Wherefore is the Decent Right?
Oct. 9th, 2007 12:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsIt helps, if you're trying to make sense of the world, to collect points of view from all across the spectrum. Certainly, I don't think that one needs to dip too much into the "We are all puppets on the ends of Satan's strings" mindset, and we can leave behind the scientologists, Larouchites, and 9/11 Truthers. But one of the things that I've started to notice is that my RSS reader lacks something important. Wisdom is the collection of useful arguments from both sides springing from a shared set of principles: acquiring it means listening to differing points of view.
There was, a year or so ago, all sorts of blather in the punditocrisphere about "The Decent Left," a supposed cross-section of the left wing that could virtuously claim it never supported the war in Iraq yet earnestly wanted to do the right thing by the Iraq people. These are the people who are now earnestly worked up by Burma and yet for the most part will give you a blank stare and a "Who?" if you mention Robert Mugabe.
One thing that currently frustrates me, however, is the lack of a Decent Right. There doesn't seem to be among even the ivory tower set writers who can consistently quote Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill without making my gut twist. David Brooks was on my list for a while, but when he wrote that "government should be limited, prudent, and conservative... " and then justified our war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was none of those things, well... it was just time to pull the plug. For a while, I was enamored of Victor Davis Hanson and Thomas Sowell, but Hanson became a water-carrier for the current administration and Sowell, well, Sowell is so possessed of Ayn Rand that he sometimes seems to have inherited the laser-eyes with which she burned her opponents to a crisp. (I have strong suspicions that the Randians are for the most part correct in their analysis, but their unapologetic use of the guru's confrontational language makes it hard to take them seriously; it's like dating a chick who's hot in bed but whose laugh is so horrifically hyena-like that your friends don't come around anymore.)
Are there any writers of the conservative or classically liberal bent still around, or is anyone normally willing to wear that badge now duck-and-covered against the terrible falling rain of blame?
There was, a year or so ago, all sorts of blather in the punditocrisphere about "The Decent Left," a supposed cross-section of the left wing that could virtuously claim it never supported the war in Iraq yet earnestly wanted to do the right thing by the Iraq people. These are the people who are now earnestly worked up by Burma and yet for the most part will give you a blank stare and a "Who?" if you mention Robert Mugabe.
One thing that currently frustrates me, however, is the lack of a Decent Right. There doesn't seem to be among even the ivory tower set writers who can consistently quote Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill without making my gut twist. David Brooks was on my list for a while, but when he wrote that "government should be limited, prudent, and conservative... " and then justified our war in Iraq on the grounds that Saddam was none of those things, well... it was just time to pull the plug. For a while, I was enamored of Victor Davis Hanson and Thomas Sowell, but Hanson became a water-carrier for the current administration and Sowell, well, Sowell is so possessed of Ayn Rand that he sometimes seems to have inherited the laser-eyes with which she burned her opponents to a crisp. (I have strong suspicions that the Randians are for the most part correct in their analysis, but their unapologetic use of the guru's confrontational language makes it hard to take them seriously; it's like dating a chick who's hot in bed but whose laugh is so horrifically hyena-like that your friends don't come around anymore.)
Are there any writers of the conservative or classically liberal bent still around, or is anyone normally willing to wear that badge now duck-and-covered against the terrible falling rain of blame?
Re: Oh, lots of 'em.
Date: 2007-10-11 03:06 am (UTC)Not only is Paul supported by several such groups, he apparently has no problem with speaking for those groups or writing in their newsletters: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/17/155438/459
(Again, you would be best served by following several of the links in that article.) A man can be judged by the company he chooses to keep; if we judge Ron Paul on that basis, he comes off looking very badly.
I also note that you didn't address one of the main points of the original article I sent you -- specifically the racist comments made by Ron Paul in '92 and again in '96.
You act as if the ideas he espouses, while "strange", have no history or context outside of a purely libertarian setting. This is not the case.
Moreover, I don't think either myself or Dave Neiwert is an advocate of "the unlimited authority of government" -- in fact, I don't know anyone on the left who could be so characterized.
-Malthus
Re: Oh, lots of 'em.
Date: 2007-10-11 06:31 am (UTC)Okay, as for the comments from 1992 and 1996-- which are not news to me, btw-- are you saying those alleged facts are wrong and Paul knew it? Or are you saying he was wrong to pass them along even if he believed they were correct?
Saying that blacks in Washington, D.C. are disproportionately responsible for crime there, well, it's an assertion of fact. If it's the truth, it isn't racist to say it-- although a racist might say it. If it isn't the truth, but someone believes it is, it still isn't racist to say it, it's just wrong.
It would be racist to say it while knowing it's wrong, or with disregard for the truth of it, in order to give a mistaken impression of the true nature of blacks. But I don't believe that's what happened here. Dr. Paul was drawing a connection between the irrational political beliefs and practices of particular minority groups, and the criminal behaviors associated with those groups. That's a legitimate and important approach to political analysis.
It may be entirely wrong. I don't know. I don't have any idea what the crime rate is or was among blacks in Washington, D.C. during the early 1990s vs. any other racial subgroups in the same place and time.
My personal feeling is that every minority group in the world has basically the same range of intellectual and moral potentials, but it's sure as hell true that different minority groups achieve different fractions of their potential. As far as I can tell, these variances are due entirely to cultural differences. Some cultures, in short, are better than others in producing smart, honorable, hard-working people. Dr. Paul may have a different opinion about the influence of genetic factors on these results, but hey, he's a medical doctor; he may have more or better data than I do. That doesn't make him a racist.
Do you really think these narrow and possibly true statements you're obsessed with represent some sneak peek at Ron Paul's true nature? That would imply that he's been hiding his feelings all the other times he's talked about how much he despises racism, all the times he's made speeches to minority audiences, and so on.
I dunno, maybe that is what you think. But look at real racists--Al Sharpton on one side, David Duke et al. on the other-- and tell me any of them could maintain such a charade.
No, I think you and the idiots prosecuting this ineffective propaganda war against Dr. Paul know perfectly well that he isn't a racist. This is just another case of politics making strange bedfellows. I wouldn't call Hillary Clinton a communist just because she panders to and solicits donations from communists; that would be wrong for the same reason. It's all annoying as hell to me, but I blame the game, not the player.
. png