We have some of both extremes. For all practical purposes, the Democratic Party and the Green Party are indistinguishable for me. Communist (G) and Communist-lite (D). Libertarians are at the other extreme, although I believe that some guy named Barry Goldwater said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Apparently that needs revising.
Republicans are closer to the Libertarians. Maybe a quarter or a third of them. They are more selective on the issues. David On Sep 23, 2013, at 10:10 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > The west is in thrall to Kantian ideals of personal freedom. And suffers for > it > > For successful people these days, loyalties are just temporary conveniences. > Thus, notions of community get lost – as do we > > > > Giles Fraser > The Guardian, Friday 20 September 2013 > > <Untitled.jpg> > > Last week in Russia, two men got into a pub fight about the German > philosopher Immanuel Kant. Fisticuffs ensued, with one eventually pulling out > an air pistol and shooting the other. The victim is in hospital but expected > to live. So how come a man with arguably the most boring personal life of any > philosopher who ever existed can stir up such powerful feelings? > > I don't know the content of the argument, but Kant often gets me pretty wound > up too. He has become for me a shorthand for a great deal that is wrong with > the world, especially in the west. And so I also want to pick a fight, not > least because the Kantian vision of the human condition is so pervasive and > influential. > > Kant cropped up again earlier this week while I was having coffee at my house > with David Goodhart, the director of Demos, a thinktank that describes its > mission as "to bring politics closer to people". We were recording a > programme about community for Radio 4, in the course of which he said > something extremely interesting: that the problem with the political class, > and the reason they are often so emotionally and politically distant from > many ordinary people, especially in settled working-class areas, is that > their identities are often achieved, not ascribed. > > What he means is that politicians, like many "successful" people, have > achieved success by finding a route beyond the limitations of their > background. They have come to define themselves not by where they are from, > their community, but through what they have achieved in terms of education, > qualifications, career and personal aspiration. Community is thus often a > nostalgic background hum for many successful people, but not something they > are completely embedded within. And if they find a new community, it is one > they have chosen, not one ascribed to them by birth. > > This, in a sense, is the Kantian ideal. "How recognisable, how familiar to us > is the man so beautifully portrayed [by Kant]," wrote Iris Murdoch. "Free, > independent, lonely, powerful, rational, responsible, brave, the hero of so > many novels and books of moral philosophy." > > For Kant, the human being is at his or her best when they have successfully > self-authored. It's all about self-determination. For such as these, freedom > is about breaking free of allegiance, of the restrictions of the local and > the particular. In such a world, loyalties are simply a temporary > convenience. Here today, gone tomorrow. Communities are left behind. Anchors > are pulled up. Bonds of affection are renegotiated as instinct or rational > calculation sees fit. Such metropolitan professionals are citizens of the > world, at home everywhere and nowhere. > > But the fight I have to pick about Kant is really a fight I pick with myself. > Because I am also one of these people. And it's a thrilling > anything-is-possible existence when all is going well. But when the wind > changes and the weather gets cold, you look left and right and find that you > have no one to cuddle up to for warmth or solidarity. In such circumstances, > the Facebook existence, with its chosen "friends" doesn't quite cut it as a > nurturing community. The Kantian self is all very well for those who have > high levels of material prosperity or deep resources of ingenuity. But even > these are less sustaining that one often thinks. In adversity, one needs > something stronger, deeper, longer-lasting than the isolated self that has > detached itself from its background in order to be free. > > From the mid 20th century onwards, freedom has become the west's dominant > morality – freedom from fascism, free trade, free love, free speech. But when > we seek freedom from the things that bind us together, then we are not free. > We are lost. > > > -- > -- > 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 > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
