About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Lieberman, politics, and bipartisanship

Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Senator who didn't believe enough in Al Gore's Presidential bid (he was the candidate for Vice President) to give up his Senate post and concentrate on that crucial campaign, has never been a Democrat. At least not since I was living in Connecticut 15 years ago and was regularly subjected to Joe's absurdities, made more absurd only by the fact that his re-election in that New England state has never been seriously in question.

Until now, that is. Joe is up for a new campaign next year, and his recent comments on Bush's war ain't gonna help him. Lieberman is the only "Democrat" who openly supports Bush's handling of the war, a position that logically follows from the CT Senator's initial strong stance in favor of invading Iraq (in 1998 he co-sponsored with Republican John McCain the so-called "Iraq Liberation Act," which made the removal of Saddam Hussein official US policy, and arguably eventually led to Bush's insanity).

Finally, such blatantly Republican positions (not an isolated incident: Lieberman also vocally supported Bush's aborted plan to "reform" Social Security) are beginning to come back and bite Joe in his posterior. This week he was praised by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld -- a highly dubious honor -- but harshly criticized by Harry Reid (the Democratic Senate minority leader) and Nancy Pelosi (the Dems' House minority leader), not to mention by the grassroots organization MoveOn.org. An internal challenge to his Senate seat may finally begin to take shape.

Of course, Lieberman defends himself by saying that he is a "centrist," and that his critics are the result of the terrible climate of "politics" and "partisanship" in Washington and the country at large. Let's first debunk this idea of centrism. Centrism is Bill Clinton (on his best behavior), not Joe Lieberman. For someone or something to be centrist, there has to be both a right and a left, and this country at the moment has very little on the left. It is only because we got used to the insanity of people like Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, and so on that we can even consider for a minute someone like Lieberman a "centrist."

Second, I never understood why partisan politicians are so quick to demean the very idea of partisan politics. A bit like all these elected Republicans whose college was paid for by the government and hold elected governmental positions, and yet see no contradiction in attacking the Government (with a capital G) as an out of control monster to be reined in at all costs.

I want partisan politics; I think bipartisanship is not good. Yes, the two parties should try to compromise whenever possible, but there are good reasons why I vote Democrat and not Republican: I don't want even a single Republican in Congress, at the Senate, or the White House. Yes, this is an ideal that will never be realized (and yes, I understand that Dems aren't saints either, I'm just choosing the least of possible evils), but that's my goal. Joe Lieberman ain't helping, and he should be thrown out of the Democratic party.

And please don't tell me that this is intolerance on my part. I'm not denying Lieberman's right to express his opinions (unlike, say, what Bush does with war critics who get arrested or are given limited access to public streets when he tours the country), or go after whatever political gain he feels he can get. I'm just saying that he should be doing it squarely from within the ranks of the Republican party, where he clearly should have moved decades ago (but didn't because as a Republican he wouldn't have had a chance of being elected in Connecticut). Hopefully, next year Connecticut voters will encourage him to make such a transition, immediately after election day.

19 comments:

  1. It's hard to not be consumed with disgust when other people get their way on matters that we feel affect us greatly, but that is exactly what is wrong with politics at this point in time. Politicians on both sides of the aisle, you see, are just mere reflections of the will of the people. In other words, if one is displeased with what he/she sees, it should be extremely clear at this point, that we are only observing the effects of our collective politically minded, self-interested willful selves. I mean, 9 out of 10 persons would rather fight to the death and blame the other party, then actually “win” or accomplish something meaningful.

    So if one doesn’t like what they see, and really would rather do something other than complain, I suggest that they should consider revising their own personal philo. For that is the only aspect of life that one can really control.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  2. I lived for the first twenty-seven years of my life in Connecticut, where Joe Lieberman was to the right of the honorable Lowell P. Weicker - the man Lieberman defeated for his seat in 1988. Senator Lieberman has been a great disappointment to the liberal Nutmeggers (not that his counterpart, Senator Chris Dodd, is all THAT much better), but never more so than now, as he is paraded out by the Faux network and the Bush regime much the same way that Zany Zell Miller was cattle-prodded out onto the public stage. "See? Here's a common-sense Democrat who agrees with the President", the Bush regime trumpets, but most Democrats - and ALL liberals - are not fooled.

    I agree with the characterization of Bill Clinton as a centrist. Few things draw my ire more than when rightists call Bill (and wife Hillary, another great disappointment to the left) a liberal. He isn't; he never governed as one; his wife isn't now. There are FEW true leftists/liberals in positions of great influence in the federal government these days (Ted Kennedy being a notable exception), and it is sadly indicative of the rightward tilt of the political discourse in this country when a conservative like Lieberman can wear the mantle of centrist.

    And finally, YES - bipartisanship is a BAD thing, when the word is used to hide the fact that one side - in this case, the Dems - have been capitulating to the Republicans for over a decade. Enough with one-sided "compromises". Sometimes, one side is wrong, and one side is right - and the courageous path is to fight the wrong.

    ~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...and the courageous path is to fight the wrong."

    The use of "wrong" here seems rather ambiguous and self-serving, if you don't mind me saying so.

    There's an illusion that if one can shed light on the ethics (or lack of) of the other political party, he somehow gains the moral high ground. But in reality, that is usually not what happens. It’s more like each party goes at it tit for tat, which of course reveals that neither has any real psychological advantage over the other and never did. I'm just wondering for the sake of clarity, what sort of "wrong" conservatives commit that non-conservatives don't?

    I.e. why are liberals more correct (in the concrete sense) than non-libs?

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  4. The use of "wrong" here seems rather ambiguous and self-serving, if you don't mind me saying so.

    Not at all. Of course, on the issue of ambiguity, right and wrong are subjective - truly muddy waters for the moral wader.

    I agree with you that most of the members of our ridiculously exclusive two-party system would rather poke their fingers in their foes' eyes, rather than actually stand up for any particular policy because they feel it is right. The "moral high ground", as you put it, seems to be no more than a moving sand dune, pushed this way and that by the most recent polling statistics. I don't think that the Dems are any more courageous or morally upstanding than the Repubs, but I do believe that when there is a one-party system of government (as exists now in the United States), that the party in power is more apt to be corrupt. The constant stream of indictments and investigations of the Bush regime and its allies in Congress seems to bear this observation out.

    I'm just wondering for the sake of clarity, what sort of "wrong" conservatives commit that non-conservatives don't? I.e. why are liberals more correct (in the concrete sense) than non-libs?

    It is my opinion that progess in Western societies has ever been at the expense of the conservative forces. Progressivity (liberalism) in the tradition of the Enlightenment, exemplified by many of the thoughts (if not the actions) of the Founders, and continued forward by the popular justice movements that permeate (especially American) history is ever at odds with those who wish to resist change - or worse, who are reactionary in their desire to restore an older, less inclusive, social order (witness the modern conservative religious movement).

    In short, I believe liberalism is more "correct" because in my reading of history the vast majority of rights and privileges we enjoy have been borne out of the liberal/progressive movement.

    ~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well put, Bob, about the "right x wrong".

    Reminded me of something I'd read a while ago on a friend's blog:
    Liberal vs. Anti-Progress
    http://thebeekeepersapprentice.com/beesarchive_feb2005.html

    It's the second entry of the archive. I don't know how accurate that is in its totality, but my scarce knowledge is enough to see most of them are.

    J

    ReplyDelete
  6. "In short, I believe liberalism is more "correct" because in my reading of history the vast majority of rights and privileges we enjoy have been borne out of the liberal/progressive movement."

    I'd be a tad skeptical of that. Lasting freedom is born out of more enduring principles than self-interest, I'm sure. That is, it is not good enough to merely procure freedom for me and those who hold to and agree with my beliefs. The enlightenment of ages past didn't think that way. Today's progressivists do.

    "history is ever at odds with those who wish to resist change - or worse, who are reactionary in their desire to restore an older, less inclusive, social order (witness the modern conservative religious movement)."


    "This point is the exact opposite of what is supposed. As the common account runs, anyone who resists the current opinion of the majority or the forward march of the dominant power must be obstructionist. The prevalent trend is progressive, so resistance must be reactionary. Those who don't want to go forward obviously want to go backward. Those who disagree with what the "right" people know to be wise and good are clearly wrong-headed and muddled. You're out of line, they're told. Get out of the way or be crushed the relentless juggernaut of history.

    But such presumption begs the question: To what end, and by what standard? Such words as forward, backward, progressive, and reactionary require criteria and measurement. If what is thought to be right is actually wrong, then clearly it's far better to be "wrong" than "right." If what is held to be progress is in fact going backward or going no where at all, far better to go "backward" than "forward."

    That is why, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, progress is made by tackling resisting material. The obstinate mass of the status quo may be blocking the progress of truth and freedom. In faith just as much as in science, resistance thinking is any thing but reactionary; it is the key to genuine progress.

    "Prophetic Untimeliness" (a challenge to the idol of relevance) pg. 89- 90, by Os Guinness

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  7. Lasting freedom is born out of more enduring principles than self-interest, I'm sure. That is, it is not good enough to merely procure freedom for me and those who hold to and agree with my beliefs. The enlightenment of ages past didn't think that way. Today's progressivists do.

    I would suggest that you do not truly know any progressives, then, for the liberal/progressive agenda is one that promotes a policy, as I call of it, of individual freedom within the context of social responsibility. On the contrary, it is the conservative/libertarian who takes the "every man for himself, winner take all, the Lord will provide for the rest" position.

    As the common account runs, anyone who resists the current opinion of the majority or the forward march of the dominant power must be obstructionist.

    I can go relative, but not THAT relative. No, I define a conservative ("obstructionist") by his POLICIES, not the current political strength of his position.

    The prevalent trend is progressive...

    Bet you thought Clinton was liberal, too. For the last 35 years or so, the American body politic has shifted rightward, in my estimation, and in the estimation of any real progressives/liberals.

    Get out of the way or be crushed the relentless juggernaut of history.

    I'd love to share with you my final history paper on William Jennings Bryan as a victim of history, as a defender of three failed American philosophies - democratic populism, pacifistic isolationism, and fundamentalist creationism. History does tend to leave discredited ideas behind.

    And with all due respect to C.S. Lewis, I had the opportunity to watch Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" series again on cable, and frankly I find his words far more inspiring and relevant than anything Lewis ever had to say. I'll take Sagan's truths - empirical science combined with humanist principles - over any religiously-inspired fantasist any day of the week.

    ~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  8. J -

    Interesting site you directed me to! So far, there's nothing I've read that I truly disagree with... : )

    ~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  9. What's wrong with Bush's Social Security plans?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Agagooga,

    what's wrong with Bush's plan -- among other things -- is that it is called social "security" because it's supposed to guarantee a minimum pension. Put it in the hands of private investment companies and it will be subjected to the usual vagaries of the market -- with the risk of having millions of people with no safety net at all during the last years of their lives. Not exactly what Hobbes meant by "the social contract."

    ReplyDelete
  11. As a boy, my father shined shoes for a nickel during the Great Depression.

    What's wrong with Bush's Social Security plan? Ask anyone who had to survive between 1929 and World War II about how reliable the stock market is.

    "Those who do not learn the lessons of history..."

    ~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  12. "...would suggest that you do not truly know any progressives, then, for the liberal/progressive agenda is one that promotes a policy, as I call of it, of individual freedom within the context of social responsibility."

    But I do.

    I would be curious to know how the context of social responsibility is arrived at. Really and seriously, what is the logical basis? Pragmatism?

    If it were not for the pathological need to be relevant by progressives(not the same as being pragmatic in most cases) it would actually be possible to procure individual freedom. The personal philo negates its own self, iow.

    RE: relativism: 'while anything can be true for the individual, nothing can be true for everyone.'

    Which individual and whose lifestyle are you going to procure freedom for in every separate instance?

    Because of the necessity of agreement on such matters, relativistic philosophy simply cannot form a logical basis for social responsibility, no matter how much one might like it to be so.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  13. The fact is that it isn't a black and white proposition - that is, it is very possible to believe in the greatest individual freedom UNTIL the exercise of such freedom infringes on the individual OR COLLECTIVE rights of others - that is, you should be free to start your own business (individual freedom) until your business practices harm others directly(individual rights) or indirectly (collective rights - say, poisoning the community's water source).

    I find this a very pragmatic way, using your words, to look at things. I have recently had the opportunity to read some of Michael Shermer's works about how humans are able to be moral without the need of an abusive, arbitrary, ghostly overseer. That our mores have evolved, just as our brains have evolved, is a fascinating subject, and one I recommend highly.

    ~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think you're talking about "The science of good and evil", right, Bob? I just started reading it, and if it lives up to the prologue, it will to be really interesting.

    But don't keep high hopes on rational and naturalistic arguments like the ones from the book helping much... There are plenty of people who prefer the simplistic and comfortable position of having someone tell them what's right and what's wrong, preferably in absolute and immutable laws - even if in reality it does not work like that for ANYONE. Thinking and balancing diverse positions to synthesize and reach ones own conclusions is too much work, you know. Just read some "holy" book (but just one, take your pick!).

    J

    ReplyDelete
  15. J ~

    Yep, that's the book. The fact that I consider myself a leftist-liberal-progressive-quasi-socialist-naturalistic-agnostic-secularist, and yet don't kick old ladies into the street after stealing their pension money, or think that it's A-OK to pick up a gun and use the neighbors' dogs for target practice, kinda indicates that you don't really need commandments or threats of hell to be a decent sort of person.

    (Do I get the prize for longest run-on sentence on this thread?)

    ~ Bob

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, defined benefits plans really aren't sustainable with an ageing workforce. The amount of money required to prevent Social Security from going bust would be immense.

    A sad but true fact of pension economics...

    Ideally there'd be some mix of private competition to enforce market discipline (the lack of it being the reason why planned economies fail) and public regulation and maybe the government being the guarantor of last resort.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lieberman is about the only Democrat worth mentioning. The Democrat Party has wasted the last, well, over 100 years of its existance engaged in such UNconstitutional bilge as the New Deal, the War Powers Act, Progressivism, the War on Poverty, and Viet Nam. I can only wonder at people that either fail or refuse to see the similarities between Osama Bin Laden's talking points and the DNC's talking points. About the only way I would consider voting Democrat would be if either John Calhoun or Grover Cleveland were to be raised from the dead. Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower (sort of), Nixon, Reagan. All the truly great Presidents of the 20th century were Republicans, but most of the 19th Century's greats were Democrats: Polk, Buchanan, and Cleveland leap to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It would be nice to sign your posts, so we know who to attribute such a spatter of nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  19. All right, how's this? And again, there's not a Democrat alive today worthy of the name. Rhetorical question: Whatever happened to the party of Polk, Jefferson, Jackson, ANDREW Johnson, and Cleveland?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.