It's My Party And I'll . . .

I'm getting that "I told you so" frisson that Michael at Mighty Middle always gets when someone at the MSM tags the Bush admin with "incompetence" . . . that feeling of "Hey, THEY are finally catching up with ME!" That feeling of "Where've you been??"

This is Kurt Andersen in New York Magazine calling for a "Purple Party":

[T]he thing is, in my political ambivalence I’m not such a freak these days. Fully a third of New Yorkers who voted in the last two elections behaved as I did, voting for Kerry and Bloomberg. Nationally, more and more Americans are clearly disaffected with both big parties. In 2005, for the first time since 1997, the percentages of people telling pollsters they feel generically “very positive” toward the Democrats or Republicans fell to single digits. And antipathy is running at historical highs as well—40 percent negatives for both parties, give or take a few points—which suggests that a huge number of nominal Democrats are voting more against the Bushes and Cheneys (and Santorums and Brownbacks) than they are for the Kerrys and Gores.

Less than a third of the electorate are happy to call themselves Republicans, and only a bit more say they’re Democrats—but between 33 and 39 percent now consider themselves neither Democrat nor Republican. In other words, there are more of us than there are of either of them.

What’s changed hardly at all over the past 30 years, however, is people’s sense of where, in rough terms, they stand ideologically. Almost half of Americans consistently call themselves moderates.

We are people without a party. We open-minded, openhearted moderates are alienated from the two big parties because backward-looking ideologues and p.c. hypocrites are effectively in charge of both.

WORD. My word! Many of ours, in the mighty middle. Maybe now they'll listen. Maybe now the George Soros of the Center will slither out of the woodwork and start attracting some A-list political talent.

This is smart, though again, not exactly news to us:

[W]hat makes so much of the great middle of the electorate most uncomfortable about signing on with the Democratic Party is the same thing that has made them uncomfortable since McGovern—the sense that the anti-military instincts of the left half of the party, no matter how sincere and well meaning, render prospective Democratic presidents untrustworthy as guardians of national security. It’s no accident that Bill Clinton was elected and reelected (and Al Gore won his popular majority) during the decade when peace reigned supreme, after the Cold War and before 9/11.

The Bush administration’s colossal mismanagement of the occupation of Iraq is not about to make lots of Americans discover their inner pacifist, either. Rather, they will simply crave someone who is sensible, thoughtful, and competent as well as “tough” in his geopolitical m.o.

Read the article, even though it won't tell you anything you haven't been thinking since 2004, if not earlier. Still, it's stirring:

So the simple question is this: Why can’t we have a serious, innovative, truth-telling, pragmatic party without any of the baggage of the Democrats and Republicans? A real and enduring party built around a coherent set of ideas and sensibility—neither a shell created for a single charismatic candidate like George Wallace or Ross Perot, nor a protest party like the Greens or Libertarians, with no hope of ever getting more than a few million votes in a presidential election. A party that plausibly aspires to be not a third party but the third party—to winning, and governing.

Let the present, long-running duopoly of the Republicans and Democrats end. Let the invigorating and truly democratic partisan flux of the American republic’s first century return. Let there be a more or less pacifist, anti-business, protectionist Democratic Party on the left, and an anti-science, Christianist, unapologetically greedy Republican Party on the right—and a robust new independent party of passionately practical progressives in the middle.

It’s certainly time. As no less a wise man than Alan Greenspan said last month, the “ideological divide” separating conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats leaves “a vast untended center from which a well-financed independent presidential candidate is likely to emerge in 2008 or, if not then, in 2012.”

And this here is music to my ears:

“Centrist” is a bit of a misnomer for the paradigm we envision, since that suggests an uninspired, uninspiring, have-it-both-ways, always-split-the-difference approach born entirely of political calculation. And that’s because one of the core values will be honesty. Not a preachy, goody-goody, I’ll-never-lie-to-you honesty of the Jimmy Carter type, but a worldly, full-throated and bracing candor. The moderation will often be immoderate in style and substance, rather than tediously middle-of-the-road. Pragmatism will be an animating party value—even when the most pragmatic approach to a given problem is radical.

Andersen calls it the Purple Party just for now, as a placeholder. I kinda lean toward calling it the Open Party, inspired by this smart political ad from the Minnesota Independence Party. That would suggest that it's open to practical, visionary ideas from any point on the ideological spectrum, and to any fed-up refugee from the left, right, or center.

(Hat tip: Donklephant.)

UPDATE: You absolutely have to read this too -- John Hellemann's recipe for a Purple Party "Frankencandidate":

The candidate comes across, first and foremost, as not being completely full of shit. The journalist Joe Klein once wrote, in his guise as Anonymous, that “the handshake is the threshold act, the beginning of politics.” But today—at a moment when the national stage is cluttered with figures adept at left-right posturing but lacking utterly in authenticity—the threshold act is candor. Our man (or woman) is blunt and plainspoken, allergic to cant, averse to obfuscation. He’s never voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. He’s never vowed to fire a leaker who turned out to be himself. He’s never professed to have any doubt about what the meaning of is is.

It gets better. The candidate is outspoken and plainspoken:

Thus does the candidate succeed in pissing off an assortment of muscle-bound constituencies. But he delights countless voters who crave a leader capable of surprise. Who, upon hearing yet another of his forays into the realm of the impolitic, find themselves nodding, smiling, gasping, “I can’t believe he said that.”

He (or she -- Andersen avoids politically-correct pronoun handwringing) is "recognizably human" -- has flaws, an imperfect family life, has made mistakes, still sometimes makes them -- and admits it, and learns from them. He knows when to say "I don't know." Above all, this candidate doesn't condescend:

For the past three decades, American politics has been run by a consultantariat whose fundamental premise [ . . . ] is that voters are entirely malleable, endlessly spinnable, infinitely manipulable. Stupid, in a word. [ . . . ]

The candidate [ . . . ] exists to test an alternative hypothesis. That the voters are more wised-up tha[n] the political professionals assume and that they can be wised-up even more. [ . . . ]

He senses that out there, on the hustings, the appetite for a grown-up conversation about where we are and where we need to go is palpable, bordering on ravenous.

Hungry? Read on.

Comments

[JewishAtheist]

I think people mean different things by "moderate." A lot mean that they hold centrist positions, to be sure, but a lot more simply mean that they aren't knee-jerk, "my party is always right" people. I'm moderate in the latter sense, even though I agree with Democrats on virtually all the issues.

[realpc]

He has some good criticisms of the 2 parties, but he is still a somewhat typical progressive. Before I got to the following anti-ID line I could spot his secular humanism.

"Genesis taught as science in public schools, and government cosmologists forced by their PR handlers to give a shout-out to creationism?
No way. "

The only real difference between his ideology and the current left is his anti-pacifisim with respect to Muslim fundamentalism. That feeling would be expected from a secular humanist.

The secular left has created an ideological tangle for itself -- by opposing American militarism, they align themselves with terrorists and delight Bin Laden.

I think Andersen has some good ideas, but it would be hard for me to join a party of secular progressives.

[amba]

First of all, Andersen DOESN'T oppose American militarism. Second of all, I think the point of this party is that it would be broad-spectrum. It should be "secular" only in the original founders' sense of keeping politics neutral with regard to any particular religion, or none.

This party would be an alliance of center-left people like Andersen with center-right people, and all the others who are disgusted with both parties. His vision for its ideology is not the only one.

[amba]

In case you DON'T read the article (but you should!), here's the passage that got realpc worried about philosophical materialism as state religion:

And as we defend our country and civilization against apocalyptic religious fanatics for whom politics and religious belief are one and who consider America irredeemably heathen, we will be especially keen about adhering to the Founders’ (and, for that matter, Christ’s) ideal concerning the separation of religion and politics—to render to government the things that are its and to God the things that are his. Our party will enthusiastically embrace people of all religious beliefs, but we will never claim special divine virtue for our policies—we’ll leave that to the Pat Robertsons and Osama bin Ladens. Where to draw the line is mostly a matter of common sense. Public reminders to honor one’s parents and love one’s neighbor, and not to lie, steal, or commit adultery or murder? Fine. Genesis taught as science in public schools, and government cosmologists forced by their PR handlers to give a shout-out to creationism? No way. Kids who want to wear crucifixes or yarmulkes or head scarves to those same schools? Sure, why not? And so on.

I think her concern is misplaced. Andersen doesn't even mention Intelligent Design; he's obviously one of those who regards it as nothing more than creationism in a Trojan . . . er, horse. That just means those of us who are open to consider it as something much more sophisticated still have our work cut out for us.

[realpc]

"Andersen DOESN'T oppose American militarism."

Right, I said he's an anti-pacifist, and that's what differentiates him from most other progressives.

[amba]

John Hellemann in the companion piece confirms my sense of the proposed party's broad spectrum:

The Purple Party’s platform would range across the spectrum, drawing from the best of the right, the left, and the radically pragmatic middle, advancing positions without regard to whose orthodoxies were offended—or whose oxen were gored.

[realpc]

"Andersen doesn't even mention Intelligent Design; he's obviously one of those who regards it as nothing more than creationism in a Trojan . . . er, horse."

He was obviously referring to ID. From what I have noticed, people who think ID is just creationism (a big misunderstanding, of course) also tend to be scientific materialists. I definitely got a sense that he is a typical educated blue state secularist. I mean that's ok, but it's not for me.

I am not against secularism, when it means separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but in the blue states secularism is often extended to mean freedom from religion. And religion is defined as superstition.

[GN]

I am for this idea. I don't know that I agree with everything, but isn't that the point? What I like is the spirit of idea. Realpc is having difficulty with certain aspects, and is relating those issues to traits in the current party that aggravate .... I am sitting back listening .... trying to hear an alternative to what is aggravating in the party. There is much more to hear and participate in regarding this idea and it should get interesting.

OFF TOPIC:
Amba, I just watched last week's episode of the "Sopranos" and was blown away by much of the subtlety between the key characters. It seemed as if the writers had been reading Ambivblog and incorporated the commentors thoughts into the show ... and the psych "hearing a lot of ambivalence" from Tony was classic .... I think you might be entitled to some residuals :)

[Brendan Wolfe]

Realpc, I don't understand what you mean by this:

"I am not against secularism, when it means separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but in the blue states secularism is often extended to mean freedom from religion. And religion is defined as superstition."

I understand the distinction between freedom of and freedom from, of course. What I don't understand is how you could object to the latter. Are you suggesting that a) people should be required to have a religion, or b) that these so-called blue-staters want to require people NOT to have a religion? Both seem silly and far from true.

One last question: What do you care if people define religion as superstitious? People ought to believe what they want, right?

[realpc]

Brendan,

In the blue states secularism often comes across as contempt for religion. There is also a belief that religion leads to fanaticism, which is of course the major threat we face right now.

This blue-state secularism is unscientific and illogical, and that's why I don't like it. Of course people have a right to be blue-state secularists and have irrational contempt for my "superstitious" beliefs. On the other hand, I have a right to disagree with them. Right?

[eusto]

Real:

This blue-state secularism is unscientific and illogical, and that's why I don't like it. Of course people have a right to be blue-state secularists and have irrational contempt for my "superstitious" beliefs.

This struck me as particularly amusing. After all, I could imagine a "blue-stater" saying: "This red-state religiosity is unscientific and illogical, and that's why I don't like it. Of course people have a right to be red-state believers and have irrational beliefs. On the other hand, I have a right to disagree with them. Right?"

Don't you see that there's plenty of contempt to go around?

As for me, I'm contemptous of all but the purple-staters. ;)

[Melinda]

realpc:

Maybe for some of us who are neither secular nor materialistic, the little hairs on the back of our necks go up because we think some people (not amba) are sugar-coating something behind the guise of Intelligent Design.

Coming of age in the 1970's, I was exposed to about a dozen different cults, secular and religious and quasi-religious, never really joining but still having my life made into a Hell on earth by people I loved on whose opinion I was desperately dependent. Guaranteed, I would love somebody, a relative or a friend, and within a very short time they would be involved with everything short of the Manson Family and would use whatever intimate knowledge they had about me to make sure they punched every damn button until I was a quivering, self-hating wreck for not believing in Charlie, too.

I would never believe, but boy, would I hate myself.

So some of us, if we look as if we're turning into rabid dogs when somebody discusses such things, it's only because we're too damn old and crotchety to start hating ourselves again.

[eusto]

Melinda's right. We all have little (or big) hurts that shape our thoughts today. Sometimes it's necessary to pry to beneath the logical surface. For instance, one of the reasons I'm such an anti-pessimist is because my life was made miserable for two years when I accepted existentialism. When I realized that -- no, I didn't have to be depressed and declare the universe free of meaning -- it was great, and to this day I don't want to get bamboozled by another pessimistic take.

So, Real, you probably too have had some hurts that make such an ornery anti-secularist, no?

So, it's an important task to try to get past the biases imposed by our emotional traumas -- big and small.

I think we all need a group hug, no?

[eusto]

NOTE: Somewhat tangential discussion of religion and science for realPC preceded by a rhetorical critique -- so you may skip if you want.

NOTE TO REALPC: This is meant to be friendly contructive criticism. If I return, feel free to do the same to me. I hope you will carefully consider what I have written.

*** RHETORICAL CRITIQUE

RealPC,

I've gots to behave meself and get back to work, so I may not check back.

But here's what I wrote as an expansion on my earlier comment to you:

Before I do that though, Real, I know you may have thought Brendan was just harrassing you, but he really did point out real flaws in your argument. You may not be a person who likes to write very precisely, but your writing often lends itself to misinterpretation.

One real blooper I noticed last night was when you wrote:

" People are always trying to apply Christian or Buddhist ideals to political society but it's all utopian fantasy." [Emphasis added.]

Don't you see how that could offend a lot of people? For instance, all sincere Christians who try to improve their society? Second, it's not true. Gandhi and MLK accomplished amazing things using Christian-based principles of non-violence and turning-the-other cheek. Abolitionism and many other movements also come to mind.

I know you probably meant that some tend to think that force is never necessarry and feel all we need to do is love OBL and all will be fine. But as phrased, it's bound to lead to misinterpretation and even angry responses. You have a habit of making these overgeneral statements.

**** SCIENCE AND RELIGION

[D]epending on the situation, though, I will give my backing to one side or the other -- often attempting to mediate.

For instance -- and I'm sure this will shock you -- I e-mailed amba a piece on Sheldrake from the Journal of Consciousness Studies a while back that basically blasted scientists for their close-mindedness on these topics. I don't think scientists should be ruling out theories a priori. OTOH, though, I don't think scientists should be berated as intolerant or bigoted just because they're skeptical of these ideas.

I'm actually quite sympathetic to both parties. You must admit that they're truly are a large number of cranks out there; and you must admit that many of the backers of ID -- if not the scientists -- are motivated due to religious reasons. To be more precise, I think it is hard to deny that many of the ID supporters would believe what they wanted regardless of the evidence, and in so doing they are not practicing science.

I know you are convinced -- based on what you have read (and/or experienced) -- that there is incontrovertible evidence that scientific materialism is false.

Two points: (1) First, we have a catch-22 situation going on here. You can't have good science without rigorous and extensive peer review, but the mainstream scientific establishment is leery of engaging in such peer review! So such alternative research is inherently uncertain. (Till they have peer review.)

(2) Even if these alternative researchers are on to something, their details may be very wrong.

We can't just accept every bit of alternative science by claiming that their opponents are close-minded. They may well be, but those researchers may well be wrong as well!

Now, I myself am a bit of flake --I would like to believe, and in fact do believe, that there is more going on than just matter in motion in our world. But I wouldn't say that I know it.

So, I think as honest seekers of truth, we have to be careful not to let our desires twist the facts. For instance, while Sheldrake may appear to present a convincing case, what do you make of Susan Blakemore who after having a near-death experience got a PhD in parapsychology, studied it for twenty years, and decided the evidence really wasn't there?

Finally, I ask you to consider the following idea: namely, that secularism may actually be a necessary precursor to spiritual unfoldment. That to truly gain in understanding, one must be willing to surrender all of one's preconceived notions and accept things on the basis of experience and not authority -- as the Buddha taught. That the slate must be wiped clean.

Many people -- including myself --I know rejected Christianity (or Judaism), became atheists, but then embraced a very vigorous and expansive spirituality.

Atheism can be a way of ridding oneself of harmful notions and fears -- a way of cleaning the mind, before moving on spiritually.

For instance, who do you think will be most attracted to Amba's vision of spiritual nomads -- traditionalists, or atheists? I'll put my money on the atheists because they're, almost, spiritually virgin. They don't have all these dogmas and fears to overcome. So I think the traditionalists are the ones holding us back spiritually.

And while you say that scientists and secularists are superstitious -- I think it is more accurate to say they are perhaps unjustifiedly overconfident. But I think it is a bit ludicrous to suggest that religious people are not superstitious, and that their beliefs are based on logic or science. They'll tell you that themselves and any time they are confronted with a contradiction they'll say -- it's a mystery. How can a good God require you to believe in Jesus or else torture you forever? It's a mystery?

Now while some secularists are overconfident, at least their confidence is built on the demonstrable successes of technology and scientific theories -- and they just think others are deluded or stupid. On the other extreme, most Christians believe that belief in Jesus is a requirement for heaven -- or by a little logical extension, that God himself will punish them forever for their theological error.

Which is the worse bigotry, I ask?

You may say that most Christians do not believe this -- well, find me a Christian that thinks it doesn't matter whether you believe in Jesus or not. Certainly, the religious conservatives won't say this. Nor will Ratzinger. Sure they won't say you'll go to hell explicitly -- but they will say that belief is required. Well, what exactly is that belief required for? You see, RealPC, Christianity almost requires a doctrine like this to maintain its integrity -- that's why it's still around. But that doesn't make it any the less wrong or bigoted.

If you disagree with this, if you think I'm being illogical or prejudiced show me exactly where I am being so. I think there are many beautiful and beneficial things about Christianity, but I would hardly call traditional religion "logical."

[Brendan Wolfe]

For the record, I had no intention of harrassing anyone. I was sincere when I said I didn't understand what realpc meant. I still don't, but that's all right.

I get frustrated, though, at the idea that, these days, one can say much about (let alone so confidently define) blue states and red states, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. I mean, what does it mean, "In the blue states . . ." Do you mean in Iowa, where I live? It was a blue state in 2000 and a red state in 2004. It's had fewer than half a dozen Democratic governors in its history but it has one now. Or are you just meaning to talk about California and New York? Oh wait. They have Republican governors. I'm confused. What does blue state even mean? And why, if blue staters should be criticized for making overly broad assumptions about religion and religious people, shouldn't you, realpc, be criticized for making overly broad assumptions about these so-called blue state people?

I'm defensive, I know, but when you make these statements I sense you're talking about me. I'm a traditional liberal; I value secularism; I fear and often mock religious fundamentalism; I don't sympathize with Intelligent Design. But that doesn't mean you know a thing about me or, I suspect, many, many others like me.

Part of my sense of what the middle means is being able to talk and to listen. Not a lot of that goes on in politics today (well, a lot of the former, I suppose, but not in any way that's productive). But how can we have a conversation that is so full of labels & straw men?

[realpc]

"I would hardly call traditional religion "logical.""

eusto,

I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but you are making it very hard to have a rational conversation. I said that scientific materialism is illogical -- I did NOT say that traditional religion is logical. If I say one extreme is wrong, that in no way implies that I think an opposing extreme is correct.

"secularism may actually be a necessary precursor to spiritual unfoldment."

This has never been true before. None of the great mystics of pre-modern times had to be secularists first. I don't see why it would be true now. I think most secularists, or atheists, just tune out the supernatural and never experience it.

"Even if these alternative researchers are on to something, their details may be very wrong."

The details of any scientific field are often very wrong. Science is a tedious and difficult process. I don't know why alternative scientists would be expected to suddenly get all the details figured out.

"You must admit that they're truly are a large number of cranks out there"

Yes there are, and I have not said anything to suggest otherwise.

"I don't think scientists should be berated as intolerant or bigoted just because they're skeptical of these ideas."

Right, there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out what is true and what is not. There are scientists, like Dawkins for example, who refuse to even consider Intelligent Design yet have no skepticism at all about standard neo-Darwinism. That is narrow-minded. I would never criticize someone for being skeptical about Intelligent Design, or any other theory. I studied the subject and am convinced that the current mainstream theory of evolution is wrong. I am skeptical and usually don't accept ideas just because some expert insists they are true. Most people who believe the standard evolution theory accept it on faith because they learned it from experts, not because it makes sense, not because there is evidence for it (the evidence is for evolution, not for the currently accepted theory about what causes it).

[amba]

Brendan,

Did you ever see these maps? They pretty much make a hash of "red and blue states."

[amba]

There are scientists, like Dawkins for example, who refuse to even consider Intelligent Design yet have no skepticism at all about standard neo-Darwinism. That is narrow-minded. . . . Most people who believe the standard evolution theory accept it on faith because they learned it from experts

Completely agreed.

Real, there are many shadings of atheists and agnostics, though. An example is our blogfriend Richard Lawrence Cohen, who, while attracted to the idea of precognitive dreams, for instance, is extremely careful about not jumping to wished-for conclusions. Here's a post about a dream he thought was precognitive but concluded was not; here's one about a dream that he concluded was. It's this kind of skepticism that we've been taught by science at its best (it's ironic that scientists can be so credulous about their own dogmas) -- and that will actually serve the paranormal and spiritual by not letting it relapse into credulity and superstition, by holding it, not to a material standard, but still to a high standard of persuasiveness. People who simply refuse to believe even overwhelming evidence of such things, though, suffer from what Dr. Gary Schwartz, author of The Afterlife Experiments (he subjected mediums to rigorous testing), calls "skeptimania."

[amba]

Melinda,

That sounds like some serious fodder for a novel or a play.

[eusto]

I don't think you're doing this on purpose, but you are making it very hard to have a rational conversation.

Well, not to be rude, but you are too. When you make these casual and sweeping remarks about the bigoted and closed-mindedness of lefists and secularists, the natural response is to say: "Wait a minute. Are you saying that traditionalists are logical? Because if they both are illogical, why are you picking on the leftists? And if they both are bigoted why are you picking on the blue-staters?"

When you write you seem to be violating -- HP Grice's I think --maxims of conversation. For instance, if I say: "Some men lived through the war." The other person will say, "So you mean other men died?" If the first person says: "Did I say that? Just because I said that some men lived doesn't necessarily mean that any of them died." Because of these violations, all hell breaks loose in the conversation. Come on, real, where's your cognitive linguistics in all this?

"secularism may actually be a necessary precursor to spiritual unfoldment."

I shouldn't have used necessary. And it's more a stage than a permanent resting place. And I think it has been happening before, somewhat altered -- in Buddhism -- when one surrender's all one preconceptions or in other mystical traditions. If you read After the Future (on amba's blogroll) by a sincere and devoted Catholic, he talks a great deal about how to become a modern soul. And how fundamentalists are sort of dead tradition. How we need to confront and absorb Nietzsche, and then move on. He has a lot of beautiful essays in his sidebars about this.

Besides real, it's happened to me and to many people I now. It's a new age; never before were people so starkly confronted with the failings of their metaphysical systems and the clear errors in the sacred texts. As Christ said, "Do not pour new wine into old wineskins." Similarly, a new spirituality cannot be confined within a traditional religion.

I think most secularists, or atheists, just tune out the supernatural and never experience it.

That is undoubtedly true for many. However, I think any mature spiritual person will have gone through a crisis in which they -- at least for a time -- relinquish all they thought they knew. And come to grips with uncertainity. They slough off the old ways and directly connect to the divine.

The details of any scientific field are often very wrong. Science is a tedious and difficult process. I don't know why alternative scientists would be expected to suddenly get all the details figured out.

The way you write often obscures this. You seem to often write flippant and glib condemnations of the "other" side. You seem kind of angry, in fact, like maybe some secularist did you wrong, or made fun of you, or something. I don't often associate cynicism with deeply spiritual people -- for they usually have faith that, despite all appearances, that the divine is in control and is all-good.

"You must admit that they're truly are a large number of cranks out there"

Yes there are, and I have not said anything to suggest otherwise.

You have by conversational, although not logical implication. Grice violations again. implicature

"I don't think scientists should be berated as intolerant or bigoted just because they're skeptical of these ideas."

Right, there is nothing wrong with trying to figure out what is true and what is not. There are scientists, like Dawkins for example, who refuse to even consider Intelligent Design yet have no skepticism at all about standard neo-Darwinism. That is narrow-minded. I would never criticize someone for being skeptical about Intelligent Design, or any other theory. I studied the subject and am convinced that the current mainstream theory of evolution is wrong. I am skeptical and usually don't accept ideas just because some expert insists they are true. Most people who believe the standard evolution theory accept it on faith because they learned it from experts, not because it makes sense, not because there is evidence for it (the evidence is for evolution, not for the currently accepted theory about what causes it).

Well, if you always wrote so clearly, we wouldn't be having these problems! These are all touchy subjects. And we don't have the benefit of face-to-face contact. So we must be careful in our phrasings.

I don't think I'm the only one. After all, Brendan had the same confusion, and I have seen others be confused by you before.

[realpc]

eusto,

Communication depends on common ground, and I think the reason you're confused by my statements is just inadequate common ground.

It offends you that I'm more critical of secular leftists than I am of traditionalists. But there have hardly been any traditionalists here to criticize. Some of us seem to be new-age centrists (yes I know you always hate the labels I use, but I'm not very good at telepathy so language is all I have to work with) like myself and, I think, amba. Others here seem to be progressives (or whatever the heck you want to be called now days). If there were any extreme right-wingers here I'm sure I would have disagreements with them.

But I admit secular leftist probably do bother me more than traditionalists. At least traditionalists know they aren't open-minded or tolerant.

[amba]

Real, you will really like this essay by Wolfgang Bruno, "Do we need Religion

[peterhoh]

The campaign of Jesse Ventura was an interesting study in purple politics.

From the article:
he delights countless voters who crave a leader capable of surprise. Who, upon hearing yet another of his forays into the realm of the impolitic, find themselves nodding, smiling, gasping, “I can’t believe he said that.”

Ventura went to college campuses and told crowds of kids that they shouldn't be looking to government to pay for their education. I think his line was that if you're smart enough to go to college, you're smart enough to figure out how to pay for it. And the kids applauded.

In a debate, he stood with the two airbrushed major party candidates and spoke with candor. He admitted that he didn't know the answer to one question. When the charge was raised that he might oppose public school funding, he looked straight at the audience and pointed out that he was the only one of the candidates who went to public schools himself and sent his kids to public schools.

When the subject of gay marriage came up, his opponents blathered without saying anything. Ventura told about two gay men he knew.

There were many quirks about Ventura, and there is some fair criticism to be leveled about the way he governed, but he ran a good campaign and had the great luck of running against two stiffs who were over-consultantized.

[XWL]

Seems to me if you really want to change the system, you have to really change the system.

My proposal, Elect more than one Congressperson per district and apportion their vote based on the votes they received in the general election.

That change would lower the bar for entry of non major party candidates to only a few thousand votes, and it would encourage the major parties to stand up candidates that appeal to more than just the party faithful.

Additionally, the benefits of gerrymandering would be lessened so the practice would likely die.

Of course nothing like those reforms would ever happen.

(As far as Ken Andersen goes, I agree with Prof. Bainbridge's analysis)

[XWL]

Please ignore the fact that I misidentified Kurt Andersen as Ken Andersen.

(Doh!)

[karen]

Gawsh. What does that make me? i'm pretty Traditional. Very Conservative. Now i'm getting confused.

Amba, in the 6th comment you quoted from John Hellmann- "The Purple Party's platform... drawing from the best of the right, the left & the radically pragmatic middle... or whose oxen were gored." This reminds me of my junior yr in High School, when i was privy to a popular girl talking of who she'd invite to some exclusive party. I was basically invisible (not that i would have ever gone had i been invited- i wasn't). It sounds so immature, to me. Getting so excited over this new, exclusive party that's gonna solve all the problems that the contemptable, old school, corrupt parties can't see for their greed and political brain freeze (this part's definitely true today).

I hope it works, but- nope- i'm not invited. Again.

To realpc- eusto's got a bee in his bonnet when it comes to your comments and i've never seen the like before. I'd say it's kinda flattering because he's so... awesome in thought. Maybe it's because he can't get you to concede w/his siver tongued comments ;0)!! It makes for interesting learning on my part.

As an aside- in VT we have one congressman and two senators (none of which are worth capitalizing, to me). Now, Bernie Sanders is running for Jeffords senate position against a multi-millionare, Richard Tarrant. I can't wait to see how this one plays out. All you Progressives would love VT. Me? I just live here. It doesn't seem so native to me anymore.

[LarryK]

There will be "purple" candidates on display in 2008, and they will be Republicans. Moreover, the purple people are the two leading GOP candidates for President - Rudy Guliani and John McCain. I believe one of these two will ultimately win the nomination (yes, I know the counter-arguments, and they're wrong) and, whoever is the candidate, Condi will be the candidate for VP. The cross-over appeal to purple America from this ticket is immense, and the Democrats are blind to what's about to hit them. Hillary is not a credible centrist candidate and, given the increasing disatisfaction with her in the party and the growing influence of their lunatic fringe, probably won't be the nominee. The Democrats would have a shot if they nominated Mark Warner, but they won't. And if you think the Donkeys are ornery now, wait until they wake up in November 2008 to the reality of Rudy as their President and a black Republican woman as the heir apparent. Unfortunately, things are going to remain very nasty for a while.

[amba]

Larry,

I would be quite happy with McCain or Giuliani and Rice as President and VP. I would vote for that ticket! Any party that has the guts to nominate relatively no-bullshit centrist candidates has my vote. It is because I don't see either the Dems or Reps having the guts that I want a third party.

Many people are horrified at McCain's playing the game, cozying up to Bush, who was (via Rove) so vicious to him in the primaries, and emphasizing his conservative bonafides to reassure the Republican base. I think it is very clearly strategic. We'll see if it works -- if centrists and independents will trust that he's playing for position, or whether they will demand that he play it straight.

In a third party, he could. (Of course, he IS a genuine conservative in many ways.) If he is NOT nominated by the Republicans, maybe he'll bolt and give the "purple" party a huge shot in the arm. Maybe he's giving them one last chance.

[amba]

Crazy as it sounds, I hope still in my lifetime to have a chance to vote for both Barack Obama and Lindsey Graham for president -- not against each other, please! I'd like both of them to be president.

[eusto]

We have such similar presidential tastes, amba!

Karen,

Bee? Bonnet?! Now let me tell you something. . . . just kidding ;)

Real et. al,

Now the following is certainly NOT meant as justification, but explanation. Even so, I'm sure I'll just dig a bigger hole for myself. Oh well.

I'm sorry for being such an indefatigable opponent but, well I think you managed to push all my buttons simultaneously for a long period of time -- and eventually eusto just go boinkers.

I think we must have had very different developmental trajectories.

For instance, as mentioned briefly above, I abandoned atheism and existentialism, precisely because it was depressing. And so for me, a turning away from atheism was a complete and unfettered embrace of glorious, exuberant, unfettered, and extravagant optimism and joy. Like a Brandendurg concerto, or a Bach fugue. To me, spirituality has always been from its foundation an exercise in joy -- it has always been the plotinian, the upanishadic expression of the vastness, grandeur, and dignity of human beings.

As I saw it, if I wanted to be depressed, I would have just remained an existentialist! See, it's quite funny, to me, the great crime of secularism is not its inflated view of humanity and its reaason -- rather it is its crushing of man. After all, secularism says that man is but an animal; one's very existence being is a pure random event -- a second later, a different sperm --and at the end of life, gone like a speck of dust. Animal among animals, with no purpose or meaning other than that arbitrarily imposed.

So to me, secularism is just another way to take the great divine soul of man -- and just beat it down -- just crush into the dust.

But at least, in some flavors, it honors the dignity of human reason and has that pure childlike hope and optimism.

Traditional monotheisms also have this same soul-crushing quality, but they're nothing but this grand castle of rationalization and hand-wavings.

[if this offended you, real, don't say secularists are nothing but some negative quality either! ;)]

To me, truth has always been very important. And if one cannot lay a rigorous foundation for one's views -- or worse, one shows no interest in this -- in my view, that one is not interested in truth and therefore that one's views do not command my respect.

This arose very early on when my mom, frustrated with my constant haranguings about religion, sent me to see this guy, who actually happenend to be a bishop and a faculty member of harvard divinity school. I was around 13 or 14. And he couldn't even answer my questions. I remember asking him why we couldn't form our own traditions. He said that he thought that would be quite arrogant. That sure didn't stop me! and it certainly confirmed my growing suspicion that Christianity didn't merit my respect or time.

(When I was five or so, I would proudly proclaim with a big smile that I was arrogant. I think I meant very self-confident, but. . . .)

So, obviously, I was a pleasure to raise. ;)

(I once faulted my mother for having not raised me better, for not having restrained my more destructive impulses. She asked who could have raised me better? I replied, "Plato." I was around 20 then.) [I can feel the karma coming if I have kids.]

So I guess I have always had very strict standards for rationality, and very little patience with traditional religion and pessimism. For me, if a pessimistic philosophy is true -- I'm like -- kill me now -- let's just get it over with . I might as well just did a hole and jump right in. And as I said, if I were going to be a pessimist, I would just be an atheist. At least that's intellectually respectable. ;)

So what can I say, real?

We clearly don't think alike. I guess for you fundamentalism is a misdemeanor and secular humanism a felony. For me, it's quite the opposite.

****

Grant me lord the grace to love all people -- yea even the pessimists, the defenders of fundamentalism, and the imprecise of speech. ;)

****

BTW, Karen, you said you follow the Light. Jesus said: seek ye first the kingdom of heaven. He also said the kingdom of God is within you. Therefore, you are compelled by the Lord himself to follow the inner light! [the light that ligtheth every man that cometh into the world] In John's Gospel Jesus says something like I am in the father, and the father is in me, and I AM in THEE. So you can't escape it Karen, eustochius is right again.

[I'm messing with you Karen if you couldn't tell. . . . but just partly ;)]

[karen]

Oh, i'm learning, eusto ;0).

One thing, though. Christ emptied Himself, became a man in all things but sin and died upon the cross for my sorry hie- and we are to imitate Him.

Humility is His badge of honour, eusto- not arrogance(that would be the ~other guy~). Self-confidence is a better trademark, but still not very compliant w/Christ.

Do you ever feel humility or always best when... winning an argument? -she said w/love...

[karen]

That's my ~hide~ He is/did save. My left-handed pinky is not very forceful (and i'm left-handed, 2).

I am not one to count my chickens until i see the *Light at the end of the tunnel*, you know? Just because i believe?

[realpc]

"for me, a turning away from atheism was a complete and unfettered embrace of glorious, exuberant, unfettered, and extravagant optimism and joy."

eusto,

I also gave up the atheism I learned in college. I believed it because I thought it was true (the professors seemed very sure of themselves) and gave it up after about 10 years of questioning its supposed scientific basis. Atheism was depressing to me also, because I have a mystical nature, and I was glad I had good reasons to give it up.

I am optimistic like you, but in a very different way. I don't have great hopes for human civilization. I don't envision people living in harmony with both nature and technology, with peace and prosperity for all. But I don't need to believe that vision to appreciate life.

Maybe I shouldn't say I'm optimistic, because I see life as necessarily tragic, as well as joyful. You can't have one without the other. Everyone learns that sooner or later.

[amba]

What a delightful glimpse of the irrepressible eusto as a child and young man! We could use more autobiography around here.

[amba]

real, you might have read my favorite quote, from Kafka, somewhere here --

"There is infinite hope, but not for us."

[realpc]

amba,

I guess what I meant to say is we can be hopeful and optimistic without having a vision of paradise on earth. And we don't know what comes before or after life on earth, so we just have to accept not knowing.

Returning to faith in God, about 20 years ago, gave me access to infinite powers of love and healing. William James said our subconscious mind is connected to the infinite wisdom of the universe (or something like that). When I can turn off my ego's nagging stream of worries and self-justifications, I can have access to all the love and wisdom I need.

I think the grand schemes for perfecting life on earth are silly products of disconnected egos, but that doesn't mean I'm fatalistic.

[eusto]

Karen,

Actually I do experience humility frequently. I am constantly awed by people whose talents far outstrip mine. I am quite incompetent in certain areas and mediocre in many others. In fact, [yes, about to win another argument woo-hoo!] you yourself complimented me on my humility a while back.

Think of the yin-yang symbol where within the white half there is a drop of black. See, I believe that humility should be that black drop taking place in the context of a lofty view of humankind. As opposed to its inverse, where that speck of human goodness is mired within darkness and original sin.

After all, take this economic analogy. If everyone were overnight to be handed 10 times as much money, would that do any good for each individual? No, because prices would rise 10 times to meet supply. Similarly, if I have a lofty view of human beings -- at least in an eschatological and potential sense -- that doesn't make ME feel all important because I haven't said that I'm God and you're not. It is a universal proclamation shared in by all. It is the true good news.

Furthermore, Jesus also commanded, "Be ye perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." [score 2!] The renaissance Catholic theologian, Erasmus, believed that the Lord would not give a command that could not be fulfilled.

(I'm mocking myself BTW when I keep score, just so you know.)

Seriously, I think a lot of Christian doctrine completely ignores what Jesus said and overly inflates a few offhand comments by Paul who never even met the guy.

But, seriously, I recognize full well that there are many dark things in the heart of man -- many depraved and twisted impulses that must be kept in check. After all, I am a hawkish internationalist on foreign policy.

Christianity places this depravity at the core of human nature; I merely place it at the periphery. It's still very bad and powerful and definitely there, but once all the muck is cleared, and there's a lot of it -- you have the diamond shining mind of the Buddha/Christ. Paul wrote, "Let your mind be the mind that was in Christ Jesus." But do you hear this stuff on Sunday? Nope. They'd rather ramble on about how the only way God could take care of sin was by coming to earth and having himself killed.

Real,

See I'm getting to like you more and more. But so, you went through an atheist period -- huh? And did I not claim that that often was an important precursor to spiritual unfoldment? [score three! oh yeah!]

Furthermore, if the divine is this infiite reservoir of goodness and love into which one may tap, why cannot this reservoir flow onto the very earth itself. Why must the divine be kept sequestered only in emotional and mental realms? Why cannot its glory manifest on the earth itself? Surely, it is the father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Surely, there will be come a time when there will be no more weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the lion will lay down with lamb? No?

Seriously, does it not stand to reason that if there is this vast reservoir of love, that God itself is desirous of wiping all the crap that happens down here?

If it is not occurring, why not? I agree that we are here to be challenged; that if it were a mere stay at the Hilton, it would be of little point. But so too would it be of little point if we were merely to be sychophantic worshipers, saying, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."

[I mean if you were God, wouldn't that get annoying after awhile? To rip off Jehovah blog "Medammit, I didn't create you so you could constantly complain about how lowly you were. I made you, and all you can do is complain about my handiwork! Get off yer duffs and make some progress.]

No, perhaps this great goodness of the divine must manifest THROUGH us. And that that is our challenge and our task. "Take dominion over the earth."

Where I think the utopians have gone wrong -- the Jacobins and the Leninists etc., is that they believed that they themselves could bring about heaven on earth. They did NOT rely on the divine within, they did not tap into that reservoir. They relied on their human egos, not the divine within. And so that is an important lesson. I am NOT saying that the human ego is this wonderful glorious thing. But I am saying that the inner nature of humanity is. And I give more authority and power to the divine within than to its impostor, the human ego. To do otherwise would be blasphemous, it would limiting the power of God to transform and heal. If God can transform the witihin, why not the without?

To quote Churchill (from the blog Done with Mirrors): "It's optimistic, and I've learned to be optimistic about the world -- like Churchill, because "it does not seem to be much use being anything else."]

Amen to that. Seriously, Real, get real! (I've been waiting to do that.) I think your position is much harder to sustain. You have to come up with all these excuses why this infinite and loving and divine being will never ever transform the earth, even over the long term. I do agree that we need to be skeptical of the pretensions of the human ego, and that much prudence, caution, and self-discipline is warranted. Still, I think your position contradicts itself.

amba,

At one point I was a "master" of darkness. I would wear a long, flowing trenchcoat as a philosopher's habit and proclaim the dismal meaningless of it all to all hearers. I would read Kafka and Nietzsche and write Quentin Tarintino-esque short stories, for class. (My school allowed the "smart" kids to take their English and math elsewhere. And so the teachers were very reverent of us smart kids. I got to read these nasty stories filled with foul language in class, and the teachers thought it was just fine. I also attempted to publish a book-review of Nietzsche's "Anti-Christ" in the school newspaper. I got hauled before the Dean of Students for that. And as it so happens, this dean of students was the vehicle through which I shed my atheism. In fact, the school once decided to send me as their representative to some "smart" kid thing, and I learned later that a great controversy broke out among the faculty. But I was very close with the French teacher, a young NYU grad, so she backed me against the journalism teacher. After my transformation from black-robed nihilist to enthusiastic, gentle, and calm Buddhist guy -- I really shocked a lot of people.

I also remember when I was around seven devising ways through which I could enhance my eccentricity. I thought maybe I should just refuse to use spoons, just because. I also recall reading my kids Bible about Jesus and thinking, "I bet Jesus could do all those things because he had a very high IQ. And so the heresy continues to this day!]

[eusto]

When I wrote that God itself was desirous of wiping all the crap --though, indeed, he who would be greatest among us would be the servant of all, I think even God would object to being "a groom of the stool" like Henry VIII had.

I obviously meant : "wipe away all evil things."

[realpc]

"God itself is desirous of wiping all the crap that happens down here?"

eusto,

Like most social activists (I assume you are one), you think the world sucks and you want to make it nicer. You have an idea about how things should be, which does not match how they are.

I think it's much more complicated than that because for one thing we all have different ideas about what a nice world would be like.

Yes, there are some things we all agree are bad and would like to change, but we can't agree on the causes, so we can't agree on solutions.

Our two major problems right now are the threat of nuclear war and destruction of the natural environment. Most progressives see these problems as resulting from greed, short-sightedness, hostiility, and other human failings. If we improve ourselves as individuals, we can solve these problems. Some groups are greedier, more selfish and hostile than others, so the progressives' job is to teach the more ignorant/selfish among us to be more progressive and enlightened.

And so on. I guess you know the story. I thnk it's all mythology. The natural earth, before humans became smart and started improving things, was harmonious and balanced. Nature has always been "cruel," from our wimpy human perspective, but that cruelty helps keep it clean and beautiful. There are no filthy ghettos in nature.

All of our most serious problems right now result from our species' attempts to improve and understand nature. We would not have nuclear weapons or air pollution without modern science and technology.

I don't say this because it's my preferred philosophy. I'm only saying it because it is, to me, obviously true. I don't hate science or technology and I don't think we should stop being curious and creative (we can't stop anyway). We disrupt the balance of nature. Every time we trick nature to get something we want, there are unfortunate consequeneces.

You see the problem as not enough niceness, not enough Buddhist enlightenment. I really don't see it that way. Religion can be a good thing and is necessary for certain types of people, but it is not going to make the world nice and clean and peaceful.

War is not caused by certain nasty individuals. If we got rid of everyone perceived as nasty, and also got rid of the nastiness within ourselves, it would not stop war. Nastiness and violence are symptoms of something going on in a larger context, some kind of unresolved conflicts of interests. We all turn nasty when threatened, and we should. Turning the other cheek gets you crucified, as Jesus demonstrated.

Buddhism has nothing to tell us about how to make the world nice. It tells us about the divine nature of our eternal selves. We can access the healing and comforting powers within us, as we take a break from fighting our worldly battles. We can perceive the divine in ourselves and others, but we still have to pay the bills, tolerate insults, compete in business, worry about Iran, etc.

[amba]

real: you ARE a Taoist!

When people see things as beautiful,
ugliness is created.
When people see things as good,
evil is created.

(Tao Te Ching)

You might like a piece of Taoist fiction that's one of my favorites. It's precisely about how the drive to improve the world is the disease that messes it up: The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. LeGuin.

[eusto]

I am much more pragmatic than you imagine. As I wrote way back when, I distinguish very sharply between the abstract and the concrete. The abstract provides us our long-term goals, but we must deal with the concrete.

I am actually not a social activist, though I hope to help the cause of centrism as I grow older.

Trust me, I really do understand that compassion without wisdom can be very harmful and that it has led to situations where the cure may have been worse than the disease. I am not at all opposed to tough love. I am very sympathetic to black conservative/libertarian claims that welfare and even aid to Africa has been disastrous. For instance, how can you expect an African textile industry to get off the ground if you flood the market with free clothes?

While I am certainly in favor of taking reasonable steps to help the poor, minorities, etc. -- I realize that people must at the end of the day be self-sufficent.

I wouldn't consider myself at all a bleeding heart liberal. For instance, Hiroshima may actually have saved more lives because the Japanese would have kept fighting to the last man without it. Perhaps we may need also to kill a large number of civilians to send a clear message to Iran. To collapse their utopian fantasies of power. The Japanese felt they were all powerful -- but after the bomb -- that pretty much, er, exploded that idea.

As it stands now, the earth is a very rough-and-tumble place and many times one is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Madison said that if men were angels, there would be no need for government. And I very much understand the sentiment that we have met the enemy, and he is us.

So in the present, we most assuredly have to take into account human nature as it is today, in all its filthy mess.

Even so, I do believe that over time human nature can be slowly purified. And I believe that it has been to some degree. Compare the modern acceptance of universal human rights to the past. It is true that we still violate them. But at least we recognize such things.

And as for technology, I think the side-effects have been and are being reduced. For instance, classical antipsychotics such as Thorazine and Haldol had horrific side effects. Second-generation antipsychotics do not share these side effects and are almost if not as effective. the same can be said for antidepressants. and i think the same can be said for cancer treatments, though I'm not sure about that. Furthermore, real, I think it is clear that we have been and will continue to develop cleaner and cleaner technology. Instead of releasing CO2 our cars will release water.

So I think it is just as clear that overtime, humanity is making improvements. Will we ever reach perfection? I am not sure but I think we erratically inch closer as time progresses. There may be a ceiling beyond which we cannot progress; however, I don't think we've reached it yet.

[eusto]

Besides Real, you're reversing cause and effect with technology. If everyone were kind and reasonable, we wouldn't have war, because we would figure out how to best share the resources we had. If there weren't enough resources to go around, some would willingly sacrifice themselves for the greater good.

Note: I'm NOT making claims about possibility or probabilty right now; just that in the abstract that all our problems -- save for natural evils like plague -- stem from an impure human nature.

Nuclear technology would not be a problem if everyone practiced non-violence, for instance.

Now, I am NOT saying we should turn the other cheek with Iran, as is quite clear with from my above comment. I'm just saying that if we all were Buddhas the world would incontrovertibly be a better place.

Compassion is very different from being nice. Being nice is bleeding heart. Compassion employs tough love where appropriate.

[realpc]

"I do believe that over time human nature can be slowly purified. And I believe that it has been to some degree. Compare the modern acceptance of universal human rights to the past."

Yes, that is the foundation of modern liberal self-love. We have become more tolerant of homosexuals, minority ethnic groups, etc.
What you don't see is that every time we increase tolerance in some areas we decrease it in others. Liberals/progressive are some of the least tolerant people on earth, and that makes them the world's greatest hypocrites since their claim to fame is their tolerance.

There has been great progress -- America has been leading the world into an era of high tech prosperity.
Niceness has not progressed at all -- as you increase tolerance of strangers you decrease special feelings for your own tribe. We can hardly imagine the loving closeness experienced by members of traditional tribal cultures. That's one reason the radical Muslims hate us -- they are losing their young generations to Western popular culture and worldliness. Their society will soon be as fragmented, cold and materialistic as ours.

We are not getting nicer or more loving. We are getting more complex, maybe more interesting, certainly more dangerous.

[realpc]

"If everyone were kind and reasonable, we wouldn't have war, because we would figure out how to best share the resources we had."

Everyone already thinks they are kind and reasonable eusto. Don't you know that?

"If there weren't enough resources to go around, some would willingly sacrifice themselves for the greater good."

Ok, all self-sacrificers please line up and wait your turn. Be patient now, don't all rush into the gas chamber at once.

[amba]

We can hardly imagine the loving closeness experienced by members of traditional tribal cultures.

Hang on, real, it's as dangerous to romanticize "traditional tribal cultures" as modern liberal ones. Human nature, remember? Plus ignorance, plus superstition, plus angry gods demanding human sacrifice, disease blamed on witchcraft by estranged relatives (we did not invent the "dysfunctional family"), women exchanged as goods or kidnapped as hostages. They must have experienced many things more purely and intensely than we do -- including wonder, love, fear, and hate.

[eusto]

"And I believe that it has been to some degree. Compare the modern acceptance of universal human rights to the past."

Yes, that is the foundation of modern liberal self-love. We have become more tolerant of homosexuals, minority ethnic groups, etc.

Um, real, actually I meant stuff like all people should have freedom of religion, be able to choose their own government, and not be tortured -- do you disagree?

You probably just got confused because I said I was open to helping minority groups out. Well, actually, I somewhat misspoke. I believe we should phase out affirmative action, and I oppose hate-crimes legislation.

What you don't see is that every time we increase tolerance in some areas we decrease it in others.

Exactly. Like when we improved civil rights for blacks, we took away the right to vote from women. Oh wait, that didn't happen. Sorry real, that is just an assertion given without proof.
What proof do you have that OVERALL tolerance just stays the same? It's total BS that we haven't become more tolerant as a nation, taken as a whole. Yes some liberals are unbearably snooty and intolerant -- but let's examine the nation as a whole of which snooty liberals are only a small part.

Liberals/progressive are some of the least tolerant people on earth, and that makes them the world's greatest hypocrites since their claim to fame is their tolerance. I know, Real. Did you see that beheading the liberals carried out yesterday? Oh and yeah, and when the liberals dragged a gay man behind their truck for miles? Just shameful.

Real, liberals can be quite intolerant, but come on here? For instance, I know that Summers of Harvard got in trouble for even suggesting that women might not be as good as men in science. And I do not at all support all this PC-BS. As I said, I oppose hate-crimes legislation, and I think the academy is biased and I wholeheartedly support the entrace of more conservative professors in the academy.

I oppose "liberal" intolerance as well. In fact, and here's the real kicker. I am a registered Republican. Yes, it's true. (Well, it's for primary purposes, but still.) And I voted for Bush in 2000, and in retrospect would have voted for him in 2004.(I went third party.) How many times do I have to say I'm not a liberal before you'll believe me?

It's true that I support some classically liberal ideas like freedom of speech, democracy, and that I believe in progress and I am distrustful of tradition for tradition's sake. But it stops there. I defend liberals because you act as if they're the worst creatures on earth.

Niceness has not progressed at all -- as you increase tolerance of strangers you decrease special feelings for your own tribe.

And still you harp on niceness, after I have disavowed it.

And this is according to the natural law of conservation of niceness, and you have evidence of this how? I can love my family deeply and still love my fellow man.

Real, I am sorry to be so tough here but it is part of the Western tradition to be very, direct and forthright with an opponent. Therefore, when you utter a false statement, I am obliged to call it out.

We can hardly imagine the loving closeness experienced by members of traditional tribal cultures. That's one reason the radical Muslims hate us.

And you can imagine it how? And I really feel the love in my big burka and amputed clitoris?

Look, Real, I understand that modern society has had the tendency to dissolve bonds between people -- but I think it also increases bonds. For instance, I feel close to amba even though I've never met her.

I don't think it's impossible to have both. It might take a little more work but check out Gruntled Center (in amba's blogroll) for a man who's trying to bring back family to our society.

We are not getting nicer or more loving. We are getting more complex, maybe more interesting, certainly more dangerous.

That's just your opinion. Obviously, I have my own opinion and I have marshalled data in support of it. What peeves me about you is that you just make these statement, and you act that they're just self-evident -- when they're not at all. They would require a lot of research and debate to flesh out.

I think maybe if you used phrases like: I think, I believe, some may disagree but, we could get along better. I think we are getting better, and you don't don't. Rather than making flat assertions, phrase them as opinions, and back up your statements as I strive to do.

[eusto]

"If everyone were kind and reasonable, we wouldn't have war, because we would figure out how to best share the resources we had."

Everyone already thinks they are kind and reasonable eusto. Don't you know that?

Did I say THINK real, I was speaking in the abstract about actuality, NOT opinion. And no, not everyone thinks they're reasonable and loving. I know I need to be more loving.

"If there weren't enough resources to go around, some would willingly sacrifice themselves for the greater good."

Ok, all self-sacrificers please line up and wait your turn. Be patient now, don't all rush into the gas chamber at once

Real, please read more carefully. Didn't you notice that I said in the ABSTRACT? And how I capped that I was talking NOT about practice but in THEORY. IF IF IF by some magic stroke of the wand, all were Buddhas.

[eusto]

I'm doing my best to maintain my composure here, but what I think also would help, is that when I make a good point, you should acknowledge it. Ideally, argumentation is a cooperative process which leads to truth. Ideally, it should NOT just be a fight over who gets to win.

When you have made a good point, I try to acknowledge it. Even when you misspeak, I critique your misspeech but acknowledge what truth I believe I have found in your statement.

I wish you would do the same.

Perhaps, we should just declare a truce. I acknowledge that technology has not been all for the better, and that progress comes with costs, and that it is not clear to what extent we can --if we can -- improve human nature. I recognize that man needs to be humble and that pride goeth before a fall -- that man is still far from reigning in all the forces of nature -- if he ever will. (Note that I just believe that people should feel a sense of dignity and have faith that the core of their being is good. Not that we should become raving meglomaniacs. I wish when you read what I wrote you too would aim to search for truth in what I wrote, and not just something to tear down.)

Will you do the same? Will you agree that maybe man actually could improve his nature, and that over time it might be possible to make real and lasting progress -- even though you disagree?

So can have this gentleman's/gentlelady's agreement and agree to disagree?

[realpc]

eusto,

God made our nature. Our nature is the way it's supposed to be. If you think it needs improving, then you must know more than God.

I agreed with your statement about how good intentions of Western nations have just made things worse in Africa. But I strongly disagree with your comments about Prozac and cancer cures. Don't even let me get started on that subject.

[amba]

And I really feel the love in my big burka and amputed clitoris?

eusto, I'm reading all this with a big grin on my face.

(btw, when were you born anyway? early 80s or so?)

real - every time we increase tolerance in some areas we decrease it in others.

Yes, we have become less tolerant of traditionalists and racial/ethnic/cultural purists WHEN THEY ARE WHITE. The recent 9th Circuit appeals court decision that a high school student cannot wear a religious anti-gay T-shirt to high school is a case in point. I have a Mexican-American friend from childhood who confessed to me recently that his family were "wetbacks," and I have a Southern friend in North Carolina who is in a rage about the transformation of her genteel traditional region by hordes of non-English-speaking illegal immigrants. Conservatives will be more sympathetic to her, liberals to him. They are both my friends . . .