Horizon

I suspect that the connection is correlative, not causitive, and that the real source of happiness is religion. Conservative Republicans tend to be more religious than liberal Democrats. I should add that as an atheist this is not a conclusion I would ideally wish to draw.

If it's not too personal a question, since when are you an atheist?

Thought about it some more: when you say "religion," do you mean a kind of religious faith that involves believing things happen for the best? If so, that would fit with one of the studies Alan was quoting here. But then of course there are other kinds of religious faith. I don't, for example, think Unitarians tend to be especially happy people on the whole. They pay too much attention to who's getting hurt in the world.

If it's not too personal a question, since when are you an atheist?

Is this a question of chronology or a suggestion that I'm not?

I don't, for example, think Unitarians tend to be especially happy people on the whole. They pay too much attention to who's getting hurt in the world.

I expect the above is more wishful thinking than serious empiricism, but as it happens the New Yorker has a piece about happiness this week and it suggests that one of the single most predictive factors for someone's happiness is the amount of voluntary work they do. Whether Unitarians are unusually sluggish in this regard is unknown to me, but if so I'm surprised and disappointed.

They pay too much attention to who's getting hurt in the world.

Your experience of Unitarianism must differ radically from mine. Or you're comparing them with a body that makes "Mensa at prayer" look very good indeed.

one of the single most predictive factors for someone's happiness is the amount of voluntary work they do

Note that "voluntary work" is not the same as "volunteer work." By their (entirely believable) metric, a saturday afternoon spent inletting a buttplate in my garage yields just as much happiness as an afternoon spent doing something valuable to society.

If it's not too personal a question, since when are you an atheist?

Is this a question of chronology or a suggestion that I'm not?

Your choice.

Your experience of Unitarianism must differ radically from mine. Or you're comparing them with a body that makes "Mensa at prayer" look very good indeed.

Huh? Woss "Mensa at prayer"? No, I've just met some Unitarians who either have bad tsuris in their own lives or a strong compulsion to look after others who do.

P.S. Someone I know who was homeless for a long time thinks there should be a study of relative happiness between homeless people vs. housed people. It's her guess that as far as plain level of cheerfulness, there wouldn't be much difference. (Life expectancy, of course, would be another matter.)

Your choice.

Well that's a silly thing to say, isn't it? If you're asking me a straight question, I'll try to answer it. If you're suggesting that I'm not what I say I am, please provide some evidence to the contrary. I can't remember ever making any public statement confirming the existence of a deity, and I can't imagine why I would have done. I concede that I have from time to time exhibited less than contempt and hostility towards the religious; does that mean that I have been letting the side down?

Woss "Mensa at prayer"?

You should attend a Unitarian service sometime. It's actually a lot of fun — the usual assortment of good, bad, and silly, but with their own peculiar version of holier-than-thou. Rather than a monopoly on truth, they've got a monopoly on tolerance.

Sermon was well above average as I remember, though I was unconvinced by the rebuttals.

Broadly speaking, isn't it true that left-liberals used to be more cheerful and optimistic than they are now? And that's not just a product of the times. After all FDR managed to exude optimism at one of the most desperate times in American history. And think of Hubert Humphrey, "the happy warrior," who could be almost obnoxiously cheerful at times, but whose heart was definitely in the left place.

Perhaps the difference is that many lefties have lost faith in the good sense and decency of the American people, and therefore have turned to conspiracy-mongering and dark muttering.

a saturday afternoon spent inletting a buttplate

I don't want to get too personal, Ben, but does this have something to do with guns?

Horizon studiously refuses speculation as to what its members do with their buttplates of a weekend.

Even assuming there's causation going on here, it could equally work the other way. It may not be that liberalism makes you unhappy but rather that unhappiness makes you liberal, or to put it another way that dissatisfaction with your personal life encourages you to find fault with wider (conservative) society.

Alan: I don't want or expect you to become religious, I'm just surprised because I thought you were. Ya learn something new every day, that's all.

And wider society isn't always conservative, y'know. I don't know from buttplates, but I do know pendulums swing.

Thing about conservatism is, it gives believers license to lack interest in the consequences of their actions. To take a couple of extreme cases, Leni Riefenstahl and Strom Thurmond lived long and happy lives with untroubled consciences.

Gene, I don't know what you mean by "dark muttering," but if you have a defense of Hubert Humphrey to offer I'd like to hear it.

Dunno about Strom Thurmond, but didn't Leni Riefenstal's post-War career hinge around African photography as a way of redeeming herself?

I've seen arguments that the African stuff was just a continuation of her previous philosophy, focusing on Stunning Physical Specimens and emphasizing the idea of racial difference. And IIRC she produced more specious self-justification than regret. But rather than sidetrack the conversation I'll withdraw the example.

Thing about conservatism is, it gives believers license to lack interest in the consequences of their actions.

Substitute 'ideology' for 'conservative' there and you might actually be on to something.

I have no idea whether either of them displayed any public penitence but I am wary of trying to make a window into any (wo)man's soul.

Thing about conservatism is, it gives believers license to lack interest in the consequences of their actions.

Substitute 'ideology' for 'conservative' there and you might actually be on to something.

The omelettes and eggs business, you mean, a.k.a. destroying the village in order to save it?

You might have a point there too, but that's more applicable to radical-right "conservatives" who actually want to change everything. What about small-c conservatives who just want to mind their own business and think it's presumptuous to want to change the world and futile to try and make anything fairer? Isn't that an excessively comfortable and happy-making philosophy considering that it justifies taking the path of least resistance in personal and business matters?

Gene, I don't know what you mean by "dark muttering," but if you have a defense of Hubert Humphrey to offer I'd like to hear it.

By "dark muttering," I mean the kind of talk that stereotypes ordinary Americans as mindless sheep being manipulated by rightwing religious leaders, the corporate media, etc., etc., and avoids self-criticism.

As for Humphrey, his tragic flaw was loyalty to LBJ on Vietnam-- although short of resigning, I don't know what else he could have done. If you can put that aside (a tall order, I know), he was one of the great liberal leaders of the last century, someone who really believed in the goodness of ordinary people.

By "dark muttering," I mean the kind of talk that stereotypes ordinary Americans as mindless sheep being manipulated by rightwing religious leaders, the corporate media, etc., etc., and avoids self-criticism.

The "self" in this description being exactly who, and what kind of further self-criticism do you think is in order? Actually, along the lines we've already been discussing, self-criticism is one of these tendencies that a liberal political philosophy encourages while a conservative political philosophy rejects it. If anyone's avoiding self-criticism it's the extroverts of the political right.

The "self" in this description being exactly who, and what kind of further self-criticism do you think is in order?

In general I mean liberals who blame everyone but themselves for their political failures. More specifically, I mean the professional/academic liberals who fail to see their remoteness from the vast majority of people as a problem.

What kind of remoteness? Does this have something to do with bowling? I dunno: given the pauperization of educated work, we've got nothing to lose but our aitches.

I suppose it does have something to do with bowling.

You read George Packer's "Blood of the Liberals," I believe. He much more eloquently made the case I'm trying to make. Did you think he had a point?

Maybe I should read it again, but what in particular?

You might have a point there too, but that's more applicable to radical-right "conservatives" who actually want to change everything. What about small-c conservatives who just want to mind their own business and think it's presumptuous to want to change the world and futile to try and make anything fairer?

If you tot up the death count of the last hundred years I think it's fair to say that the folks who have wanted to the change the world and have been convinced that they knew the way to do it have been a good deal more dangerous to people's health than the folks who haven't. If it's a choice between the two failings I know which one I prefer.

Self-criticism is one of these tendencies that a liberal political philosophy encourages.

You might want to point that out over at Echidne's site.

Maybe I should read it again, but what in particular?

I can't find my copy at the moment, and for some reason your website won't let me post links from google, but if you do a search in the abg-o archives for "Packer" and "Coulter," you'll find a post by me from May 18, 2003, in which I quote relevant passages.

Self-criticism is one of these tendencies that a liberal political philosophy encourages.

If you tot up the death count of the last hundred years I think it's fair to say that the folks who have wanted to the change the world and have been convinced that they knew the way to do it have been a good deal more dangerous to people's health than the folks who haven't...

Brian Balogh, my favorite history professor in college, said something similar once, and then he told me to read the Caro biography of Robert Moses. Prof. Balogh used to work in New York City municipal government, including running welfare programs, so he knew whereof he spoke. So, yeah, you've got a point.

But nevertheless, what about the member of a country club who has a choice whether to make a fuss about discriminatory membership rules or not? You'd agree it's at least morally suspect to do nothing?

You might want to point that out over at Echidne's site.

Echidne's a radical in her own way. Where I see the excessive self-criticism is in stuff like the Democratic Party leadership line of reasoning that goes, "The Republican Party has been successful in elections; therefore they are better in touch with the people; therefore we should adopt the policies of Republicans." Then again I'm not sure people like the DLC *have* a liberal political philosophy -- they've really given up having one due to an excess of self-criticism -- so maybe it's a bad example.

But nevertheless, what about the member of a country club who has a choice whether to make a fuss about discriminatory membership rules or not? You'd agree it's at least morally suspect to do nothing?

It doesn't take a Conservative to be conservative. Any established orthodoxy seems to instinctively fight to preserve itself against the incursions of The Other. Change 'country club' to 'lit department' in the above and you've got a parallel situation.

Echidne's a radical in her own way.

Sure, just not the kind of way that allows for a lot of self-doubt.

For some reason your website won't let me post links from google

Sorry; fixed.

Sorry; fixed.

Thanks. Here's the link to the post with passages from Packer's book.

Gene, still rereading yr link.

Alan, wrt Echidne, that's exactly it: she's essentially a radical; her level of confidence isn't characteristic of American liberalism.

Gene -- that George Packer segment, yes, I read it and more or less agreed with it at the time, but now I wonder if treating lower-middle-class white people of Archie Bunker opinions as "the real Americans" isn't as restrictive for present-day liberals as it was for union romanticists to treat white male heavy-industry factory workers as "the real workers." As though everyone else were less real. We all have the vote now, is the thing. Whether we bowl or not.

...More to the point, we don't all have the vote. The immigrants who do the worst of the real work in the U.S. do count as "real Americans" economically and socially, but they don't have the vote.

I wander off for a few hours to cook a pot of gumbo, and this post gets thirty more comments? Don't you folks have something else to do on a sunday afternoon?

Ben, but does this have something to do with guns?

Yes. I've been trying to build one of these for the last two years, and have spent almost a year inletting the buttplate. Woodworking probably would go faster if I weren't deducing it from first principles.

It may not be that liberalism makes you unhappy but rather that unhappiness makes you liberal

I realize that anyone introduced to his work through his lamentable NYT op-ed columns would never intentionally seek out David Brooks, but I wonder if you've read his On Paradise Drive? It's got a fantastic blonde/brunette analogy about politics -- and no, Martha, it's not what you think.

And IIRC she produced more specious self-justification than regret

That's fair. I understood her attempts at redemption were never entirely directed at her own self-image, but at least partly and perhaps mostly at the eyes of an industry that ostracized her.

If anyone's avoiding self-criticism it's the extroverts of the political right.

I take it you disagree with the notion that the current intellectual vitality of the right comes from a few decades of vigorous internal debate that the left has not seen for structural reasons? (If this doesn't ring a bell, I'll try to dig up an article or two).

The immigrants who do the worst of the real work in the U.S. do count as "real Americans" economically and socially, but they don't have the vote.

Martha, are you going somewhere else with this, or are you seriously arguing that non-citizens should have the vote?

I wonder if treating lower-middle-class white people of Archie Bunker opinions as "the real Americans" isn't as restrictive for present-day liberals

But aren't those the very people the Democratic party lost, and presumably would need to win back in order to achieve any sort of electoral success? Lord knows they've been trying hard enough to win without those votes any way they can, but it doesn't seem to have worked very well.

Discussions like this often remind me of the ugly "heard/understood/rejected" triumphalist spam crossposted across liberal websites after the last few electoral losses.

I wander off for a few hours to cook a pot of gumbo, and this post gets thirty more comments?

And then Ben unloads his opinions of them all consecutively?

Don't you folks have something else to do on a sunday afternoon?

Was wondering about this too. Here, the weather was terrible, but how come the whole crew is chattering away today? What's everyone else's excuse?

It may not be that liberalism makes you unhappy but rather that unhappiness makes you liberal

Or it may be that giving a slap what happens to your neighbors in the current unmerciful economy makes you both.

I realize that anyone introduced to his work through his lamentable NYT op-ed columns would never intentionally seek out David Brooks, but I wonder if you've read his On Paradise Drive? It's got a fantastic blonde/brunette analogy about politics -- and no, Martha, it's not what you think.

Want to explain what it is, then? I can't tell from the Amazon reviews you linked.

-If anyone's avoiding self-criticism it's the extroverts of the political right.

I take it you disagree with the notion that the current intellectual vitality of the right comes from a few decades of vigorous internal debate that the left has not seen for structural reasons? (If this doesn't ring a bell, I'll try to dig up an article or two).

I guess they had the decorum to do it in private then.

-The immigrants who do the worst of the real work in the U.S. do count as "real Americans" economically and socially, but they don't have the vote.

Martha, are you going somewhere else with this, or are you seriously arguing that non-citizens should have the vote?

I'm arguing that it's more difficult for Democrats to win elections as the party of labor now that so much of the labor is being done by non-voters.

- I wonder if treating lower-middle-class white people of Archie Bunker opinions as "the real Americans" isn't as restrictive for present-day liberals

But aren't those the very people the Democratic party lost, and presumably would need to win back in order to achieve any sort of electoral success? Lord knows they've been trying hard enough to win without those votes any way they can, but it doesn't seem to have worked very well.

Well, they're the very people the Democratic Leadership Committee told party leaders they should want to win over. I don't see the point. I don't see why they should want Archie Bunker's approval at all, let along cravenly beg for it to the exclusion of the entire liberal wing of the party. There's a strong argument to be made that the Democratic Party would do a great deal better by concentrating on giving poorer, more marginalized non-voters better reasons to register and vote. Which is something they can only do by loosening their unrequited infatuation with Archie Bunker.

Discussions like this often remind me of the ugly "heard/understood/rejected" triumphalist spam crossposted across liberal websites after the last few electoral losses.

Dunno about those. Explain?

P.S. The phrase "intellectual vitality of the right" slipped by me. Say what? Political success, yes. Successful political propagandists, yes. But intellectuals? Who, then?

I'm arguing that it's more difficult for Democrats to win elections as the party of labor now that so much of the labor is being done by non-voters.

I think that's a gross exaggeration. I can't be bothered to go over to the shelf to dig out the stats to prove it, but since I'm going to be dissed about it in Other Places I might as well pompously add that I did write a book about the subject after all. Whatever ails the Democrats, immigrants aren't the issue.

Or it may be that giving a slap what happens to your neighbors in the current unmerciful economy makes you both.

Martha, do you think that being happy is something people ought to be slightly ashamed of? That seems to be a recurring theme throughout all your comments in this thread, albeit never exactly spelled out.

In a country in which no politician can ever be elected for long without exuding a sense of optimism even in the darkest of times, I think this idea, that unhappiness is a virtue and its absence an embarrassment, is a guaranteed loser.

I think this idea, that unhappiness is a virtue and its absence an embarrassment, is a guaranteed loser.

Outside Alan's utilitarian argument, I'd also argue that it's morally wrong. It is possible to be happy while helping ones neighbor, and while moping may make a person feel self-righteous, it rarely fixes anything.

I can't find it on Google but isn't there a song called, "The Truly Happy Never Seem Quite Well"?

giving a slap what happens to your neighbors in the current unmerciful economy

Oh come on, now. Anybody can pull off a taunt by assuming perfidy not in evidence. For example, it's possible that liberals are unhappier than conservatives because they're frustrated by people questioning the virtue of forcing other people to pay for their pet projects. Impertinent, isn't it, to question whether something is actually a problem, and then to wonder aloud whether the liberal solution will actually solve the problem! I'd be unhappy too.

Why don't we both agree to keep this thread from degenerating into "have you stopped beating your wife" insults.

That's what puzzles me. I'm sure you and many folks far to your right do care about your neighbors as well as your families, take hot dishes to the bereaved, give alms to the poor, teach a man to fish whenever possible, and act on a sense of civic duty for helping to maintain the well-being of society -- and yet when it comes to abstract conservative ideology there's this notion that people do not have to bear responsibility for their fellow beings unless they feel like it. It confuses me that kind, caring people can profess such callous abstract beliefs.

P.S. Isn't it bizarre that we can agree what is decent face-to-face human behavior but disagree so strongly about the proper approach to strangers?

When it comes to abstract conservative ideology there's this notion that people do not have to bear responsibility for their fellow beings unless they feel like it. It confuses me that kind, caring people can profess such callous abstract beliefs.

I imagine there are about as many conservatives who believe that the only responsibility they bear to their fellow beings is voluntary as there are liberals who believe that every social relationship should be government-mandated; i.e. not many. But I suppose one answer to your question would be that conservatives would regard a lot of the in loco parentis parenting of the state that we've seen over the past half-century as pretty callous in practice - the way that (for example) the culture of welfare has eaten away at many of the attitudes and relationships that traditionally hold communities together.

I agree that welfare eligibility workers can be some of the nastiest power-trippers this side of Abu Ghraib, but wouldn't the answer be more education and more vacations for welfare workers, not abolishing the system? And wot's this "culture of welfare"? I don't suppose you mean the nastiness of eligibility workers when you say that, do you?

On a more optimistic tack, do you suppose liberals and conservatives could ever be persuaded to unite in supporting microenterprise loans for street vendors, and in persuading U.S. cities to lift their near-complete bans on selling products without paying rent?

And wot's this "culture of welfare"?

If you genuinely don't know what I mean I find that a little gobsmacking, but nevermind. If a tutorial is needed then Ben linked to a piece about this very subject a week or two back.

I'll have to get back to Martha's larger question tomorrow, but let me echo Genovese in both his Marxist and theoconservative aspects in pointing out that capitalism also dissolves "the attitudes and relationships that traditionally hold communities together."

I'll have to get back to Martha's larger question tomorrow, but let me echo Genovese in both his Marxist and theoconservative aspects in pointing out that capitalism also dissolves "the attitudes and relationships that traditionally hold communities together."

Oh, no question. I have made the point before that the contradiction between social and market-driven conservatisms is profound, as much I think as the parallel contradiction between liberal individualism and the desire for social justice on the left.

Of course I know what you mean, I just wish I didn't. You mean the argument that people who receive benefits from the state tend to behave in resentful, ungrateful ways toward the benefit program and meanwhile fail to seek private employment with sufficient energy.

The trouble is lack of control by the people being served. The trouble specifically here is that the War on Poverty officials never believed what they said about Maximum Feasible Participation. They just wanted to buy off potential local troublemakers with government jobs; they didn't really want local control. If there was real local control I suppose there'd be some rules stricter than I tend to like but we could also hope there'd be a sense of neighbors helping neighbors, and people feeling able to accept help with less loss of pride because they'd be prepared to do the same for someone else in turn.

Tell me I'm dreaming if you like, but there has to be something in the fact that the top complaint welfare recipients make about workers is, "They act like the money was theirs!" It's the sense of the government being "them," not "us," that creates the problem.

If the above is an admission, however slight and strangled, that the welfare state hasn't really worked out in the way that its visionaries first hoped, not just because enough money hasn't been thrown at it or because of the depredations of The Man, but because it has had deleterious social and cultural consequences that weren't originally expected, then I'm impressed. Though I'm sure you're ready to ruin the moment any time now.

We haven't had one of these arguments in a while so you may have forgotten that I've always criticized the institutional welfare state from the left. I've seen too much of mean welfare workers and of the genuine need for public benefits to do otherwise. The "welfare state" is not particularly an egalitarian phenomenon. Wasn't it invented by Bismarck, and doesn't it still run on the Victorian Less Eligibility Principle? The question is always how to turn a system designed to maintain powerless people on the grim edge of subsistence into something that looks more like the right of a citizen to live decently.

As an admirer in many ways of the Attlee 1945 government and its aspiration to create an active social democracy I do not regard myself as a straightforward welfare-basher either. But I cannot close my eyes to the fact that in the last sixty years the system they created has not worked out in the way they originally intended, and some of those flaws were inherent rather than historically contingent.

Attlee? The trouble in your country and mine is that the essential character of our welfare systems formed under Elizabeth I and Victoria. Attlee, whatever his own faults, hardly had a clean slate to work on.

If you mean that he wasn't able (and wouldn't have particularly wanted) to rewrite the history of the country and its people from scratch, then of course it wasn't a 'clean slate'. But to regard that as in some sense a problem is ridiculous; it suggests an alternative path that simply isn't possible. Like most important reforms the postwar settlement inherited some legacies from the past but also created much that was genuinely new.

Who said it's a problem? I'm just stating the unremarkable fact that when you talk about the founders of the English welfare state, Clement Attlee was hardly its only founder and he doesn't bear responsibility for all of its flaws.

Who said it's a problem?

"The trouble in your country and mine is that ..."

If 'trouble' was being used here in some non-standard way unknown to me then I of course withdraw my comment.

Thank you, however, for pointing out to me that Clement Attlee wasn't solely responsible for every single feature of the British welfare state.

Huh?

I fear you may have begun to accept the post-Clinton U.S. illusion that anyone who expresses opinions to the left of the status quo is therefore an apologist for *every* centrist, liberal or left-wing program, from Clinton "Welfare Reform" neoliberalism, to LBJ "War on Poverty" paternalism, to the various more egalitarian practical proposals that have been made almost entirely outside the gates, and so on leftward to the stylized radical programs of the New and the Old Left. That's one hell of a burden, mister. I never said I liked the U.S. welfare state. I don't. I merely argue that public benefits ought to be administered humanely and democratically, as they really never have been, in the U.S. anyway -- and that nobody either of us knows would fare well in the hellishness that would result if such benefits were abolished. I mean, if a fire department is fighting fires badly, do you abolish the fire department?

The leftists around here often seem to suffer from the sell-out mentality which famously afflicts would-be rockstars. I have come to the conclusion that I am not personally responsible for the circumstances of others though I believe at the same time that alleviating poverty, unfairness etc. effectively will certainly benefit almost everyone who does not live on their own hillside.

It is not necessary, or desirable, for social change to be driven by a kind of bad-faith personal guilt, but there does seem to be a tendency to appeal to just this on the part of some far left groups and I wonder sometimes if this is not spreading. (I am thinking particularly of the odious ISO which I've been seeing a lot on campus lately.)

If the mainstream left allows itself to be associated with strident puritan scolding a la the ISO and other fringe groups, it will have a hard time attracting people who are not already prone to self-flagellation.

I have come to the conclusion that I am not personally responsible for the circumstances of others though I believe at the same time that alleviating poverty, unfairness etc. effectively will certainly benefit almost everyone who does not live on their own hillside.

Sorry, can you explain, is this your own opinion or are you attributing it to one of the several Thems in your post?

If the mainstream left allows itself to be associated with strident puritan scolding a la the ISO and other fringe groups, it will have a hard time attracting people who are not already prone to self-flagellation.

- You wouldn't be doing a bit of scolding yourself, would you?

- How exactly do you define "the mainstream left"?

- Isn't it a little strange how furiously so many Americans are now working to make people ashamed of feeling or advocating responsibility for their fellow citizens?

- Why should people you disdain so completely take your advice?

Sorry, can you explain, is this your own opinion or are you attributing it to one of the several Thems in your post?

That's me.

- You wouldn't be doing a bit of scolding yourself, would you?

If you disagree with my statement, which I assume is the point of this remark, why not be more explicit?

- How exactly do you define "the mainstream left"?

Well this is nearly asking the impossible. You know perfectly well that there is no dictionary-style definition for something like that. Unless you have one of your own? Or is it that you believe the ISO is in fact mainstream?

- Isn't it a little strange how furiously so many Americans are now working to make people ashamed of feeling or advocating responsibility for their fellow citizens?

That's a funny way of putting it. If anything, people are reacting to being made to feel ashamed of their own privilege, which is entirely differnt and which some people (seem to) misguidedly believe will lead to a better society. If anything, it tends to produce the opposite effect in the long run, when someone finally tires of it and turns sharply conservative. Well, I've seen this happen to several people.

Note that I am contrasting personal with social responsibility, or trying to.

- Why should people you disdain so completely take your advice?

By "people" I take it you mean "one of the several Thems" in my post? The ISO will certainly never take any advice from me and I'd be worried if that ever changed. As for the rest I don't disdain them so there's no problem there.

Sorry, can you explain, is this your own opinion or are you attributing it to one of the several Thems in your post?

That's me.

So you don't feel you owe your society anything? I can't believe you are genuinely irresponsible. You are a better person than that.

- How exactly do you define "the mainstream left"?

Well this is nearly asking the impossible. You know perfectly well that there is no dictionary-style definition for something like that. Unless you have one of your own? Or is it that you believe the ISO is in fact mainstream?

Obviously you're distinguishing between whatever the "ISO" is and whatever you consider "the mainstream left" to be. I asked because it's currently popular to confuse mainstream non-ideological liberalism with "the left" and I wondered which you meant.

- Isn't it a little strange how furiously so many Americans are now working to make people ashamed of feeling or advocating responsibility for their fellow citizens?

That's a funny way of putting it.

Why?

If anything, people are reacting to being made to feel ashamed of their own privilege,

Who's "people" here?

which is entirely differ[e]nt and which some people (seem to) misguidedly believe will lead to a better society. If anything, it tends to produce the opposite effect in the long run, when someone finally tires of it and turns sharply conservative. Well, I've seen this happen to several people.

I don't think you genuinely believe that unreflective satisfaction with one's lot is the best social medicine. On another thread you've just delivered a knowledgable description of things urban poor people desperately need (other than organic food). You don't feel at all badly that you have such things and others don't? If you do catch yourself feeling badly about such inequality do you stifle the thought and remind yourself that you are living in the best of all possible worlds? I would guess not. I think that despite all your protestations to the contrary you are in fact (shameful thought!) in possession of a conscience.

Note that I am contrasting personal with social responsibility, or trying to.

What's the difference in your mind?

- Why should people you disdain so completely take your advice?

By "people" I take it you mean "one of the several Thems" in my post?

Well, you seemed to be advising whatever you meant by "the mainstream left."

The ISO will certainly never take any advice from me and I'd be worried if that ever changed. As for the rest I don't disdain them so there's no problem there.

Generally when people use a phrase like "strident puritan scolding" against a group, they want to denigrate its moral values and probably its manhood too.

You don't feel at all badly that you have such things and others don't? If you do catch yourself feeling badly about such inequality do you stifle the thought and remind yourself that you are living in the best of all possible worlds?

Alan is contrasting the emotional aesceticism you here bizarrely describe as "a conscience" with things that actually might improve the lot of others. The organic foods thread is a perfect example of this: despite your fancy footwork, I think you now admit that poor people now have more access to organics than they did before rich folks developed a taste for them. Nevertheless, you see the situation as worse than before — when nobody had access to organics — because the market that now exists doesn't conform to your aesthetics!

This is an excellent example of a sense of political aesthetics that is both counterproductive to the stated aim (again, options exist that didn't at all before), and deeply, deeply unattractive. If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao...

Well, they're the very people the Democratic Leadership Committee told party leaders they should want to win over.

Because they are precisely the element of the coalition that held the Democrats in power for fifty decades that has been lost to the Republicans.

I don't see the point. I don't see why they should want Archie Bunker's approval at all, let along cravenly beg for it to the exclusion of the entire liberal wing of the party.

If you're going to characterize rust-belt union members and suburban moms who are worried about terrorism as "Archie Bunker", you don't deserve their votes. Remember that you don't have to get the vote of a Limbaugh dittohead, and that nobody's asking you to. You just have to convince the middle. It's not impossible — Clinton did it without promising to appoint David Duke to the Supreme Court or anything.

There's a strong argument to be made that the Democratic Party would do a great deal better by concentrating on giving poorer, more marginalized non-voters better reasons to register and vote.

You're right. It is a strong argument. The argument has, in fact, been made for the last several elections. And it's been followed, and the Democrats have lost majorities consistently since then. Can you argue that Democratic GOTV efforts were weaker in the last couple of elections than they had been in elections Democrats won?

It is, however, a convenient way to avoid rethinking political positions: build yourself a fantasy world in which the vast majority approve of you, and ignore that unpleasant rejection by those who actually show up to vote. They're probably all Archie Bunkers anyway.

Discussions like this often remind me of the ugly "heard/understood/rejected" triumphalist spam crossposted across liberal websites after the last few electoral losses.

Dunno about those. Explain?

This was a phrase that would show up in comments boxes on sites that were doing post-defeat analysis. Typically it went (modulo insulting misspelling) "The Democrats' message was HEARD. The Democrats' message was UNDERSTOOD. The Democrats' message was REJECTED."

Like all triumphalist crowing, this was an invitation for one's polical opponents to jump off a cliff. But I think that there is actually some truth to the statement, if you qualify the last sentence with the phrase "but only barely". It seems like all the discussion about campaign blunders, the Dean Scream, "framing", and even vote irregularities were a way of avoiding the question of why swing voters trusted the Republicans more than the Democrats on the issues they voted on. Why does middle America think — arguably against the evidence — that Republicans are more credible on national defence? Why does middle American place more importance on the issue of national defence than on healthcare, corporate corruption, or the environment? How can Democrats win on the issues swing voters care about, rather than changing the subject?

Incidentally, wasn't Archie Bunker depicted as a deeply flawed but ultimately sympathetic character in the TV series, someone whose proximate opinions were often risible but who deserved understanding more than contempt?

Fair enough. I'll take back my offense.

Alan is contrasting the emotional aesceticism you here bizarrely describe as "a conscience" with things that actually might improve the lot of others.

Nothing bizarre about suggesting that regretting the fact of inequality tends to precede doing something about it. So your ideal civic participant doesn't feel badly about inequality, but simply does things to reduce it for no discernible reason?

The organic foods thread is a perfect example of this: despite your fancy footwork, I think you now admit that poor people now have more access to organics than they did before rich folks developed a taste for them. Nevertheless, you see the situation as worse than before — when nobody had access to organics — because the market that now exists doesn't conform to your aesthetics!

Talk about fancy footwork: you point out that I've "admitted" something I never denied, and you say, aha, M has lost the argument. Good grief, of course there's more access to organic foods now, it's just that the asymmetry of that access is still unfair.

This is an excellent example of a sense of political aesthetics that is both counterproductive to the stated aim (again, options exist that didn't at all before), and deeply, deeply unattractive. If you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao...

Y'all wouldn't have so much fun calling me a Maoist if you didn't already know I would take it as an insult.

Well, they're the very people the Democratic Leadership Committee told party leaders they should want to win over.

Yes, and they were wrong.

Because they are precisely the element of the coalition that held the Democrats in power for fifty decades that has been lost to the Republicans.

Times change. Among other things, the families in the constituency you're talking about are getting farther and farther from immigrant days. Time was when people like Chicago union members with Slavic names were recently enough connected to immigration that they appreciated the wrongness of discrimination and having to do the unpleasant jobs. Now at least a portion of their descendants are privileged, and feel entitled to make nasty comments about Asians and Mexicans.

If you're going to characterize rust-belt union members and suburban moms who are worried about terrorism as "Archie Bunker", you don't deserve their votes.

I don't want their votes personally. Remember, of course, I do not personify the Democratic Party. I'm not even always a member of it.

Remember that you don't have to get the vote of a Limbaugh dittohead

But a certain percentage of those lower-middle-class frustrated underemployed majority-group males are Limbaugh dittoheads, and anyway didn't they put you through The Case Of Germany In the Thirties in school? Didn't they explain that lower-middle-class frustrated underemployed majority-group males are precisely the most fruitful recruiting ground for a right-wing movement?

and that nobody's asking you to. You just have to convince the middle.

The middle is farther to the left than you think it is. The people you're recommending the Democratic Party should chase are on the right. And the institutional Democratic Party has made zero effort to retain its liberal wing. Backing the Democratic Party in the hope that it will do something energetically helpful for poor people, or schools, or the arts, or anything else other than police, prisons, and corporate subsidies, has felt all my life like a case of Charlie Brown and the football.

It's not impossible — Clinton did it without promising to appoint David Duke to the Supreme Court or anything.

He only cut hundreds of thousands of people off of public benefits and fed the U.S. security obsession that has now gotten out of control. Those people who lost benefits suffered genuinely, regardless of the Welfare-To-Work model-prisoner types who the program managers showed off to the newspapers.

-There's a strong argument to be made that the Democratic Party would do a great deal better by concentrating on giving poorer, more marginalized non-voters better reasons to register and vote.

You're right. It is a strong argument. The argument has, in fact, been made for the last several elections. And it's been followed,

No it hasn't.

and the Democrats have lost majorities consistently since then. Can you argue that Democratic GOTV efforts were weaker in the last couple of elections than they had been in elections Democrats won?

GOTV means rallying the faithful -- the people who are already registered and likely voters. The organizing is what was weak.

It is, however, a convenient way to avoid rethinking political positions: build yourself a fantasy world in which the vast majority approve of you, and ignore that unpleasant rejection by those who actually show up to vote. They're probably all Archie Bunkers anyway.

Look at the national polls about things like the popularity of Mr. Bush and whether the war was a good idea. Look at the outrage of voters in Florida and Ohio who were in effect denied the franchise. It's no fantasy. The majority of the American people do not support the party in power.

...This was a phrase that would show up in comments boxes on sites that were doing post-defeat analysis. Typically it went (modulo insulting misspelling) "The Democrats' message was HEARD. The Democrats' message was UNDERSTOOD. The Democrats' message was REJECTED."

Like all triumphalist crowing, this was an invitation for one's polical opponents to jump off a cliff. But I think that there is actually some truth to the statement, if you qualify the last sentence with the phrase "but only barely".

But I'm still hearing some triumphalist crowing... ;-p

It seems like all the discussion about campaign blunders, the Dean Scream, "framing", and even vote irregularities were a way of avoiding the question of why swing voters trusted the Republicans more than the Democrats on the issues they voted on.

Again, right/center swing voters are not the only interesting people in America. In a number of the postmortem discussions I read, people were asking why the political analysts and consultants kept behaving as though only European-descended right/centrist voters were "real" voters, as though for example black voters didn't count. Actually the institutional Republicans are smarter than this: they're doing a lot to appeal to new citizens who are religious Latino Catholics.

Why does middle America think — arguably against the evidence — that Republicans are more credible on national defence? Why does middle American place more importance on the issue of national defence than on healthcare, corporate corruption, or the environment?

"Middle America" isn't where you think it is. You're talking about the people who used to be in the middle but have drifted towards the right.

How can Democrats win on the issues swing voters care about, rather than changing the subject?

By not chasing the voters their opponents tell them they should want to chase. By standing for fairness in a way that inspires previously apathetic citizens to participate.

Incidentally, wasn't Archie Bunker depicted as a deeply flawed but ultimately sympathetic character in the TV series, someone whose proximate opinions were often risible but who deserved understanding more than contempt?

So I hear, but Ben and I are both using him to symbolize a certain kind of political personality that can have a pretty unpleasant edge. Hell, Limbaugh probably deserves understanding more than contempt too.

So I hear, but Ben and I are both using him to symbolize a certain kind of political personality that can have a pretty unpleasant edge.

Quite, but I think your contempt for him is deeply revealing.

Look at the national polls about things like the popularity of Mr. Bush and whether the war was a good idea. Look at the outrage of voters in Florida and Ohio who were in effect denied the franchise. It's no fantasy. The majority of the American people do not support the party in power.

This too is an interesting comment, though again not I think in the way it was intended. Mr. Bush has never been as you correctly point out a particularly popular President, and it's true that the country has never been less than ambivalent about the war in Iraq. Yet Bush won in 2004, and more comfortably than anyone expected - certainly much more comfortably than any 'outrage' over supposed vote-rigging can explain, which as far as I can see was never considered a particularly big deal amongst non-activists even at the time and has now completely faded as an issue. Why does Bush keep winning? Because he cheats? No-one's going to buy that. Because America is full of Archie Bunkers? But Archie Bunker voted Democrat once. Your only answer as to why he doesn't any more is that he's become a wicked selfish man who's forgotten his roots. I doubt he would see it that way.

The expression is "Archie Bunker voted Democratic once." And for that matter I'm sure he did. So did Strom Thurmond. Things change. The Democratic Party is now, among other things, and for all its faults, the party of antiracism. Archie and Strom both had a problem with that. And people who've forgotten their underdog roots never realize that they have.

But I don't know why a fair-minded debater like yourself has trouble stating the name of the Democratic Party correctly. That is its name: "the Democratic Party," not "Democrat". Saying "Democrat Party" is insulting, very close to the unattractive habit some people have of saying "Repuglican."

If you're going to defend Archie Bunker, Alan, perhaps instead of discussing him as a constituency to be appealed to, you could defend his ethics and prejudices on their merits? If you're not inclined to, I won't be surprised. He's our Colonel Blimp.

Saying "Democrat Party" is insulting

If you say so. I have never particularly noticed, I can't really see why, and I think if you asked most people they would be mystified by this apparent insult. But I will try to keep your sensibilities in mind. I think it's more to the point than the Democratic Party is, amongst other things, the party of the perpetual minority. I don't think that's a good thing.

He's our Colonel Blimp.

Interestingly, Powell and Pressburger managed in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp to give a remarkably sensitive and, yes, sympathetic portrayal of Blimp without at the same time having much patience for the consequences of his failings.

As far as Archie Bunker goes, the question is framed in such a hostile way that I'm not sure that it's really meant in good faith. But what they hey. Perhaps, as a starter, Archie doesn't think that some of his prejudices are prejudices, at least in the way that you mean them?

I admit I never really watched much of "All in the Family." Mr. Bunker, to me, is just shorthand for the narrow-minded side of the stratum my parents left behind in Rust Belt Pennsylvania. Is there anything you can recommend that would introduce Mr. Bunker more fully, if only to avoid further misunderstandings on this epic thread?

Wrt "Democrat Party," the insult is in the implication that the party is not small-d democratic. Which it isn't, as a matter of fact, but it's perhaps more so than the Republicans. At least it isn't genuinely run by its central committee.

Actually, a much better, because more contemporary, version of Archie can be found in Hank Hill of _King of the Hill_. The comparison between the two is not quite exact, partly a reflection of the three decades that divide them, but there's a thread of continuity. Why not ask how you would persuade Hank, a lifelong Republican and a good man, to vote your way?

As we've been reminded with gusto recently offense is always there to be taken, regardless whether it's meant to be given. If you find 'Democrat' insulting then there's nothing I can do about that and I'll try to keep it in mind, but I honestly think that if you asked nine out of ten people they wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about.

Why not ask how you would persuade Hank, a lifelong Republican and a good man, to vote your way?

I'm not sure if I'd bother, Alan. Martha's been reading up on her Weimar history, and has seen how much good working with the center to defeat the far right did for the KPD.

I'd rather have Hank Hill's respect than Archie Bunker's. Hank Hill is at least not precisely a racist, he stands up for his fat nerdy son, he gets along fine with his son's Asian girlfriend, he has a sense of fairness, he believes good salesmanship requires telling the truth, he takes Dale Gribble's paranoias with a mountain of salt, and he's happily married to a PBS-watching Democrat. He probably wouldn't enjoy letting Limbaugh work him into a froth because he's too secure in his own identity and career to need a Them to blame for his problems. If he were the prototype of an American center-right swing voter, the country would be in much better shape than it is.

Hank Hill is at least not precisely a racist

Woah, reaching out to the heartland there!

I'm not sure if being 'not precisely a racist' means that you're sufficiently a human being to qualify as worth chasing for endorsement, but I would still be interested to hear Martha answer the question of how you would persuade Hank to vote Democrat. Ic.

He's happily married to a PBS-watching Democrat.

Careful. Judging by Peggy's attitude whenever Bobby's wobbly sexuality comes to the fore, I wouldn't say she was precisely a Decent Person by SF standards.

You think too well of San Francisco. Lots of homophobes right here in town.

About winning over Hank Hill: do you remember the episode in which a new gas grill salesman sets sales records by lying to customers, saying "Yeah, it'll do that" without knowing? Remember Hank's disgust both with the dishonesty per se and with the implied contempt for the customer? Remember how the moral of the story sets in as the whiz kid's customers all return their purchases before the end of the month? There you are. You note that the current administration's salesmanship does not particularly involve telling the truth, that its notion of "preparedness" has been indefensible since Aug. 29, and that the Democratic Party has been at least marginally more honest with the voters and more respectful of our intelligence.

I think if the best you can say about the Democratic Party is that it's marginally less dishonest than any alternative then you're not going to swing a lot of voters.

I can't imagine Hank thinking much of affirmative action, and I can't imagine him being too impressed by the implication that he's a quasi-racist for thinkig so.

You might be surprised. Hank isn't a representative sample of even his general demographic. He's a former high school football star, the leader of his group of friends, and confident enough to perhaps feel he can afford to give up a little for people who have had a hard time.

I daresay Hank would also spot when he's being insulted. "Not precisely a racist" indeed.

Rubbish, and a complete cop-out. Hank would say that a person ought to be judged on his character alone, his ability to do a good honest day's work, not what a racial quota says. If you have no response to him on that then don't try to dodge the issue by pretending it doesn't exist.

But I'm still hearing some triumphalist crowing... ;-p

While it's tempting to become an anti-anti and rejoice in the defeat of smug liberals, it's really depressing to me that this country will be saddled with corrupt incompentents until the Democratic party can rise above their sense of aesthetics and obsession with symbolism.

So racism should be accepted, if it's "only" mild racism, for the sake of getting into power? What's the point of becoming your opponent in order to win?

Martha, is it possible for you to believe that opposition to affirmative action is not necessarily racism? Or is that equation so much of a given for you that there's basically no point having this conversation?

Supposing, this being Post #96, that we give it a rest?

Saying "Democrat Party" is insulting

... and now I learn that one shouldn't say Trotskyite instead of Trotskyist because it's "deliberately diminishing". Who knew? Perhaps I don't spend enough of my time being offended by things.

Republicans have long used "Democrat party" as an insult. However the best response is probably to refuse to be insulted by it and get serious about winning elections.

BTW I linked to a NYT Magazine article about "King of the Hill Democrats" at Harry's Place last year. They want money for it now, though.

I do like the fact that Martha finds it insulting even though she actually agrees with the implication of the insult.

Post 100!

Ah, Alan. I knew you could be counted on to elevate the discourse.

One-oh-one!

I do like the fact that Martha finds it insulting even though she actually agrees with the implication of the insult.

It's still worth knowing when a usage is an insult. Fine with me if you want to call someone a "Democrat voter" or for that matter a "Trotskyite with big feet," just do it advisedly.

Just do it advisedly.

I wonder what this sort of sensitivity to obscure insults is called. Peripheral correctness?

So you don't feel you owe your society anything? I can't believe you are genuinely irresponsible. You are a better person than that.

I think everyone owes society something. I don't think that this need be preceded by personal shame at one's own accomplishments. Or, for that matter, one's race, gender, and so on. Some groups try to induce such shame and use it to their advantage. It fails over and over again, but they keep doing it, and in the process they become "objectively pro-right", if you will, because it makes progressives look self-hating, which is a club no one wants to join.

Obviously you're distinguishing between whatever the "ISO" is and whatever you consider "the mainstream left" to be. I asked because it's currently popular to confuse mainstream non-ideological liberalism with "the left" and I wondered which you meant.

Pardon me, I thought you were asking for an impossibly precise definition as a debating tactic. No, I mean the left, not liberals as such. Progressives? Is that a better word?

If anything, people are reacting to being made to feel ashamed of their own privilege,

Who's "people" here?

Well, that's a good question. Let's see. Some of them come from advantaged backgrounds but left-leaning families, who have been so bombarded by fringe leftists at their jobs or colleges (and personally attacked on account of their background) that they have recoiled and taken on the mentality of an embattled minority, with the extreme compensation which this entails. Maybe you haven't met anyone like this, but I certainly have.

Then there are people from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds who have been informed repeatedly by certain people that they are powerful and oppressive when in fact they spent a long time struggling to get by working in poverty etc., and had relatively few of the advantages attributed to them.

Either way a certain amount of resentment, if not a complete political reorientation, is rarely far behind.

You may think I'm revealing myself as part of some old boy's network here, and if so that's fine. But this phenomenon is real and it would be better if we could all talk about it.

I don't think you genuinely believe that unreflective satisfaction with one's lot is the best social medicine. On another thread you've just delivered a knowledgable description of things urban poor people desperately need (other than organic food). You don't feel at all badly that you have such things and others don't? If you do catch yourself feeling badly about such inequality do you stifle the thought and remind yourself that you are living in the best of all possible worlds? I would guess not. I think that despite all your protestations to the contrary you are in fact (shameful thought!) in possession of a conscience.

My thinking on this is changing. I do not have live in the hills or in a gated community, and I do feel quite often a resentment from others based on my race and my presumed class that I have a hard time dealing with. On the one hand I know I have thought in a very similar way before and I don't really blame them, but on the other hand I am tired of being a symbol of white male power.

This is a serious problem for the left today, I think.

Generally when people use a phrase like "strident puritan scolding" against a group, they want to denigrate its moral values and probably its manhood too.

I guess "scold" does have gender connotations. Well, they were not intended.

As for their "moral values", I am pretty sure they have none apart from the imperative to perpetuate their organization. They are as bad as the LaRouche people. More detail than that will have to wait as I am tired.