I gave this interview on a local conservative radio show several months ago
that speaks to psycho-social-spiritual identity:
Listen to Kevin talk about Discovering Possibility in an interview conducted on
05/01/11 with Jeff Chidester on the New Hampshire Perspective radio show.
Hi Billy:
I see this as life's work and the accumulation of years of study and life
experience so the answers to your questions will have to be delivered over time
as we get to know each other better.
My hope is to offer something at the level of personal identity, so as such I
believe it is important to address emotional, spiritual, and relational
attachments as well as appeals to logic and reason.
Kevin
Kevin :
Selections from your book. No particular order. Comments follow each
quotation, in BF--
My belief is it will take a total and complete rejection of progressive
hopes and aspirations to usher in a new acceptance of liberty and personal
responsibility. A lot of us are working to bring about that disillusionment
because we believe it is the only route to a renewed America
This is difficult to understand. "Progressivism" has many meanings , for
one thing.
TR's version is very different than today's Progressivism, just as Henry
Wallace's
version was also different. Not sure what you really mean.
What I trust you don't mean is something along the lines of abolition of
the
National Parks or an end to reform movements against corruption in
government,
among other things, which have progressive foundations even if today's
so-called "progressives" could care less about these sorts of concerns.
Also, all kinds of concepts --usually given some kind of identifying name--
surely have their positive dimensions. It is pretty axiomatic that no
political
cause could possibly gain any traction at all unless parts of it objectively
are good in nature. This is essential for any kind of realistic politics
or proposals for policy changes. Another way to ay this is the
old adage, "don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
What, about each type of Progressivism, is valuable ?
What is the baby, what is the bath water ?
Maybe we can say that some systems are so bad overall that the good
is hopelessly drowned out, for example Fascism and Communism,
but unless you take "progressivism" to mean little more
than camouflage for Marist-Leninism, then the concept has any number
of positive qualities even if X number of its ideas are bad news or
once were good but have outlived their usefulness.
What about the Oregon System ? "Initiative, Referendum, and Recall"
is now national and has been for many years, and it is Progressive in the
TR / La Follette sense. Does anyone at all want to get rid of this ?
This system works reasonably well, it has large scale popular support,
and going to war against it would be crazy, and a guaranteed defeat
for anyone who made the effort.
Mandatory education for all, K - 12, is another Progressive idea.
Sorry, but at least in principle, I fail to see this as anything but
all for the good.
Who are the contemporary progressives ? Some don't especially like
each other. Can't say for sure, but would guess that Bernie Sanders
likes Nader but does not like Chomsky. And if you got Cornel West,
Howard Dean and Michael Lerner in one place together you just
might end up with the climactic scene in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
And while I might like to send Kucinich to a funny farm, my view of Sanders,
when he talks economics, is usually very favorable. That is, there are
distinctions that need to be made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly
inadequate to the government of any other.”
Here you quoted John Adams, a sentiment with which I agree 100 %.
OK, how is this to be accomplished ? No problem as far as I am
concerned for you to promote Deism. While it isn't my cup of tea,
I do not have any bad criticisms to make and if someone wants to
be a Deist, OK with me.
But this is hardly enough to re-establish some kind of moral foundation
for America , is it ? With a lot of luck you might get 2 % of the
population
signed up, or 5% if things really broke you way, but further than that ?
Not a realistic future. That leaves the other 95 % or 98 %.
You still want a renewal of morality. What would it take ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America needs another way to honor Truth without Christian evangelism
so moderate thinkers who do not consider themselves biblical literalists
can embrace the beauty of liberty and responsibility and other
fundamental American values
This continues the theme above. How do you get Biblical Christians
to see the value of "Truth without Christian evangelism" ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Free individuals are free precisely because they have taken responsibility
for their own lives and let go of whatever primitive impulses they may have
employed in the past to blame others for their own lack of happiness. The
empowered individual does not let impediments get in the way of his own
existential search for happiness, indeed he sees temporary obstacles as
necessary challenges in the quest for meaning, flow, and the good life.
The principle is easy enough to understand. However, what about large
classes
of exceptions to the rule ? I also agree that an ideology of victimhood
does
no-one any good. But there are some facts that simply cannot be accounted
for
by any "best of all worlds" ideology. In an ideal world we would all start
at the
same starting line and the winner of any race would be the best runner,
period.
This model works well enough for the middle class, but only for the middle
class.
The rich start a one mile race 3/4ths of a mile ahead of anyone else. The
poor
are not allowed to compete unless they wear lead boots or must run while
their feet are tied together.
Pick almost any factor, health care, nutrition , education, etc, and the
poor
are handicapped from day # 1. This is reality. Some of the poor are
remarkable and succeed despite every obstacle. But in terms of
probability , anyone ought to be able to see the injustices involved.
So, what should be done about this ? Pep talks to persevere and
try harder ? Seems to me that would be a strategy guaranteed
to make --to be generous-- perhaps 1 % of difference.
And even really good pep talks would not begin
to address fundamental issues of justice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments ?
Billy
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
