http://www.mediaite.com/online/one-per-center-peter-schiff-visits-occupy-wall-street-produces-18-minutes-of-civility/
You have to admit that this Peter Schiff has got some guts. How many of us would go down to a rally where people are complaining about us and deal with them in honest dialog. I am not saying that I totally agree with Schiff because I don't. But I highly respect a man who choose to have dialog in a situation that is not completely under his control. Especially since as a self-identified top one percent of our society he can easily keep his detractors at bay.
I hope his interaction allows some of those detractors to see that the people they oppose are, well people. Not just stereotypes of the uncaring rich. I hope he can see that his critics as individuals as well. Not just a rabble that has to be put down. When we disagree with people we are so tempted to dehumanize them and react to our stereotype of them. That is why dialog like that initiated by Peter Schiff is so important. We can still disagree with others but do so in ways that help us to find solutions instead of merely demonizing them as the enemy.
So God bless you Peter Schiff. You may not have the the right answers to our economic crisis but you do have the guts to put your ideas to those who disagree the most. I hope that I can dialog with my critics if I am ever in a similar situation. That sort of dialog is the only way we will be able to find those right answers.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Christian but not conservative?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/conservative-evangelicals-implore-gop-presidential-hopefuls-tone-down-181946140.html
For me it is more interesting to read about something unexpected than to read about something that confirms mainstream expectations. Mainstream expectations is that evangelicals are political conservatives and thus adhere to all of the aspects of a politically conservative agenda. To read about how these evangelicals, who to the best of my knowledge are Republicans, make this break from conservative hysteria is quite refreshing. Perhaps it is through ministries to Hispanics that they have more of concern for immigrants and not so harsh with them. Regardless of the reason, they clearly break the conservative mold that we are tempted to put them in.
But this brings up an even bigger issue for me. Since I am a political independent, I often wonder how people can hold to either a politically progressive or conservative framework. You see, a progressive or a conservative political ideology is socially constructed. Those who hold to them naturally believe that they have the best solutions to political problems. The conservative believes that what is called "conservatism" is the best answer to issues as varied as tax reform, abortion, national defense, environmental issues, educational policy etc. The progressive believes that what is called "liberalism" is the best answer to those issues as well.
Here is what gets me. Neither the conservative or the liberal is consistent in their answers. Come on now. How can the conservative state that the government should be smaller and then push for an expansionist foreign policy? How can the progressive state that the government should pay so that a woman has a "choice" in abortion but not pay for school choice which would give her options on where to send her kid to school? I am certain that both the conservative and the progressive feels comfortable with that they have an underlying philosophy that explains such disparities. I remain unconvinced.
This is why I see political ideology is socially constructed. It is not driven by some underlying philosophy but rather it serves a certain segment of the population at a given time. We create an identity because of that philosophy and then find ways to adhere to that identity. If a new political issue comes up that we have not yet encountered then we try to find the "conservative" or "progressive" perspective on that issue and then accept the one that fits our political identity. This allows us to belief we have the right answer to a variety of issues we have not thought deeply about even while we conceptualize enemies (i.e. the other political philosophy) that we can blame all of society's problems on.
That is why what the evangelicals did was so cool. They basically broke the the political philosophy they support because they have an underlying philosophy that overrides their identity as a political conservative. By doing this they show that they are independent thinkers and dare I say it, critical thinkers. Hey maybe they even have a little trouble-maker in them.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
For me it is more interesting to read about something unexpected than to read about something that confirms mainstream expectations. Mainstream expectations is that evangelicals are political conservatives and thus adhere to all of the aspects of a politically conservative agenda. To read about how these evangelicals, who to the best of my knowledge are Republicans, make this break from conservative hysteria is quite refreshing. Perhaps it is through ministries to Hispanics that they have more of concern for immigrants and not so harsh with them. Regardless of the reason, they clearly break the conservative mold that we are tempted to put them in.
But this brings up an even bigger issue for me. Since I am a political independent, I often wonder how people can hold to either a politically progressive or conservative framework. You see, a progressive or a conservative political ideology is socially constructed. Those who hold to them naturally believe that they have the best solutions to political problems. The conservative believes that what is called "conservatism" is the best answer to issues as varied as tax reform, abortion, national defense, environmental issues, educational policy etc. The progressive believes that what is called "liberalism" is the best answer to those issues as well.
Here is what gets me. Neither the conservative or the liberal is consistent in their answers. Come on now. How can the conservative state that the government should be smaller and then push for an expansionist foreign policy? How can the progressive state that the government should pay so that a woman has a "choice" in abortion but not pay for school choice which would give her options on where to send her kid to school? I am certain that both the conservative and the progressive feels comfortable with that they have an underlying philosophy that explains such disparities. I remain unconvinced.
This is why I see political ideology is socially constructed. It is not driven by some underlying philosophy but rather it serves a certain segment of the population at a given time. We create an identity because of that philosophy and then find ways to adhere to that identity. If a new political issue comes up that we have not yet encountered then we try to find the "conservative" or "progressive" perspective on that issue and then accept the one that fits our political identity. This allows us to belief we have the right answer to a variety of issues we have not thought deeply about even while we conceptualize enemies (i.e. the other political philosophy) that we can blame all of society's problems on.
That is why what the evangelicals did was so cool. They basically broke the the political philosophy they support because they have an underlying philosophy that overrides their identity as a political conservative. By doing this they show that they are independent thinkers and dare I say it, critical thinkers. Hey maybe they even have a little trouble-maker in them.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Is this diversity?
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110915/OPINION03/309150052/Vanderbilt-flirting-religious-suppression?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)