OPEN UNIVERSITY JULY 26, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
By Linda Hirshman
Maybe I'm too old to be exchanging ideas in the blogosphere, but where I come from, "obviously insane" would not count much as an argument whether for or against the real political effect of a metaphysically thin foundation for liberal political philosophy. Or any other argument including whether chocolate is better than vanilla.
When Matthew Yglesias--or any of the people who cite to Matt--comes up with a substantive argument against my thesis, I will be available to answer it. Meanwhile, I would note that if you read Bill Galston's paper (which I did not cite; I referred to his book for my argument about the differences between him and Rawls) as Matt recommends, you may find as I did that Matt's characterization of it was substantially misplaced, if not, as he would say "obviously insane."
I am making an argument for a different philosophical orientation than the one which has dominated liberal intellectual discourse for the last thirty-six years, which is why I cited Galston's philosophical book rather than his political memo. It is almost twenty years later, and my competing moral foundations are substantially different from Galston's, but even in the very different context of a strategic memo, one of Galston's three major points is--as I am also saying--that the Democrats have lost the battle of moral language to the conservatives.
Oh and it's probably not obviously insane, but there is no C in Hirshman.
8 comments
- 174773
July 26, 2007 at 1:47pm
... since at least "we" aren't saying other people are insane.
- Ivanova
July 26, 2007 at 4:50pm
is never a bad thing. If you think someone is insane, just give your reasons for it and all will be well.
- jeopel
July 26, 2007 at 5:10pm
You keep saying stuff like: "I am making an argument for a different philosophical orientation than the one which has dominated liberal intellectual discourse for the last thirty-six years...". What is the argument exactly? Please--assuming my veil of ignorance-- in 800 words or 1800 words or whatever, why don't you make your argument, clearly and accessibly?
- basman
July 26, 2007 at 6:05pm
You really don't have to take note of Yiglesias' ravings. He is just a pretentious blogger with a point of view and a following and you are an intellectual.
- jacksondyer
July 26, 2007 at 9:40pm
I'm interested and want to here about how you'd reconcile virtue ethics with modern liberalism. Today so much of political discourse turns on notions of right and legality - how do you think liberals can turn away from this?
- benberger
July 26, 2007 at 9:40pm
He actually does make a substantive criticism of your piece and embroiders it with the phrase "obviously insane". Here is his central critcism of the piece: "[S]he's actually describing a causal connection between Democratic defeats and Rawls' philosophy." Your riposte does not address whether that is a correct statement of your argument or whether you are actually arguing something different. If it is a correct statement of your argument, you add nothing to defend that argument. If it is not a correct statement of your argument, you do nothing to correct the misstatement.
- seanwright
July 27, 2007 at 9:51am
I think Matt's reaction was completely understandable (he's been fast and loose with the hyperboles lately) because you very casually made a claim that most people would think obviously false: that Rawls has a dominating influence in practical politics. I think you would actually have to demonstrate that it were true before taking your subsequent arguments seriously. Why any reader should take this as a given is not obvious.
- brianafox3
July 27, 2007 at 10:14am