![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Attempts at Engagement
Sep. 8th, 2011 03:46 pmIt's no secret that I think ideological purity comes with too high a cost; once your philosophy stops leaving room for virtues like utility, mercy, and compassion, it's gotten too rarefied to support a life. At the same time, I reject moral relativism: certain ethical systems have demonstrably better outcomes than others, and I feel comfortable saying a culture is unhealthy or cruel, even if I understand perfectly why the people involved choose to live that way. I don't think we should always go along and get along; there are some things worth fighting for, and there are some ideals that are unable to coexist.
Bottom line, it's hard for me to call somebody out for being a hypocrite, but also hard for me to admire someone for equivocating. This is the eternal peril of a centrist. Your balanced approach usually has the right outcomes, but it's not clean and simplistic and good at sound bites. (In the age of internet news, should that be sound bytes?)
That said, I think the Republican approach to national security is hypocritical. I just got a form letter from Scott Brown's office explaining that when it comes to protecting families' safety, no government intrusion and regulation is too much. (I was objecting to a pilot TSA screening experiment going on at Logan which seems really set up to encourage gate-agent power trips and ensuing abuses.) Meanwhile, if I think private citizens should not be allowed to carry assault rifles on the street, where I spend a lot more time than airports, government should butt out. And with healthcare, of course, which is the most central to families' safety, any amount of government intrusion at all is too much. (Except when it comes to women's female parts; then we're back to massive government intrusion.)
Which one is it, for god's sake? Is the government allowed to intrude on individual freedoms to protect the safety of the majority, or isn't it? I don't mind a hazy line, but this seems like randomly thrown darts.
Which I think should be Scott Brown's slogan for the next round of bumper stickers, really: "Scott Brown: Randomly Thrown Darts." But surely there are actual conservative intellectuals somewhere, trying to articulate a thesis that isn't pretzeled. I would like to hear it! I am actually receptive! There are many cases where I believe in deregulation! But right now you guys are chaotic, and that makes you a bad investment. (You also tend to be smug and condescending because I'm a woman and must not understand about money or foreign affairs, but that's a whole other issue.)
Bottom line, it's hard for me to call somebody out for being a hypocrite, but also hard for me to admire someone for equivocating. This is the eternal peril of a centrist. Your balanced approach usually has the right outcomes, but it's not clean and simplistic and good at sound bites. (In the age of internet news, should that be sound bytes?)
That said, I think the Republican approach to national security is hypocritical. I just got a form letter from Scott Brown's office explaining that when it comes to protecting families' safety, no government intrusion and regulation is too much. (I was objecting to a pilot TSA screening experiment going on at Logan which seems really set up to encourage gate-agent power trips and ensuing abuses.) Meanwhile, if I think private citizens should not be allowed to carry assault rifles on the street, where I spend a lot more time than airports, government should butt out. And with healthcare, of course, which is the most central to families' safety, any amount of government intrusion at all is too much. (Except when it comes to women's female parts; then we're back to massive government intrusion.)
Which one is it, for god's sake? Is the government allowed to intrude on individual freedoms to protect the safety of the majority, or isn't it? I don't mind a hazy line, but this seems like randomly thrown darts.
Which I think should be Scott Brown's slogan for the next round of bumper stickers, really: "Scott Brown: Randomly Thrown Darts." But surely there are actual conservative intellectuals somewhere, trying to articulate a thesis that isn't pretzeled. I would like to hear it! I am actually receptive! There are many cases where I believe in deregulation! But right now you guys are chaotic, and that makes you a bad investment. (You also tend to be smug and condescending because I'm a woman and must not understand about money or foreign affairs, but that's a whole other issue.)
