Discussion about this post

User's avatar
AlnReligion's avatar

I find it really striking how much the entire contemporary American Right despises actually existing America. This holds true whether it’s the Claremont Institute, the Catholic integralists, white evangelicals, or Donald Trump himself—along with his Republican allies in Congress and state-level politics and the decidedly non-intellectual right-wing media outlets ranging from FOX, Sinclair, and Breitbart to OANN and InfoWars. From the highbrow to the vulgar, they are constantly talking about how much they are losing, even though on so many fronts (the courts, electoral politics, a lot of policy areas ranging from abortion to voting rights to government regulation) they are either winning or extremely competitive.

I don’t recall Reagan and his supporters presenting America in and of itself as being so disgustingly corrupted; to the contrary, they constantly maintained the US was the greatest country in the world and was only being held back by liberal bureaucrats and their allies in the Democratic Party. And this, at a time in which the Democratic Party was still more ambitious in its liberalism (ie, had yet to embrace Clinton-style neoliberalism and triangulation), and when organized labor was far stronger than it is today.

This Reaganite view continued into the George W. Bush era, at least as far as mainstream conservatism was concerned. Nowadays Republicans, and conservatives in general, are openly nihilistic and spiteful (“own the libs”) to an unprecedented extent. It’s really strange…and frightening.

Expand full comment
dysphemistic treadmill's avatar

"...Slavery is against nature, because it treats human beings like subhuman chattel. Sodomy is against nature, since it treats men as if they were women.”

Dude does *not* understand consent. Slaves did not consent to being slaves. Gay people consent to gay sex (and when they don't, it's bad qua rape, not bad qua gay).

"Oh, but he said that both slavery and gayness would be wrong even if everyone liked it! Are you going to say that slavery would *not* be wrong if everyone liked it? So he already anticipated your point about consent!"

No, he didn't, he just put forward a specious argument that muddied the water and missed the point.

"He [Mohr] and I [Jaffa] agree that ‘slavery would be wrong even if nearly everyone liked it.’ "

That conflates two hypotheticals:

1) "nearly everyone" of the enslavers and general non-slave public approves of and consents to the forced and involuntary captivity and labor exploitation of the enslaved population. I agree that this is slavery, and that it's still wrong, no matter how many non-slaves like it.

2) "nearly everyone" of the putative enslaved population is living voluntarily in a situation in which they work under certain conditions that they control, and which they can voluntarily leave whenever they want to. They can give and withhold effectual consent to their status and conditions at any time if they don't like them. In that case, I judge that it's not wrong any more: *because it's not slavery any more*.

Jaffa pretends that he has shown us that slavery would be wrong even if the slaves voluntarily consented to it. But that's a nonsense hypothetical: voluntary slavery, slavery in which contemporaneous consent is required for the continuation of the condition, is not slavery at all.

I don't say that it's the defining failure of the conservative mind, but the inability to understand the role of consent in morality is amazingly widespread among conservatives.

Expand full comment
13 more comments...

No posts