Sep 12 - bobby
said: Cindy McCain's battle against prescription drug addiction has been part of her public speaking points for years, but a deeper investigation reveals the far-reaching consequences of her actions washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103928.html
Sep 10 - pitfighter
said: Hello good day
Sep 10 - dogkill
said: i'm fine good work
Aug 10 - ryan
said: 1) I'll grant you that there are plenty of people who believe that they can and do speak for "the public interest" or "the common good." But I would assert that such a claim entails the more problematic claim of the right and ability to define what those are for everyone else. Which is basically an assertion of power, not of altruism. So saying "This is in the public interest" is incoherent unless it is understood as "This is what I want."
2) From there, I'd answer your second point along the same lines. "Interests," in Bentley's terms, or at least as far as I understand them from what Lemann presents of them," don't have quite the economic flavor you're suggesting. I think it means more "Things people are interested in," i.e. "care about," which should head off some of your concerns about the dehumanizing aspects of Bentley. Particularly as Bentley recognizes that not all interests are economic; indeed, there are plenty of people who have non-economic interests that they regularly champion in politics. This is, in a sense, "what goes on in peoples' heads, hearts, and mouths," but you can draw a distinction between that and ideology. The former is people acting based on their chosen interests; those interests may coalesce into more-or-less coherent platforms, but that's beside the point. Platforms, remember, are assembled not because they represent the pure, shining future for humanity, but they are assembled, plank by plank, in order to bring together sufficient numbers of people to wield political clout. They are essentially compromises. Ideologues, on the other hand, are essentially people who have interests but won't compromise to get them done.
3) Saturday. Everything ready?
Aug 9 - Richard
said: Three questions:
1) Isn't it being unconsciously disingenuous a contradiction of terms? In other words, I think that you're not allowing enough for genuine (and therefore "non-disingenous") belief that a given statement can be made on behalf of "the public interest," or "the common good," etc.
2) Of course, when Jo Candidate makes that statement, s/he must recognize that the statement is embodied; it only has truth insofar as s/he has accurate knowledge of what everyone values or thinks. What comes out of her mouth depends much on her set of networks, to whom she has spoken, what kind of education she might have, and other activities in which she's been involved. So these kinds of statements cannot be taken absolutely, but must be seen as one person's judgment of a larger set of people. This last word is significant. Bentley's insight about how politics IS a collision of interests, and that interests aren't bad on the big view, seems right, at a certain level, but doesn't make enough space for the personhood of people. The article's author, Lemann, is simply wrong about how Bentley's insight has been ignored. The insight has simply been transformed into an economic metaphor. People talk about moral capital, or political value, etc.; Neoclassical economic ways of describing politics seems to be the default position for many people. But if we take seriously the idea that political value is embodied, and not merely a set of "interests" (as if interests were a number next to a dollar sign in some political account), then perhaps interests could appear as they are; multicoloured, and with multiple moral valences. To call it all "interests" is simply to use one ideological brush to paint all sets of human desires and problems. So the question: does reducing "ideology and background" to mere "predictors" of what people "actually do" suggest that what goes on in peoples heads, hearts and mouths is peripheral to being human? Does not the difference between self-defence, manslaughter, and murder depend much on what was in Frank's head about the time he killed Suzy?
3) When are you coming home?
Aug 5 - ryan
said: Most of the time when "the people" or "the public interest" is used, the speaker intends that to mean "all of the people". By doing so they're being disingenuous, deliberately or not, because there is no policy which is going to make everyone happy. In effect, the speaker is actually saying "this is what my people want," which isn't nearly as altruistic or idealistic as "the public interest."
Secondly, it's true that beliefs and natures do affect actions, but there are dozens of examples of people who share similar beliefs and/or natures who do radically different things. There are also plenty of examples of people with radically different beliefs and natures who wind up allies on particular issues as a result of political compromise. Ideology and background can be good predictors of what a given person will do, and that can be useful, but what matters is what they actually do, particularly when forced to compromise.
Government is a shared myth. When the myth dies, government dies. --Frank Herbert
Politics and law [are] not paths to grace and faith, but grace and faith [remain] paths to right politics and right law. The Christian [is] supposed to be law-abiding, and the law of a Christian prince [is] supposed to achieve both order and justice. Law [is] supposed to induce people to avoid evil, to cooperate, and to serve the community. The Christian [is] not to think that by doing good he [can] earn credits in heaven; nevertheless, he [is] to use his will and reason - with full consciousness of their defective nature - to do as much good as God as made possible. --Harold J. Berman
"To do the good and reject the evil from a reasoned insight into their respective natures is a noble thing, but it is a still nobler thing to do so out of regard for the nature of God, and the noblest thing of all is the ethical strength, which, when required, will act from personal attachment to God, without for the moment enquiring into these more abstruse reasons. The pure delight in obedience adds to the ethical value of a choice."
-- Geerhardus Vos
