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.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

I agree with Dobson, sort of

I would have never thought that I could possibly have any point of agreement with James Dobson, the founder and chairman of the “Focus on the Family” evangelical organization. Today Dobson published an awkward op-ed piece in the New York Times, the main point of which seemed to be to reassure people that the Christian Right is not in complete disarray just yet.

Let me start with my agreement with Dobson, and then we'll get to the meat of the piece. Dobson says that “[political] polls don't measure right and wrong,” and that “voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles.” That, of course, is correct, and I certainly concur with the sentiment that it is corrupt to run political campaigns based on what one thinks people want to hear, as opposed to what one's principles dictate. The best current example is perhaps Senator John McCain, who went from harshly criticizing the likes of Dobson to appearing at their so-called universities to pander for a few extra votes.

Then again, there is a positive side to compromise: unless one wishes to run a fascist state (something that George W. has come pretty darn close to, especially during his first term), then one simply has to compromise in order to build consensus. I've never particularly liked Bill Clinton (too much to the right for my taste), but he surely was a phenomenal consensus builder, until he got a blow job that almost cost him the White House (and yes, Bill, it was sex).

Back to Dobson, who recently authored a book entitled “Bringing Up Boys: Practical Advice and Encouragement for Those Shaping the Next Generation of Men” -- I guess girls don't matter for people who espouse family values. His op-ed explains what happened at a very secret meeting held last Saturday in Salt Lake City, which was attended by Dobson, Cheney, and other high-level exponents of the neocon/evangelism axis of evil. According to Dobson, the goal of the meeting was to decide what to do “if neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself” to what this lunatic keeps referring to as “family values,” i.e. the “sanctity” of human life and, of course, the institution of marriage.

A shameless use of rhetoric has always characterized politicians, and particularly so those who position themselves on the right end of the spectrum. To define one's opinions as “pro-family,” of course implies that anyone who disagrees is “against” the family, even though I haven't heard anyone, from any political party, running on a platform that includes doing away with the family structure in our society. It is the same trick, of course, that has allowed Republicans to define as unpatriotic anyone who disagrees with their war mongering, or as anti-life anyone who dares questioning the idea that human embryos are “sacred” (funny, in a dark kind of way, how the same people who vow to defend the sanctity of life are usually the first in line clamoring for the death penalty and for starting the next war, on false premises, if necessary).

Dobson states that the outcome of the meeting was almost unanimous: to paraphrase, if neither party will nominate a nutcase, then they'll vote for a third party. Wonderful, be my guest, commit suicide in the way we did in 2000. It's about time.

17 comments:

  1. Yeah, my immediate reaction when I read that about the Religious Right walking was "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The best current example is perhaps Senator John McCain, who went from harshly criticizing the likes of Dobson to appearing at their so-called universities to pander for a few extra votes."

    Massimo,
    I must disagree. LOL. The best example is Mitt Romney who used to be pro-choice as governor of Mass., is now an anti-abortion as presidential candidate.

    Also, recently he jumped on the bandwagon of attacking Hillary Clinton's health care proposal, parroting the wing-nut phrase "Hillary care", meanwhile apparently forgetting that he signed a very similar bill as governor.

    Of course there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind, but one should be honest about it. I don't think Romney is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. People always will agree with those who say the things they want to hear. It makes them/us feel smart. Self-reinforcing.

    If the goal is political power, not principles, and everyone knows that the goal is political power not principles, can it really be said to be corrupt to be telling people what they want to hear? Exhibit "A" for that argument is the Bush administrations' failure to produce the absolute prohibition of abortion, which is the main reason the faithful voted for him. But being illogical, they don't care, because what they want is someone who talks a hard line about abortion. What they want to hear.

    And yes, for so called "Christians" like Dobson, girls don't matter. Neither do boys, actually. What matters is submission to authority. For boys and men, submission to God (through the rule of the local guy who is never called by any name except "Preacher.") For girls and women, submission to the main man in their life, father or husband. That's what they really mean by "family values." It is also why it is not contradictory that "the same people who vow to defend the sanctity of life are usually the first in line clamoring for the death penalty and for starting the next war." Mainstream America needs to wake up and "get" that about these "Christians." They are not interested in "the sanctity of life"; they are interested in obedience to their agenda. And they use the same words as the rest of us, but they mean different things.

    ReplyDelete
  4. C: "And yes, for so called "Christians" like Dobson, girls don't matter. Neither do boys, actually. What matters is submission to authority."

    That might suggest a fair standard to compare against, if the left was willing to even let their unborn girls and boys
    be born into the world a certain % o the time. A reduction of potential, to the umpteenth degree, not to a minor one. And yet, you seem to raise the question of whether or not building a healthy, moral thinking male is going to serve women in any way? Of course it will.

    Maybe you have too long believed the rhetoric of the left that it is in fact pro-girl/ woman. That line came from smattering of men, no doubt, who did not want to remain faithful to one woman for life. So he and men like him spent a great deal of time and energy convincing all the women in their lives that they were better off independent and free of the responsibilities and "obligations" placed on them by men.

    That was quite the amazing trick if I've ever seen one.

    I, otoh, am for "fair trade".

    :)

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fair trade, Cal? Do you mean slavery, as sanctioned in the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "That line came from smattering of men, no doubt, who did not want to remain faithful to one woman for life. So he and men like him spent a great deal of time and energy convincing all the women in their lives that they were better off independent and free of the responsibilities and "obligations" placed on them by men."

    Cal,
    Through your rather cryptic comments you seem to suggest that feminism is some kind of conspiracy by men. Is that your intention?

    If it is, poppycock! Many men had mistresses, divorced for younger women etc. without the assistance of feminism.

    Feminism was a movement led by women who wished to develop their personalities beyond being mere wives and mothers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. shel: "Feminism was a movement led by women who wished to develop their personalities beyond being mere wives and mothers."

    Yeah, smaller hearts bigger paychecks. If that's a deeply coveted personality trait in our society, we are totally doomed.

    "If it is, poppycock! Many men had mistresses, divorced for younger women etc. without the assistance of feminism."

    One rebellion in exchange for another rebellion is generally a bad idea. Essentially someone still has to carry the responsibility and therefore the consequences for all the "adults" getting what they want. And you guessed it... it is our children.
    Not very impressive at all.

    Feminism, in the end, turns out to be no benefit to children, women or men. Most women that try to 'do it all', are just too exhausted and exasperated to give their hearts and souls to their children and husbands. And that, many people seem to forget, is in fact the glue that holds our societies and homes together.

    That glue being, really giving ones heart to someone and meaning it.

    ie. commitment.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's great! Maybe I'll start plastering my car with "RUDY '08" stickers.

    ReplyDelete
  9. cal,

    you seem to forget that because of feminism (and other causes) many women and men now have the choice not to have (as many) children, or to delay childbirth until they are ready to dedicate enough time to raising them. Adults pursuing their own passions might reduce their ability to be parents, but fortunately we have the choice to put off parenthood, indefinitely if we so chose. Seems like progress to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My problem with Cal's attitude is not that she wants to be subservient to a male (knock yourself out honey) but that she is desirous of forcing everyone to follow that principle. And by "she" I mean not only her but the entire 'Religious Right' that she keeps defending.
    Cal, you don't want an abortion... don't have one. You don't want a job outside the home... don't take one. You want your man to run your life... let him. And then let the rest of us make our own decisions about these matters in our lives. Thank you.

    Oh and P.S. Cal, click the Other radio button and put your name in so you can quite being Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  11. C: "Adults pursuing their own passions might reduce their ability to be parents, but fortunately we have the choice to put off parenthood, indefinitely if we so chose. Seems like progress to me."

    Seems like a matter of compensation to me.

    We live in a time where medicine and technology reduce both mortality rates and time spent doing certain everyday tasks. One would think with the abundance of time, better health, energy that there would be more love to go around. But surprisingly there isn't.

    There isn't more love to go around because we have began to cultivate extremely selfish attitudes about who's here for who. Meaning that, the children we have are born for OUR enjoyment or fulfillment
    vs. the alternate view that we are here to raise up a next wonderful, sensitive, critical thinking generation that will one day rule the world.

    I think when a collective society makes decisions about reproductive issues around selfish goals, we reap nothing whatsoever of lasting value. I have heard it said more than once of workaholic type dads, that such a person never looks back when he is elderly and says, "if I could have only spent one more weekend away, worked harder and saved more money"..etc. The regret that parents feel is seldom ever regarding unfulfilled career goals. It is usually regretted that one did not build loving relationships that last with one's children.

    So whether you have one or seven children, the question will be, if you will give them your whole self, or a wire monkey substitute.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Most women that try to 'do it all', are just too exhausted and exasperated to give their hearts and souls to their children and husbands."

    Oh, and men don't? So the woman should stay home barefoot and pregnant raising the kids while the man goes and brings home the bread? Men and women should be free to decide equally what they want to do with their lives. That includes whether or not to have children. Not everyone needs or should have children!

    ReplyDelete
  13. LM "Men and women should be free to decide equally what they want to do with their lives. That includes whether or not to have children. Not everyone needs or should have children!"

    BUT men and women are not equal. Woman are subject to emotional highs and lows that tends to effect their decision making. Some women can be remarkably decisive but men are generally better at it. Women tend to be better with their priorities with people and relationships. Both are necessary to get along in the world.

    In spite of the obvious need to work together and not compete, I am not convinced that we are better off with both parents working 40+ hour weeks. School shootings come about, I think, because of the lack of an intact, interacting family. If there was any hope that a young person could really talk out a problem with one of HIS parents, there would be none of this happening today.

    Why are school shootings mainly only happening with boys behind the gun? I think are boys feeling like they are, due to lack of normal loving interactions and connections with anyone in their life, becoming obsolete and irrelevant.

    They are not anything of the sort. Boys and men are wonderful and needed. :)



    cal

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why are school shootings mainly only happening with boys behind the gun?

    Obvious: because we are animals, and in almost all animal species the male is more violence-prone.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "BUT men and women are not equal. Woman are subject to emotional highs and lows that tends to effect their decision making. Some women can be remarkably decisive but men are generally better at it. Women tend to be better with their priorities with people and relationships. Both are necessary to get along in the world."

    What a bunch of crap! Men and women ARE equal. It has been proven time and time again. Your statement is typical flying monkey wingnut conservative sexist clap trap.

    Both parents work 40+ hour work weeks not just because women have the right and should persue careers just like men if they want to but also and mainly because of insane conservative economic policies that have eviscerated the middle class requiring both parents to work 40+ hours a week just to survive.

    Blaming the problems of families on women who want to work and have careers is despicable. Plenty of family problems in this country are caused by men and by economic hardships due to conservative policies. Yet it is women draw the conservative ire. You are a typical sexist conservative.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dear MP,

    As the result of a Google search I recently discovered your site and, in particular, the well-penned article from October 2005 entitled "Why are so many people irrational?" After reading that article I decided to read further in hopes of frequenting this site. Unfortunately, I hit a snag with this article, "I agree with Dobson, sort of".

    I do not support Dr. Dobson, but your criticism of his book is irrational. Does a book about raising boys need to devote equal time to content about raising girls? Perhaps the subject of raising girls warrants a book of its own? In what way does "Bringing Up Boys" state or imply that girls do not matter?

    Further irrationality is evidenced in the following labels: "lunatic", "high-level exponents of the neocon/evangelism axis of evil", and "nutcase". Oddly, within this very article politicians are reprimanded for their "shameless use of rhetoric", in particular by "those who position themselves on the right end of the spectrum." Can you explain to me how the use of labeling and stereotyping escapes the definition of "shameless use of rhetoric" by you, a strongly implied member of the Left? Additionally, how does this use of language differ from others in the Left?

    Clearly the writer of this article seeks division rather than unity. In so doing, the horse s/he rides is just as high as the horse on the Right.

    --Don D.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Don,

    thanks for your positive words as well as your criticisms.

    You are right that there isn't anything wrong in writing about boys, per se, but if you put this into the context of Dobson's ideology, then things become a bit more questionable.

    As for my outburst, it probably wasn't too rational, but people like these really get my juices going, and sometimes one simply has to vent. After all, that's one of the functions of a blog... :)

    ReplyDelete

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