Gruntled?!

[Cross-posted at The Yellow Line]

Here, at The Gruntled Center: Faith and Family for Centrists, is some very, very interesting thinking on what centrism is all about:

[T]o define a centrist policy about anything, we need a category of social practice between the preferred and the prohibited. The natural thing to call this category is “tolerated.”

For example, historically and cross-culturally, marriage is the preferred institution in which to raise children, and incestuous unions are a prohibited way. What centrists need to be able to say is that marriage is preferred for raising children, and some other ways – my nominees would be single parenthood and same-sex unions -- are tolerated, acceptable, good enough. This is true of any social policy. The best way is still better, and social policy should provide incentives to promote the best way. But those who fall in the middle category, the good enough way, should not be penalized beyond the natural inefficiencies of doing something in a less than optimal way.

For liberal egalitarians having any kind of second class status is unacceptable.
For conservative perfectionists permitting any but the preferred way is to connive at social breakdown. [my emphasis - a.]

The primary political and philosophical problem of centrism is legitimizing the distinctions among the good, the bad, and the good enough.

It seems to me that that's how the commonsensical center of America already operates de facto, but it's good and important to have it articulated, because the people who operate like that are constantly being assailed from both sides, hearing in each ear that their way is not good enough, for opposite reasons.

And here's what it means to be "gruntled," from a refreshing post called (in a twist on the apoplectic bumper sticker) "If You Are Not Outraged, Perhaps You Are Paying Attention to the Bigger Picture":

I have an informed hope that many things in life are getting better. The world, the country, my town, my family, are all richer, freer, healthier, and with a more open future than ever. Of course there are still bad things in the world. But more people have more capacity to make them better than ever before. One of the reasons that so many people have the option (indeed, the luxury) of being outraged is that many more problems can be ameliorated or even solved than ever before. Conditions in the world that can’t be changed are not “social problems,” they are facts of life. Sun spots are not a social problem; skin cancer is. Two hundred years ago polio was a bad thing that just happened, like a tree branch falling on your head; now it is a worldwide social problem that is nearly solved. Yes, there are very scary possibilities for the future. I myself am worried about the potential clash of civilizations. Yet this very danger also brings hope of an outcome – because civilization itself is a huge and hopeful achievement.

I have faith that Providence ultimately guides all creation. Of course, people use their God-given freedom to create problems all the time. I don’t know why bad things happen to good people. I also don’t know why good things happen to so-so people, like me. As my wife and I say to one another often, “it’s not fair.” We are grateful for our great kids, whom we did not create. Undeserved good fortune is as mysterious as undeserved bad fortune, and both are an argument for Providence – or nihilism and despair.

As for me and my house, we will have faith in Providence.

Cheerfulness, smarts, and common sense are a pretty rare combination. I'm going to be reading this guy -- Beau Weston, a sociology prof, Democrat, husband and father of three, Presbyterian elder, and author (Leading From the Center) in Danville, Kentucky -- and I commend him to you.

Comments

[Adam]

I admire your friendliness. It is said that people mellow as they age.

I very much agree with this delineation. I think people need to somehow be able to feel good about themselves while at the same time recognize that some ways or characteristics are better than others. If one refuses to identify better, there is no place to go, no place to work towards. Although I have many failings, I can feel good about myself in that I aim to do the best I can and aim to improve myself.

I think that's the real trick here. As is pointed out, the liberal worry is that by doing so, you will make some feel inferior. In the case of gays adopting children, I think the case can be made that even assuming total equality, most children, all things being equal, would be better off with straight parents because most kids are straight. Maybe the opposite would hold with gay kids. But even there, it would make sense that everyone be of the same sex for it would be more difficult for a gay boy to view his parents as role models if they were lesbians.

But even assuming inferiority, I think the trick is to find other things that make one feel valuable. For instance, I likely have inferior kinesthetic ability, and that's okay because I don't ground my worth on my abilities or talents. Rather than continually comparing oneself to others, it is more sensible to compare oneself to one's former self. Am I improving or not? Any other way will either lead to false pride or unnecessary depression.