How are they granted authority to do so?  For that matter, I am also confused about how an adherent of  Nurturant Morality determines when a person is competent to make their own decisions ....

Are there other or "better" works that more accurately descibe the basic principles and values and value heirarchy of Liberal Morality?

•  Dont confuse being a progessive/liberal

  with 'subscribing to everything George Lakoff writes', for starters.

  Question #3 is a bit absurd, no?

  by ablington on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:30:03 AM PDT

  •  The purpose of the post...

    Was to determine how closely one can make that distinction. If,  as you suggest, the distinction cannot be made, can you provide other sources I should investigate? Or is the contention that there is no such thing as a progressive moral system, and hence no such thing as a cohesive set of Progressive values? If the latter, by what process would a "liberal/progressive" society determine which behaviors are right and which behaviors are wrong?

    If question #3 is absurd, it derives a large part of its  absurdity from Lakoff's description of Nurturant Morality. As for the example, there are real life groups such as NAMBLA which are contesting exactly this question.

     

    by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:38:18 AM PDT

    •  Having re-read #3.

      I have to laugh.

      I don't think liberalism has anything to do with "Nurturant Morality".  My morals are not dictated to me.

      It has everything to do with personal liberty and working with other people.

      The competence of a person to make their own decisions is determined by society, checked by rules to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

      by ek hornbeck on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:45:46 AM PDT

      •  Agree (n/t)

        by AaronBa on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:54:13 AM PDT

      •  This is a good question in general, though...

        ...one of the defining characteristics of much of modern conservatism is the search for/determination of a moral authority from which absolute morality is derived and handed down.

        I can't speak for all liberals, as a good many are religious and likely also believe that morality is absolute and handed down from a higher power.  However, I think many liberals feel that there is no such thing as absolute morality, and that morality doesn't depend upon an absolute authority to exist.

        Thus, values may change over time, even though many liberals hold that certain values are worth sustaining and upholding.  Progressives don't think the old should be dumped merely because it's old; rather, they believe that it's OK to question the old in the pursuit of something better, when warranted.

        by Jonathan on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:55:00 AM PDT

        •  I reject the appeal...

          of absolutes.

          Liberalism and Progressivism share the value of Pragmatism.  They reward theories that are predictive.

          Where they diverge in my mind is that as a Liberal I don't think progress is a good value if it comes at the expense of personal liberty.

          But I'm pragmatic, not dogmatic about it, which is why I'm a LIBERAL! (that 'L' big enough for you?) and not a libertarian.

          Except when I'm indulging my Anarcho-Syndicalist side.

          I hereby hoist the black flag of Anarchy!

          Diary Anarchy Patrol, protecting you from conforming to community standards since the day before tomorrow.

          by ek hornbeck on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:12:58 AM PDT

          •  I think a skull and cross bones

            should be placed in it - for a while at least.  If not skull and cross bones - at least a head shot of Johnny Depp in pirate gear.  

            by dkmich on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:39:17 AM PDT

            •  There is...

              a clenched fist and an AK-47 in there, you just can't see them because it's black on black.

              by ek hornbeck on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:44:19 AM PDT

          •  I'm not familiar with Lakoff ...

            ... or the concept of "Nurturant Morality" -- but I suppose my values would be called "liberal."

            I suppose this is because I also reject the notion of black-and-white moral absolutes.  Your examples make it perfectly clear:  reality and human beings are complex and messy things.  To think that one black-and-white moral standard can be applied to every situation, as so many fundamentalist social conservatives do, is childish and simplistic.  There must be a constant, confusing debate about moral issues because real life is terribly confusing, with a zillion shades of grey.  One must accept that, embrace it, and take responsibility within it with courage, rather than going for the seductive out of looking for black-and-white easy, unthinking answers.

            And for those who claim "liberalism" is "Godless" ...  I consider myself VERY spiritual, having searched and studied many of the world's religions.  The person who most influenced the "relativistic" (who decided that word should be considered a negative?) moral thinking I describe above was a Catholic priest -- my advisor my first year in college, a profoundly good, kind, and caring man.  He said TRUE Catholic teaching -- the primary rule, rarely mentioned -- is that every person must make moral choices based on his or her own conscience first.  He also claimed that a sign of truly moral person is someone who constantly questions his or her own morality, who always feels a slight insecurity about it.  "If you meet someone who KNOWS, head for the hills."  At their highest, most sophisticated levels, almost all religions agree on this.

            Frankly, to me the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" are artificial and ridiculous.  I don't claim loyalty to either group.  Rather, I am loyal to a set of ideals -- humility, responsibility, compassion, integrity, truth -- and I'll support any person or group who supports those ideals, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative.  

            I must say, though, I see little to support in modern "conservatism" or Republican behavior, much of which strikes me as cognitively, morally, and spiritually immature in the extreme:  i.e. absolute, black-and-white, self-centered to an almost sociopathic degree, unempathatic ...  If the Republican party would go back to its professed true values of fiscal responsibility and keeping government out of individuals' private lives and decision-making, I would support it in an instant.  

            by niemann on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:50:51 AM PDT

            •  Defining a Group

              Most cultures defined themselves around such values. They cannot be applied in a black and white fashion, but within the context of a culture they have significant force in deciding what is right and wrong.

              The question remains, do Progressives (or conservatvies) for that matter have a cultural moral system? Do they belong to a tribe? If so, what are the (general) characterisitcs of that system?

              by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:18:29 PM PDT

        •  To elaborate...

          The diary author's third question can be generalized to be an inquiry regarding how common morality can exist if there is no such thing as moral authority.

          To answer that, I'll borrow liberally (no pun intended) from an essay written by Mike Huben on morality (found here: http://world.std.com/... )

          To begin with, I'll use Mike's definition of morality:

          Morality is the set of heuristics we use to try to optimize the results of our actions towards satisfying our values in a social setting.

          In other words, morals aren't set absolutely in stone, even if you're a moral absolutist.  That's impossible.  Rather, they're basically a set of flexible rules we use to pursue our goals, here defined as "values".

          Needless to say, we don't all have the same values or goals, and in fact, no goal is universal.  However, there is a great deal of commonality among people when it comes to values, especially if they're all from a similar culture and have been exposed to similar things.

          Moreover, we've learned from long experience that certain actions optimize the pursuit of certain goals.  For example: if we don't torture others, we're less likely to be tortured ourselves.  Most of us try to avoid pain, so not torturing others is a way to reach that goal.

          To take it even further, we've learned that the pursuit of certain goals optimizes the chances of the attainment of other goals.  For example: many of us have internalized the idea of not torturing others as a goal in and of itself.  Therefore, our morals leads us to desire to punish those of us from our own culture who torture others.

          This is where things get interesting.  A moral authority is not necessary for the derivation of common morality and the ability to judge morality.  "How is this possible?" you might ask.  To answer this, a similar question can be asked: how is it possible for prices for goods and services to exist, if there is no absolute price somewhere to reference?

          The answer is that we derive prices through a system of trial-and-error and feedback, one which results in overall consensus as to what prices should be.  Of course, this is a great simplification: there are many mechanisms involved, such as network effects, scarcity, etc.  Similarly, morality has been derived through interaction with others and our own experiences as to what maximizes our pursuit of goals.

          So, to answer the diary author's question (if this discussion hasn't answered it already): as others have pointed out, Lakoff's theory is not all-encompassing.  However, it is possible to judge that pedophilia is something which should be discouraged as it is generally damaging to children and harmful to the pursuit of values most of us share.  To prosecute such discouragement, we've set up a system of justice to apply the judgment of relative morality based upon consensus of what values should be pursued as a society (enshrined in law).  While imperfect, most liberals do believe that our justice and legislative systems are the best known for making such moral judgements and enforcing them.

          by Jonathan on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:32:18 AM PDT

          •  How did you get so smart? n/t

            by ek hornbeck on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:37:39 AM PDT

            •  Like I said..

              ...I borrowed heavily from Mike Huben, which whom I used to discuss such things.

              Huben is a philosopher, skeptic and liberal, and has made a career out of debunking libertarianism (the anarcho-capitalist kind, mostly).

              by Jonathan on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:40:41 AM PDT

              •  I'm rec this diary

                for the intelligent comments that you and others have made.

                by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 12:56:35 PM PDT

          •  Oddly, I agree with your earlier statement

            that

            I can't speak for all liberals, as a good many are religious and likely also believe that morality is absolute and handed down from a higher power.

             

            As a Jew, though not a terribly religious one, I do look to the Ten Commandments as a start.  The diary author should realize our translation of the Ten Commandments is based on the original text -- not the "telephone" process of translation through multiple other languages -- but from the Ancient Hebrew.  Judaism, like many Asian cultures, community is the primary unit, although what community means varies over time:  whether a shtetl (small village) or a larger community -- Crown Heights(Brooklyn), Me'a She'arim (Jerusalem), St. Louis Park (MN), within a larger modern community.  Even outside the literally segregated community, Judaism as a community places high emphasis on the common good.  And I think most liberal, devout Christians would agree that the central tenet of Jesus (or Nietsche -- little Wanda joke) is not "every man for himself."  

            However, in addition to the Torah, there's also the Mishnah (interpretation of the laws, with dissenting opinions, by the rebbes), and the Midrash (interpretation of the text of the Jewish Bible, illustrative examples, and commentary from different centuries).  So even in religion, things can change over time.  Of course, that's just my religion.

            by vome minnesota on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:09:53 AM PDT

            •  Indeed

              For religious liberals, literal interpretation of religious texts is, I'd bet, fairly rare.  So even there, I think there's more moral flexibility than with conservatives.

              And, of course, religious liberals tend to emphasize different aspects of religious belief than do conservatives.

              by Jonathan on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:15:49 AM PDT

          •  How pragmatic!

            Progressivism is, after all, a pragmatic position.

            by gpm on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:04:15 AM PDT

      •  "It has everything to do with personal liberty"

        For you that may be true.  I haven't seen it consitantly with the "liberal" platform.

        by kursk on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:56:03 AM PDT

    •  Do you expect to create

      a test that will identify political systems?

      hell polls can't even figure that out

      i believe the problem is trying to neatly put opinions feelings and perceptions into convenient boxes.

      it's a hard thing to do

      also the values of political systems change all the time. what once was considered a terrible thing to do if you're a conservative (warrantless wiretapping) is now a great thing to do if you're a conservative

      that changed in only one generation

      by Maccabee on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:34:57 AM PDT

    •  I *think* you're reading Lakoff wrong.

      I haven't read his stuff myself, but I don't believe his point about "nurturing" is about how individuals act towards each other, but rather how the government (personified) interacts with its citizens.

      Conservatives tend to believe the govt is the "daddy;" it's there only to keep order in the family, that is, to ensure order in society.

      Progressives tend to believe the govt is the "mommy;" it's there to help the kids grow, that is, to increase fairness and justice in society.

      I could be wrong, but that's how I read his message through the various filters through which I have passed it.

      by gpm on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:41:41 AM PDT

      •  Lakoff might be wrong

        I can't say what Progressives or liberals believe government to be.

        I beleive  The government is there to serve the needs of the people, and I don't think the people need a parent of either gender.  

        by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:21:09 PM PDT

        •  You're probably done reading,

          but I'm curious why you feel the need to tell me what you believe on a diary ostensibly created for people to tell you what liberals believe.  Oh well.

          by gpm on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 08:50:53 AM PDT

          •  Throwing out stuff to see if it sticks

            Due to the way the human mind works, we are much better at evalatting and criticizing a statement for its truthfulness or falsehood (in our opinion)

            Thus by throwing out an example, I am trying to encourage a counter example. Obviously didn't work though..

            by weisshaupt on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:40:30 PM PDT

•  No book can tell you this.

  About either liberals or conservatives.

  by Kagro X on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:30:44 AM PDT

  •  The Level of Abstraction

    I didn't suspect there would be a single definitive work, nor that there would be complete agreement in an absolute sense.

    When I talk about the characterisitcs of Cows, I can make some stantementys that are mostly true - they are qudrapedic herbavores for instance.  This doens't change the fact that some cows might be born missing a leg or eat feed that contains meat by-products.

    Just because something is at a higher level of abstraction, doesn't mean you can't talk about it (or even right a book)  It merely means that the writing must be understood in that context and using that higher level of abstraction.

    What I am trying to ascertain is to what degree Dr. Lakoff's book succeeds in capturing that higher level abstraction and also to understand where progressives feel it failes to do so.

    by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:43:24 AM PDT

    •  It does not try to capture

      the "higher level" of abstraction that defines a liberal/progressive.  It does not address policy, philosophy, or cant.  It discusses the language as it is used to define issues.  Not the issues themselves.

      by Granny Doc on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:45:33 AM PDT

      •  Liberal = Sane

        Conservative = Insane

        by PatsBard on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:57:29 AM PDT

        •  Liberal=Progressive

          Conservative=Regressive.

          There have always been liberals and conservatives in American history, although they were'nt always referred to by those labels. In the 1770's and 80's, for instance, the liberals, who supported independence, freedom and democracy were known as rebels and those conservatives who preferred loyalty to a hereditary king were called tories. Later on conservatives were known as slaveholders while liberals went by the name abolitionists.

          Suffice to say that it was liberals who fought for better working conditions and more rights for more people, while conservatives have always sided with the rich and powerful, as they do today. It has always been liberals who championed a clean and healthy environment, just as it has always been the conservatives who vigorously opposed protecting clean air and clean water. Liberals have always been on the correct, and eventually winning side.

          That's what being a liberal means. Period.

          by drewfromct on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:18:34 AM PDT

    •  Zero. Everywhere.

      Have a nice day.

      by Kagro X on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:48:15 AM PDT

•  read

  tom paine, john stuart mill, and isaiah berlin.

  by Turkana on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:31:24 AM PDT

  •  good advice in nearly any circumstances

    Although the pecular American use of the term "liberal" differs somewhat from the way they use the term.  American liberalism/progressivism is sort of a blend of liberalism in the classic sense with (sometimes contradictory) elements borrowed from social democracy, labor politics, and identity politics.

    by Delirium on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:34:57 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for responding to my question

    Could you comment more as to which writings of Paine you think correspond to Liberal/Progressive Thought.  Mill and Berlin I get, but my understanding of Paine is quite different..

    by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:45:34 AM PDT

    •  common sense and rights of man

      his writing isn't systematic, but you can break it down. common sense is his call for american independence, and a scathing critique of non-democratic government and hereditary power. rights of man is his rebuttal to burke's bizarre criticism of the french revolution. both are all about- to use one popular kossack's favorite term- people power!

      by Turkana on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:53:32 AM PDT

      •  People Power

        People Power as expressed by Individual Decision Making or Collective Decision Making? (Paine had a preference)

        by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:59:39 AM PDT

        •  that's one of the dichotomies in left politics

          You'll find both factions here, and in the Democratic Party in general.  I'd say when people like Kos use the term "people power" they more often use it to mean "populism", which as you point out is hardly what Paine was in favor of (I don't think Paine would be arguing for steel tariffs, farm subsidies, or increases in the minimum wage).  But some of us are more classical liberals too.

          by Delirium on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:02:21 AM PDT

          •  toward the end of rights of man

            he did suggest what was, essentially, a basic welfare state. he's not easily pigeon-holed.

            by Turkana on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:06:27 AM PDT

            •  to some extent, yes

              A number of the things he proposes I think fit pretty closely into the classical-liberal view, though, as long as you don't make "classical liberal" wholly synonymous with "libertarian".  If I recall correctly the things he proposed were things like free public education and progressive taxation, rather than direct interference in the economy or regulation.

              by Delirium on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:11:30 AM PDT

        •  Not nessesarily Collective Decision Making...

          but seeing that all have a voice and have input. Then, the results take shape on their own. People may be working towards a common goal but approach it in different ways and depending on what works and what groups prove to be more effective the goal may be achieved in a way that comes together differently than most people would expect. Not usually the ideal solution to any one group, yet usually the the most workable among all groups.

          Also, any effective collective decision making, such as in a democratic government will usually need to include some compromise. That was the brilliance of the founders. It's not a system that works quickly but with enough participation and input from us all, a workable model arises.

          In terms of people power: this is where the Democratic party is headed under Howard Dean who wants a bottom up structure where the grassroots have the power by shaping their requests for principle and policy through participation and funding. Then allowing that steam that boils upwards from the bottom to empower those at the top with direction as to what they need to do. With 21st century tools such as the Internet, representative politics can now be far more truly representative of the common will, not simply the whims or interpretations of those at the top.

          by Noodles on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:09:16 AM PDT

•  Lakoff?

  Who the heck is he?

  by ek hornbeck on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:31:29 AM PDT

  •  Just what I was going to say.

    the trolls are getting curiouser and curiouser.

    by renaissance grrrl on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:45:32 AM PDT

  •  Dr. Lakoff

    Is a liberal thinker who held a lot of sway within Liberal Circles a few years ago, and his concepts of Framing are still commonly discussed on this forum.  

    Revisionist History not-with-standing...

    by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:47:02 AM PDT

    •  He ain't the boss of me. n/t

      by ek hornbeck on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:49:16 AM PDT

    •  Revisionist history?

      I had to look the guy up. You might be missing the forest for the trees. There isn't a single canon we all follow which brings us to the conclusion we have an obligatio to our fellow human beings. Nor do I need anyone to telll me Neoconservatism is a dead letter, if anything Arendt helped me clarify that one, and many years ago.

      by Elvis meets Nixon on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:54:27 AM PDT

    •  Lakoff was flavor-of-the-month

      for a lot of people in DFA in 2004-2005, when he was promoting "Don't Think of an Elephant." His most important contribution was helping people see through some of the marketing methodologies of the Republicans...however, as a political philosopher (he is not a cognitive scientist, regardless of his title), he ain't no great shakes. Basically, I think the source of most of his "theory" of moral politics..is what he pulls out of his butt.

      by Alice in Florida on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:10:34 AM PDT

      •  That's a little unkind

        Lakoff has simply constructed one model of the liberal-conservative spectrum - one which is based mostly on analyzing modes of discourse. I think it's an interesting model and works in some situations, but not all.

        But Lakoff is not a philosopher of liberalism, nor a policymaker. Getting your description of liberalism from Lakoff is a little like learning to play baseball by listening to baseball announcers. Lakoff is an observer of liberalism, not one of its leaders, theorists or implementors.

        by badger on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:56:17 AM PDT

        •  beautifully put.

          and wonderful analogy.  snaps for you, badger.  

          by vome minnesota on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:14:41 AM PDT

    •  People Discuss a Lot of Stuff

      And you'll find that there are a lot of people.

      by Gooserock on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:11:53 AM PDT

•  As I view things

  Lakoff is not addressing your questions at all.

  He is talking almost entirely about the way discussions get framed, and how to think of that process. Does that have much relationship to the actual ideologies and policies that liberals or conservatives adopt? Not really. Liberals don't look at an issue and think, "What is the nurturing opportunity here?" Conservatives don't think firs, "What would the strict father figure do?"

  And the divide in American politics today is not liberal-conservative, IMHO. It is pragmatic-dogmatic, and has been since the GOP shifted from Nixon and Ford (pragmatists) to Reagan and Bush II (dogmatists).

  by Elwood Dowd on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Moral Politics

    Is more about defining a "liberal" moral systems, and Don't think of an Elephant is describing a system for communicating that worldview or moral system to others.

    Liberals (and conservatives) look a situation and ask "what is right"  and come to very different conclusions. These decisions ar made because of an underlying (and often unarticulated) system of values.

    Conservatives have the Bible and Judeo-Christian culture with lots of stories, parables etc to establish not only values but also a heirarchy for dealing with more complex situations. Consequently, Conservatives can (and often do) quote a bibilcal reference for thier positions.

    What is pragmatic is also a funtion of woldview and moral systems. Is it pragmatic for a Car engine to generate heat and vibration, or make the car go?  In different contexts, it will be values for different things. The Louisiana Purchase was "pragmatic" but it was also unconstitutional.  A value judgement was made where Jefferson decided the gain of one outweight the considerationof the other. The same could be said of the illegal wiretapping the Bush Adminstration has done. Different values systems lead to different decisions as to what is "pragmatic" and what is "right" (if you want to convolute those two terms)

    by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:57:24 AM PDT

    •  That's a fundamental fallacy.

      The Republican Party today is unique in its embrace of dogmatism and rejection of pragmatism. It happens to be considered far right dogmatism -- e.g., the stem cell ban, the state stepping into the doctor's office, the destruction of a proven Social Security System. But the more important point is: ONLY the GOP is locked into dogmatic positions.

      The Democratic Party is willing to consider anything that makes for a better society -- even when that includes "conservative" ideas such as pollution credits. Even ideas that challenge groups within the Democratic coalition -- e.g., school vouchers -- will be considered. But, the advocates for such programs always seem to state their case in dogmatic terms rather than bring real, credible data to make the case that (for example) a voucher system would give us a better society.

      The notion that Republicans are controlled by one dogma and the Democrats by an opposing one is just contrary to reality.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:04:31 AM PDT

      •  Who is to decide

        What better is? Better is a value judgment.
        You have also failed to define authoritianianism.  The policies I put forth are in violation of the Right of Conscience - the right for an indivual to decide and express what is right.

        I can say that I don't agree with "republican" dogmas either, and as individuals we would both be correct. It will not, however, change the fact that there are two parties and as groups, they are fighting dogmatically, because dogma (a commonly held belief which may or may not be based in fact) is the fundamental point around which all groups form, be they political , religious or cultural.
        They are the basis of the "Democratic Coalition" of which you speak.  You may, as an individual, consider conservative points, but Democratic party whom you choose to express your political will has characterisitcs, and those characterisitcs are not always your own. That is the nature of abstraction.... than many smaller parts acting together create a new whole with its own characterisitcs. The CHaracteristics of a banana cannot be said to the the characterisitcs of the atoms that composes it, but rather the characteristcs of te way in which they are combined.  

        by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:54:41 AM PDT

        •  Response

          Who is to decide what better is? Better is a value judgment.

          Yes, it is a value judgment, but on which there is a broad American consensus. Examples of "better" include: Fewer people in poverty, fewer people unable to get medical care, higher school graduation rates, fewer wars. Even "fewer abortions" enjoys broad support. Dems are open to different methods of achieving those goals; Republicans work from a limited dogmatic cookbook.

          You have also failed to define authoritianianism.

          Since I didn't use the term, I saw no reason to. Go buy a dictionary.

          I can say that I don't agree with "republican" dogmas either, and as individuals we would both be correct. It will not, however, change the fact that there are two parties and as groups, they are fighting dogmatically, because dogma (a commonly held belief which may or may not be based in fact) is the fundamental point around which all groups form, be they political , religious or cultural.

          That's arrant nonsense. There is no Red Sox dogma, or kayaking dogma, or woodworking dogma. Your own dogmatic blinders make you assume that everyone else is just as limited as you. We are not.

          You may, as an individual, consider conservative points, but Democratic party whom you choose to express your political will has characterisitcs, and those characterisitcs are not always your own.

          Unsurprisingly, you are mis-stating me. I said firmly that the Democratic Party is more open to different approaches -- not that individual members are. I stand by that.

          by Elwood Dowd on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:09:39 AM PDT

          •  lol. loudly.

            by vome minnesota on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:18:18 AM PDT

          •  Preferable, or just preferred, works for me. nt

            by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:22:08 AM PDT

    •  Liberals are also Christian

      But derive different messages from Christianity, like charity, and no torture, and social justice, etc.

      by Elvis meets Nixon on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:05:53 AM PDT

      •  Interesting you should say that

        as the Methodist Church is running a campaign with the theme "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" - a good place to start thinking about what's liberal.

        by marykk on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:31:52 AM PDT

        •  The Western Region Methodists

          Actually have open doors. However, the church is under strong attack by right-wing evangelicals funded by Richard-Mellon Scaife. UMC.org has an ongoing debate between factions.

          by FishOutofWater on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 01:11:59 PM PDT

    •  Using the bible as the point of moral reference

      in any given situation can be a loser's game. Conservatives generally use the Bible in the Lakoff sense,i.e., they frame the moral question in terms of the 'authority' that they know others will respect.

      But for every 'authoritarian' nugget in the old Testament that calls for the burning of Soddom, there is  that doggone liberal image of Jesus hanging out with a hooker, espousing communal rights and advocating for the poor in direct defiance of 'patriarchal moral structures'.

      It would be interesting to apply your 'curiosity' to the conservative movement, you might find with a bit of intellectual energy that your assumption of a monolithic 'moral' base for conservatism is as holy as swiss cheese.

      For example, in a few sentences construct the moral value we are to derive for today's society from Abraham's willingness to murder his own son based on a voice he heard in his head. Tough, ain't it? Quoting the bible doesn't make you moral, it usually makes you highly selective and, as in the vast majority of the bible thumpers I've seen  on the right, way hypocritical too -- not a value I'd like to see espoused.

      If you really want to get down to brass tacks, why not discuss Kant as the foundation of liberal 'morality'? --that's much closer to the mark.  

      by DelicateMonster on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:08:01 AM PDT

      •  The Bible is Valid within a Context

        Is basically a set of rules for getting along in a Judeo-CHristian Society with a lot of common agreement about which parts are "relevant." Most articualed sets of morals are written down long after the culture that uses them has developed them. Moses getting 10 commandments from GOD its about as back-assward as it gets.  But that doesn't prevent them from being good rules in the pragmatic sense of a culture.

        Do Progressives and/or Liberals belong to a culture? Where and how does that culture intersect the Judeo-Christain culture? Is it distinct? Is there a 3rd culture that has combined elements of the the liberal/progressive culture and value system? What are the charaterisitcis of these groups? Are their values mutually exclusive?

        I don't have answers, but these are the sort of questions I am asking.

        by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:00:03 AM PDT

        •  Nope. Don't need no damn culcha

          We is just artsy-fartsy touchy-feely 'if it feels good, do it!' folks here at dKos.  

          Have you tried MyDD? Those folks are culture-oppressed!

          by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:04:33 AM PDT

        •  I think a quick reversal would be in order here..

          ...something like this:  do the current crop of 'conservatives' who advocate limited government while growing the largest one in history, who espouse libertarian principles while passing hideous laws like the Patriot Act, who suspend habeas corpus for select individuals (as determined by the King, er, Executive branch) who advocate torture again at the will of the Executive,  actually belong to a definable culture or possess a consistent moral system?

          Even the 'selected' Judeo-Christian bits from the old Testament like, for example, the Ten Commandments would frown upon the activities currently espoused and happily voted into law by the current crop of conservatives; Thy shall not kill; thy shalt not steal;Thy shall not bear false witness against thy neighbors.

          Laws and actions taken by the conservatives currently in power have rejected each of these commandments (and probably more), yet you ask what culture liberals belong to? Wouldn't it be better to ask where can today's conservatives  possibly fit in? They are the ones who have rejected almost all of our culture's normative values and our culture has given them a 'thumpin' as a result. You seem less anxious to arrive at an objective truth about liberalism than to frame a provocative question, but just to play along, in case you really don't understand this...

          Liberals belong to the rational tradition that grew out of the age of enlightenment. They rejected government by religion and government by aristocracy in favor of government by the people.  We have held onto certain discrete portions of the Judeo Christian culture, but we insist on the separation of the Church and state. That doesn't mean we reject the moral or culture basis for where we are, that means we recognize the need to evolve beyond it. Here's an example: in the same way that we developed from apes to man we held on to the benefits of having a working hand. Apes had it first, but we improved upon the mechanism. Judeo Christian culture first established the notion of a common good in the New Testament, and via Kant and the philosophers mentioned above we improved upon it (or tried) and codified it. Many of us are still deeply religious but almost none of us advocate that the separation between church and state should be brought down, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the historical precedent set by such jewels of religious intolerance as the crusades or 100 years war. Capseci?

          Now where do conservatives who hark back to authoritarian rule and order fit in this picture?
          I don't see that they do. They are outside the very tradition they seek to defend. The extremist advocate for the destruction of civil liberties, the ascendance of a 'state' religion (Christianity), oh, and by the way, torture, war, and the marginalisation of the poor--something in direct conflict with the very 'Christian' tradition they argue supports their ideology. Liberals fought through these issues over two centuries ago... It's like walking down 5th avenue having an argument with Neanderthal man.

          The political elephant in this room isn't really an elephant but a mammoth, and you know what happened to the mammoth, right?

          by DelicateMonster on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:32:51 AM PDT

          •  Ooh another personal attack...

            Enlighten me oh evolved one.

            I don't think you understand anything about what conservatvies beleive, and in particular this one.

            Authority must be mixed with individual liberty.

            “Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.” – Thomas Paine Common Sense

            “Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved”  Letter Accompanying the Constituion to the Continential congress

            by weisshaupt on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 08:56:15 AM PDT

            •  If you had listened to liberals ...

              to begin with, you wouldn't be having such a struggle understanding really basic things. As it is your rigid predetermined ideas have made understanding simple stuff that much more difficult for you.

              This is a joke for example:

              "Authority must be mixed with individual liberty."

              No shit, Sherlock, that's why we have a constitution that allows us to individually elect our governmental authority. You know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste, weisshaupt. But so you don't go home empty handed here is a basic take away, consider your consolation prize for playing--'Who wants to be a troll?':

              Liberals inhabit the exact same historical moral universe as conservatives; what's different is that conservatives believe in 'magic' thinking to a greater degree than do liberals. You're a little like that, weisshaupt. You talk about 'feedback' loops like they are natural constructs, but they're not. They are man made constructs like the so called 'free' market which is designed by plutocrats to help plutocrats. Our 'free' market, as designed, has little or nothing to do with the average wage earner even less to do with the unemployed. If we had an economic system, a market, designed to benefit everyone equally, than people actually effected by a corporation would have a larger say, legally, in that corporation's direction. But the exact opposite is the case: people who make money off the corporation, the shareholders legally have more say about its direction than do the workers that actually make up a corporation--or the community that might be directly impacted by the corporation's activities. Liberals recognize the need for some practical way to control and reign in corporate power. Conservatives talk about the 'free' market like it exists in some wonderful sacred moral universe distributing punishments and rewards with the beauty and grace of Adam's so called 'free hand'. But that's all magic think. Markets are man made constructs and liberals believe we should do everything we can to ensure they help the poor at least as much as they help the rich--and that, my friend, is a moral decision. Straight from your New Testament.

              The same goes for our current penal system which insanely will imprison someone for marijuana possession, but will let white collar criminals who burn through thousands of dollars of other people's money get off frequently with a slap of the wrists. Who made those draconian decisions that have imprisoned one out of every ten Afro American males? You think it might be the white power elite that has done that? That my friend, is a moral decision as well--a highly immoral one because it overlooks the direct and measurable effects on an entire underpriveleged population. But conservatives magic think it away--oh its the LAW and the LAW is the LAW. And it must be respected. Maybe, but guess who made that law? You did. And people like you that talk about moral codes in the abstract but never get their hands dirty with the reality of what their insane summary judgements actually cause.

              I usally tell students like you to grow the fuck up, weisshaupt.

              There's an enormous class distinction in this country. And you are either willfully obtuse or foolishly blind to it. By perpetuating a talk of 'moral differences' without bothering to look at the underlying reality of our own society, you are being criminally neglectful as an academic and morally rephrehensible as a human being, by claiming the 'Bible' and the Judeo-Christian tradition as strictly conservative, you are being incredibly arrogant, ignorant and insulting, and finally, by ignoring the plethora of examples of conservative magic thinking, you pretty much have sold off what little intellectual capital you bought to this site. And at a yard sale rate.

              by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 08:16:29 PM PDT

    •  Conservatives look at a situation and ask,

      "How can I make a buck off of this?"

      by Friend of the court on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:10:54 AM PDT

    •  Actually, "Moral Politics"

      was equally about defining conservative politics. I don't think he did a particularly good job of defining either...especially since his book had the tone of pretending to take a neutral standpoint while clearly denigrating conservatives and promoting his (Berkeley hippy-style) version of liberal.

      by Alice in Florida on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:14:16 AM PDT

    •  There Is No Liberal Analogue for the Type of

      "right" -ness believed to exist by modern conservatives.

      by Gooserock on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:16:53 AM PDT

    •  Now, that was deeply offensive and revealing

      Conservatives have the Bible and Judeo-Christian culture with lots of stories, parables etc to establish not only values but also a heirarchy for dealing with more complex situations.

      Claiming ownership of Judeo-Christian culture. What an arrogant, stupid, thing to do.

      by Elwood Dowd on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:19:37 AM PDT

      •  And by extension claiming

        that anyone who isn't a Judeo-Christian therefore must have no morals.  If that isn't evidence of a fundamental conservative stupidity and wilful blindness to simple facts, I don't know what is.

        Bible-dependent conservatives can't formulate a moral value system for themselves without the assistance of a book of fairy stories, so they go around criticizing those of us who can manage without.  They don't like people with brains, who can think for themselves.  It threatens the W.A.S.P. hegemony, doesn't it, so people thinking for themselves must be a very bad thing.

        My atheist moral values?  Don't do bad shit to people.  

        Now if only more of these conservatives with their so-called Christian values were able to understand THAT message from the Bible, the world might be a much better place.  But no.  They ignore that message, and go around hating on gays instead.

        Yeah, that's truly a superior moral value system coming from being a Bible-thumping Judeo-Christian, isn't it!

        by Loquatrix on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:49:28 AM PDT

      •  Who owns anything?

        I am merely saying that many conservatives and western culture in general use that as a writen communication of the value system they hold. That doesn't mean there are not some Liberals who reference the same communication, nor does it mean they interpret it in the same way, nor does it mean they find the same parts "relevant".

        If you must know, I am not a Christian, and don't claim the book as my own. But, as I discussed in a previous comment, the dogma followed by the party I typically support does referene that book almost exclusively.

        by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:04:07 AM PDT

        •  I would say the Conservatives

          have been co-opted by dogmatists, who wave the Bible around as if it represented their positions.  Jesus Christ represented the outsider, and 70% of his recorded statements were in condemnation of the religious authorities of his day.  The Conservatives have become these Pharisees, and damn Liberals as they condemned Jesus Christ, calling him No Friend of Caesar.

          by BlaiseP on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:11:14 AM PDT

        •  You claimed ownership

          Conservatives have the Bible and Judeo-Christian culture...

          The clear implication is that Conservatives have those things, as opposed to liberals who do not.

          DEEPLY offensive.

          by Elwood Dowd on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:12:10 AM PDT

          •  I shuld tell you what you have

            When I obviously don't know?
            Look at the context of this trhead please.
            My supposition for the original post was that there was a moral system - I was asking what it was based on. The bible is a perfectally acceptable answer to give if you believe it to be so.

            My intent was not to offend, and it should be obvious that this is so. I have gotten more offense here than I have given

            by weisshaupt on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 08:51:53 AM PDT

        •  And selectively.

          the party I typically support does referene that book almost exclusively.

          You may be aware that there are large portions of the Bible that the Republican Party chooses to ignore, ranging from questions like, "What is an appropriate price for my daughter when I sell her into slavery?" to, "What is the greatest commandment?"

          Most "Christian" Republicans, in my experience, use the Bible as a prop to support their biases.  Therefore, they do not think within a Biblical framework; they interpret the Bible within a Republican framework.

          by gpm on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:51:40 AM PDT

    •  What part of the Bible

      are guys like Tom Foley and Ted Haggard, reading, pray tell?

      Where does it say in the Bible that God commands men to be shameless hypocrites? Why do so many so-called religious conservatives look to a few lines in Leviticus and base their entire worldview on hating homosexuals while ignoring dietary laws written for desert tribes who lived 5,000 years ago. And how can they call themselves "Christians" while ignoring Jesus' commands to Love Thy Neighbor, Turn The Other Cheek, and Sell All That You Have and Give the Proceeds to the Poor, to name but a few of the things in the Bible that the so-called "moralists" of the Republican party so conveniently ignore? Here's Jesus on taxes: "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's". Why are'nt conservatives reading that part of the Bible?

      by drewfromct on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:28:18 AM PDT

      •  That's Mark Foley, of course

        Tom Foley is our revered former Speaker of the House, who now tours with Newt Gingrich on the Chatauqua circuit . . .

        by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:47:18 AM PDT

      •  No, no drewfromct:

        you have to understand that selective reading of the bible is a conservative value.

        by murasaki on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:11:19 AM PDT

•  I think Lakoff's work is valuable

  but far from the be-all and end-all.

  His field of expertise is language, and has provided some excellent suggestions on framing issues.

  Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

  by InsultComicDog on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:33:53 AM PDT

•  I'll ask you a question.

  Why do conservatives have to rate everything and everyone? Why does it all have to be finely defined and in a box?

  by tobendaro on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:34:03 AM PDT

  •  They must be reading from

    the Big Book of Values and Morality.

    He lost me on "values hierarchy".

    by littlesky on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:01:17 AM PDT

    •  Real Life

      sometimes we are presented with situations which conflict. When we have to decide it is "more right" to do this than that.  THe Illegal Wiretapping is an excercise. Is it more "right " to violate the rights of some to guarantee the safety of many, or to jeopardize the safety of many to protect the rights of a few.  Which one is "right" is going to be based on your values.  It is a trade off where we try to apply two "right" axioms - that the people must be protect from enemies, and that the people must be protected from thier government.

      by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:08:01 AM PDT

      •  The people don't have enemies.

        The government has enemies.  This government, more than most.  Bush has been doing nothing more than pouring water on a drowning man, in more ways than one.

        by Friend of the court on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:15:07 AM PDT

        •  And what is the bais of our government?

          The basis of our government is the poeple. Ideally the will of one the the will of the other.

          Was the 9/11 attack an attack on our government? Or on the economy that all Americans depend upon?

          by weisshaupt on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:44:15 PM PDT

      •  No, it's a false dichotomy

        The way the law was written was sufficient to protect Americans, allowing a court to review the wiretapping after it had already started so as not to have any delay.

        There is no jeopardizing of the overall public safety involved.

        Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

        by InsultComicDog on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:43:32 AM PDT

        •  Thank you!

          This is one not safety v freedom issue.  The wiretapping is strictly a separation of powers matter: may the executive act without reference to the other two branches?

          Good catch!

          by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:49:22 AM PDT

        •  Incentives

          Okay. I tell you to go ahead and do an act. That act may or may not be illegal, and you WILL be responsible to face the consequences if it turns out to be illegal. But I will wait until after the crime is commmitted to tell you that.

          Of its nature its an ex-post-facto law. If I put you in that situation what would you do? A Mistake (being human) is inevitable. Do you act? Do you act in secret?

          by weisshaupt on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:08:10 AM PDT

          •  Ignorance of the law is an excuse?

            There is no ex post facto law here. The law in effect is the FISA law passed in 1978. The violation is patent. w had already stated that the law as written was adequate, and then he broke it.

            This has nothing to do with moral codes or their sources; this particularly inapt example you present refers to processes, not ends.

            It references a moral code only to the effect: Do you keep your word? Do you uphold your oath?

            Is that a tough one for you, 'white leader'?

            by Clem Yeobright on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 10:17:24 AM PDT

            •  The ex post facto law

              would be the one that Bush is trying to push through Congress, to retroactively legalize what he is already doing illegally.

              Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

              by InsultComicDog on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 12:11:52 PM PDT

            •  Who said I was white?

              The process is key in understanding anything.

              Perhaps you could tel me what the effect of the 1978 laws was? If the tapping was considered by the cout to be illegal what happened? What incentives and disincentives did that law put into place?

              by weisshaupt on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:47:50 PM PDT

          •  This is a government of laws

            We have no king. The President swears to preserve, protect, and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, not violate it and ask for an ex post facto law to cover for his felonious behavior.

            Funny McCain Pics archive updated regularly

            by InsultComicDog on Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 12:11:06 PM PDT

            •  And in every wartime situation...

              Every war the united states has ever fought has resulting the in the breaking of these paper barriers, and in their subsequnt restoration when they are no longer called for. As far as violations of the Constittuion go, this is a very minor one indeed compared to the past.

              Is it "right" or is it justified are two different questions. A party of pragmatists should know that.
              People who have studied history should know that.
              A Party that justified changing the consitution by a process other than amendment shoult accept that  as a matter of course.

              by weisshaupt on Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 06:51:17 PM PDT

      •  Perfect example of why it's reality vs fantasy

        This is why Elwood's post above is correct: the real battle today is between pragmatism (examining facts and reality and making decisions) vs dogma (ignoring facts to decide based on preconceived notions).

        Your post is an example of repeating dogma without any facts to back it up.  Where is your factual basis for claiming that the wiretapping will "guarantee the safety of many"?  Indeed, the only facts we have on this