These days it seems that South Carolina politics has been plunging deeper and deeper into an ultra-conservative, archaic debate on issues that should have been settled years ago. There is no doubt that most of the voting population of our fair state votes Republican, even when those votes are so obviously against their own interests, not to mention any idea of the "public good." My problem with conservatives, though, doesn't stem from their moralistic, holier-than-thou attitudes, false pretenses of "small government", or even their misuse of public trust and power...no, I think that those attributes are intrinsic to politics and unavoidable in a form of government such as ours. My problem with conservatives stems from what I believe to be a fundamentally mistaken view that they take in regard to human nature.
There is little debate among those who spend their lives thinking about politics that the decisive difference between a liberal and a conservative boils down to their basic assumptions about human nature. If you were to draw a continuum ranging from conservative to liberal, you would have to place the assumptions that human nature is essentially "bad" on the conservative side and that human nature is essentially "good" on the liberal side (I'll define "bad" and "good" as best I can a little later, but I don't want this particular discussion to devolve into semantics). One can trace philosophically the positions taken by both conservative and liberal politicians to these fundamental assumptions about human nature.
While I personally don't believe that either camp has it all right, my beef with conservatives is the sheer hypocrisy contained in their fundamental assumption about human nature. Conservative Republicans spend tons of money espousing and promulgating images of themselves as good, moral, dependable people...precisely the types of people that they believe do not exist. Therefore, if the conservatives have it right, then they spend their entire campaigns (or even lives) lying to the public (and often themselves) about their images. You'll never find a Republican candidate for any office that will tell you he thinks that all people are essentially "bad," themselves included. That would be political suicide. So I encourage you conservatives out there to look in the mirror and ask the question, "Am I essentially a bad person?" My guess is that none of you will say "yes," except for those of you who recognize the Calvinist doctrines and can add the caveat that you have been made "good" by some exogenous factor (at which point this conversation would turn to religion, which is another conversation for another day). But really, are you intrinsically, inescapably, NATURALLY, evil? I didn't think so.
Life, In the State of Nature
8 comments:
Yes, I do vote Republican. Yes I do feel that I am a conservative. Your words make it sound like "we" are uneducated about our beliefs and the beliefs of those we vote for (even when those votes are so obviously against their own interests, not to mention any idea of the "public good.") I am strongly against abortion! I don't stand for gambling or any thing else that goes against the word of God. In a nut shell my beliefs are those of the Bible. I do believe we are all born to sin. No one had to teach us to be this way. However, once we find God, all is forgiven and we can strive to be like Jesus. I look for candidates that follow him and his teachings. All the candidates I vote for may not have the same opinions as I do, but I believe they are founded with the same morals.
Since Jimmy Carter and the horrible interest rates of the late 1970's, I have voted Republican but it is more of economic choice than a moral ideology. Is Jesus a Repbulican or a Democrat? Neither and salvation will not come from any political party. It comes through and by a loving God who gave his life for us and yes, Blue, I do think we're all born with a nature to sin. However, this doesn't mean we're all bad all the time. I will say this, tho, obedience to authority doesn't come naturally! I had to teach my children to "stay out of the road"!
While I do not feel that Christian Republicans are particularly ignorant of their own beliefs, I do feel that many of them tend to vote against their own interests simply because a particular candidate associates himself or herself with the religion. My own personal view is that religion and politics ought to be totally separate. While I don't doubt that there are many worthy teachings in the Bible, the fact is that our government must govern all people in our society, a great many of which are not Christian. What is moral and what is just may not always be the same.
Ok, in a nutshell, morality operates at the subjective, individual level and varies from person to person. Justice implies community and, therefore, must be more objective than morality, often being called on to mitigate conflicts between multiple systems of morality. The gist of my comment in the previous post was that Christian morality and ethics are not suitable to inform a system of justice for a society containing a large element that derives their morals from other, often conflicting, sources.
I would agree that religion should be separate from government, but believe sole heartedly that we should not take God out of our government. He is the creator of all. I myself did not evolve from a monkey, nor from the big blast. If you remove God's fundamentals from government, there would be only man's morals or beliefs left. Who says it's wrong to kill God or man? How many of today's societies believe it is ok to defile women and children, kill or even eat their own? It would be those societies that do not follow Christ's teachings. We must have God's moral compass, man can not make this up himself. Today's governmental morals come from Godly men of the past. Do your research and see how many men that started this country did not base their beliefs on God. I think you will find very few. You say that you believe there are worthy teachings in the Bible. I would like you to find one that is not good or moral. We may not always like what God wants, but it is always what's best for us. I may not be as educated as you or some, and surely don't know all there is to know about the government, however, I do know when a country is not founded and based on God and his principles, evil will take over. There is war going on right now between good and evil. That is bigger than the government. A good example of this is the predators that are preying on our kids over the internet. Look at Hitler’s morals, or how about Sudaams. Those worked out ok, huh? America needs Godly men in our government that can make decisions based on His law! I would hope if you are going into politics you would not leave him out.
Nice job, Blue, however, I think perhaps you give post-modern humanity a tad too much credit in the mental reflection department. Most people react to the events in life based on what affects them rather than notions of theodicy. The actual social thought of what is the essential nature of mankind and how to deal with it took place from 1900 till about 1945, which was also the peak of socio-religious liberalism. You might find it interesting that many national Democrat leaders today such as Hillary Clinton were influenced by the liberal concept of the essential goodness of humanity
A person of interest during this time frame was Karl Barth, a German theologian. Barth was a card-carrying social/religious liberal who thought that the essential nature of humanity was good, and that by aiding humanities social needs, one could bring out the goodness. Barth and his ilk pointed to post war Germany (WW1) as an example of what a society can become when given the proper socio-economic advantages. Of course, Nazism, Hilter, the concentration camps, and WW2 changed his mind along with a thorough study of the book of Romans in the bible.
On a side note, when Barth was young and full of zeal for the socialist movement, he gave a lecture at the Worker’s Association in his first parish. The title of the lecture was, [i]Jesus Christ and the Movement for Social Justice[i]. It is quite good, and I recommend it to you, but if you read it, keep in mind that the he later rejected socialism.
I would have to disagree that "post-modern" man has completely given up on self-reflection. I don't think deep philosophical thought has ever enjoyed the widespread appeal that it rightly deserves. However, as long as there are unanswered and unanswerable questions, I think some small sect of society will reflect. Further, I would say that even though the majority of conservatives are not cognizant of the philosophical roots of their arguments, the fact remains that those arguments spring logically from the same fountain.
I really enjoyed looking at your site, I found it very helpful indeed, keep up the good work.
»
Post a Comment