There are two recommended diaries about “the Sarah Palin argument” that I think are not Meta diaries, as I love OCD says, but in fact are diaries that attempt to discuss political strategy in a world where someone like Sarah Palin is given air time and political credibility by a surprising number of people.
The original diary by clammyc argues that simply dismissing Republicans as worse than Democrats will not work as a political strategy. The I love OCD diary argues for realism and against a drive for progressive purity.
There's an even bigger frame to all this, and the good news is that it's a proven winner.
I will not rebut or argue either of these diaries directly. Instead, I think there is an even greater frame that has been proven to work against fundamentalism in times when fundamentalists held even greater power and control than they did at the apex of Dubya’s presidency.
The seed of this diary comes from an episode of the podcast called “Philosophy Bites” in which Susan Neiman discusses the topic Morality in the 21st Century. *
Neiman’s main points:
- The rise of fundamentalist thinking in the modern world is a failing on the part of progressives.
- The path to overcoming fundamentalist thinking is guided by the robust values of the Enlightenment.
These values are: happiness, reason, reverence, and hope. For details of what these mean in context of Enlightenment thinking, please listen to Neiman herself on the podcast, but briefly summarized:
Happiness: all people have the equal right to define what it means to have a meaningful life, and to pursue that life so long as it does not prevent others from doing the same.
Reason: the source of authority must come from a transparent intellectual process.
Reverence: a sense of awe and gratitude for the world.
Hope: the world can (and should) be improved.
Neiman also argues that thinking people must be vigilant to protect the achievements of the Enlightenment and to continue to work toward a better future.
Is an attractive and self-styled morally superior woman like Sarah Palin qualified to lead a country like ours?
Should Cheney’s Energy Task Force have been so secretive? Should our country subscribe to Alito's Unitary Executive theories?
Is torture bad or good as policy? How can progressives make an argument against torture that does not seem as if it is only one side’s opinion?
Should news be replaced by opinion a’la Fox News?
What frame for these questions allows us to answer outside of the realm of opinion?
The Republican party of today stands firmly opposed to Enlightenment thinking. Bush’s entire legacy is one of unmatched secrecy, standing in opposition to the transparency that is necessary to allow reason to guide our public policy.
The fundamentalist thinking within the Tea Party stands in opposition to the Declaration of Independence itself, that all people have equal right to happiness in this country.
The idea that science cannot identify causes like global warming, and should not be applied to solving problems like the spread of AIDS, is an idea that goes against both reason and hope.
Progressive thinking is not a way of thinking that comes naturally to human beings, it seems difficult and unnatural to defend not power itself but the very sources of power. I believe it takes grounding in good education to even understand how to think in this way: the tall man with the deep, authoritative voice who seems to be upset by something tends to be naturally persuasive to a lot of people.
So what next?
The first thing to realize is that—from a larger point of view—we’ve been here before. The Dark Ages gave way to the Enlightenment for a reason (no pun intended). Progressive ideas about power and shared values have won against fundamentalism before.
The next thing is to understand the relationship between what’s happening in politics and the rise of conservative “leaders” including Dan Quayle, Dubya, and now Palin is a failing by progressives to instill our shared values in all Americans. A great quote from Neiman:
“if we continue to see fundamentalists as just irrational idiots, or if we look at them as cowardly weak-kneed people who can’t understand how to live in the modern world and they’re sort of grasping at old straws, then we are lost.”
Although it might not seem like it, we progressives have more in common than not. And as Americans, we share more in common with non-fundamentalist conservatives than it might seem during the heat of debate.
What's really encouraging to me is that I see Barack Obama as a great advocate of these values that Neiman outlines in the podcast.
* I’m not a student of philosophy per se, just someone who likes interesting things to listen to as I work out in the gym. Philosophy experts might find this diary oversimplified, for that I apologize in advance and welcome any correction or elaboration. This episode of Philosophy Bites seemed especially relevant (it’s only 18 minutes long, I highly recommend
this particular episode to all Daily Kos readers).