Pretending that everyone is the same and therefore equal is ignoring these inherent differences – and making things worse for the sufferers. For the end result is that there is something wrong with having something wrong. Instead of accepting and acknowledging limits, and therefore not fearing them, you say ‘this is so bad that we cant even talk about it, we must pretend it doesnt exist and you are the same as every 2 legged man’. It is absurd and embarrassing for the individual. It breeds an entitlement victimised outlook which crushes true self-confidence.

You must be treated as you deserve to be treated not with a long list of rights by default. Just as children attain rights as they grow older, so too should adults lose and attain rights as they make or break the rules we agree to live by.

The Liberal progressives that infiltrate every corner of our society certainly have a lot to answer for.
My generation is beginning to see that.
Jane, 26.

As pointed out by critics like Christopher Lasch, the kind of “egalitarianism” promoted by McGowan has a blind spot: the way it empowers managerial bureaucracies at the expense of the individual. In fact the kind of social management presumed by Progressivism can’t coexist with genuine democracy. Meaningful, i.e. direct and bottom-up democracy, in which the agenda is set at the grassroots level, is impossible in a society managed by large organizations. Galbraith’s “technostructure” can only survive when it’s insulated from genuine, messy democracy. That’s why Progressives a century ago supported at-large representation, citywide school boards, etc. They wanted to preserve the semblance of democracy — what Chomsky called “spectator democracy” — but with the proles on rubber-stamping what was done by the “properly qualified professionals” who ran the machinery of government.

Actually, there is a quibbling difference. The “Democrat” embraces big government and loves it, feeling it shall actually work if they strive long enough toward it. Let no Bill go un-amended. The “Republican”, on the other hand embraces big government but professes to hate it while claiming they shall tear it asunder while doing nothing of the sort. One can judge the two as one sees fit but they are siamese twins, joined at a vacant head . Best intentions, once a sleepy cottage industry on the Potomac is now a high holy cult operating within a ghetto where the name of the deity is Mammon.

At least the Weimar possessed good cabaret.

As to “centrism”, you may elect to characterize this current government as “socialist” or “commie-pinko” but with the FED and Wall Street continuing in its role as most favored Rasputin, the name don’t seem to fit. These kinds of confusions are a continuation of the last Administration when we were treated to a supposed “conservative” government that was about as conservative as a Skull and Bones Induction Ceremony after the first seven rounds of martinis.

But to be sure, this is part of the ongoing discussion, the current political categories have been roundly mashed into a formless gruel of unsatisfying taste. This is precisely the kind of atmosphere that favors creeping authoritarianism…not for justice sake but for the maintenance of a justice perverted by the State. The discursive government and its Separation of Powers buttressed by the original doctrine of States Rights were intended as a counterweight to precisely what is now occurring under the rubric of “Efficient non-duplication of services”, “national equality” and “preserving our way of life”.

Russell: I’m curious about the apparent equation of equality and justice in your last comment. Justice is a complex thing (Aristotle distinguishes about 11 different kinds), and I think equality has a very limited relevance to it. Equality before the law is, I think, a noble goal, though never perfectly attainable; but in all other aspects I think justice is more often undermined than well-served by equality. Justice concerns what is owed to someone, and it is a virtue of the exercise of judgment to recognize what is owed in individual cases, which will often have much to do with what one has earned, what is good for one, what one is capable of making good use of, and so on. All that being said, it is undoubtedly true that conservation of tradition and authority bears many injustices along with it; but this does not make it different from any other form of human action and interaction, in which injustice predominates and the exercise of virtue and wisdom is always the exception.

http://www.newpantagruel.com/issues/1.2/swarming_the_public_square_a_c.php

Russell, Ted, these are key issues to labor through, and it cheers me to see it begun so well. Russell and I have had our bouts over equality, and I have been convinced for a while that power and identity are more important than, or rather, are prior to, authority.

William–I’m ordered Stout’s book today (no promises about writing on it, though).

Thanks for this review: I read the book some time ago and wished it had gotten more attention.

I’ve found that pragmatist-traditionalist debate gets into some very interesting territory. In a similar vein, I’d love to see someone on this site write about Jeffrey Stout’s Democracy and Tradition.

-wrb

On the subject of equality, it is very difficult to have a serious conversation because the word is a screen behind which hundreds of often conflicting meanings hide. So rich a word is equality that a conversation about it, if it were to make any progress, requires the time and focus to define terms. I don’t despair that people of good faith could do this, but rather I doubt that very many of them are willing to work this hard. Pity.

I agree–it is difficult to do, and those of us who try (or think we are trying) almost certainly don’t get it right, and anyway we have relatively few people to productively share our ideas with. Or rather, there are plenty of people on the left happy to discuss equality, but they rarely are interested in the deep role which culture, identity, and personality play in all this. Lasch did, for one, though many people dislike the psychology which he used to get at these points, and of course you have the personalism shared by many left-leaning Catholic thinkers, both Vatican-favorites and liberation theologians alike. But by and large, I think a good, productive conservation about equality has mostly been derailed by liberal modernity–and too many conservatives of various stipes think that, thanks to liberal modernity, there’s no point in even discussing it: it’s been turned into a “conceit” employed by progressives as a club, as D.W. suggests, nothing more. I think that’s a loss, but confess I don’t have an argument to convince them otherwise.

I think McGowan is correct to note that the conservative emphasis on authority sometimes blinds them to the complex issues of power. If I understand McGowan, a deeper analysis of the ways that power relations affect our lives is necessary to have a meaningful discussion about equality.

I also think this is probably correct. However, at least conservatives still recognize that authority plays a necessary role in the shaping of the human person and of decent communities; too often the left flees from anything that makes normative claims which are not indexed to a prior individualism. There will probably always be a tension here; defending an authority and tradition will risk defending power being used in deeply unequal, deeply unjust ways, but rejecting authority means your ability to respect standards, respect limits, will be lost. I keep hoping to find a way of talking about a good balance; I don’t think I’ve found it yet.

Beyond equality, I think McGowan is correct to note that the conservative emphasis on authority sometimes blinds them to the complex issues of power. If I understand McGowan, a deeper analysis of the ways that power relations affect our lives is necessary to have a meaningful discussion about equality. Perhaps this is one place where our conversation can begin.