Obama V. Romney

[baboon2004]

Yep, this is typical political theory stuff, and fine up to a certain point (although 'protecting individuals against crime and tyranny' - this is only contingently true, some are more equal than others blah blah). I'm saying that without the integration of psychological perspectives, constructs like 'individual happiness' are allowed to go unchallenged, as though they have an obvious meaning.

People who live in states are comparable to dutiful children! They by and large don't challenge the state and abide by its rules with little question, even when they're absurd and/or morally wrong, and the state allows them to earn some pocket money to buy themselves nice things, and two days off a week. Challenge the state on any major point, and it's obvious what happens.

The permissiveness that exists is because people fought for it over many years, (as did the two days off)! It didn't arrive pre-packaged, presented to people by the state/ruling classes. You know this,obviously, but it bears pointing out again. Which links in to the law being pragmatic. It changes when there is sufficient public pressure (which builds up ultimately from a beginning of struggle), not because of morality per se. Women didn't get the vote because men in power became nicer and more moral, for example!

(Obviously the permissiveness also intersects with the need for people to spend more in their free time to keep the economy growing, and the need for a massive leisure industry.)

The organisation of state and society in (say) the U.K. is partly the residue of tradition (see Burke) but also a contract that enshrines basic rights and protects individuals against crime and tyranny. It's not designed to answer philosophical questions of human happiness. This is only the task of politics for utopians. Political Utopias are not a problem, the Utopians who try to create them are. I suppose another way of defining the Left/Right in the modern liberal state is to talk about those who protect liberty and those who strive for equality; the former are conservative, in the sense that they seek to protect individuals from state intrusion, and the latter are utopians, in that they believe that state can be an instrument for creating a better society. The former protect individual happiness, the latter strive to create the conditions for universal happiness. So...

People are not like dutiful children, but the "present order" (for what it is) believes inequality is a human reality and the state should not try to eradicate it (current conservative position) while the opposing view thinks that wealth should be redistributed to some degree to approach some sort of equality (Labour welfarism). High-tax countries (Switzerland, say, or Norway) exist in the West, are generally accepted by their citizens, are content and well-run to an extent, but have other consequent(ial) problems.

Our European democracies have space for transgression to the extent that they are permissive societies -- which they are. There are taboos and limits -- artists afraid to turn their "controversial" work in the direction of Islam, say, or sexual crime, or snuff movies. Most of these are uncontroversial crimes, which I would not consider to be "amoral" or "pragmatic".

 

[baboon2004]

Most often this antagonism arises from the wish of some people to be 'free' to make as much money/accrue as much stuff as they want, despite the fact they choose not to use most of it but leave it dormant in some way, and in order to be 'free' to do this, the freedoms of others are traded off.

In any sane world, the first category of people would be labelled as addicts. Linking back to the point you made about the ancient Greeks and eudaimonia - in objective terms, these ceaseless wealth-accruers are wretched examples of humanity, imprisoned by their own need to accrue.

Thirdly, it’s not possible even in principle for everyone to be totally free. Many people want to act in ways that are mutually exclusive or antagonistic.

 

[crackerjack]

Is there a thread on the US election anywhere?

 

[droid]

 

[baboon2004]

Is there a thread on the US election anywhere?

I think it's in the Events section

 

[trza]

Has anybody seen the blog Nate Silver used to run until 2007?
http://burritobracket.blogspot.com/

It is eerily prescient.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Patina might be over egging it a bit, but gay and minority rights? equal pay for women? Political Correctness?

Though all very laudable and worthy of praise, it doesn't really mean shit in the big picture unless it's manifested as genuine political change. Just some new games for the children to play while the adults get on with things.

The real power lies with capital.

With respect, I think that's an easy attitude to take when you're straight, white and male. It wasn't so long ago that men in Britain could be thrown in jail (or put in a secure hospital and subjected to barbaric 'treatments') for being gay. My gran was born before women had the same voting rights as men and "Vote Labour if you want a nigger for a neighbour" was considered an acceptable campaign slogan less than 50 years ago.

I agree that the main impediment to social progress is an economic system that encourages the concentration of wealth in a small elite minority but at the same time I think it's churlish to downplay the big strides forward that have been made in other areas.

 

[Mr. Tea]

tea, do you really not know what i am talking about?

Maybe I've missed something so yeah, why have you brought up the EDL? I though you were just making the (obviously sarcastic) point that anyone who stands up to 'religious fascists' must be 'liberal', cos liberalism is the opposite of fascism. Or something.

 

[droid]

With respect, I think that's an easy attitude to take when you're straight, white and male. It wasn't so long ago that men in Britain could be thrown in jail (or put in a secure hospital and subjected to barbaric 'treatments') for being gay. My gran was born before women had the same voting rights as men and "Vote Labour if you want a nigger for a neighbour" was considered an acceptable campaign slogan less than 50 years ago.

I agree that the main impediment to social progress is an economic system that encourages the concentration of wealth in a small elite minority but at the same time I think it's churlish to downplay the big strides forward that have been made in other areas.

Dont get me wrong, Im not dismissing social liberalism as a positive force, Im just pointing out that in the bigger picture, equality is a minor advance which can easily be co-opted and controlled. And let's not forget that racism, misogyny and bigotry are still there, bubbling under the surface, or in many cases, quite openly displayed.

 

[luka]

nah just the way they present themselves is very different to the nf from 30 years ago/ they use liberal values as a stick to beat the muslamics.

 

[vimothy]

One thing those graphs show pretty neatly is the American development of Droid's "patina": from racial slavery to the re-election of a black president in 150 years.

 

[luka]

one of the leaders of the edl is a sikh. shows how far we've come.

 

[droid]

Uh huh. 1 in 3 black men in jail or prison or on probation or parole, many working as virtual slave labour whilst incarcerated. Nearly 1 in 3 black people in poverty in 2010.

Such progress. Warms the heart.

 

[vimothy]

It seems ridiculous on its face to claim that going from racial slavery to the election of Obama to a second term is not a "progressive" trajectory, or is only superficially so.

I can't imagine that if history were moving in the opposite direction--with the US reinstating segregation, then slavery--you'd be indifferent. But perhaps you would. Powerful people would still be in charge, right, so what's the difference at the end of the day?

 

[droid]

Im being facetious, and making the obvious point that despite such progress, black people are still, by and large, treated like shit, and certainly dont have equal political, social and economic status as whites in the US.

This is because political elites, have accommodated and tolerated social liberalism rather than driven the process. That's why, for example, women can vote, and in theory are 'equal' but still only make up about 15% of politicians, earn about 20% less then men and are a small minority of CEO's and executives. The closer to real power you get the more institutional and systemic blocks are there to prevent any genuine changes to the system.

On a wider scale a parallel development of social liberalism in the last century has been the taming of the 'bewildered herd' of the populations of democratic states. Universal suffrage is meaningless when there is nothing to vote for. We can all be equal as long as we have no genuine power over the important factors which affect our lives.

 

[baboon2004]

To add to what Droid says, political change has happened because people fought for it, not because people suddenly became more enlightened. Using the word 'progress' to me undermines this reality, by suggesting that these changes have been ultimately due to the magnanimity and good grace of straight white males. And it also suggests that people who are oppressed should be somehow grateful for these changes, which is repulsive. 'Just a word', but it is an incredibly loaded one. "Progressive husband praised for beating his wife less hard, and only at weekends", or somesuch Daily Mash/Onion article.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ht-of-young-black-men-is-worse-than-you-think This is in Business Week, ffs. Hardly a bastion of progressiveness.

 

[vimothy]

I suppose that there are two different questions.

One is whether the change from slavery, through emancipation and desegregation, to Obama's second term is superficial.

The other is how well black people are doing according to typical measures of social welfare.

I think we can agree that it's harder to answer the second question than the first.

A book that is quite useful on this front is America in Black and White by the historians Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom. The Thernstroms look at racial policies and race relations going back to the Jim Crow era to try to develop a broad picture both of what has changed and how that change has happened. What comes through very strongly is that there has been a great deal of it (for example, black and white graduation results are the same, black and white married couples earn roughly the same), and that it is robust (i.e., it's part of a process that has been going on for a long time).

On that last point, something the author's document that is kinda counter the conventional wisdom is that the greatest progress, the fastest rate of change, by many measures was achieved prior to the civil rights struggle and the onset of the affirmative action era.

So it's a mixed bag, isn't it? One thing that should be obvious to all students of history or social science is that transforming societies is a messy business. Sometimes even the best of intentions aren't enough Sometimes its impossible to separate all the different effects to find the cause--alas, there are no spherical cows and no vacuums.

If there were wands that could be waved that would end poverty, someone would have waved them. (In fact, people have thought they found such wands many times). If you're bothered about the effects of crime and the development of a black underclass in America, maybe you should worry less about whether the CEO of General Motors has bollocks and more about the most important institution in all of human society for all of its existence, the family.

 

[vimothy]

To add to what Droid says, political change has happened because people fought for it, not because people suddenly became more enlightened.

But why did people fight for it? Why did anyone listen?

 

[baboon2004]

How so? (to the previous post re the family, obv)

 

[baboon2004]

But why did people fight for it? Why did anyone listen?

Because they were oppressed; as you know, that's a very complex question. Why do you think they listened, assuming of course that they did listen, and didn't just co-opt people's anger (out of fear of it destabilising the country) by offering them a vote but little economic power?