LIBERTY OR EQUALITY

There has been some discussion in some of my readings about whether liberty or equality is of utmost importance. There seems to be a move in progressive circles to affirm equality over liberty. As equality is about the underpriviledged, the minority or the "outsider". The move toward equality is a global move to universalize resources and opportunities.

While equality is important if one is looking at discrepencies, is equality to be measure by outcome orl in opprotunity? One views equality in absolute terms, while the other affirms individual choice and value of self-responsiblity.

Redistribution of wealth is one such concern for the progressive. This is not about opportunity, but stealing another's goods and limiting free enterprise. Opportunity, on the other hand, is about making sure that another has a right to make a living, or get an education. But, opportunity, again, does not mean prescriptive measures of ensuring ends that may co-opt choices about the type of education or how that education or living is to "be". Again, the progressive wants to assure 'ends" or outcomes.

Liberty is valued by the conservative, as this ensures the right of the individual to take responsibility for self-governance. Self governance is the basis of civil society because laws cannot maintain liberty, as they limit or prescribe behavior. Liberty is about the ability to make life choices, without co-ercion.

Liberty is a value of liberal democracy because it means open, and engaging. And civil society must allow that opennes, otherwise we limit diverse viewpoints, and this hinders the democratic process itself.

The Superbowl, Free Speech, and 'Political Correctness"

Free speech is again in question. It seems that some think that it is inappropriate to feature an ad taken out by "pro-lifers". The question posed to Palin tonight was; Was this appropriate? Was the Superbowl the place to feature a "controversial" ad. Palin, of course, was supportive and definite in her commitment to the right to "free speech".

I don't understand why this would be controversial in a free society where free speech is supposed to be valued. Why would it be offensive for a mother and son to tell their 'story' of "family"? This son was thankful that his mother decided to choose life for him. Why is this offensive?

I am wondering why conservatives always seem to suffer under the scrunty of liberal snubbery. Liberals can "get away" with indiscretions. I have often told my husband that I think it is because liberals don't hold to "higher standards" and conservatives do. So, when a conservative "fails" to meet their own standards, the hypocrisy is an obvious political bullseye.

On the other hand, when democrats promise big, but don't deliver, the American people are outraged. So, whether through the ideal idealism of the conservative, or the political hypocrisy of the liberal, both are becoming disgusting to the American public.

Not many believe that free speech is in danger, but political correctness is a short step to propaganda. And sometimes I wonder if it isn't propaganda, when it becomes clear that the politicians are not connected or caring about the people they are to represent. Free speech is NOT their right to act in the way they want, but to listen to those who are speaking. It is the people that need to be heard, while the politician listens and explains.

I'm listening, but there is little explaining.

Values Come Before Virtue

Values are defined as beliefs that we have an emotional investment in. Our beliefs underwrite our practices. And our practices are the public realm of "living in the world". Thus, politics is the arena that values plays itself out.

In a free society, values should be discussed in an open-ended way, with no discrimination toward the religious or the atheist. All should have voice in the public square to voice their opinion and allow all to come to some resolution, or to a consensus. There should not be propaganda, but investigative reporting, which should lead those who hear to investigate themselves. A free society does not remain free, if its freedoms are ignored, or under-valued, whether the error is in an ultra right-wing religious beliefs, or a radical left-wing secular view.

I just read on "Exploring Our Matrix", that conservatives are re-writing the Bible. These believe that the political agenda of Obama supporters was too liberal for them. Was this decision made because of some specific conservative values, such as abortion? Or a political stance on the economy?

It saddens me that conservatives do not think they have a voice or that they must segregate themselves from others who may be more informed than the wider population. And, as always, those who think that their "purity" values are being undermined have separated themselves to "form a new group". This is the Protestant Principle at work.

I agree that our society seems to be more politicized than it ever has been. But, does this mean that conservatives should withdraw to another part of society, which they create to form their own values without "outside information"?

Virtue is a response to values that differ. Virtue has to have a "context" to express itself. And usually that context is defined by the "sacred or secular", that has erred on one side or another. This is where difference can "make a difference" in virtue ethics.

"Good sports" know how to loose. And loosing does not have to mean that one become passively submissive or dependent on the winning view. Politics demands that we do not give up. Losers seek a way around the views they disagree with. But, to re-write Scripture without any scholarship, seems a little misguided. This is how cults are started. Shouldn't all conservatives be open to those with understanding about these areas of interest?

Values have become so concretized, that one cannot differ in anyway from the "party line". "Party lines" limit critical thinking, education, and a broader understanding of the issue. Broader understanding of a value is mandantory unless we want to "follow the leader" without questioning why these are values that should be maintained.

The Bible. after all, was not the focus of religious life in the Church's early history. Possibly the Bible is too much of a "value" of conservitism. Is this the "problem"? Surely these conservatives kow that the Trinity was not even formulated until the Church had existed for several hundred years.

American Conservatives should be a little more nuanced than narrowly focused and formed "group think"!

Healthcare and "Local Politics"

Conservatives are known to be "localists". They believe that the local government knows best about what its people need, or want. Liberals on the other hand believe that government must be centralized for there to be a unification of purpose.

Isn't it interesting that Obama believes in universal healthcare and communitarian service? These seem at odds, but perhaps, it is only the localists that will be called to re-distribute our wealth.

This morning Newt Gingrich was on NPR. He said that he would propose several smaller bills to improve the system, as otherwise, a large monstrosity, such as this one, would lead to "buying votes". And "buying votes" always leads to "pork barrell spending".

It will be interesting to see what happens to healthcare.

Kindergarten Teaches You All You Need to Know...

I heard a good way to distinguish a liberal and a conservative today on the radio.

A conservative is one who believes in the Constitution and believes that the Bill of Rights limits government from intruding upon individual liberty. The Bill of Rights is descriptive.

The liberal, on the other hand, believes that although the Constitution limits government's intrusion upon individuals, it does not explain what the role of government should be. The "should" is the key. "Should" is a judgment of value, a moral imperative. And the judgment is prescriptive.

Should there be an "ought" or a "should"? And by what measure do we assess the prescription? If someone legislates that we all are to work 3/4ths of the year to provide for government's "necessities", then is this what the "should" should be? Or has government over-reached its bounds? Is the private sector to be responsible for the "moral"? If so, then how is this postulated? By non-profits? Are Americans still "rightful owners" of private property, or does government intrude upon that "right"?

Morals are taught in kindergarten. There, children learn to share, not take another's toy and to respect others. Government should not be teaching 'kindergarten", but unfortunately, parents and teachers are not teaching what they "should" and it ends up being a matter for government to "take care of" in addressing criminal behavior. Then, we all pay for what others have not taken care of.

Society will not be able to function if parents and teachers are not able to help undergird and undertake "training" children to understand that it is not right to take another's toy, or that it is inappropriate to talk while the teacher is talking. Respect is a necessary value for one to learn in kindergarten.

Conservatives believe in individual liberties, but these liberties are not absolute, when it comes to required behavior. Society demands attention to other's rights, as well as one's own. The required behavior are written in the laws that define our society. But, conservatives limit the other's rights, when it intrudes upon their own. This is responsible behavior and it demands responsible and respectful behavior from others.

The liberal must love when others intrude upon their rights, because it means that they are "needed" and that they have a "function" in society. The liberal needs to be needed. He is the eternal co-dependent. The liberal views the conservative as selfish and narcisstic, as he believes that the "moral imperative" is an "absolute". And the liberal's moral absolute intrudes upon the conservative's liberty bias.

The conservative is not necessarily driven by "evil" in protecting his values of liberty and conscience. The conservative just values his own independence too much to allow government to "tell" him in a prescriptive way "who, what, when and how".

(Perhaps, I have over-stated the liberal's position, as I consider myself a conservative. But, it seems to me an injustice and a moral failure to "demand responsibility from one side and allow irresponsibility on the other. That is my take, at least.)

Our Reality to Come...in the Political Realm

I read where the Republican strategy is to counter the liberal and ultra-conservative, by gaining back a Congressional majority by "centering" themselves. I hope this strategy works.

The strategy is to be to analyze the vacancies and determine whether the State can vote in a Republican or "loose" by voting in a conservative Democrat! This would bring Congress into center, where consensus can be built and legislation can be made concerning issues about our government. A centered Congress may not be ideologically driven along certain conservative or liberal social issues, but could gain much for fiscal and foreign policy. These are the issues that concern America today.

It is speculated that Newt Gingrich will run for the nomination. I hope so, as I have always been impressed with him. He has built consensus, has taught history and understands the political machine enough to know how to lead.

The Church, The State, Progressives and Conservatives

The Church has been understood as a universal community, at least by the apostle Paul. Perhaps a better terminology is the household of God, as Ken Schenck uses in Quadralateral Thoughts.

But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.

Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.

The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?

When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.

Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.

With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.

True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...

Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.