Michael wrote:
> That is true, but such ideology lent itself to the "perversion" >you
describe because the "individuals" who possessed >liberty were in theory
abstract but in reality very specific-->male property-owners.
Yes, yes, but if we'd never had the concept in place to begin with how could
all those who were left out have cited to it for support of gaining their
rights? Also, and I realize you are not using this specific term, I think
it is too overbroad when people cite to the "white male" in this country as
having always held all the rights and privileges. My "white" Irish
grandfather and his relatives who came to this country were also
"disenfranchised" and discriminated against along with white male immigrants
from certain other countries as recently as the early part of the 20th
century. My grandfather, who was a chief of police for a time had to shut
down demonstrating Ku Klux Klanners in his town in Pennsylvania who were
burning their crosses because of the Irish Catholics who wanted to live
there. My father still remembers signs on every place of business which
said "Irish Need Not Apply." Not to get off the subject here, but it can't
all be chalked up to "white male property owners" so simply. I'm sure there
are others on the list here who know of stories from their grandparents or
great-grandparents that are similar to mine.
> A lot of recent (past 20 years) feminist, queer, and other >political
thought rightly points out, IMO, that "abstract >individuals" are never
abstract; they have differential levels of >power and resources that greatly
impact their ability to >exercise liberty they supposedly possess. The myth
of the >abstract individual hides these differences under an ideology >of
"equality" and "freedom" that bears little resemblance to >reality.
Yes, of course.
> Such ideology allows space for the Religious Right, for >example, to wed
their regulation of certain moral decisions >to Republican (both little and
big R) thought in that certain >moral behavior becomes the prerequisite for
citizenship, in a >very real sense, which in turn entitles one to the
protections >of liberty. Yesterday it was property-owners; today it's
> heterosexuals. In structure, it's not all that different.
I absolutely agree.
> Both the Democratic and Republican party have roots in the >abstract
individual model of liberty, and that is in part why >the U.S. has had such
a hard time correcting group power >imbalances, both legally and
politically.
I think both groups need to have some kind of model for individual liberty
and freedom of choice - it's better than the alternative. I've always
thought that the way the country was set up from the beginning is a
balancing act. The overriding ideal is for all people in the country to
have as much freedom as practically possibe. But that doesn't mean a free
for all. And that's where Federal law helps balance things out. When
people, or corporations or political parties or whatever type of entity you
want to name gets the kind of power that is hurting the greater public good,
the role of Federal law ideally is to step in and correct the inbalance.
Some things are obvious and it's easy to point to them as examples of where
the Federal government should step in. And yes, the laws and interpretation
of the laws do evolve, hopefully in the wisest direction. But we have to
also be careful not to let the Federal government completely dictate our
lives, either, or else we are no longer a democratic republic.
Kakki
