Monday, October 21, 2024

Augustine, liberalism, and political polarization

In my latest article at Postliberal Order, I discuss the light that Augustine’s account of peace as “the tranquility of order” sheds on the increasing political polarization that characterizes liberal democracies today.

Posted by at

51 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 21, 2024 at 2:36 PM

    An interesting essay to be sure, but I don't see how polarization can be overcome when a substantial minority doesn't even believe God exists, and an even larger portion of the populace, while they may believe some sort of supreme being exists, do not believe in the god of traditional Christianity. The moral ideals of a large segment of society are in fundamental conflict with those of traditional Christianity. To take a particularly timely and salient example, traditional Christian morality proscribes not only abortion but contraception as well. But a very large part of society believes that humanity cannot flourish when half of the species is consigned by law to either celibacy or a high probability of motherhood. To achieve "peace" imposed by the "City of God" would subjugate vast numbers of citizens. Is that really peace?

    I also wonder how Dr Feser's analysis would apply to other mostly secular democracies that, to the best of my knowledge, do not suffer from anywhere near the degree of polarization that plagues the USA. The Scandinavian nations come to mind for example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 22, 2024 at 1:30 AM

      Those are indeed good points. As a Scandinavian I can say that while polarisation has increased here too, it is still far from the American situation with contested elections and similar.

      Though I've not read his article in full (not being subscribed to Postliberal Order), if he advocates traditional Christian morality as an antidote, it would work even less in my region where a majority is irreligious and probably over 90% support the legality of abortion

      JH

      Delete
    2. thefederalistOctober 22, 2024 at 11:25 AM

      Traditional Christianity prescribes abortion and contraception on natural law grounds, not on anything specifically in the Christian understanding of the godhead. I think that Christians in America are making a political mistake in opposing abortion on religious grounds, or a category mistake that has political consequences.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousOctober 22, 2024 at 5:17 PM

      Abortion is one thing, but contraception, something that is a matter between people in the privacy of their own homes, is not the police, government, or anyone else’s business.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousOctober 23, 2024 at 6:18 AM

      First, contraception is not “private,” as it has enormous cumulative effects on society.

      Second, because an act is private does not thereby guarantee its legality.

      Delete
    5. thefederalistOctober 23, 2024 at 7:05 AM

      Well, society cannot be indifferent to its members not replenishing themselves. We can reasonably expect our married neighbors to have a right understanding of the goods of marriage and to be pursuing those goods.

      Delete
    6. TonyOctober 25, 2024 at 10:17 PM

      but contraception, something that is a matter between people in the privacy of their own homes,

      Whether it occurs in the "privacy of your own home" is a nonsense issue. Lots of things have been, are, and should be a matter of law when they occur inside the home, or the sale of goods that would be used in the home. Laws against the use of heroin. Laws against suicide. Laws against shooting a gun in a suburban home except in self defense. Minors having sex. The 18th amendment the sale of liquor - even if intended to be in your own home. Laws against failing to pay taxes on a business that you carry out inside your home. Taking the "do not remove" label off your mattress. ;-)

      Past societies insisted that it WAS a matter of civil law as to whether and when you were married, and that sex outside of marriage was proscribed even if done in the home. That's the reason laws on marriage and legitimacy even came about. Virtually all societies had laws setting out marriage and family structure precisely because they viewed sex as an important business to society, not just to the couple. You could argue that all such societies were wrong to so legislate, but you have to buck 5,000 years of practices all over the world to do so.

      The pill also kills people: one of the two mechanisms is to prevent implantation of the conceived embryo in the uterine wall. Killing someone "in the home" isn't "private" and therefore out-of-bounds for law.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousOctober 26, 2024 at 10:39 PM

      Legitimacy laws have to with illegitimate not being allowed to get inheritances, be in line for the throne, who takes care of them. They do not equate using a condom with starving a child or selling them lethal substances such as heroin.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousOctober 26, 2024 at 10:41 PM

      You also seem to have the bizarre idea that as soon as a sperm cell enters an egg, despite the complete lack of neurons/anything we would call a brain or neural system, is somehow conscious, alive, and has feelings about whether or not it lives or dies.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousOctober 27, 2024 at 4:43 AM

      False. The zygote is, however, its own independent human being.

      Delete
  2. mattmcOctober 21, 2024 at 5:58 PM

    Awesome article, polarization does nothing but deepen the divide in America and lead to unnecessary defensiveness over constructive dialogue and common ground!

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 21, 2024 at 7:44 PM

    Benjamin Franklin said the drafters of the Constitution had given us a republic if we could keep it. Maybe we will. But maybe we might prefer authoritarian rule instead.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousOctober 22, 2024 at 4:36 AM

    When does this article become free to read?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserOctober 23, 2024 at 1:41 PM

      It seems that at least some Postliberal Order articles are unlocked from behind the paywall eventually, after a few weeks, but I don't know if there's a standard timetable

      Delete
    2. René LópezDecember 9, 2024 at 9:05 AM

      It's free to read now, so I guess around a couple of months

      Delete
  5. Paul D. Van PeltOctober 22, 2024 at 6:01 AM

    Everyone has a view on political and social change. I do not know but suppose conservatism was OUAT, the norm. Things change. I would further infer that conservatives don't care much for liberalism...didn't care for it when Augustine was around. Happiness is different things to different people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousOctober 22, 2024 at 11:02 AM

    Abortion is one thing, but I don’t see a reason for government/police to be involved in contraception, the use of which is a matter of what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 23, 2024 at 10:15 AM

      Well, now, Justice Clarence Thomas said he might be willing to overturn "Griswold v. Connecticut" and outlaw contraception.

      https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/thomas-wants-supreme-court-overturn-landmark-rulings-legalized-contrac-rcna35228

      Delete
  7. Paul D. Van PeltOctober 23, 2024 at 2:59 PM

    Rhetorical question (sorta): Has there ever been an impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice? Maybe there ought to be?
    Sidebar: Has there ever been an impeachment of a president who endorsed a Supreme Court Justice candidate? No, don't, bother...I was joking...sorta.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 24, 2024 at 9:25 AM

      Easily answered with a google https://www.history.com/news/has-a-u-s-supreme-court-justice-ever-been-impeached

      Delete
    2. AnonymousOctober 24, 2024 at 12:19 PM

      https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm

      Delete
  8. drifterOctober 23, 2024 at 5:51 PM

    What is the optimum level of polarization? How do we know that the current level of polarization should be reduced? Hmm....

    On the other hand, polarization in a democracy is arguably the RESULT of agreement on issues. Democracy determines who has power. Hence factions exaggerate superficial differences in an appeal to voters. Fat. Fascist. Communist. ... Fat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 30, 2024 at 5:40 PM

      Apparently, Juan Linz asked those questions and came to a few conclusions,

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Jos%C3%A9_Linz#Totalitarianism_and_Authoritarian_Regimes

      Delete
  9. Paul D. Van PeltOctober 24, 2024 at 4:04 AM

    By gosh! I think the drifter has it sussed pretty well. Short, and, bitter sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousOctober 24, 2024 at 8:01 AM

    Polarization is a feature of all human societies, along some line/s or another. I dont see evidence that democracies are particularly sensitive to this polarization, as opposed to any other type of government.

    ReplyDelete
  11. NormOctober 24, 2024 at 9:32 PM

    I will say this

    In this election cycle where people just keep going towards the extremes.

    Prof always maintains a sane position on every issue avoiding the pitfalls on both sides.

    He recognises that the Democratic party is definitely much, much worse but he also criticises the excesses of the Republican Party.

    If you follow Prof regularly, you'll find this to be consistent with his overall approach.

    At the start of the Israel-Hamas war, he was one of the first to caution about targeting civilians and I quote.

    "A reminder for hotheaded friends on the Right. Israel has the right and duty to retaliate against those responsible for the depraved attack it suffered. But the principles of just war, which are a part of the natural law, must be observed, and that includes refraining from any deliberate attack on civilians. The doctrine of “total war” is wicked, whether practiced by terrorists or by those fighting terrorists."

    And people keep misunderstanding him on the Pro Life issues. When Prof says we cannot abandon the principle of defending the unborn at a federal level and we cannot adopt policies that are directly opposed to that principle, people misinterpret him and respond with replies to the effect of
    "political realities" etc which just misses the point.

    Whenever Prof is critical of Trump, he will be falsely accused of supporting Harris, And when Prof takes aim at Harris , he is accused of supporting all the excesses of Trump.

    But in reality, Prof only cares about the Truth. People should stop seeing everything through the narrow lens of party politics. Obviously there's a time and place for party politics. And we are there now given the approaching election. But even that initiative ought to be measured by its conformity to the Truth.

    I have read a lot of Prof's work, The only issue I haven't seen him comment on is the plight of Armenian Christians.

    Anyways, Thanks Prof for your clarity in these trying times.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 26, 2024 at 10:31 PM

      He’s commented on trickle down economics??

      Delete
  12. DNWOctober 25, 2024 at 3:30 PM

    We don't have the same moral foundations [Haidt].

    We don't like, find congenial, nor reciprocally need each other; nor, share lifeway values, aims, sense of self, personal boundaries, desire for physical space, sense of family or proportionality.

    Though per definition and admssion, collectivists do both need and want from conservative or libertarian others what these others neither need nor want from the collectivist .- unless, it simply be for him to refrain from subversion if he is to be tolerated living in the same polity.

    We appear to have foundationally different and incompatibly evolved moral anthropologies and survival strategies, which are not, wan hopes aside, complementary.

    Catholics bless them, may be trying to socially square divergent anthropological circles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TonyOctober 26, 2024 at 1:29 PM

      That is my sense also. Successful liberal democracies (to be distinguished from unsuccessful democracies like that of the French Revolution) in the modern world seem to have assumed some (Judeo-Christian) anthropological baseline elements as part of the fabric of their polities. They apparently did not notice that their theories did not expressly state the assumptions, nor that without such assumptions expressed, their most progressive methods in the long run undermined those assumptions. They have now come to the point where the part of the populace most in tune with the progressive methods of the last 100+ years despise and detest the part of the populace most in tune with the Judeo-Christian kernels from which sprung many mainstays of the success of democracy and who want this society to become once again a society whose outward mores express those assumptions.

      The reality is that the last 100+ years has been a slow revolution in that the underlying nature of the social fabric has been undergoing fundamental change toward one whose form cannot tolerate Christianity, nor can it sustain a liberal democracy. That it was revolutionary was, of course, a hidden fact for many years (because it was slow and gradual), and the fact remains hidden from those who understand nothing of history - i.e. those whose education consists only in that of the state-manufactured public schools, those who are state-designed dunces.

      Delete
    2. DNWOctober 27, 2024 at 11:18 AM

      Yeah. How people coming from an intrinsic value, natural rights, teleological understanding of man's nature, are supposed to politically "adjust life interests" with an adversarial, politically totalizing population, composed of: hedonic nihilists, Nietzschean gurl and transsex power fantasists, eliminativists who grant themselves a dispensation from being treated as flesh automata by others (and problematically, are so granted it by others), and the transhumanist offspring of the original Humanist Manifesto nutter crowd, is a puzzle.

      It is a puzzle which I don't think any traditionalist trying to save the appearance [of one moral humanity] has thought through.

      The problem is the appearance of a new [or very old and atavistic] and proud and devouring anthropoid ferality, insinuated into the scafolding of western institutions and hollowing them out from within - as it ascends or descends as the case may be, to its own godhood. But of course that scaffolding was always meant by them to be discarded along with its original creators, once Science Inc. has fully empowered these formerly human monstrosities to complete their act of self-creation. Whatever that is, or is conceived of as being, of course ... Since we are assured by the eliminativists that although there really is no self, nor coherent mind nor intentions, the impulse IS, even if the "person" supposedly experiencing it is really not. So we should pretend it - the impulse or trajectory or whatever- is coming from somewhere sacred ... and not question further. Because ... "convenience".

      Delete
  13. NormOctober 26, 2024 at 1:59 PM

    This comment best makes sense as a letter,

    Dear Prof

    I have some thoughts on your commentary on liberalism and a republic in collapse.

    I don't think anyone has been as supportive of your points as me, I was even critical of Michael Knowles recently for suggesting that the next leader of the Republican party in house should be a Trump loyalist.

    It just seems to me that part of the reason why people keep misunderstanding you is that, you might "seem" at times to be a bit too nonchalant at how bad Kamala really is or will be.

    Like of course you do mention she is much worse and you also mention that people in swing states should vote for Trump.

    But you aren't really emphasising the "can vote for Trump".( Or should vote for Trump in a swing states ).

    Sometimes when I read you on politics, it seems to me, that you see the current state of society as already in collapse. (which I agree with by the way)

    I hate the fact that Trump gutted republican party platform and I loathe his personality. At the same time though, with Roe V Wade overturned, there's lot of scope good grass roots ground work on bringing this issue to our favor. I think Trump for the most part will steer clear of that.

    Harris on the other hand brought Abortion Doctors on stage to celebrate abortion.

    Maybe viewing it from the framework of something that is already doomed to collapse at some point makes it less shocking to witness . You do regularly point out that the Republican party is on course to embracing the Democratic Party's current positions and I don't think you are wrong.

    But I think that there's value in vehemently resisting that monstrous evil (Kamala) as far as possible even if the only means of doing so is to cast a vote for Trump and even if he might have put the party on track towards the same thing.

    The fact that the party is not where Kamala is at the moment, gives one hope that it can change ofcourse.

    We can only pray, but one feels just that little bit more optimistic in trying to convince an agnostic on course towards atheism rather then someone who is already an atheist.

    I worry that upon reading you, some people even in Swing states won't vote for Trump like that person from Florida Josh Hochschild criticised on twitter.

    So Prof, If you have already made your peace with the possibility of a Kamala presidency , I guess you could share some advice on that.

    I agree with your philosophical analysis as always. But also I think we need fo fight harder for a world where the evil that Kamala is not President.

    I suppose it's hard to ask people to vote for Trump when you yourself aren't doing so but I think you have explained your reasons for doing so well enough to the point that you can focus on getting people in swing states to vote for Trump till election day.

    Norm



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserOctober 26, 2024 at 4:28 PM

      Hi Norm,

      As you know, when writing about the election here at the blog, I’ve made it clear that because Harris is worse than Trump, voting for him in order to block her is justifiable in a context where one’s vote would make a difference, as in a swing state. You also no doubt know that I’ve repeatedly and harshly criticized Harris on Twitter and emphasized there that she is worse than Trump.

      You seem to want me to do more than that, but there are innumerable other people already explaining how awful Harris is and how Trump, for all his faults, is still less bad. I don’t have much to say about that that many others are not already saying. By contrast, there were, certainly until very recently, relatively few prominent voices on the pro-life and social conservative side who have been warning of the dangers posed by Trump’s moving the GOP in a socially liberal direction. Of course, there are NeverTrump conservatives who criticize him all the time, but I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about social conservatives who have tended in the past to be more sympathetic to Trump, and who see abortion, marriage, and the like as the fundamental issues of the day.

      That’s why I spoke up when I did this summer, not long before the convention. What I had to say were things that it seemed to me few were saying, or at least were not explaining well or in as much detail as was needed. Hence the two articles I wrote on Trump, and the various comments on Twitter. For the most part, on political matters I tend not to be much interested in saying what lots of people are already saying well enough anyway. Like anyone else, I might occasionally tweet something along those lines, because it takes about five seconds to do so. But I’m not interested in going on and on about something even on Twitter if it’s merely to repeat things that are already being said by lots of people.

      Hence in recent weeks, other than the occasional tweet, I’ve said much less about the topic of the election than I did during the summer, because I think I’ve basically made my point and there’s not much new to say before the election. Things could change if there’s some big new development, but that’s the reason for the pattern of commentary you’re referring to.

      Delete
    2. NormOctober 26, 2024 at 11:10 PM

      Hey Prof

      Well I am not asking you to harp on it.

      Perhaps one public clarification to Swing State voters that the write in candidate option (the California Option) you have taken, doesn't apply to them or atleast doesn't apply as clearly to them, so they should seriously consider voting for Trump, that should be enough.

      Correct me if I am wrong, but your strategy as I understand it
      is people in swing states vote for Trump and people in blue states put in a write in candidate, yes ?

      Well my point is merely that the former should be emphasized at this time because I think both parts of the strategy are important.

      Even in your response now and in that honeymoon tweet, you use the term "justifiable", Don't you think *in swing states*, it's
      In a sense obligated (natural option) to vote for Trump the way you indicated in 2020 but as only applied to Swing States.

      http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/10/joe-biden-versus-democratic-norms.html

      From this post and I think your general hesitation with third parties like solidarity because of their flirtations with leftist economics indicates that atleast until then you thought Republican was the natural option not just "justifiable".

      Ofcourse they have to protest the changes vehemently whether Trump wins or nots, although the context in which they might have to do so is not that different from before as I will show below.

      But the term "justifiable" seems to indicate that voting for Trump is no longer the natural option and one might even just abstain from voting at all in swing states.

      Atleast that's the impression I get.

      It's ofcourse concerning what Trump has done by moving the party more left. It's abominable.

      But faithful catholics in these swing states were always clear.

      They were always clear that they were against abortion in all circumstances even while Republican presidents always supported exceptions unfortunately.

      In a sense that was even more challenging because articulating the principles in those cases is tougher (albeit for emotional reasons because the rational principles are clear).

      To do so now when the evil is much more stark and clear shouldn't be difficult.

      The term justifiable is bound to make people even in Swing states reconsider casting that vote for Trump and not vote at all since it makes them seem like they are doing something very questionable.

      Unless of course, if for you casting a ballot was always a matter of being justifiable and there was never really any natural option , then I really don't have any case here.

      Cheers

      PS
      It also puts swing states people in situation where before they could have cast their vote for Trump in silence, now they have to suddenly start justifying why they did it., they might as well not vote at all and that by your own account would be undesirable.

      That is why Cardinal Burke in fact makes clear the obligation to justify or to make clear your reasons, extends only unto those who know who you voted for.

      In most cases that involves only very close people so it's not that much different from previous elections.

      And I say this as someone who often shares your tweets about opposing those evil policies.

      Delete
    3. NormOctober 28, 2024 at 4:33 AM

      Consider this tweet by Rob Koons

      "If you're pro-life and you're not voting for Trump, you're being astonishingly stupid and irresponsible. If Harris wins, any chance of any restrictions on abortion (at any stage, in any state) falls to zero for the next 30 years. Sitting this election out for the sake of your moral purity will come at the price of millions of innocent human lives."

      I would modify it so as to say "If you are pro-life, in a swing state and not voting for Trump..."

      I wouldn't use the term stupid though I think irresponsible is fair.

      And I wouldn't lay the blame of a Kamala victory on them because I think it would be Trump's fault.

      Nevertheless Prof Koons is right about the consequences of a Kamala victory and what he notes are the implications for the next 30 years.

      As such, in swing states, "justifiable" seems to not convey the fact that there's a strong moral presumption in favour of voting for Trump as opposed to sitting this election out.

      Delete
    4. NormNovember 3, 2024 at 9:29 PM

      I will balance the above comment by quoting our esteemed host because I think his statement here is completely true.

      "What pro-lifers with any integrity who vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils need to do, if he’s elected, is immediately to go on offense and make it crystal clear that they’ll fight him tooth and nail on his IVF scheme and any other sellout of the unborn. No honeymoon period."

      If your endorsement is public, you should publically protest those changes and policies as well. You should also make your future primary vote conditional on the candidate opposing those policies.

      In general to anyone who knows your stance you should make clear that you don't support those policies.

      Delete
  14. ficino4mlOctober 26, 2024 at 5:50 PM

    Professor Feser, would you clarify your views on fascism, i.e. of the Italian or Vichy or even Nazi versions? Or maybe that which flourished briefly in the Slovakian Republic of the 1940s?

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousOctober 26, 2024 at 9:19 PM

    Since Prof. Feser just commented on Trump and has commented on X about fascism, I will mention Prof. Ruth-Ben Ghiat's book on fascism, in which she compares Trump to Mussolini.
    https://www.amazon.com/Strongmen-Mussolini-Present-Ruth-Ben-Ghiat/dp/1324001
    The Right often criticizes the cancel culture of the Left, but I note that a group of Republicans in Congress pressured the U.S. Naval Academy to withdraw its invitation for Prof. Ghiat to deliver the Bancroft lecture at the Academy.
    https://pen.org/press-release/cancellation-of-naval-academy-lecture-by-ruth-ben-ghiat-at-behest-of-republican-politicians-threatens-institutional-autonomy/
    Retired Marine General John Kelly, Trump's longest -serving White House Chief of Staff is not a university professor like Ghiat, but he does know a fascist when he sees one.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/13-former-trump-administration-officials-sign-open-letter-backing-john-rcna177227
    And here is Trump on Joe Rogan's podcast praising the president of China for controlling his people with an "iron fist."
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-praises-chinese-president-controlling-174352232.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. benineOctober 27, 2024 at 11:40 AM

    Today we call anything to the right of liberal democracy fascist. It's tiring. If strong leaders, collective efforts, and suppression of certain expression are fascist, then most states through human history have been fascist.

    And to pretend Trump is even close to a Mussolini is too comical to take seriously. He already served one term, not as a dictator. He has been called Hitler for the last 8 years, a trope so tired that it has lost all meaning. I can't think of a better way to downplay Hitler than to call every Republican for the last few decades Hitler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 28, 2024 at 8:56 AM

      Most states have certainly been fascistic; see the way Jewish people, or indeed many religious minorities have been abused and persecuted across many different cultures and societies.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousOctober 28, 2024 at 12:15 PM

      You need to actually read the links instead of posting a knee-jerk reaction. I will give you more:
      https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-not-adolph-hitler-opinion-1973600
      When he was president, Trump wanted to prosecute Clinton, but he was restrained by his staff
      https://apnews.com/article/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90
      After the 2020 election, Trump's staff restrained him from replacing Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffery Clark who would do Trump's bidding in trying to overturn the election results.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-justice-department-overturn-election/2021/01/22/b7f0b9fa-5d1c-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html

      Delete
    3. AnonymousOctober 29, 2024 at 7:31 AM

      When he was president, Trump wanted to prosecute Clinton,

      Since Clinton has publicly acknowledged that she did illegal things, prosecuting her would have been the right thing to do.

      but he was restrained by his staff...Trump's staff restrained him from replacing Acting Attorney General

      which is the kind of thing totalitarian dictators don't tolerate.

      His has threatened to use the powers of the state (military and judicial) against his poltical opponents.

      Again: since many of his inside-the-country liberal opponents have done illegal things to oppose him (e.g. the knowing collusion with the "Russia-gate" media lies of 2016 election, and the many FBI and DOJ corruption aspects of both the Obama and Biden administrations), using the justice system against them is the correct procedure to combat corruption.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousOctober 30, 2024 at 1:11 PM

      Clinton made no such acknowledgement and was cleared of illegal conduct
      https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-cleared-wrongdoing-private-email-probe-1466426
      Trump didn't follow through with firing the Acting AG because his staff told him there would be mass resignations at the Justice Dept and the resulting publicity would cause a public uproar, so Trump relented.
      You don't make your points well. You can't even do elementary research.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousOctober 30, 2024 at 6:07 PM

      Chavez served one term in Venezuela before becoming authoritarian. Viktor Orban did the same in Hungary.

      As Venezuelans cross our border seeking a new chance after what they did to their own stable democracy, worried American citizens are making contigency plans to go to Canada.

      We depend upon our political parties to keep authoritarians out of presidential politics. Rafael Caldera legitimized Chavez in Venezuela. Paul von Hindenburg legitimized Hitler in Germany.

      If those Americans who are fearful are correct, the Republican Party has done a great disservice to their own country.

      Delete
  17. AnonymousOctober 27, 2024 at 4:38 PM

    Whatever Trump believes in the grotesque depths of his soul, his rhetoric is undeniably fascist, especially of late. There is absolutely no question about this. His has threatened to use the powers of the state (military and judicial) against his poltical opponents. He has used dehumanizing language against minority groups, labelling them "vermin" just like Hitler liked to do. These are all hallmarks of fascism. The latter one might be of particular concern to Catholics who claim to hold all human life sacred.

    So, if you support Trump you are supporting fascism. Some of his supporters are too stupid to be aware of this and what it means, but I guess this crowd is smart enough to know what they are doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousOctober 27, 2024 at 8:57 PM

      Well said, Anon.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousOctober 28, 2024 at 6:17 AM

      No actually not very well said. Superficial is about as polite as one can be regarding this pointless remark which is simply assertion with a teeny tiny bit of banal info.

      Delete
    3. RicardoOctober 28, 2024 at 11:49 AM

      The problem with calling Trump fascist is that unless there is strong evidence that he is one, it is strongly dehumanising language in itself. You can see the way this works in Europe at the moment where part of the way Russia justified its invasion of Ukraine involved appealing to the fact that the Ukrainian government was dominated by fascists and Neo-Nazis that required forcible removal.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousOctober 28, 2024 at 2:13 PM

      You can't say you haven't been told https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMjhl9jxrug

      Delete
  18. TexanNovember 4, 2024 at 1:58 AM

    Prof. Feser, you write that capital punishement is necessary because someone might murder again in prison.Fair enough, but this begs the question-would it not make sense to have the dp for repeated murder (by s.o already in prison/on parole for this exact crime)? My state has executed people who had turned their way around in prison. With such a scheme, one could show mercy while also deterring repeated murder.

    Just wondering, as a Texas' Catholic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Paul D. Van PeltNovember 4, 2024 at 7:59 AM

    Please excuse my being pre-judgmental. Framkly, I don't care much if an incarcerated person in Texas kills someone, while there. That was the context of what I read here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul D. Van PeltNovember 4, 2024 at 8:03 AM

    Scratch my comment. It was incomplete. And, no, I am neither Texan, or, Catholic, nor, necessarily, in that order.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)