"Vortex of Paradox" on DU: your comments.

[tomreedtoon]

Here's where the article is on DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/11/16_vortex.html

(Why doesn't an article that's featured on the front page automatically get a commentary section placed here, and a link inside the article?)

I think this article hits it on the head. Ever since the election I've been seeing snarling from people on the left about how "stupid" and "evil" Bush voters are. It's gone beyond the natural hurt and frustration we all feel. It's unfair and it's stupid of us.

Instead of acting bitter about red-state morality, or denying that morality or religion matters, perhaps it's time we engaged everyone in a public debate of morality. "What is a proper moral position? Is it fair to take money from the poor, hurt God's world, punish drug addicts instead of trying to heal them?"

I'd only add that there's another article that talks about the election results in terms of religion, and how all Christians (Left and Right) are to blame for the relgious hypocracy. Here's the DU thread for that one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x86003

[freedom_to_read]

1. I agree but

I certainly agree that its stupid to "snarl about how stupid and evil Bush voters are." Not only is it counterproductive, it's a big waste of time.

But your suggestion that "we engage ... in a public debate of morality", while noble, raises the obvious question: How?

The problem as I see it is that the Right currently controls not only all the branches of government but also the major media outlets. These people are not interested in a discussion of morals, they are interested in maintaining and increasing their power. It is in their best interests to keep us, the American people, at each others throats. Which is why they -- not we, and not the "red staters" if you will -- are the ones pushing the whole "red state/blue state" topos.

There is little or no PUBLIC sphere left. The airwaves belong to the people in name only. It has all been purchased, parcelled out, controlled by corporate interests. How do we engender, and sustain, a reasonable debate about our country's moral foundations under the current conditions?

[distantearlywarning]

4. I would also like to point out that

it is difficult to "debate" with someone who's only defense of any debatable position is "God told me so". (Or in the case when the opposition provides scripture of their own, "You take verses out of context", or "Even the devil can quote scripture").

"Debate" implies that both people have logical and defensible positions, and the intelligence to defend them. I am not convinced that this is actually the case within at least the fundie segment of the right.

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. I have not

read the Wealth of Nations or any other book by Adam Smith, but I did read an article by an Australian journalist, in which he roundly repudiated the prevailing misconception (as he considered it, and certainly the notion touted by the far right), that the Hidden Hand was a metaphor for market forces, etc.

On the contrary, when Adam Smith used that term, he was referring to morality.

Can anyone confirm this or rebut it?

[knowbody0]

3. me thinks

our reality is impossible to comprehend

[whirlygigspin]

5. more battered wife syndrome

"He really is a good man, maybe he'll change"

I've heard that one time too many.

I got news for ya honey, the man ain't gonna change, he's a mean prick who wants to kill and fuck and doesn't give a shit about the kids.

wake the fuck up!

[knowbody0]

6. that response must have been meant for something besides

my comment.that or you are really a strange person