By the way, I have in fact been musing over some issues that came to the fore in the election, about reds and blues and purples, about city folk and country folk, about pluralism and fundamentalism, monism and dualism essentialism and relativism, and so on. The ideas are still rumbling around, and I’m hoping, on the whole, to write an actual essay rather than a little blognote, so it may well be a couple of weeks before anything appears (and, of course, I may not bother by that point). It looks, rather, as if I may need to read that Isaiah Berlin book on my shelf.
If anybody is willing to help out, I’d be grateful. Mostly, I’m looking at how and whether pluralism as an idea can be put into the political discourse, to engage the monism (or dualism or fundamentalism) of the Religious Right. Not that I’m suggesting a Pluralist Party, but that I do think that understanding the universe people perceive, both the physical and metaphysical universe, is important to conversation. Of course, I would think that; I’m a pluralist.
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.
The trouble with persuasively putting forth pluralism as an idea is that it reeks of moral relativism to those who are currently opposed to pluralism.
The essay I’ve been working on (and will likely never finish) is about the shift in our society from [conservative vs. liberal] to [extremism vs. moderation]. Extremism is simply incompatible with political discourse. Far too many people now believe that there is just one Source of All Good Ideas — whether that source is their pastor or their radio or Karl Rove. For those people, there is no reason to listen to others, no sense in discussing coalitions or compromise or negotiation, and no hope of meaningful dialogue with any opposing view, let alone multiple opposing views.
Do those on the left really need persuading that there’s more than one right answer to a given problem? Do those on the right show any willingness to compromise while they’re accumulating power? Most importantly, is there truly a hope of changing those in the uncaring middle? They have ignored the call to civic participation, the call to reason in the face of venom, and the call to venom.
If side A keeps tugging on the rope and side B keeps giving ground, side B will inevitably end up covered in mud. It’s time to tug back, cut the rope, or change the rules. Personally, I don’t like the taste of mud.
It seems to me that pluralism isn’t relativism, but that the monists think that it is (of course the monists think it’s all the same anyway). The reason I’m trying to think this through is to see if it’s there’s a plausible way to make it clear what pluralism is, and how inherently American an idea it is.
Of course the pluralists are going to compromise, that is a basic principle of pluralism. However, unlike relativists (if there are any), we can choose who to compromise with, and what to compromise on. And all of this depends on finding a way to tell that vast uncaring middle who we are and what we want.
Thanks,
-V.
After thinking it over, I think I’ve missed your point, and will try again. I do think that pluralism is not, on the whole, a party issue, or one of Conservatism and Liberalism. There are certainly fringe groups on the left who feel that their answer is the only right one; there are still Maoists at the corner of 24th and Mission. The bulk of the left, however, eschews such people as allies. To my perception, the right encourages such allies. I hope that soon a Conservative party emerges which embraces pluralism, ideally by taking back the GOP. I also understand that many people on the right do not think that the left or the Democratic Party is truly pluralist, which is something to mend, either the perception or the fact.
But what I’m chewing on is not the introduction of pluralism into the discourse in order to win elections, but to save pluralism. I keep telling myself that the Friends didn’t abolish slavery in 1780; this is a long journey we’re on.
Thanks,
-V.
I’ll drink to saving pluralism as a more important goal than winning elections.
whereas monists are wondering if there’s a legal way to ditch the blue states, now that it’s clear the red majority of states will never get respect from their depraved, intolerant brethren.
it seems as though many of the former confederate states are reaping the advantages of their long, slow battle against the public sector. their level of education is dropping, their income is dropping, their health is poor. they seem heroically determined to become a paranoid ghetto unto themselves…
it seems like they’re drowning in their own story. is it really the right course of action to stake out a philosophical space and play us-them games until they go under?
As a resident of a so-called “red state” (boy, wouldn’t those have been fighting words in these parts in the 1950s??) I have to say that on the ground, in daily life, this story about the Red States doesn’t ring true, at least not across the board:
it seems as though many of the former confederate states are reaping the advantages of their long, slow battle against the public sector. their level of education is dropping, their income is dropping, their health is poor. they seem heroically determined to become a paranoid ghetto unto themselves.
In North Carolina, we have two Republican senators (both of whom had a level of support sufficient to defeat the rich but utterly colorless Erskine Bowles) and have gone Republican in presidential votes for a long time, but our House delegation is evenly divided and our state government is controled by the Democratic party. There’s strong support for education in the state; there’s deep concern about job loss.
In terms of reading the long-term trends, remember that much of the South enjoyed an economic boom during the whole of the 1990s which was the highest in the country. Part of the reason our statistics on income, education, etc. are dropping now is that we, having been on the top of the bubble, have fallen into the deepest trough. So it’s not that there’s a long-term pattern of decay here, at least not yet. The failure of the Democratic party in the South is a long-term pattern; it shouldn’t be identified with a short-term economic pattern.
I agree with the writer of the preceding post that to “play us-them games” right now is not the way to go, but I think the characterization of the southern states as “paranoid” isn’t correct. I think a lot of people in the southern states truly believe, because it is true to most of their experience in the last 25 years, that the Republican approach to economic growth works and has brought prosperity to the South, because the South has prospered in the last 25 years. That approach to economic growth is exhausted, but it’s going to take a while for people to figure that out, and an attractive alternative needs to be offered. The Democratic party does not have a new economic vision. They offer fiscal responsibility over fiscal irresponsibility, but that is not going to inspire people to change their minds about who they trust to run the country.
The previous poster more truly represents, perhaps, of the plains states, where economic decline due to the slow collapse of American agriculture has indeed been long term, with consequent decay in all aspects of quality of life in that part of the country.
All of this is far removed from the issue of defening pluralism. I think defending pluralism is a good thing and should be done.
I think, however, that figuring out how to get the working people of this country out of the trap laid for them by corporate capitalism and building a viable political party to lead the way out of that trap is more likely to be the key to changing the political landscape in the U.S. Changing the public discourse (defending pluralism) and breaking the corporate media monopoly are parts of that project, but without a viable social and economic vision, they won’t be enough on their own.
I’ll just add to the last post that it is the plains state that look to me most ‘red’, that is, that have the largest areas with few remaining Democrats. I reside in a red state myself, in one of many blue ‘oases’; even the bluest states are like that. In the plains, it seems that even the blue areas are red. Of course, it is also the plains states that have got the least out of the last few new economies. I think the Old Confederacy business, though real enough, is overplayed by a lot of analysts, and badly handled by the Democratic Party nationally. The new secession talk is, for the most part, tongue-in-cheek, but reveals a certain distaste for plurality, for diversity, for compromise that I find unpleasant in both parties.
As for the relative importance of a viable economic vision and a viable philosophical framework, well, perhaps I’ll write a post arguing the relative merits, but in actuality, I simply don’t have a viable economic vision, so I’ll leave that end to somebody who does.
Thanks,
-V.
I see a distinction between saying “there’s more than one right answer”, and saying “this is a complex situation, and the answer is different in different situations”. I honestly believe that for my kids, there really is one right answer about what kind of school would be best for them — but (a) I don’t claim to know in some a priori way what that is; (b) I don’t necessarily think that what’s best for my kids is best for your kids. That doesn’t change my belief that there is *a* right answer for *each* person; I find that completely compatible with the idea that there is *no* right answer for *every* person, on rather a lot of topics.
So, I don’t mind if extremists want to believe they have all the answers, as long as they understand the limits on the scope of the questions.
(And I can’t help noticing that this is a problem with a centralized governmental approach to problem-solving: It’s much easier to come up with broad one-size-fits-all solutions than answers tailored to each person’s needs. You can have a Christian church teaching that Jesus was absolutely the messiah, and a Jewish temple teaching that Jesus was absolutely not the messiah, and you can’t really unify those into some sort of pluralism — and that shouldn’t be a problem.)
i should have been more precise. i wasn’t talking about the mason-dixon states. leaving out the atlanta area, the states of georgia, alabama, mississippi and louisiana all seem to have been forgotten by the southern boom, or rejected it.
the plains states yes, they’re in an economic funk. what’s the matter with kansas keeps getting tosses around…
i think this does have to do with pluralism, though. regional rivalries tend to compound misunderstandings of goals and intentions, heightening intolerance, don’t you think? there are two layers to successful pluralism: language and ideas. language is a big barrier today in america. virtually every powerful word in the political vocabulary has one meaning for the left and another for the right. possibly this comes from right wingers wanting to pretend they’re libertarian and left wingers wanting to pretend they’re populists – the words suffer from doing quadruple duty.
and throughout every election cycle, the methodists keep fighting the fight that everybody says is the fight at the polls, when it may not be.
how i’m feeling, about the place and relevance of pluralism, and the comforting power of monism, from this los angeles city beat article:
The predatory, reptilian streak that the Detroit marketing consultant Clotaire Rapaille has long sensed in American SUV consumers can also be detected in the country’s voters. As Rapaille told Bradsher regarding their car choices, people do not tell themselves they want to live in a safer world. What they say is: “If there’s a crash, I want the other guy to die.” Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is merely a more forthright, and more public, expression of the same sentiment.
There is a name for this impulse, especially in the context of a country whose legendary self-confidence has been shaken by a devastating and wholly unexpected attack on its soil. That name is nationalism � the tendency not only to stand by one’s flag and one’s country in times of trouble, but also to rally around a chauvinistic, narrowly defined sense of national identity and lash out against anyone who appears to dilute it, deviate from it, or threaten it head-on.
i’m sorry, i don’t mean to keep posting stuff, but i keep having thoughts… the above argument is essentially the gated-community argument. seal out the dangers and you can do whatever you please. internationalism and pluralism offer no similar immediate benefit. argue that i should seek long term benefits, and i will tell you that i want to live to see that long term tomorrow.
even shorter, it’s worthwhile to go into the benefits of a pluralistic society, but don’t mistake “mylar values” for “moral values.” mylar values – the necessity for superficial safety – were the name of the game this time around.