Political Philosophy

“Working” versus “Fighting”

by

The Assistant Village Idiot observes that Democratic politicians tend to say “I’ll fight for you,” whereas Republican politicians tend to say “I’ll work for you.” His explanation:

Republicans run for office telling you they’re going to work for you, because that’s how they perceive progress happening: someone works for it. Democrats run telling you they’re going to fight for you, because they believe that’s how improvement comes: someone has to wrest good stuff away from others.

I think it’s generally true that Republicans have tended to say “work” and Democrats have tended to say “fight”, although I did notice that McCain used the F-word several times during his announcement of Gov Pailin’s candidacy.

Neptunus Lex had some related thoughts:

The innate character flaw of the political right, with its thrumming appeals to the logic of blood and soil, is its lamentable tendency to go in search of enemies abroad. The left, on the other hand, with its own appeals to the politics of envy and class warfare, is content to find mortal enemies closer to hand.

To me, it seems pretty clear that today’s Democrats view society basically as a neo-Hobbesian war of group against group…hence, their preference for the “fight” formulation–with the fighting, of course, to be done against fellow Americans–is a natural one.

Maybe They Should Go To Church Once For the Experience

by

An amusing little bit of religious ignorance from Huffington Post:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

In other words: “Pray that we’re doing the right thing.” Wow, I can really see how that is  controversial. Clearly, Palin comes from a nest of religious fanatics.  

Read more

The Gut: Tribalism’s Home and Not Always a Bad Thing

by

Thanks, Shannon for your blogging, which has  provided a  smorgasbord.  

 

In the comments to his “Identity-Politics Insanity” post, Helen’s observation reminds us of a truth about American politics but more importantly about human nature.   For instance, a balanced ticket is attractive, because we assume more ideas are in play and more people feel an identity with their leaders.   On the other hand, Shannon is right:    identity politics encourages a tribalism whose restraint has been the great triumph of western civilization and a prerequisite for a diverse nation ruled by predictable, equitable laws.   We rightly fear identities that trump law & duty, but we also fear ideologies which encourage children to betray their parents and wives their husbands.   We ignore such passions natural to our species at our own peril: unacknowledged they threaten chaos; diminished, we lack a glue that holds communities and even identities together.

 

Read more

Fantasy Energy

by

Megan McArdle  [h/t Instapundit] writes:

There’s a lot of optimism on both the center-left and the right that all we really need to do to tackle the problem of global warming/peak oil is throw a hell of a lot of money at the problem, and presto!…Yes, we found petroleum to replace whale oil.   This does not therefore mean, as night follows day, that we will find something to replace petroleum.   We will find something to replace petroleum if there  is  something that can replace petroleum.   There might not be.

Well, actually, there is always a new source of energy to replace any old energy source. It just might not be the energy source we  fantasize  about.  

Read more

Quote of the Day (Sort Of)

by

Peggy Noonan in the WSJ:

…At Republican conventions they express sympathy for this woman, as they do for those who are entrepreneurial, who start businesses and create jobs and build things. Republicans have, that is, sympathy for taxpayers. But they don’t dwell all that much, or show much expressed sympathy for, the sick mother with the uninsured kids, and the soldier with the shot nerves.

Noonan misses the point. Republicans have as much sympathy for people who are sick, poor or troubled as anyone does. Where Republicans and Democrats differ is in their opinions about how best to help such people. Democrats tend to believe in direct government action as a remedy. Republicans tend to believe that government is often part of the problem, and that better remedies are available through private charity and by pursuing government policies that encourage personal responsibility and economic development.

Noonan is correct, however, that Democrats, particularly national politicians, tend to lack sympathy for entrepreneurs, particularly small-business people who in many areas are victimized by high tax rates and excessive regulation. Government action to reduce such burdens would boost productivity, and therefore wealth, jobs and tax receipts. But Democrats as a group tend to be indifferent or hostile to business people other than those in regulated industries who make large political contributions.