Sunday, June 17, 2007

For Love or Country

Mark Olson has continued his discussion of patriotism and repentance, and the way that citizens should balance between the two. He uses me as an example of people who can never stop to just unabashedly praise their country. Mark offers a comparison to the Orthodox Church:
As far as refusing to ever express unabashed patriotism, as Mr Schraub claims he must do, while I think such sentiments are necessary, I don’t think they need to flavor all national events and days. In fact, I think going that far is an error. Taking the analogy with the very penitential nature of the Eastern Orthodox church, a penitential attitude and repentance flavors most of the year. However, it is set aside for the Paschal celebration, indeed for the 5 weeks of Pascha, prostration and kneeling is forbidden. There is a time for repentance. But it is not … all the time.

Perhaps, though I assumed the pain in my knee was from a tennis injury, not too much time spent in "prostration and kneeling." There is a serious question here, about the right way to incorporate repentance into civic life. But I'm not convinced the balance I've struck is an inherently bad one. And it is a balance. If you search through my archives, you'll see many, many posts that refer to and take seriously the many admirable elements of our country: traditions of freedom, democratic norms, egalitarianism. What troubles Mark, I suspect, is that very often these references come in the form of critiques that we are not living up to them. When we lock up innocent men (and sometimes children) without trial or hearing, we are betraying the principle of freedom. When we engage in naked voter suppression schemes, or treat some of our tax-paying citizens (in D.C.) as a colony on the Potomac, we do violence to the tradition of democracy. And of course, when we continue to support devastating structures of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and inequality of opportunity, we make a mockery of the egalitarian strain of American thought that we claim to adhere to.

When I make such a claim, what am I doing? If I thought of America as irredeemably fallen, it wouldn't make sense to make reference to these supposed histories of liberty, democracy, etc.. What purpose would they serve? Why would I assume they would have any hold on the polity, or would carry and persuasive authority? By virtue of the fact that I make the appeal, I am inherently taking seriously the meaning of weight of the ethical principles and traditions I appeal to. This, then, is the distinction between my way of expressing pride in country and Mark's. Mark wishes to keep our penance and our pride separate. There is a time for one, and a time for the other, but we need and should not demand that all be present at all times. My formulation is the precise opposite. Yes, the critique and the repentance will never leave our discourse--we cannot flee our sins. But at the same time, this critical outlook comes within the context of giving serious weight and respect to the positive aspects of American life we wish to celebrate. The critique only makes sense within the context of a political tradition that would be responsive to it. The fact that I have politically comprehensible language for expressing moral wrongs is the tribute.

This view sees America as an antinomy--a set of irreconcilable rational opposites. Undeniably, we have a history of racism in this country--one that inflects everything we do and every policy we enact. Equally true is that we have a political language of equality in our nation--from the abolitionists to the Reconstruction Amendments to the Civil Rights Act. A great deal of American political work has been focused around reconciling these two opposites. It is amazing, if you read contemporary texts, how much effort the Jim Crow South put into trying to call its racial state of affairs liberal, egalitarian, fair, and in accordance with the mandates of law. Even in the depths of Jim Crow, White southerners weren't willing to completely cut themselves off from the language of a liberal, equal state. And even at the height of the civil rights revolution, the we also saw savage race riots around the country. What this shows us is that--even in our darkest (and lightest) hours--both sides of the dualism have pull on us. I am opposed to Mark's regime of separation because it seems to severely mistake the relationship of America's sins to its virtues. Neither makes sense without reference to the other. The many acts of violence and injustice, past and present, we have committed as part and parcel of our culture circumscribes whatever tradition of liberty, equality, and democracy we may possess. But the very idea of a critique against these injustices is framed by a cultural scaffolding that allows these critiques to extend beyond their provincial borders and have real weight in the hearts and minds of the dominant caste.

This, in sum, is why I have trouble ultimately wrapping my head around Mark's paradigm. I guess I can see its appeal--it is certainly more fun to be able to celebrate one's history untainted and unblemished by remembrance of our sins. But ultimately, it lacks coherency. Fredrick Douglass famously asked "What to the Negro is the 4th of July?" If we adopt Mark's position, how do we answer him? Do we demand his silence, so as to not ruin the festivities? Do we tell him that he should be thankful, too, and that he should suppress the persistent nagging feeling that our freedom was bought at the expense of his slavery? If Douglass himself adopted those stances on his own, maybe I wouldn't have a problem. But if he feels compelled to ask, then we, I feel, are obligated to give an answer that takes seriously his implicit indictment. And I suspect (without proof), at the end of the day, that you will find more instances in my archives where I cite the virtues of America as constitutive, serious, ongoing facets of our social existence than Mark cites the sins of America in the same manner (as constitutive, serious and ongoing facets of America's social existence).

So where does this all leave us? In contrast to Mark's invocation of the Orthodox model, I will forward a Christian theologian of my own: Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of "cheap grace" and "costly grace."
Cheap grace...amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sins departs.

Cheap grace is not the kind of forgiveness of sin which frees us from the toils of sin. Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession.
[...]
Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must the asked for, the door at which a man must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner.

Though Bonhoeffer's argument is decidedly Christian, I think it has salience beyond that. It is obviously difficult--Bonhoeffer died in Nazi concentration camps for vocally opposing the Holocaust. Maybe we can't all be Bonhoeffer--though if we aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to truly account for our unjust advantages and privileges, than I don't think we can turn around and claim absolution. But in general, when the question is sin, I'm not sure my political or moral obligation is to make life easy for the sinners. For sins this deep, grace doesn't come from merely saying "I'm sorry." It comes from word and deed, it is most certainly a "gift" and it must be "asked for", and it is up to the wronged to determine what and how the sinner must pay restitution. America's sins are such that we need costly grace, America's virtues are such that there are concepts, language, ideas, and precepts which can bridge the victimized with their victimizers and allow grace to be achieved.

17 comments:

Mark said...

David,
Two points, first you make the point that repentance must be not be "cheap", and I think you'll find that I (and the Orthodox penitential expression) are in agreement there. But you didn't answer the question of why that can never, even for a holiday, be set aside. My guess is that Bonhoeffer didn't preach repentance on Easter morning. I think psychologically if during a yearly cycle (such as a national holiday) we concentrate not on our flaws but what we look for, our penitence can have more meaning and/or urgency.

Second, when I quoted:

Patriotism is a constant reminder of the sacral dimension of any civic community, however secular in inspiration. Even today, many ordinary citizens of the Western democracies remain old-fashioned patriots. The instinctively reject the abstract “constitutional patriotism” put forward by intellectuals like Jurgen Habermas, who reduce national loyalty to the acceptance of procedural political forms.

You didn't comment on that. Is your notion of patriotism "old fashioned" (as Mr Kuznicki might call it) or new?

David Schraub said...

I think you mistake the degree to which I spend my time repenting. I, too, am not spending 24/7 with bowed back and bent knee. If you look at my last post (the one about traveling to Connecticut), you'll note that it was quite absent of any asides ("I'll spend the plane ride up reflecting on the how the Boeing corporation has been implicated in shuttling dozens of prisoners to secret prisons by the US to be tortured").

And indeed, I'm perfectly fine with balancing repentance with exhortation. That's what I mean by antinomy--each is in the context of the other. "What we look for" is our virtues, but the reason we're still looking (instead of having found it) is due to vice. I'm constantly looking for justice, but its ahistorical and incoherent to say that without acknowledging that the reason I'm looking for justice is because there's injustice.

If, of course, you're paradigm actually does lead to more meaning/urgency, then that would be a boon. But I don't see it. How many posts have you written focusing on racism in the criminal justice system, or the continuing segregation of our schools, or American internment and torture of innocent people? I suspect it is far, far fewer than the number of posts I've written where I've based my argument around virtuous American traditions (even if I'm using them to exhort us to do better, or condemning our failure to achieve them). This is the liberal suspicion--that because our instinct is to be blindly patriotic or nationalistic, unless we are constantly pressing people to remember their ongoing sins, they will be talked about rarely if at all.

I will admit that my problem with the "when" for the holiday (the "what to the Negro is the fourth of July" problem) still holds for me. And as to your second question, I'm afraid I can't answer, as I have only a passing familiarity with Habermas and don't know what the phrase "sacral dimension of [the] civic community" means. I'll forward that I'd prefer patriotism to be based off value and aspiration (more than procedure--if I have my Habermas right, then I think he's too much of proceduralist for my taste), rather than blood and land--I don't know if that's an answer. I think our tendency is to the latter--but that is a vice in of itself that needs to be pressed against.

Mark said...

David,
You ask

If, of course, you're paradigm actually does lead to more meaning/urgency, then that would be a boon.


Examine the Lenten/Paschal cycle of Christianity. The penitential fervor of Lent is partially fueled by anticipation of the celebration to come (and vice versa the joy of the celebration is in part because of the ending of the penitential season). So, if it a boon you want, there indeed is one for the taking.

You continue:

But I don't see it. How many posts have you written focusing on racism in the criminal justice system, or the continuing segregation of our schools, or American internment and torture of innocent people?

Uhm, our blogs have a different emphasis. Your internal notion of political and civic virtue is (more?) fixed. You note events and situations and comment on their justice or injustice. I rarely do that on good or bad issues.

I'm afraid, I'm a (somewhat) recent convert to Christianity (and much more recently moved to Orthodoxy). How that move affects my political philosophy and civic ethics is something I explore on my blog. I'm too confused to make the comments you make. Hence when commenting on current events, normally (I think that) I'm abstracting them instead of directly passing any sort of judgement.

Thus when, for example, we encounter torture you declaim it. I agree torture is bad, but ... then I wonder what is torture? Are there cultural and personal factors which make the matter less clear? and so on.

That is you comment and pass judgement on events whereas I wonder what they can teach me or where they fit with my current understanding of things.

btw, I still fail to understand your insistence that July 4th is not a holiday for all Americans. If, to the Negro, this can't be a holiday because he was not freed then, ... first what then does he make of Lincoln's little speech at Gettysburg and second do you also think that women, who were not enfranchised until later too should not celebrate. I think their freedom bought at price and the enfranchisement of women were a consequence of things set in motion on the 4th ... and therefore it is time and a thing for all American's to celebrate.

On the sacral dimension, if in our lifetime, some force in our state "crossed the Rubicon" would you, as Jeremiah "dwell in the ruins" hoping to rebuild from the ashes, or would you cast aside your being American and leave? Is your loyalty to land and people, to earth and blood ... or to Constitution and government? If I take your comment on that right, that you base your loyalty on aspirations and value ... then why the heck aren't you a conservative? Strauss (following Aristotle I think) emphasized the purpose of the state to develop civic virtue as a basis of conservatism.

David Schraub said...

Not being Black, I can't speak to how Blacks should or shouldn't view the holiday, all I know is that Douglass' question and critique is a legitimate one, and one that deserves serious engagement. "I think their freedom bought at price and the enfranchisement of women were a consequence of things set in motion on the 4th ..." is not good enough--we bought our freedom on their backs--its not as if there were no people pushing for abolitionism in colonial America, but in order to maintain southern support we suppressed the call (very aggressively--in the early days of the Republic, Congress passed a rule prohibiting consideration of abolition).

If I were to pick a holiday that we might truly "celebrate", perhaps Juneteenth would fit the bill? Or Martin Luther King, Jr. day? Such days seem to offer perfect opportunities for my type of politics--they represent moments(/people) we can be proud of absolutely--and exhort us to continue their legacy. They are the battles, not the war.

I'm not sure I can really conceptualize a state "crossing the rubicon" and being in a state where I can rebuild it. If it truly is beyond aid, then I presumably would have to leave.

I'm not a conservative because Strauss is severely anti-democratic, and wants the state to promote "virtue" as a method of control over the vulgar citizenry. It's inherently restrictive and more than vaguely authoritarian. My conception of virtue runs opposite--it says that the state should work to maximize the opportunities for human flourishing across a diverse array of cultures and life paths. It's open, tolerant, progressive, and multiculturalist, and would be very out of place in modern conservative movements, which have placed themselves in opposition to the independent flourishment of non-dominant groups (women, racial and religious minorities, and gays, to name a few).

Mark said...

David,

I know a little about the Revolutionary war, I disagree with the assessment that it was freedom bought "on their backs".

I'm not sure I can really conceptualize a state "crossing the rubicon" and being in a state where I can rebuild it. If it truly is beyond aid, then I presumably would have to leave.

So does that mean if you were born in Russia and lived in Soviet Russia you wouldn't be a dissident, just leave and wash your hands? I think you cling to Habermas procedural notions of patriotism as far as I glean they mean at least.

To my view, your ...

... conception of virtue runs opposite--it says that the state should work to maximize the opportunities for human flourishing across a diverse array of cultures and life paths.

you advocate methods which diminish virtues, which will not ultimately maximize human flourishing for anyone. And I don't think our society today has such an excess of virtue that it can take much more "progressive reductions".

Oh, and before you ascribe to me various things to which I'm not holding, I'll point out that my latest understanding political theory indicates to me that the thing we need now (desperately) is to start moving as much civic power to the local level, away from federal, but bypassing the state and returning it to village, ward, parish, and township. That only by giving responsibility at the local level can we (as individuals) exercise civic authority and thereby learn civic virtue.

David Schraub said...

If I was born in Soviet Russia, I imagine I would try to flee, but being Jewish, that's due primarily to the fact that they'd be trying to kill me. I might be a dissident from the safety of NYC, though.

you advocate methods which diminish virtues, which will not ultimately maximize human flourishing for anyone. And I don't think our society today has such an excess of virtue that it can take much more "progressive reductions".

I'm not sure why my methods ("my methods"?) diminish virtue. How exactly does that happen? I'm suspicious of radical decentralization, both for Madisonian reasons (small polities are more likely to develop dominant and oppressive factions), and because, if you're right that we have a severe deficit of virtue, devolving political power into small communities makes it particularly unlikely that they will encounter voices beyond the province that might turn them to the good, show them that their life isn't the only life, and thus create a healthy respect for pluralism and diversity that I think is a critical virtue severely lacking.

David Schraub said...

I know a little about the Revolutionary war, I disagree with the assessment that it was freedom bought "on their backs".

Oh come now. The British gave freedom to any slave that fought on their side (we didn't). Southern delegates blocked a portion of the Declaration of Independence that would have condemned the slave trade. And likewise, the south extracted crucial compromises in the drafting of the constitution such that it explicitly protected slavery from challenge.

PG said...

If the colonies had remained part of the British empire, presumably slavery would have ended in them in 1833, as it did in the rest of the empire, 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation (which only applied to territories in rebellion, i.e. not to places like Maryland -- another political compromise to hold what remained of the Union together).
On the other hand, the 19th Amendment passed a decade before British women could vote on par with men.

Maybe this is biased by a second-generation background, but I think it is the "non-sacral" aspect of America that draws many of the immigrants who do become our most committed patriots. They are inspired not by blood and land, but by abstractions made practical: First Amendment protections that mean they aren't persecuted for their political or religious beliefs; a free market and rule of law that allow them to work hard and keep most of their gains; a legal commitment to nondiscrimination that has translated into a social norm of equality that you don't see even in wealthy, democratic nations (see, e.g., Japan, where women are almost universally underemployed -- until recently, foreign firms had a great time hiring up all the talented women at lower wages because Japanese companies wouldn't put women in management). The Russian abandons the Soviet Union not out of a desire for the Rocky Mountains but in order to live as an individual (cue Ayn Rand...). Incidentally, I'd consider Michael Moore to be Habermas's ideal patriot in the sense Mark seems to be describing; rather than simply move to a country more in tune with his ideals, he stubbornly tries to turn Michigan into Ottawa.

Mark said...

David,
A few remarks on the revolutionary war hypothesis of yours.

1. If "on the backs of" means, while engaging in a revolutionary war and instituting a completely new and perhaps uniquely inspired form of government we also failed to completely restructure the society and economic basis of 1/4+ of the colonies at the same time ... then fine. I just think it's a stretch to claim it's "on the backs of", instead of "a thing which couldn't be done right then" and had to wait some 4 score plus a few years.

2. Where you note: The British gave freedom to any slave that fought on their side (we didn't). I've never seen any claims that had a major impact in any way on the outcome of the hostilities.

On the other point, moving power away from the federal/state level to the local. First, I have no desire for "revolution". Drastic and overnight upheaval is not at all what I'd advocate. I'll leave admiration for the revolutionary to your Neo-Marxist compadres on the left. I also think the interconnectedness of the modern world, Internet, blogging and all will form a strong counterbalance to the more drastic abuses you seem to fear. Madison vs Jefferson, eh? That's a shift for the the left/right dichotomy.

How are the policies you support going to thus create a healthy respect for pluralism and diversity that I think is a critical virtue severely lacking? All I see are policies which nominally increase fairness and equality at the expense of increased centralization and a decrease in the very virtue you wish to inculcate (as an example of the latter view how things go when restraints are removed by catastrophe). And if it goes far enough, the centralization will be complete enough for some unscrupulous party to cross that Rubicon someday.

Finally, on the Soviet question I asked, two follow-up questions? First how is your Semitism unique, I think the Orthodox Christians were hit harder than the Jews by the Soviet regime. Second, why be a dissident? Once you leave, what loyalty remains? Why? That loyalty cannot be to the procedural political forms, and much of the rest of the society was wracked by the effects of "the terror". What holds any loyalty beyond that?

David Schraub said...

If "on the backs of" means, while engaging in a revolutionary war and instituting a completely new and perhaps uniquely inspired form of government we also failed to completely restructure the society and economic basis of 1/4+ of the colonies at the same time ... then fine. I just think it's a stretch to claim it's "on the backs of", instead of "a thing which couldn't be done right then" and had to wait some 4 score plus a few years.

Since, under nearly any moral metric, brutal systematic slavery is a greater harm than paying a few extra pence for tea without representation, yes, I think the trade-off was not morally justified. It doesn't meet a utilitarian standard, it certainly doesn't meet a Kantian standard, and if America was that dependent on socially sanctioned Black inferiority at the time, where the hell do we get off giving anything but scorn to these people? Perhaps freeing the slaves would have required another terrible war then. Maybe we couldn't have won independence. Maybe we'd of had to spend some more years under British rule. We chose to do none of those, because we decided our independence from taxation without representation was more important than their independence from our brutal, lethal, inhumane enslavement. Well guess what--that's the definition of a state built on the backs of other people. Say you're willing to make the trade--but don't demean the people who died in chains so you could be free with patronizing pablum like "we couldn't deal with you right now." They would have been well within their rights to revolt, kill their masters and oppressors, and tear down our entire government. Our nation lives on borrowed time through the grace that that never happened--and you want them to thank us on the 4th of July? We should be on our knees with gratitude, and instead folks like me have to fight tooth and nail to preserve what little bit of desegregation policy we have left. It's unreal.

On the other point, moving power away from the federal/state level to the local. First, I have no desire for "revolution". Drastic and overnight upheaval is not at all what I'd advocate. I'll leave admiration for the revolutionary to your Neo-Marxist compadres on the left. I also think the interconnectedness of the modern world, Internet, blogging and all will form a strong counterbalance to the more drastic abuses you seem to fear. Madison vs Jefferson, eh? That's a shift for the the left/right dichotomy.

How are the policies you support going to thus create a healthy respect for pluralism and diversity that I think is a critical virtue severely lacking? All I see are policies which nominally increase fairness and equality at the expense of increased centralization and a decrease in the very virtue you wish to inculcate (as an example of the latter view how things go when restraints are removed by catastrophe). And if it goes far enough, the centralization will be complete enough for some unscrupulous party to cross that Rubicon someday.


I don't know what any of this means. a) I'm not a neo-Marxist. b) I don't support some centralized monolithic mega-state. I support state policies that increase the sphere of human freedom along pluralist boundaries--something that would make any good Marxist blanch. c) For the idea that blogging and interconnectedness will make people more receptive to pluralism, see Cass R. Sunstein's "Republic.com". Nothing more to be said. d) You can't wax lyrical about the revolutionary war for half a comment then claim to oppose revolution. If you don't care about revolution, then that's all the more reason to be willing to delay our revolution so that we could do the right thing and free our slaves. e) I didn't realize I was supporting a revolution--who knew that affirmative action was the equivalent of storming Bastille? f) I don't see where my policies (which I also don't see as "restraints") decreasing virtue anywhere. I see them empirically increasing virtue as measured by many studies documenting the boons children educated in diverse schools get once they leave school. And the catastrophe point is far too vague. Is the reference to Katrina? If so, then that's a textbook example of society (federal, state, local, wherever) cordoning off poor people and literally not caring if they live or die.

And finally, to the Soviet Union, there are at least three reasons why me in-exile could care. One, I might have friends or family that still live there. Two, I might care about the rights of all people--which is why (real me) speaks out about such distant tragedies like the genocide in Darfur and the civil war in the Congo. Third, I might have a cultural or personal attachment to my home--I may want to go home again. And when I do return, I want to live in a country without fear or want or oppression. I have no objection to whatever social or cultural bonds people use to construct their identity. I have a serious objection when those bonds are used to override, not nourish, the moral principles necessary for a dignified human life. (My understanding is that Jews had it worse than Orthodox--primarily because even non-practicing Jews were specifically targeted for severe discrimination and oppression. The USSR couldn't attack everyone who was of Orthodox heritage--it wouldn't have had a state)

Mark said...

David,
On the "on the backs", I'll grant you that you write impassioned purple prose, but your capability to project into the world-view of a culture only 200 years past, not so good. For example, expecting the founders to hold to a "Kantian standard", when Kant did his main works after the Revolution (and how long after that it took to become more mainstream I don't care to guess). You are quick to hand out your scorn, I think, how then will you appreciate the scorn of those generations from now who look at our glaring flaws of which you are blind?

You term southern slavery as "brutal, lethal, inhumane enslavement", now that may be correct, but unlike black slavery anywhere else in the New World, black populations increased dramatically outside of that which is accounted by "import" that is, the slave trade. So, it may have been brutal, lethal and inhumane, but it was also a place were people married, had children, and dramatically increased their number via children. On the scale of "yes it sucks" it sucked a lot less than a lot of other horrible fates, e.g., slavery in the islands, living in the gulags, and the slavery mentioned in the next paragraph.

You've written long and often on race and the slavery of long past, but a quick googling doesn't show any mention of 20th and 21st century slavery in the US. My rough estimate from reported numbers indicates there are about as many if not more slaves in the US today than people seeking same-sex marriage (of which you have written). Can it be said then that you (and others) are campaigning for SSM "on the backs of modern-day slavery and slaves"? If that is not a fair comparison (and I'll allow it isn't) then neither was the revolutionary war won on the backs of the African slave.

David Hackett Fischer in Albion's Seed identifies four major folkways in colonial America. Each had very different notions of liberty (and just about everything else), each had different reasons for going to war. Only one of them had a dependence on slavery. I'd recommend it as an useful period reference if you seek to understand how the colonials actually thought.

I wasn't claiming interconnectedness and blogging will make people more receptive to pluralism. I was thinking it will make hiding any sorts of regional behavior which is outside of the common notion of acceptable behavior harder to accomplish.

Affirmative action isn't storming the Bastille, it's the opposite. That is it is an act of supporting more centralization of responsibility and power. As I recently remarked in my "values values values" post to JA, that like many similar policies serve to increase fairness at the expense of the same individual virtue and increased centralization of authority.

On The USSR couldn't attack everyone who was of Orthodox heritage--it wouldn't have had a state It was a crime (capital in some states -> gulag for others) in the Soviet state to perform baptisms. They did attack anyone who admitted (in any way openly) their Orthodox heritage. (Have you seen or read "The Black Book"?)

"restraints removed" was a reference to Katrina as well as the New York blackouts of a somewhat earlier time. Your view of Katrina is that it was a failure of Federal/State/Local authority. I claim it was mistaken notion of dependence on the same. The local authorities turfed responsibility upward, the State (Governor) didn't act which also thereby blocked any (legal) Federal response for some time.

Mr Sullivan recently noted a NO resident still squatting in a ruined house "waiting for his turn to get a new house". Can you imagine a 18th or 19th century New Englander having had his house destroyed by storm, still sitting in the ruins expecting some "federal assistance" to drop from the sky and fix things up? "Your" (in that you support it and wish for more) centralization has created fiscal and moral dependence which is scary for the future of our country.

David Schraub said...

I'm seriously listening to a reaction to slavery that goes along the line of "it could have been worse"? At least we let them marry? Are you kidding me? You know, I've defended mainstream America from the charge that we tend to be too kind to our slave-owning ancestors--I thought that nobody today would write something along the lines of "slavery wasn't really as bad as you're making it out to be." I have to reassess that now. Read some Fredrick Douglass or David Walker and talk to me about how we really were quite kind to Blacks. Yes, island slavery was worse than most American slavery (which is akin to defending the 5th circle of hell by reference to the 6th--or Auschwitz via Treblinka). We used that fact to enforce our slave system by threatening to sell troublemaking slaves to the islands where they would undoubtedly be killed. And I don't care if island slaveowners used their slaves as human cat-nip, we still managed all on our own to kill, beat, brutalize, and degrade millions of Black people. Americans--using the philosophical and moral resources available at the time, knew (or should have known) that slavery was wrong (people used deontological arguments before Kant--I apologize for the shorthand, but come on). The debate was contemporary. And if they weren't sure, perhaps they could have simply asked the folks they were kidnapping and chaining and gotten what I'm sure would be a very quick and decisive answer. This was willful ignorance on their part, and on yours. And I stand by the fact that Blacks would have been well within their moral, natural rights to overthrow our entire government, kill their masters and traders, and expose our city on a hill for the smoldering ash heap it is. We are living on borrowed time.

Oh, and by the way, we broke up a lot of those marriages. Sold their kids south, too.

Contemporary slavery is a bogus comparison--there is no political goal we are trying to achieve that is coming because we are insufficiently committed to ending continued slavery here. There is no politically powerful constituency supporting slavery now. For one, slavery is illegal here, and that illegality is enforced. For two, I have never seen (as happened in colonial America) allowing slavery used as a bargaining chip to secure other political interests (with the single exception of Tom DeLay and the Marianas Islands--but you know how I feel about DeLay). It's not like I'm trying to suppress anti-modern slavery efforts because I care more about gay marriage. I'm perfectly happy to support both. The founders--some of who supported slavery, some of who opposed it, decided that they were willing to let slavery continue because they thought it wasn't worth alienating their friends and threatening their other interests to stop it.

Now this weird dependence mentality argument. First of all, I don't think anyone can fairly characterize our policy towards the inner-city as too sensitive or interventionist. Our policy is to throw all the young men in prison and try not to notice as the rest die. Second, how one rebuilds a house in colonial new england (assuming that in colonial new england, there would have been this quantity of survivors from a Hurricane Katrina-type event), versus modern urban New Orleans, aren't remotely comparable. It's not like they can step outside, chop down a few trees in the French Quarter and drag them back. Where are the raw materials in the Lower Ninth Ward? And even if they were there, would they be free? Could they afford them? And even if they could get all the materials, how many of them know how to build a house? I don't know how to build a house. Do you know how to build a house? Do most of your friends know how to build a house? This is not a function of dependence, that's a function of capitalism promoting division of labor so that the vast majority of Americans do things other than build houses--and in fact, never build a house in their lives. It is unbelievably ahistorical--I don't even know how to discuss these issues with someone whose response to Katrina is to blame the victims for not having sufficient pioneer spirit.

Oh, and Affirmative Action is nearly invariably carried out in an extremely decentralized fashion--each company, each university, each college decides on its own balance of factors to suit its own needs and situation. The central government has nearly nothing to do with it.

I'm honestly humiliated to even be having this conversation.

Mark said...

David,
I'm curious if in your readings whether you consider the political theories/philosophies of Jouvenel or Solzhenitsyn? And if so, what is said about them. If not, why not I wonder?

They address much the same problems which you perceive in moral/ethical lapses in modern Western society.

David Schraub said...

All I know about Solzhenitsyn is that he was a strong critic of the USSR and thought Marxism is intrinsically prone to violence (I'd agree). Juvenal I only know because "who will guard the guards?" is one of my favorite quotes--I don't know anything about his philosophy.

Mark said...

David,
First, I think your confusing Juvenal (Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis) with Bertrand de Jouvenal, 20th century French political philosopher and theorist.

I never said we were "kind" to the Blacks, I just thought your terminology, "brutal, lethal, inhumane enslavement" was overstated. The Island slavery, the gulag system, and so many other systems and institutions put in place were far far worse. But I'm unclear how to make that distinction given your description of American Southern slavery as such. That doesn't make it "good" as you allege.

I think I understand where your coming from on your "on the backs of" argument, and I think it's still wrong. Your contention is that they chose wrongly and should have done otherwise and by doing so made a tragic and grossly immoral decision and I think in there is a contention that you (or anyone with any moral sense) would also do as you would suggest.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote that the line between good and evil goes through every human heart and that there is evil in the heart of the best of us and good in the heart of the worst. My problem with your contention that the decision was "so clearly wrong" is that I think the line through your (and my) heart is no better than that in the hearts of our founders and those people living in colonial America. You think you (we?) are better at making moral decision than they. I disagree.

Contemporary slavery is a issue which can be compared if you notice that the stage for public outrage is a shouting match between competing issues vying for public attention and reform. Congress and/or public attention focuses on a few issues not many at once. When you are ignore one in order to pursue your other political interests, are you not then doing exactly the same? You seem to think the status quo is just fine. How is that not comparable? The colonial founders chose of the host of evils to confront that their liberty was the most pressing and slavery could be ignored. Likewise you find contemporary slavery ignorable, and countenance not pressing for reform in the favor of other matters you find more pressing. You and so many others are making the important policy compromise of pushing down on the (your) docket. Every bill passed, every issue you write about is "on the back" of those which you don't confront just in the same was as our independence was gotten "on the back" of the Black slave. I chose the example of contemporary slavery because it is relatively rampant (on the order of those affected by SSM) and so extremely vile (see next remark) and so off the radar of most people.

And what if the colonists thought that slavery was a worse evil, but that they had not the political will or ability to confront it and that their colonial status was also an evil that they did have the ability to confront. Given the presence of a greater evil, must we abide all lesser ones until we can meet the greater (and if we choose to handle those lesser evils which we can handle are they then solved on the back of the greater)? For if that is what you mean by "on the back of", I'll concede your point but that the description is right ... but in that case I think doing it "on the back of" was the right thing to do.

(It might also be worth remarking that contemporary slavery is also an instance of brutality,violent, demeaning, and inhumane treatment far worse than that the colonial Black African slave's).

I'm unclear on why you think Affirmative action is decentralized. Employers of companies of any size have reams of regulations regarding who and how they may hire. Those regulations come from central hiring practice standards. U of Michigan decisions in that regard were handled by SCOTUS, isn't that "centralized" control? If' that's not centralized, I'm not clear what the word means.

PG said...

Mark,

I'm unclear on why you think Affirmative action is decentralized. Employers of companies of any size have reams of regulations regarding who and how they may hire. Those regulations come from central hiring practice standards. U of Michigan decisions in that regard were handled by SCOTUS, isn't that "centralized" control? If' that's not centralized, I'm not clear what the word means.

Do you have anything to back up this assertation? All private employers develop their own affirmative action policies (and some don't have one at all). While businesses that seek federal (and some state) contracts are required to meet the federal government's standards, the vast majority of the U.S. economy doesn't operate under those standards. My father is a small business owner who employs dozens of people -- no affirmative action policy. I've worked at two law firms, one of which does not have any real diversity policy and the other does. Neither had its affirmative policy (or lack thereof) given to it by any centralized authority. The constitutionality of the University of Michigan's different AA policies was the only thing the Supreme Court "handled," and they were in question only because UMich is a state school. Thousands of people, including the host of this blog and currently myself, are educated by private schools -- I haven't checked the numbers, but possibly a number equal to the number educated by public schools whose AA policies have to meet a constitutional standard for permissible state action. And even then, SCOTUS only oversees a minimum; states can decide for themselves whether to have AA -- how much more decentralized do you want to get? We have seen California, Washington and Michigan decide not to have any AA; we have seen other states retain it to different degrees. There is no constitutional barrier to ending or modifying AA at the local level either. Where do you get the basis for your assertions to the contrary?

Mark said...

PG
Well, I could be mistaken (and it certainly wouldn't be the first time), but I thought it federal employment statutes which kick in for companies greater than 50 in number at which point the "small business" rules no longer cover you and a whole more aggressive set of regulations set in. At that point, you are required (I'm told) to insure that the race/gender mix of your applicant pool is the same as the racial mix of your potential applicant employee pool. Which in practice means in order to make race/gender not the primary employment criteria you need to have a fully staffed HR dept and develop the paper trail and practices to defend every hire.

However, it those might be state (Illinois in my case) statutes. I'm not in the end of the business in the small company (~20) for which I work which has to deal with such things.