Saturday, July 20, 2024

More on the GOP and social conservatism

For those not following me on X (Twitter), some posts from the last couple of days attempting further to clarify what is at issue, and at stake, in the debate over the direction of the GOP:

Posted by at

83 comments:

  1. MPJuly 20, 2024 at 1:24 PM

    I guess the right solution would be to have the platform with two parts: what the party wants to achieve in the short run, and what the party wants to achieve in the long run. Unfortunately, it looks like parties rarely write their programs and platforms like this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJuly 20, 2024 at 3:41 PM

    Dr. Feser, you should get off twitter. Its like a solvent for dissolving human brains. It replaces permeates all of human existence with the noise and outrage of millions of other souls that have been enslaved to constantly consuming its content.

    I wouldn't describe myself as a "social conservative" or a "progressive" or a Republican or a Democrat. Those categories and social phenomena will not help us live an authentic Christian life, in my opinion.

    Living our lives in silent, hopeful imitation of the meekness of Jesus Christ, is our only chance to heal our sinful, broken society.

    It is probably because public Christianity in America has made itself a mere annex to a partisan politican movement of dubious value that "social conservatives" are so "unpopular" as you put it in American society today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJuly 20, 2024 at 5:23 PM

      I see Twitter as analogous to Plato's Cave. And someone's got to go in there to help get people out

      Delete
    2. DNWJuly 20, 2024 at 6:00 PM

      Stay on X, Ed.

      You have certainly both given and taken some ground there. But the shots your position and the stances you have taken on the X platform do not seem to have harmed you - or anyone else - any more than those delivered and received on your blog have. It can be much more in the way of a dialog in real time (nearly) too.

      X is the current free speech public square and your comments radiate in all directions through myriad links and repeats. And it is obvious that your public forum readership there is in the tens of thousands. I had no idea you had that reach, despite your book sales.

      As far as the pietist, meek and mild passive Christianity goes, well, you will make up your own mind on that. But I think the Church has a plentiful supply of gliding, pursed lipped, bruised reeds and smoking flax mandarins and sensitives already.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 20, 2024 at 6:57 PM

      It certainly diminished my respect for you when you found yourself tweeting about eating cats.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 20, 2024 at 9:08 PM

      That was good, Dr. Feser. And I liked your tweet about non-philosophers who also seek the truth.

      Delete
    5. David MarcoeJuly 20, 2024 at 9:55 PM

      I suppose it depends on which side branches you enter. I've had civil and constructive conversations on Twitter (though I did so with conscious effort) and read insightful comments. Regrettably, I've probably contributed in the past to the histrionics that goes on there, though I've tried to curb that behavior.

      I miss the early days of Twitter, where conversations could be spirited and free-flowing, without being vitriolic. You also came into contact with public figures you typically wouldn't have access to, who would just suddenly drop into a conversation. I think algorithmic manipulation and throttling did a lot to damage the platform.

      Delete
    6. MarkJuly 21, 2024 at 12:00 PM

      'Living our lives in silent, hopeful imitation of the meekness of Jesus Christ, is our only chance to heal our sinful, broken society.'

      Except Jesus wasn't meek or silent. And he was no pacifist; "I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

      Advice to shut up and go with the flow sounds like advice straight from hell's Ministry of Propaganda.

      Delete
    7. CosmicCatJuly 22, 2024 at 12:15 PM

      Its like a solvent for dissolving human brains.

      Chemistry analogies always merits an A+.

      "I did it for me. I like it. I was good at it. And, I was really... I was alive." - Walter White.

      Delete
    8. Oktavian ZamoyskiJuly 22, 2024 at 12:28 PM

      Jesus wasn't silent, but he was meek in the true sense of the word, which is a moderation in anger. And considering He was God Himself, and considering the wrath our sinfulness deserves, I'd say He was extraordinarily meek. And let us pray and ask that He shows us that meekness and mercy during our judgement, given our failures.

      Which is to say: be meek, but meekness is not quietism or hiding in the woods. Christians are spiritual warriors and conquerors, in the truth sense of those words. We show due and prudent anger within moderation to move us toward justice with appropriate patience. And because Catholics are in it for the long haul, not the election cycle, we cultivate and capture ground painstakingly, and we do so primarily through conversion, but also by saturating institutions with the competent Catholics that such cultivation would produce.

      Right now, we have a lot of work to do shoring up Catholicism among Catholics and Catholic communities.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousJuly 22, 2024 at 1:10 PM

      WCB

      Mark 10, Luke 12, 14, 18, Matthew 19, the commands of Jesus. Sell all you have and give to the poor. Most Christians: "Jesus didn't mean ME!".

      WCB

      Delete
    10. CosmicCatJuly 27, 2024 at 9:32 PM

      @Mark

      Quietism is a heresy. The Buddha says that it will lead you into being reincarnated as a tapeworm for 50,000 generations.

      Delete
  3. AnonymousJuly 20, 2024 at 4:54 PM

    WCB

    The big problem with Vance is if his far right extremist ideas were made part of the GOP platform, the women voters will turn out in droves to vote democratic no matter who is the Democratic nominee. Biden in a coma would win.

    Women independents will not support the extremism of Vance. And woman will trust Trump about what his future position will be on anything, much less women's issues.

    Project 2025 is not going to play well with anybody but Christian Nationalists. It may well turn out J.D. Vance will do for the GOP what Sarah Palin did for John McCain.

    The GOP may well try not to spell out what they really plan for 2025 if they win, but that will not fool anybody into thinking it won't be as bad as J.D. Vance's recent opinions would indicate.

    The idea Vance may take over if Trump dies, and may well serve 8 years later as president is sobering to anybody not on the extremist far right.

    WCB

    WCB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MPJuly 21, 2024 at 4:14 PM

      You know, "far right" would sound more threatening if we didn't know that the "Center" has moved so far to the left, that even Stalin (who criminalised abortion and homosexual relations) would arguably count as "far right" nowadays.

      Delete
    2. CosmicCatJuly 21, 2024 at 11:29 PM

      @MP

      Josef Stalin was an empire-builder who seriously believed in Greek mythology, was self-told and became who he was meant to be. The empire he built went down the toilet as soon as he died. He was the Elon Musk of communists. He also inspired George W. Bush with the creation (that word being stripped of all positive connotations) of the department of Homeland Security, like the song "Every Breath You Take" by The Police.

      "Every Breath You Take" by The Police

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 24, 2024 at 9:51 PM

      These comments had me a bit concerned that there might be something to look into...

      but that will not fool anybody into thinking it won't be as bad as J.D. Vance's recent opinions would indicate.

      The idea Vance may take over if Trump dies, and may well serve 8 years later as president is sobering to anybody not on the extremist far right.

      until I read who they were from: WCB.
      Moving right along, now...

      Delete
    4. AnonymousNovember 14, 2024 at 4:11 PM

      MP, are you saying the U.S. should ban homosexual acts and arrest those who do them?

      Delete
  4. CosmicCatJuly 20, 2024 at 10:33 PM

    Politics = poly (meaning "many") + ticks (meaning "ticks"). In addition, the first prefix comes from Greek, which is the favorite personality type of politicos. (Titus 1:12)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Miguel CervantesJuly 21, 2024 at 1:33 AM

    Vance is an awful combination; convinced of the importance of taking religion "seriously", yet never coming within a mile of allowing it to determine society on its own terms. This allows Vance to have a self-righteousness that can never be punctured in a million years, while maintaining a secularist society for just as long. Conservatism in a nutshell. Trump is what he appears to be. That Christians are drooling over him only informs us about the state of "Christianity" in the US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 22, 2024 at 5:56 AM

      It's easy to pick apart someone only by their flaws. Who would have been a better pick?

      Delete
    2. Oktavian ZamoyskiJuly 22, 2024 at 12:13 PM

      @Anon Yeah, poor Mussolini. Easy to pick apart his flaws. No one talks about he made the trains run on time and almost eradicated the Mafia.

      Delete
    3. Miguel CervantesJuly 23, 2024 at 12:16 AM

      Anonymous. A false, secularist ideology is not a character flaw in itself. It becomes unbearable when married to unquenchable self-righteousness and lapped up by swooning Christians. After wasting yet another decade, most of the survivors will wake up to the fact that they've been had yet again. Never mind. There'll be more charlatans and showmen around.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 23, 2024 at 2:44 PM

      I'm sorry, if Vance is so uniquely terrible, why isn't it trivially easy to point to a better alternative?

      Would the conservative movement be better served by a VP candidate who does not even pay lip service to conservative principles?

      Is there a legitimately conservative and principled option here that was ripe for the picking?

      Trust me, I don't need much convincing that politicians are snakes and not to be trusted, so "Vance sucks" is not a high bar for me to reach, but the hyperbolic language surrounding him really strains credulity.

      Delete
    5. Miguel CervantesJuly 24, 2024 at 1:11 AM

      It's no so much that Trump/Vance are so terribly bad as the fact that people who should know better literally call them "the sons of light" of the Apocalypse - remember Vigano's mad letter to Trump in 2020? It only delighted those Christians who still believe this is a battle of good versus evil, when it's just another US presidential race for the leadership of the "Enlightened" world.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 24, 2024 at 3:18 PM

      Ok Miguel, I can't disagree with that.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousJuly 24, 2024 at 9:54 PM

      It only delighted those Christians who still believe this is a battle of good versus evil, when it's just another US presidential race for the leadership of the "Enlightened" world.

      What part of our moral choice on voting (or not voting) is NOT part of the battle of good versus evil?

      Delete
    8. Miguel CervantesJuly 25, 2024 at 1:40 AM

      That choice is part of the battle of good versus evil each of us has to wage. Trump/Vance against that kindergarten teacher the Democrats are putting up is not the battle of good versus evil. Which of them is the lesser evil is yet another question again, and the answer in the long term is not as obvious as many believe.

      Delete
  6. MarkJuly 21, 2024 at 11:51 AM

    Feser is absolutely correct on this issue. Look to Canada as an example of what will happen if the current scenario in the Republican party continues. Conservatives in Canada are defined by being 1° to the right of the liberals. Meanwhile the liberals have continued to steer hard left since the '70s so that the conservative parties in Canada are now far to the left socially of what used to be considered a radical left position in the '70s.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJuly 21, 2024 at 3:15 PM

    "You might recall that the last time a Democratic president unpopular with a radicalized Left declined to seek reelection, the convention didn't go too well."
    This ain't 1968, Ed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ficino4mlJuly 22, 2024 at 5:18 AM

    I assume that the natural structure of marriage, if it is defended successfully by the Republicans in government, would entail passage of federal laws mandating:
    restriction of legal marriage to unions of one man born male and one woman born female;
    banning artificial means of birth control except perhaps under circumstances covered by the principle of double effect;
    elimination of "no fault divorce" and restriction on circumstances that allow divorce (perhaps especially on wives' ability to initiate divorce proceedings).
    Would defending the natural structure of marriage require additional laws, e.g.:
    restricting wives':
    ownership of property in their own name and right to bequeath property pro se;
    ability to have financial accounts, incl. credit cards,
    in their own name;
    rights to bequeath property
    rights to deny husbands' requests/demands to perform intercourse (no "spousal rape")

    I don't know whether the natural structure of marriage admits interracial marriage. In the history of the USA have been many who said it does not admit interracial marriage.

    I doubt that the Republicans would go so far as to take away women's rights to vote, although I do not see how a traditional conception of marriage really allows that right. As the opponents of women's suffrage maintained, wives are represented at the polls by their husbands, and unmarried women by their fathers or brothers or other men.

    I have not read Project 2025. Since the traditional conception of marriage makes the husband the head of the wife, and there are arguments that "traditional" conceptions of marriage come fairly close to the structure of natural marriage, I am left wondering how far the restoration of natural marriage is supposed to go toward replicating legal structures in place in the early 20th century.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyJuly 24, 2024 at 10:17 PM

      Would defending the natural structure of marriage require additional laws, e.g.:
      restricting wives':
      ownership of property in their own name and right to bequeath property pro se;
      ability to have financial accounts, incl. credit cards,
      in their own name;
      rights to bequeath property

      Before changes that occurred in the 1800s, most states' laws were structured to presume that property held by a family was owned by the husband. Then they passed laws allowing married women to own property separately. This was a mistaken solution to the very real problem: the proper solution was state laws recognizing (not "allowing") the family unit together ordinarily holds property, man and woman in union. Not separately. This can still be done in "tenancy by the entirety" property ownership, but you (mostly) have to expressly set up such mutual holding at time of titling the property, going out of your way to achieve that. Even community property states generally screwed up: saying that each spouse "gets" 50% of everything acquired during marriage still allows SEPARATE holding of each 50% of the property - it should be held in union as the default setting.

      I don't know whether the natural structure of marriage admits interracial marriage. In the history of the USA have been many who said it does not admit interracial marriage.

      In the broader world (e.g. ancient Rome, Greece, etc) there was no problem with interracial marriage. That is, (in some places) they might look down on children from such a marriage as being mutts, but they didn't think that it wasn't marriage. And in Christianity, "there is no longer Gentile or Jew, ..."

      I doubt that the Republicans would go so far as to take away women's rights to vote, although I do not see how a traditional conception of marriage really allows that right.

      The household of a husband and wife should get 2 votes*, in whatever way those votes are cast. Both are fully citizens, both are equal parties to the marital union. Their household holds twice the adult citizenship weight of a sole man living alone, they should get twice the voting power. (If they cannot agree on the candidate to vote for, arguably there are bigger problems for them than whether one of them can't get a vote in.)

      *I am not averse to saying that a household gets as many votes as it has citizens, including children whose votes are cast by their parents until they reach the age of voting.**

      **There is no principled basis for the voting age to be 18, and THAT particular federally imposed rule needs to be revoked. In the ideal, the moral burden of voting citizenship in casting a vote should not be borne on the shoulders of a young adult until they are ready to carry that burden, and this would be established individually by each person. But the ideal being unachievable, it should now be a higher voting age given that we have infantized our kids until (well) after they get out of college.

      Delete
    2. ficino4mlJuly 25, 2024 at 11:26 AM

      @Tony, thank you for replying with some views about laws/policies that you think should be enacted. It's not clear, at least to me, how your views in your first and third replies and in your asterisked paragraphs are derived from the natural structure of marriage. As to whether interracial marriage is admitted by the natural structure of marriage, I had in mind arguments that one rarely hears now but which used to be common in parts of the US and elsewhere. Laws against interracial marriage were often justified by claims that "miscegenation," which would be an effect of interracial marriages, is unnatural. Verses of scripture were adduced in favor of that thesis, too, but appeals to scripture are not appeals to natural law or natural structures.

      Delete
    3. TonyJuly 27, 2024 at 3:04 PM

      are derived from the natural structure of marriage.

      The Catholic teaching held to describe the natural law (i.e. not a religious addition to society, but based on man's nature) springs from things like "male and female he created them" and "the two shall be one flesh" and "what God has joined, let no man set asunder". The marital union is a union of persons not so that they cease to be distinct persons, but so that they together form a community that is a new reality not found simply in each distinctly. That new community's purposes entail a life lived together as co-equal partners, what is called a "union of the whole life". This "whole life" implies things like sharing property for the good of the whole and for each other's good individually, in a mutual gift of love. This means, for example, that when one just plain needs more of the goods owned together (say, during an illness), that one doesn't have to borrow from the other, the goods that they have are meant for both in union, not a 50-50 split. That also carries over to the kids, as well, but it begins before there are kids.

      My assertion for the voting comes from 2 principles: the human nature co-equal condition of the partners to the marriage; in that relationship they give mutual consent to the marriage contract as equal partners.* Secondly, (as I said above) in principle the moral duty to participate in governing in a democracy should be allocated according as the capacity to bear that burden exists. In GENERAL, in this society where men and women are educated equally (and in most other ways prepared equally) they both broadly have equal capacity to bear the burden of governing. So on that basis each should be allocated a vote.

      *When Genesis says "male and female he created them" the implication is that they both bear human nature in equal DEGREE, even if they bear it in distinct mode. Thus, being equally human they naturally both have fully the natural dignity of human beings, i.e. rational beings made in the image of God.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 29, 2024 at 9:54 PM

      As to whether interracial marriage is admitted by the natural structure of marriage, I had in mind arguments that one rarely hears now but which used to be common in parts of the US and elsewhere. Laws against interracial marriage were often justified by claims that "miscegenation," which would be an effect of interracial marriages, is unnatural.

      I take it that miscegenation is now a fully discredited concept on the basis of biology, but it was also not credited far earlier: King David's grandmother was of a different race from the Jews. St. Augustine was from the Berbers, Latins, and Phoenicians, and consider himself an African. Pocahontas married John Rolfe, and nobody claimed "miscegenation" against them.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousNovember 14, 2024 at 4:14 PM

      Ummm is the above post defending spousal rape?????

      Delete
  9. DNWJuly 22, 2024 at 10:40 AM

    So this is a question not for Ed, but for those of a quietist, pietist, passivity mindset, whose hopes for a nonpolitical solution to programmatic political aggression lies in nonpolitical communities.

    Where is the owlish little inventor of the so-called Benedict Option, right now?

    Is he actively doing something like Tom Monaghan did?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oktavian ZamoyskiJuly 22, 2024 at 12:11 PM

      > Where is the owlish little inventor of the so-called Benedict Option, right now?

      Since you asked, on a beach in Sardinia: https://x.com/roddreher/status/1815403652221141094


      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 22, 2024 at 12:17 PM

      For those who don't know, the inventor of the "Benedict Option," Rod Dreher, is now strongly supporting Donald Trump while continuing to recognize all of Trump's numerous flaws.

      Delete
    3. DNWJuly 22, 2024 at 9:06 PM

      "Since you asked, on a beach in Sardinia"

      Right. At the moment he's floating around soaking up the atmosphere of Orthodox shrines or something.

      From Wiki: "In 2022, following his separation from his wife, Dreher moved to Budapest, Hungary, where he lives in what he has described as a self-imposed "exile" "

      So, how did that Benedict option thing work out in practice? Exile to Hungary where political will provided him a refuge?

      Now my point is not to mock him completely. Not everyone has Tom Monaghan's resources or institutional connections to actually do what Dreher talked about.

      And Dreher took a lot of shots from the social gospel freaks masquerading as and receiving pay as Christians. And of course from the other Borgish usual suspects too.

      That will happent to anyone who "gives a $hit" or makes himself at all vulnerable to what the morally deconstructed and religious frauds try to lay on him by way of the infamous rules for radicals # 4.

      The moment you allow them to define your major premise for you, you are screwed. And too many Christians know only the verses concerning mercy to the penitent and not those like Matthew 10:14, or John 5:16.

      And now I am informed he supports Trump? Hanging around Orban might have changed his focus and assessment of the possibilities somewhat. Or at least given him some fighting spirit.

      Delete
  10. ToddJuly 22, 2024 at 2:52 PM

    Of course, you are correct. But to me, none of this is surprising. I never trusted Trump on many fronts. And, make no mistake, this is His Party and His Vision.

    ReplyDelete
  11. BillyJuly 23, 2024 at 6:40 AM

    It's gonna be interesting to see what the GOP does after Trump.

    What will the next generation of republicans be?

    While I'm not a fan of Nick Fuentes, he made a good point recently, that what the GOP mean by the "big tent" is porn stars and liberals, but excludes hardline conservatives who defend traditional marriage and pro-life (though, Nick also added a racial element to rendition of this).

    It's not really a big tent. It's just a shifting tent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 23, 2024 at 9:10 AM

      Billy
      Are you the same Billy that posted here a few years ago?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 23, 2024 at 3:02 PM

      You might as well just burn your tent down as invite that delinquent Nick Fuentes in.
      You know, these racialists seem unwilling to do the actual work of building a voluntary non-coercive affinity community.

      Probably because like the Black Nationalists of old [ excluding the admirable even heroic Americo Liberians and a few otgers], the modern white nationalists lack the actual productive and organizational skills to do so.

      Once acquiring those skills and experiencing a concomitant personal success, their actual, internal raison d'etre would probably largely evaporate away.

      Of course, in the last decades, brazen lawfare, the unbridled appetite of the left to molest and control, and their own vaunting white eliminationism will tend to drive those under assault to reactive extremes as they are unceasingly pressed.

      I guess if the left cannot find enough functional racism, they will manufacture and artificially stimulate it.

      Delete
    3. DNWJuly 24, 2024 at 5:08 AM

      Guess I didn't enter my name above. It does not enter by default. Sorry.

      https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2024/07/more-on-gop-and-social-conservatism.html?showComment=1721772146892#c4207137061419778604

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 26, 2024 at 3:37 AM

      DNW

      You didn't need to. Your posts have a certain predictable qualities about them. Paranoia is one.

      Delete
    5. DNWJuly 30, 2024 at 2:12 PM

      "DNW

      You didn't need to. Your posts have a certain predictable qualities [sic] about them. Paranoia is one."

      As do yours. So far you're 3 for 3 when it comes to popping off into your own teeth.

      So, are you the familiar old Anonyponce? Or are you just a different troll with the same backfire issues?

      Delete
  12. AnonymousJuly 23, 2024 at 8:33 AM

    While I'm not a fan of Nick Fuentes, he made a good point recently, that what the GOP mean by the "big tent" is porn stars and liberals, but excludes hardline conservatives who defend traditional marriage and pro-life (though, Nick also added a racial element to rendition of this).

    It's not really a big tent. It's just a shifting tent.

    Sad but true. Pro-abortion speaker at the GOP convention was surprising. However when viewed through the lens of an ever shifting set of social positions over the last 100 years by many (not all by a stretch but still) Protestants I don't think it should come as a surprise. But it has.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 23, 2024 at 5:38 PM

      WCB

      Pro-lifers should be excluded from politics

      WCB

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 24, 2024 at 1:04 PM

      Neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers should be excluded from politics.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 24, 2024 at 10:20 PM

      WCBers should be excluded from politics.

      Delete
    4. DNWJuly 25, 2024 at 6:51 AM

      Anonymous
      July 23, 2024 at 5:38 PM
      WCB

      Pro-lifers should be excluded from politics

      WCB"

      Bookmark that. For if it is authentic - no reason to think otherwise - it is a keeper.

      It defines and pins WCB once and for all ...

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJuly 26, 2024 at 1:27 AM

      DNW at 6.51PM

      Oh come on DNW, don't be so gullable and humorless.

      IF the post you refer to was made by WCB and not some mischief maker, it was clearly done with a humorous or provocative intent. How can you be so naive?

      Delete
    6. DNWJuly 28, 2024 at 4:42 PM

      DNW, Bookmark that. For if it is authentic - no reason to think otherwise - it is a keeper.

      ANON: "IF the post you refer to was made by WCB and not some mischief maker, it was clearly done with a humorous or provocative intent. "

      How do you know?

      Ask him. See if he is joking this time.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousJuly 28, 2024 at 11:16 PM

      DNW 4.42PM

      WCB's frequent posts over time show him to be a consistant democrat, so I find it inconceivable that he would seriously hold that a section of the electorate should be excluded from politics simply because he disagrees with them. That is how I know. And that is why you should know too.

      Delete
    8. DNWJuly 30, 2024 at 1:38 PM

      " I find it inconceivable ..."

      LOL Which counts for squat.

      Have a helping of this. It's Ed's but he won't mind if I borrow some to shove in your yap.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OHVjs4aobqs&pp=ygUNaW5jb25jZWl2YWJsZQ%3D%3D

      Delete
  13. AnonymousJuly 23, 2024 at 4:13 PM

    Saw ur X. I did my M.A. on that book.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousJuly 24, 2024 at 5:46 PM

    Mr. Feser,
    I appreciate your position on the twitter comments above, but I don't get how you give demonstrative proof of your assertons, which to my mind is the very task of a philosopher. You speak of civilizational decline related to the well known issues of abortion, marriage and LGBTQ&c issues. Many people are of a contrary mindset and believe that civilizational decline is related to restricting LGBTQ&c rights and the right of abortion. "Civilizational decline" is a very vague concept and many today would consider Christian moral influence on society as civilizational decline. That's not my position. I tend to agree with you, but since you give no decisive philosophical proof, your position seems to hang in the air.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. benineJuly 25, 2024 at 10:50 AM

      Feser defends his positions on sexual morality and ethics plenty elsewhere.

      Delete
    2. DNWJuly 26, 2024 at 8:03 AM

      Many people are of a contrary mindset and believe that civilizational decline is related to restricting LGBTQ&c rights and the right of abortion.

      Many people do? How do those arguments lay out, exactly?

      Abortion was restricted by state statutes; and then by SC fiat, not. Now, it is Constitutionally corrected and up to the people of the states again. What measure of "civilization" declined thereby?


      "Civilizational decline" is a very vague concept and many today would consider ...

      Yeah, well, social chaos and conflict, disinterest in marriage and children, declines in intelligence and literacy, widespread intellectual fraud among the "elites", warring basic values and lifeways, unchecked economic disruption, and the disregard for due process and the impartial applicaion of the law are usually taken as signals.

      As are more physically tangible evidences having to do with civil and civic life, such as ruined infrastructure, failing water works, decades long abandoned and decaying buildings in major population centers, failure of municipal utilities and the pillaging of public infrastructure, violence in the streets, roving marauders, a physically unfit and degenerate population, ... those sorts of things; such as are found in many identifiable places here and abroad in the so-called west.

      Delete
  15. TonyJuly 25, 2024 at 7:38 AM

    Even if you grant Feser's main thesis presented above, that "their neglect is among the very deepest reasons for the crisis the West is undergoing", that itself does not tell us the best course of action present to us here and now, for the vote in November.

    It is notionally possible that voting against Trump, e.g. voting for some 3rd party, is the best option of many bad ones. But that's not a necessary result of his thesis being right.

    It is notionally possible - if you consider the long term like 50 or 100 years - that a win by Kamala Harris (or someone even worse produced by the Dem Convention) would be the pathway that results in the least TOTAL horrors and evils, because by going down that horrific pathway faster, we come out the other side faster, and get to a condition where there is a political party that has moral and political principles solidly in place. But while this is a bare possibility, prudence cannot readily predict such an outcome, and it is doubtful whether a vote for such a method to achieve a healthier society can be morally justified even so. (I am reminded of a book written some 60 years ago, during the height of the cold war, of a 1984-esque future America run by a communistic totalitarian Party, wherein the premise was a group of men in power who came to realize their own Party was gravely evil, and not being able to change it from within, decided to create a revolution by becoming the absolute worst side of already horrible dictatorship, using the most offensive and harshest means possible to pursue "the Party's" goals, thus pushing people against the wall and forcing them to revolt. Even if they were right that this was, say, the fastest way to overturning the evil government, that doesn't justify the objective moral evils they chose to do in that cause.)

    In any case, while (to take one possible pathway) a vote for Trump might (or, probably would) help solidify his non-Catholic views of political order in the short term, it is far from clear that this isn't still the best voting option in front of us, with a prospect of then slogging out another 10 or 20 or 50 years of internal work reversing that trend by the ordinary, painful, uncertain method of daily working on people by persuasion, prayer, and sacrifice to change their minds and hearts. A clear set-back is not a final failure, as we Christians well know. (The early Christians spent 300 years losing to the Romans, until they won. The Spanish took 700 years to finally defeat the Moors.) Political acts in the concrete must take into account not only the final goal, but also the actual conditions in which possible options are presented, and prudence involves weighing for the best course of the options actually available. Secondary, tertiary, and even farther consequences from an action with SEVERAL big immediate effects are numerous and difficult to estimate, and such estimations are always in terms of vague and rough probabilistic weights. Hence it is broadly uncertain whether a vote for a person with virtually no chance of winning (but who is politically and morally sound), is a more prudent act than voting for a person who is politically and morally unsound but who is far, far less damaging to the good than the only other plausible winner. That prudential determination - when you consider downstream probable effects beyond the matter of who is making presidential decisions for the next 4 years - is VASTLY too complex to issue definitive, absolute dicta about what is the best choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. benineJuly 25, 2024 at 10:52 AM

      This is my contention as well. I'm not sure what "resisting the new conservative platform" means in practice. In prudence, it seems unwise to accelerate a decline in hopes that it causes a quicker course correction. I'm not happy with the direction of the RNC or of our nation either. Now what?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 25, 2024 at 4:33 PM

      I like how you're trying to be thorough with this analysis, but it isn't clear to me that you've identified all the possible benefits of voting for a third party.

      Since we do not directly vote for the president, in some locations, a vote for President Trump is with proportionately more than others. It's conceivable that in a place like Texas where it is less likely that a democratic challenger is realistically going to win the state that it is "safer" to vote for a third party candidate than in day, Pennsylvania.


      And there's also the consideration that the president is not the only elected position, either federally or at the state level, in a post-Roe US, state legislature composition is significantly more important than before.

      All that to say is that I think the texture of possible choices is itself not even as straightforward as you are assuming, and include things like "vote for trump in the presidential election but third party for other offices" and "vote third party for president but Republican down the ticket" depending on one's particular state demographics.

      Delete
    3. TonyJuly 26, 2024 at 9:33 AM

      But I definitely haven't been thorough in talking about the good (and bad) effects of voting for a third party. Or of NOT voting. I have refrained from even delving into them other than the entirely simplistic effect of an obvious "NO" to Trump's change of the GOP platform. One could start listing dozens, if not hundreds of follow-on effects, some good, others bad, and more neutral or indeterminate. My point was that BECAUSE one can project many, many different possible consequence pathways, each with its own likelihood - and each with its own difficulty of estimating a likelihood even in rough terms - it is not possible to be definitive about which course is the best course.

      I grew up in NY state (not NYC), which has a Conservative Party as an actually established party, not just as a wing of the GOP and a movement. It was always the "third party" in local races, and about once in 20 times that they posted their own candidate would that candidate have a real chance of winning - for small races. However, when the GOP nominated a candidate that the Conservative Party could back also, that candidate usually won (if not a city-wide race strictly for a large liberal city). So getting the Conservative Party nod to a GOP candidate was a very distinct bonus. So, I am familiar with at least some of the benefits of third-party options. But the mechanics are very complex. If I had my druthers, we would not be in a 2-party system with all other parties (together) nabbing about 2 % of the total vote, we would have 6 or 7 parties that each grab anywhere from 5% to 20% in many races. And/Or other voting mechanisms that don't award 100% to a single winner regardless of whether he achieved an actual majority of the vote-eligible persons.

      Delete
  16. Miguel CervantesJuly 27, 2024 at 3:10 AM

    There are weighty considerations for both sides as the lesser evil. To play "the devil's advocate" Harris is far better on foreign policy because she will continue to support Ukraine properly and won't give Tel Aviv carte blanche - Trump/Vance are abysmal on both counts. Secondly, the Biden/Harris marvelous open door policy has allowed several million more Catholics to join the many already in the US, making that country's future so much rosier. It's high time for conservative US Catholics to stop thinking like WASPs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 27, 2024 at 2:42 PM

      Unfortunately, very many of the Hispanics who come here lose their religion, and end up Catholic in name only. They don't make the future of the US rosier. In my small town, 70% Hispanic, less than 20% go to church.

      Delete
    2. Miguel CervantesJuly 28, 2024 at 3:23 AM

      20% going to church is not a bad proportion for the modern West (in Russia, it's about 2-3%). In Spain itself, it's officially about 20% of the population going to Church. The proportion of Hispanics who are poached by crazy sects and evangelicals depends on which country they come from, but Mexico has proved remarkably resistant to them - so once again, it's only a plus for the US. Of course, without a thorough reformation of the Church and the restoration of doctrine and religious practice, any Catholic population is mostly at the mercy of circumstances, sheep without shepherds. I just wanted to point out that having a massive Catholic or culturally Catholic population of Hispanics (over 80 million) in the US makes its future rosier. When the Church gets its act together, this population will be the bedrock of fruitful change. Obviously the Democrats have their own reasons for opening the border (it helps the economy boom), but let's avoid the Trump/Vance WASP hatreds like the plague.

      Delete
  17. AnonymousJuly 28, 2024 at 2:24 PM

    Obviously the Democrats have their own reasons for opening the border (it helps the economy boom), but let's avoid the Trump/Vance WASP hatreds like the plague.

    This is a bizarre comment, seemingly constructed from Democrat talking points. First, the Democrats opened the border for demographic reasons, i.e. they want a new population that owes the Dems their loyalty and votes. Economic reasons had little if anything to do with it. (They also did it out of hatred for America, but that hatred runs mainly in the progressive wing, while the decision was made by others.) Second, there is no less racial hatred in the Dems overall - and in Biden - than there is in Trump. Leading Dems mainly use racial issues for their power plays. So, while we should always avoid hatred, you won't avoid it by pushing Dem talking points. Trump's border policies (whatever his personal tastes) are more sane than the Dems, by orders of magnitude. This is attested by the fact that roughly equal numbers of Hispanics are prepared to vote for Trump as for the Dem candidate, and this in spite of the traditional strong leaning of Hispanics toward the Democrat Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miguel CervantesJuly 29, 2024 at 7:57 PM

      Exactly, the Democrats have their own reasons for opening the borders; Catholics who don't think like WASPs have other reasons for approving it. Democrat lefties don;t have less racial hatred; they have more - towards Europeans.

      Delete
    2. TonyJuly 30, 2024 at 7:41 AM

      Catholic Thomists have perfectly sound Catholic reasons for rejecting open borders. That you erroneously imagine that open borders is something that Catholics should approve shows that you are neither a Thomist nor very thoughtful as a Catholic. Until recently, you seemed somewhat thoughtful but just had a bee in your bonnet about "conservatism", but now I see that you don't understand Aquinas nor are a serious Catholic thinker. Your animus against what you think is "conservatism" leads you also into an animus against (what you think is) America that defaces almost everything you say about it.

      Delete
    3. Miguel CervantesAugust 25, 2024 at 12:46 AM

      You need to substantiate your assertions if you want to be Thomistic. Otherwise it's just cheap and personal.
      As for open borders, why should you assume I am in favour? Mostly, open borders are a mechanism for diluting Christianity in Christian countries. In the case of the US, however, 90% of the "illegals" are Hispanics, therefore making the US more Christian and more Catholic. Can you see the difference? Time for Thomistic realism.

      Delete
  18. AnonymousJuly 28, 2024 at 6:19 PM

    Wow, Miguel's hostility to the English and Americans has led him to take the same position on this election as WCB who thinks that pro-life Catholics should not be allowed to vote!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miguel CervantesJuly 29, 2024 at 8:02 PM

      Reed herrings and non-truths. The issue is English-speaking Catholic conservatives desperately needing to stop thinking like WASPs if they ever, ever mean to make a real difference in their country rather than support whatever looks less evil, as they've been doing for two centuries. It stops now. Time to get out of the bit role the WASP hegemony has allocated for them. Think Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmine, not Burke and Scruton.

      Delete
    2. TonyJuly 30, 2024 at 7:26 AM

      Heh, the "lesser evil" choice and problem has been with us for a LOT longer than since the 1770's, and has a much more elevated pedigree than a second-rate political philosopher. Christ is the one that gave us the parable of the wheat and the tares. God himself has been tolerating evil while working out His plan of good since Satan and Adam's sins. Indeed, God is the one who formulated the method of "writing straight with crooked lines". And we have borne situations of political disarray for much more than 2 centuries: Rome's fall took that long, and after its fall it took several more centuries for central Europe to settle into a new Holy Roman Empire model, and a couple more centuries before it covered most of Europe. The Christians of England suffered attacks and disorders from the Germanic pagans, and then from the Vikings, for a lot more than 2 centuries.

      All of political prudence entails trade-off decisions of when to boldly push forward, when to stay and defend your bastions, when to retreat from those bastions, and when to stand and expect to die for your faith in (outward) defeat like the martyrs. There is no principle that says "it's been 200 years, so therefore now is the time to go on the offensive."

      That said, because of the remains of classical liberalism still present in our society, we retain (for the moment) enough freedom of speech and a few other rights that make it possible to forge forward aggressively in speech to argue, yet again, for the full truth of political order as understood by the Church, as Aquinas and Bellarmine taught. But doing so in a way that today's woke-trained youths can even begin to understand (much less agree with) is nearly impossible, because their training has undermined even the foundations of the conceptual framework needed, blocking the formation of sensible first principles with defective systems of thought, as well as encouraging the emotions and passions to hold the mind in thrall. If Christ during his tenure teaching in Galilee and Judea could only convert some hundreds of Jews, it is not surprising that we should have an uphill battle of our own.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 30, 2024 at 4:19 PM

      The initial blogpost that started this conversation was "Fight, yes, but for what?" Many of the social conservatives deciding to hold their nose and vote for Trump/Vance despite the removal of the abortion language from the platform are doing so because they are fighting to destroy the woke mind virus. They are making common cause with Elon Musk and numerous others who want to destroy the woke mind virus (which is way more harmful than Anglo-American classical liberalism). It may also be possible to persuade many of these people on abortion and other social issues once the woke mind virus is destroyed.
      A related point is the calculus of the "lesser evil" choice has changed from when Ed made his original blog post, because Harris has replaced Biden as the nominee. Biden is Catholic (albeit not one who holds to Catholic views on abortion etc) but Harris is bigoted against Catholics.

      Delete
    4. Miguel CervantesJuly 31, 2024 at 5:50 AM

      Tony, the conservative "lesser evil" has only been around since Burke and de Maistre invented it to defend the circa 1700 Enlightenment establishments. After 200 years of this stuff, today's oldies have perhaps more trouble than the youth in accepting an alternative. It's all hard. What we are in absolute, complete control of though, is the choice not to embrace errors in whatever political action we engage in. Therefore, time to abandon conservative ideology.

      Tim, that probably answers your query too. Kamala is probably not more bigoted against us than Trump is, by background. The greater and lesser evil business is decided mainly, I believe, by the effect of either candidate's government, not their persons. I think there are big pros and cons on both sides. As for "social conservatism", Trump supports same sex "marriage" and abortion when a psychologist says the mother is in harm's way - which is practically abortion on demand. But Trump want the votes of the right-to-lifers and Harris doesn't. What does that suggest to you?

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJuly 31, 2024 at 5:19 PM

      Miguel,
      The lesser of two evils principle is in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and may be in Plato prior to that. Ascribing it as an invention of Burke and de Maistre is ridiculous and not worthy of you. The perpetuation by a Harris administration of critical theory /wokeness/transsexual-madness/Frankfurt-Marxism etc would be far worse than anything Trump/Vance is likely to do. Thank God, it won't happen. I would MUCH rather have had a de Santis administration but that is moot.

      Delete
    6. Miguel CervantesJuly 31, 2024 at 8:04 PM

      Slight misunderstanding there. What I said was that Conservatism as a (supposed) lesser evil can only date from the time of its invention by people like Burke and de Maistre. Obviously there were lesser evils before Conservatism, and will be long after it has vanished, along with the rest of the Enlightenment ideologies.

      Delete
    7. TonyAugust 1, 2024 at 8:52 AM

      Tony, the conservative "lesser evil" has only been around since Burke and de Maistre invented it to defend the circa 1700 Enlightenment establishments. After 200 years of this stuff, today's oldies have perhaps more trouble than the youth in accepting an alternative. It's all hard. What we are in absolute, complete control of though, is the choice not to embrace errors in whatever political action we engage in. Therefore, time to abandon conservative ideology....The greater and lesser evil business is decided mainly, I believe, by the effect of either candidate's government, not their persons.

      So, if a non-conservative who has always embraced and worked for sound Catholic principles of government, and never sided with conservatism, now decides that taking all factors into account, prudence requires him to vote for Trump but to also strongly oppose the change in the GOP platform, you're fine with that. Good to know.

      Delete
    8. Miguel CervantesAugust 1, 2024 at 8:09 PM

      Not necessarily. Depends on Christian criteria, not conservative ones.

      Delete
  19. AnonymousJuly 29, 2024 at 4:00 PM

    Kamala Harris looks and acts like a winner, which she will be. Trump looks and acts like a weird 77 year old loser, which he will be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousAugust 4, 2024 at 6:38 PM

      No Kamala Harris doesn't look like a winner, but your comment looks like pure astroturfing.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousAugust 5, 2024 at 7:11 AM

      The economy is tanking. Kamala will lose.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousAugust 17, 2024 at 11:18 PM

      The only certainty is that anonymity will win every argument around here.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)