I just started reading The Secular Conscience, and I guess I need to stop playing Vegas2 for a bit (very hard) and just polish it off because I'm seeing something very clearly now from the little I have read. Clinton is certainly towing the old line and also walking the fine line of Roe v Wade and it's narrowing by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Obama is doing what Dacey suggests, not falling into the "Privacy Fallacy". In other words, liberals have self censored themselves by refusing to talk about morals and personal feelings. Clinton is trying to give the appearance that she's breaking out of the Privacy Fallacy, but it's clearly forced, insincere and opportunistic in response to Obama comments. Look at the contrast of what each said about abortion.
Hillary: "individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision, because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society... I think abortion should remain legal, but it needs to be safe and rare"
Obama: "This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins... Number one, it requires us to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down."
Hillary is full into the Privacy Fallacy, and that last bit, "safe and rare" is indicative of a defensive position more than willing to give more concessions in order to keep abortion in some form around. In contrast, Obama is more than willing to open that can of worms and take the issue on it seems. His way is bolder and potentially more dangerous but it's proactive and offensive rather than defensive, something we haven't seen from the Democrats since..... ?
What I think our liberal ears long accustomed to the Privacy Fallacy hear when Obama says things like "there is a moral dimension to abortion" is "well god says it's wrong and immoral". Why? Because the only ones who dare talk about morals publicly are the religious. What this does is accomplish a two-fer, it cuts us out of the morals discussion AND it gives weight to the religious charge that we don't have morals or don't know what they are. I think it's long overdue that instead of walking away from the moral sides of arguments on issues like abortion and abstinence programs either altogether or by countering with science (things like at what point the fetus may start to have brain functions or citing the MANY reports showing the failure of abstinence programs) we step into that discussion, and not defensively. Lesson one in battle is to take the high ground, and the religious have not just taken the moral high ground but have had it surrendered to them without a shot fired. RIDICULOUS! It's time to take that moral high ground back.
I also want to point out how being brave enough to lead that charge up the hill empowers one to counter attacks in ways otherwise impossible. First, let's look at Obama's response after the Rev Wright fiasco.
"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America"
Wrong and right? Is he talking morals?
"I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork... But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now... The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American."
By taking up the moral banner and daring to charge up that hill, he was free to actually use the Wright issue to propel him further up that hill. Suddenly he's taken race full on and in his speech acknowledged how it plays a part in many crucial issues and rightly pointed out how in order to even begin trying to solve those problems we have to face and accept ALL sides of the issues, even those unseemly sides we in the past have dared not speak of. Now recently this willingness has gotten him in hot water again by his comment concerning the poor in PA bitterly turning to their guns and religion. Hillary and McCain have exploited it to show he's some elitist and not a true christian and out of touch with Americans. How did he respond?
Look at what's possible if you dare to take the moral high ground. Instead of having to defend his comments, he shows that people are frustrated and "rightly so" because "nobody is looking out" for them and "they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anyone's going to help them" and instead take refuge in faith, guns and their local communities, "THINGS THEY CAN COUNT ON". Did you catch that? Far from Obama's comments being the Marxist "opiate of the masses" kind of thing his opponents have been trying to make them out to be in regards to religion, he in one fell swoop picked up the right wing flag of god and country and affirmed them as things you can count on and contrasted that to politicians, both current and of the past, who you clearly can't count on. Nice, huh? But that's not all. He punctuates that showing how "out of touch" Hillary and McCain are by highlighting their economic plans, showing how Hillary will make it harder to get out of debt and McCain needed "three tries" to realize there was a home foreclosure problem.
I think Obama's message of change escapes the age old emptiness that's usually associated with it because he avoids the Privacy Fallacy and is bold enough to take the moral high ground and face things head on rather than bury his head in the sand. It's bold and I think going to be successful for him to continue this reason for change being that people are
"fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter and they want to see a change in Washington".
Hillary's response of saying she doesn't see people who are bitter will be her undoing.
2008-04-14
Taking the Moral High Ground
Give this post a thumbs up
I dig this post
Vote up on The Atheist Spot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Good post. Now you really have me wanting to read the Dacey book, because I think he's onto something big with the "Privacy Fallacy."
However, in interpreting Obama's words in his original "guns, religion, and antipathy" comment -- which I think you've done correctly -- you fail, as Obama did, to take into account the ears to which those words were directed. Obama should have known that his audience was not filled with PhillyChiefs and Exterminators and Austin Daceys and various other folks who might hear and understand precisely what he intended to say. He should have been able to predict exactly how his words would be characterized in media reports. Being the elitist that I am, I'm not surprised that the ignorant American public misread his language.
In short, I think there's an important corollary to breaking out of the Privacy Fallacy. And that's not to fall into the Interpretation Fallacy: "One's words will always be understood as meaning exactly what one intended them to mean."
I think if you go back and read Hillary's and Obama's responses about abortion, for instance, you'll find that hers was much more carefully phrased. It's simple, straightforward, and leaves little room for alternative interpretations. Obama's on the other hand, is certainly more personal, but it's also more complex. He mistakenly (or, I think, purposely) uses a loaded phrase like "moral dimension," which means something quite different to our atheist ears than it does to Christian ears.
What did he mean?
I don't think it meant anything other than allowing that door to be open now whereas before we kept it shut and made everybody "take it outside" but then didn't follow. It's a signal that he's willing to take on the moral arguments against abortion, but of course didn't address any details. Neither did Hillary. "safe and rare"? Wtf does that mean, and why "rare"?
I think another bold thing Obama is trying is exactly opposite of what you're saying, sorta. Not so much the issue of whose ears he's speaking to but how the media will cover the words. I saw ABC news hype this thing Saturday in what I can call purely disingenuous journalism. It presented the worst of Obama's first comment, followed by Hillary and McCain's responses and then the only thing they showed of Obama was him saying "I didn’t say it as well as I should have" and characterized the speech I linked to above from Youtube as merely him attempting to reword the original comment. Is that how you saw that speech, merely an attempt to reword the original comment?
He challenged the media with the Race Speech to either discuss things properly or just keep airing Wright snippets on some titillating loop. Now it's will they show the full story or work this into a ratings grabbing issue of "Obama slips up and his opponents capitalize"? Sadly, it seems they're going the latter.
Hey Chief,
Good post.
I am by no means defending Hillary but one can interpret her comments about "safe and rare" to mean that:
1) she supports the right for a woman to have an abortion.
2) Keeping the incidence of abortions low is a good approach for reasons beyond the underlying moral issue. Abortion as a method of birth control, is certainly not a)cheap, b) efficient, or c) without the potential for serious side effects. All pretty good reasons to avoid abortion on face value.
Viewed in this light I don't have a problem with her comments about "safe and rare." I don't think you can automatically assume she is morally opposed to abortion by this comment alone.
I think I understand your point about the "Privacy Fallacy", but do you really think that Obama gets out of this mindset? His comment is quite ambiguous and, in essence, says, "I'm not sure how I feel about this, it is a tough issue to debate, and there are moral principles involved" Certainly a reasonable response from any educated person, but ...DUH!
I also have to disagree with Obama on his assumption. I have a hard time believing that most people DON'T see abortion as having a moral dimension.
I happen to think Obama is a gifted speaker and has hit some home-runs during the campaign,but here I think he sounds almost apologetic for his pro-choice position.
Philly:
I think you and I are in agreement here about what Obama actually meant, although I'm a bit suspicious of his abortion comment; it packs different punches for different people. I agree with Vince that he sounds "almost apologetic for his pro-choice position." At least, that's how he'll sound to a lot of people, both friends and foes.
I love the fact that his speeches are nuanced and personal, and I do feel that he's far more sincere and genuine than his opponents -- and most other politicians.
But, unfortunately, we live in a country with a sound-bite mentality. You and I, and probably millions of other people who know how to distinguish nuances, who actually revel in an intellectually charged phrase, admire a person for making a speech that's rich in personal reflections and deep thought. But I don't think it's a way to get elected.
The "getting elected" issue is one of the very things that many people have criticized me about when I've called Democrats to task for not speaking up about church-state separation. Some atheists have claimed to be understanding about Hillary's and Obama's pandering to theists -- since that pandering is merely a ploy to get votes.
However, if a person talks about the electability issue in one context, he or she probably ought to think about it in all contexts. We have to admit, don't we, that the American public is not looking for deep thought, rational or otherwise. It's looking for quick, glib responses that can be broken down into slogans understandable by fourth-graders.
You're right, of course, that Hillary's "safe and rare" doesn't mean shit. But it's neat, easy to say, and can be interpreted conveniently by almost any listener. Obama's "moral dimension" is much harder to pinpoint, and won't look very cool on a button. He seems to have a "tin ear" when it comes to expressing himself on the hard issues; he weighs them too much. Oddly, that endears him to me, and probably to you, too -- as well as to the small portion of the press that's intelligent. The guy doesn't always resort to glib, empty rhetoric. Terrific.
But it's not a good campaign tactic. It's the Interpretation Fallacy I mentioned before.
Safe is fine, but rare? Rare sounds like concession, like agreeing to actively limit it. How? And of course, why?
I think Obama's response is a bit more than the mere "reasonable response from any educated person". Both admitting that you don't know when life starts and that you admit the issue carries moral baggage is considerably more honest and sincere than what we usually hear. The overcoming of the Privacy Fallacy is by accepting to engage in the moral aspect of the issue. Failing to deliver concretely, imo, doesn't hurt him since no one is doing so.
He probably is rolling the dice, Ex. That was said after the Race speech, too. He's challenging people. Will it work? Well it hasn't been hurting him too badly. He's gotten pretty far on it. What kind of odds would you have given him a year, year and a half ago with a message of hope, change, and intellectually challenging positions? Oh yeah, and add to that he's half black with a name like Barak Hussein Obama. :)
I've said it before, I'm torn between wishing he'd adopt sound byte answers and wishing he never adopts sound byte answers. The former seems to be the formula for winning but the latter is what really is the best way to win, the way it SHOULD BE. The biggest issue of faith for Obama may well be the faith he has that the latter strategy can work and not that he's a "committed christian".
Yup.
I like the fact that Obama's willing to use the language of morality and not concede it to the right wing. I also like the fact that he's willing to admit that moral issues aren't easy, but that's he's willing to take on the task of examining them from something other than a hyper-conservative point of view. If he and McCain ever debate about ethics, values, etc., McCain will be checkmated in less than 30 seconds.
I really admire Obama for his willingness to speak honestly. Of course it may all be calculated BS, but it does not come acress that way at all.
You wrote "Safe is fine, but rare? Rare sounds like concession, like agreeing to actively limit it. How? And of course, why?"
Concession? As in abortion is a form of birth control that we should feel good about? We need to actively encourage other forms of birth control that do not result in termination of the life of a fetus.
Just because there may be legal decisions about when that becomes a human life, does not mean that until that point the fetus is not human or alive. This is a legal distinction, not a moral, medical, or scientific one.
One way to actively limit abortion is to make contraception better understood and more acceptable. To recognize that our children are making these decisions and encouraging them to understand the consequences of their actions. To get the religious prohibitionists to stop encouraging abortion by discouraging contraception and acting as if abstinence is a practical alternative to premarital sex. So far, we have not been successful in educating our children.
Look at the example the Catholic priests set - clearly abstinence is a fraud that discourages sensible alternatives and encourages the rape of children the priests are supposed to protect and educate.
How many abortions are the religious abstinence set causing. We need to start making it clear that abortion is brought to us by the religious right.
I had a lot to say in reply, so here ya go.
I really like your writing. Thanks so much, finally a decent website with good information in it.
Post a Comment