Is Vox Nova a Liberal Blog?
December 10, 2007
Many people suggest Vox Nova is a liberal blog. But is this actually true? For a different way to approach this debate, I decided to make a video to answer the question. I admit, the production values are not high (I am the sole director, and I didn’t even write a script). Nonetheless, I thought this would make for a nice change of pace around here. So, despite some of the weaknesses of the video (I used no microphone when making the video, making the sound poor and places, and one can see the film cutting in and out whenever I got up at the end of a given part of the film), I hope people will appreciate the attempt if nothing else.
So I give you — my first video made for Vox Nova:
Advertisement
It’s a shame that this issue even has to be addressed.
Saying Vox Nova is not liberal is like saying Coalition for Fog is not conservative. Look, you may think you do not have a liberal bent, but you do. That’s okay. Just don’t say you don’t.
Saying Vox Nova is not liberal is like saying Coalition for Fog is not conservative. Look, you may think you do not have a liberal bent, but you do. That’s okay. Just don’t say you don’t.
Are you saying that everyone at Vox Nova is liberal? If so, could you please explain?
Philip
Define “liberal” — and “conservative” as I said — if you must use the terms, define them to show how it is valid for the whole blog itself. I do think most people use the terms loosely without realizing the full range of meanings and arguing past one another. So again, define them if you are going to use them.
Michael I.
It is indeed sad. I hope some people will understand the video — but I suspect some will continue with their ad hominem and misplaced labels. Conservative, for example, is one of the ones which I laugh at. So many who think they are “ultra-conservative” because of their support of American democracy would be shocked to know that their positions are traditionally considered liberal and “leftist.” Of course, facts are not useful for some who like to engage fallacious argumentation!
In deed too bad something like this had to be made, kind of distracting when there are real issues to be dealt with. On an easier note, I like the pipe and the “Masterpiece Theater” feel of the video.
peace to all
Rick Garnett is a liberal? M.Z. Forrest is a liberal? Alexham is a liberal? Jonathan Jones is a liberal?
Or perhaps they’re just useful idiots? Please. I’m not sure how a blog is liberal if there are a variety of voices from different parts of the political spectrum contributing to the dialogue.
Are there bloggers at Vox Nova who are left of center politically? Sure. There are even one or two I would categorize as way out left. But there are bloggers who are right of center, as well.
People should start paying attention to the arguments that are being made and determining for themselves why they agree or disagree with said arguments, rather than keeping score regarding who’s on what side politically.
Padrevic
True, however, if people watch it, hopefully they will learn some things — like two categories of fallacies which many people employ when debating others, and why, by example, these fallacies do not work. If they can learn that, it will be worth the time I took to make the video.
Vox-nova is full of comments like this from contributors nonetheless:
“That said, I think it is also pretty clear that had the real victor become president in 2000 (as opposed to the guy who had the Supreme Court steal it for him), this country would not have become a rogue nation on the torture issue.”
I’d say that puts a definite filter on how this blog is perceived.
Jay
If one follows de Maistre, who believed democratic forms of government were liberal and lefltist, I would suspect most people who consider themselves conservative in the US would indeed be labelled liberal, but at least there is a valid reason for it and one which follows the traditional definition of the word, liberal (and why I ask people to define the word if they want to use or, or show where they get their understanding of the word from and demonstrate its validity if they feel they must use it).
But you are right, and again one of the points I’ve made here — these labels are useless when engaging the issues, because they skirt past them and actually are being used for fallacious rhetoric. Catholicism is to transcend the political labels, and if people just look at Catholic teachings and see how they connect to the “right” or “left”, “conservative” or “liberal” they are already missing the point.
TeutonicTim
And what does that say about the blog? Come on, if you are going to comment — make a reasonable argument!
The word ‘liberal’, as it is used in contemporary American political discourse, is applicable to the majority of the contributors to this blog. Describing the blog as ‘liberal’ is not an ad hominem attack or a misplaced adjective, but an attempt to accurately categorize the character of the political persuasions of the web page.
When you read Vox Nova, you read it primarily for the liberal opinions.
Why is there necessarily something wrong with admitting that?
Further, why would you object to it?
I’m currently working on my MA in Theology, and the head of our program is CONSTANTLY preaching that the words conservative and liberal do not belong in talk of theology. Now, on this blog, that gets more complex being that many of the social justice issues you all discuss have political aspects to them. Nevertheless, I think nearly all of us (posters and commenters, but especially commenters) could do a better job of responding to one another in the charity of the Gospel without resorting to labels, stereotypes, and pigeon-holing. Our goal. as Christian Catholics, is to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, and because of our social justice focus, we talk a lot about practical solutions (health care, war, non-violence, etc.) , but how can we successfully promote any of those in a Christian manner if we cannot love one another?
This is a very stimulating, intelligent, and CAtholic (in the universal sense) blog. I pray that the posters and comenters do not get jaded by uncharitable discussions, stereotypes, and labels
Zach
Define “liberal” and how it applies and why people must use it.
Please — if you are going to comment, actually follow through with what was said in the video! If you must use it, DEFINE the terms and show how they apply. And it can’t be “some liberals in America would agree with the some of the opinions said here.” As I said, just because some comments might appear to be similar in opinion to what people who think themselves to be liberal would say does not make the two one and the same. I can like chocolate cake, and so can GW Bush — this doesn’t make me GW Bush.
JB
I’m glad you understood the point!
One of the great theologians from CUA who has now moved on to bigger, better things (for him) — although currently a reader for my dissertation — also says as much about the conservative/liberal divide — and one of the things I try to present on here in this post but elsewhere.
The use of labels is troubling because it is a quick way to dismiss the issues. I would also find it difficult to just label things “conservative” as a way to dismiss what is being said by same as well. CST will say things which sound both conservative and liberal, depending upon who you talk to, but it transcends them and until we stop filtering our Catholicism with this political jargon, CST will be rent into two. Alas.
JB –
“Our goal. as Christian Catholics, is to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth”
I disagree completely. Our goal as Catholic Christians is to follow Christ and His Church in the Greatest Commandment – to love the Lord God with all our heart and others as ourselves.
The fight against those who would bring about the kingdom of heaven on earth – with their plans, their ideology, their feel-good sentiments – is one of the main reasons I am sympathetic to the Right. Humans are as they are, and let us recognize our limits. There will never be heaven on earth – let us then love God, our families, and each other.
OK. I’ll stop thinking this blog is “liberal”. I’ll forgo “liberal” and “conservative”, stick to the labels that get thrown at people like me, such as “Neanderthal” and just consider everyone at Vox-Nova considerably more “Enlightened” than myself.
It’s one thing for people commenting to be out of line, but when contributors do it on a regular basis and use the site as a platform to push left-wing ideologies, it’s hard for the blog to escape the labels being discussed.
Jonathan
Careful. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” It’s the Lord’s Prayer. Every liturgy, every mass, this is prayed for. It is indeed the goal; we are not gnostics deying the world. We are, however, not utopians in thinking it is all something humans do by themselves and can bring into effect by themselves. No, it is incarnational and synergestic. The world is called to salvation and transformation by and through grace. As followers of Christ, we are called to take the grace of Christ into the world to help transform the world itself, because of Christ.
Teutonic
Define “left-wing ideologies.”
Henry
This definition could probably be disputed forever, but I think most simply it boils down to this:
In American politics, a “liberal” is someone who is persuaded that statist solutions to social problems will be most efficacious. This is opposed to someone who is persuaded that the state is at best inefficient and at worst totally ineffective. For unfortunate reasons this person is called a “conservative”.
People do not “need” to use the terms, but the fact is they do, and they serve some purpose.
Jonathan,
When speaking of working to bring about the Kingdom of heaven on earth I certainly do not meant to imply various utopia oriented systems or philosophies. I mean the same as your are speaking. To be in heaven means to be in perfect loving with hte Trinitarian God and with the communion of saints. We being the Kingdom of God to earth by living out this loving relationality in our relationships on earth.
I think we are saying the same thing.
Furthermore Henry,
I agree with you that people get caught up in the labels and they often cause more harm than good. We should be discussing ideas!
But that does not mean the labels never serve any purpose or good.
Henry and JB – yes – may God’s spiritual kingdom reign in the world through a transformation of hearts!
Zach
Well, since many who call themselves conservative think a statist solution to social issues such as homosexuality and homosexual marriages is the only way to go (even with the inclusion of a Constitutional Ammendment to make homosexuals incapable of marrying) would you say they are then actually liberal?
Yes, labels can be good and useful if they are accurate and consistently used. It’s why I say if people must use them, to define them and see if their definition is actually valid. Yours, for example, would make many who think themselves as conservative very liberal because of their desire to use the government and the state to enforce all kinds of moral decisions — and another example here would be abortion. I have no problem with that, btw. I think abortion should be outlawed.
My “political” motto is as Peter Maurin said “To serve man for God’s sake” and if people understand the practical implications of that that as being liberal or conservative… well… I could really care less. Where I come from we don’t apply those labels, so “a palabras necias, oidos sordos!” Those labels are not universally applicable, so those who feel the need to use them, need to get out more often.
Henry, I’ll watch the video when I get home ;)
In a nutshell – Forced redistribution and control of wealth, property, and freedom via government.
This would include a wide range of issues including the environment, the economy, personal freedom, foreign relations, charity, and more.
The key phrase is “via government”
For what it’s worth, I have been experimenting with the terms ‘left-liberal’ and ‘right-liberal’ to distinguish the typical Democratic and Republican positions in the USA. What all ‘liberals’ have in common is the assumption that society is (or should be) a contractual association of individuals. One moves further ‘left’ on the spectrum to the extent that one expects the state to moderate and enforce the contract.
Say, Henry, do you really smoke a pipe?
SMB – Interesting idea… The waters are indeed muddy, but your take on it helps to clarify …
The three things that make even the unpolitical “conservative” : marriage, children, mortgage.
I embrace the term in its modern (and awkward) American usage. My own personal preference is anti-ideological, traditionist, communitarian, following Robert Nisbet, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, Chesteron, Tolkien.
This belongs firmly on the Right, as an opposite to libertarianism within the same groupings of thought in the American context.
TeutonicTim
So the military is a liberal enterprise as is the police force, because both are formed by the use of taxes, by the government, with the income redistributed to those in both forces? And since both also are used to limit various ways our free will can be exercised in the world, that is our freedom, they really are very liberal indeed, right? And again, limiting the freedom to abortion or for homosexuals to marry would then be a liberal ideal, right? Let’s just see if you will be consistent here with your label.
SMB
I think you are onto something here and your point is one I agree with — the idea of the social contract is indeed one of the main beliefs of traditional liberalism and served as the foundation for the Declaration of Independence. It is in this way that many considered the “democratic” enterprise liberal, because it justifies itself from the way men (at that time, but now men and women) make social agreement as to how society should be run. And that continues today with all strict Constitutionists (even if they would consider themselves “conservative).
As for the pipe — I smoke pipes from time to time. The pipe I used in this video has been on top of the desk Tolkien used to write the Hobbit, Lewis to write the Narnia series, and indeed, inside Lewis’ wardrobe.
It’s been months since I’ve smoked, since my apartment complex has a smoking ban into effect this year. But I hope to smoke soon when I am visiting my family.
Polycritus, Henry,
Others are providing good definitions and showing examples. I’ll let them answer.
Conservative should also be anti-populist, even when the policies are used to conservative ends (looking at you Huckabee).
The government has functions, granted by the people, that must be done through force (taxes). The conservative wants these more clearly defined and limited. The government, in other words, is a tool for specific purposes that cannot be done in any other way, not an organism that should “move when people hurt” (looking at you Bush).
Jonathan
Many people would say Belloc and Chesterton are firmly on the left because of their supportion for distributionism — and because they would even claim socialists like William Morris as their own!
Tolkien is like me — a monarchist-anarchist (read his letters and you will see what I mean). Now monarchism is generally considered “the right” to be sure, but on the other hand, they would consider most American so-called conservatives to be very liberal indeed. So they do not equate one with the other, and Tolkien had some very choice words about democracy and thus what “American conservatives” want.
I think there is a little touch of irony in the Henry’s video, centering on the key question of definition. I always smile myself when I see people who embrace free market idealism and muscular nationalism dub themselves “conservative”. Tolkien and Anscombe would turn in the their graves!
But the real issue that annoys people is that Vox Nova simply does not respect traditional political partisanship in the US. Somebody above quoted me saying that torture had pushed teh US toward rogue nation status and that the Supreme Court handed the presidency illicitly to Bush in 2000. You don’t see that kind of opinion on many other American Catholic blogs, imbued as they are with shades of the American civic religion– one is not supposed to say things like this in polite society, right? Well, I’m sorry, but Christianity has nothing to do with the current political establishment in the US, and we must never lose track of its revolutionary message. In such an atmosphere, deriding Bush does not make one “liberal” any more than deriding pro-abortionists makes one “conservative” (defined in the twisted and inaccurate American secular sense). We all talk and debate with the confines of Church teaching. Beyond that: who cares?
MM – It’s not about your opinion of Bush. It’s about your complete disregard for the facts. Gore did not have the presidency “stolen” from him.
Henry,
The Right can make very legitimate claims on Belloc and Chesteron, but it’s muddled by the misuse of terms and the differences of political culture. Distrubutionism in America (a very small following, alas) is of the Right.
I am also sympathetic to monarchism.
On a slightly different note, I enjoyed the video post. I think one of the undeniable downsides of the internet is that we come to view our online debating opponents as disembodied dark lords spewing forth ASCII, as opposed to actual people who proudly possess pipes that once sat on Tolkien’s desk. I’d like to see more of that, to the extent feasible.
I think one of the undeniable downsides of the internet is that we come to view our online debating opponents as disembodied dark lords spewing forth ASCII, as opposed to actual people who proudly possess pipes that once sat on Tolkien’s desk.
To which I should add, mea maxima culpa.
Henry – Now you’re mistaking me for another label – libertarian.
As far as the military and police, it is the position of the state to protect its citizens, as agreed by “contract” (as referenced by SMB above). That is a small step on the sliding scale, but is far from implementing communism.
As far as homosexual marriage, that is another problem created by state intervention into something it can’t handle. Marriage is wholly defined outside of the government. When government co-opted it for state use and tried to define it in order to introduce separate policies and benefits/penalties for a marriage, it caused the door of unintended consequences to be opened. I can reject homosexual marriage on moral grounds, but the door is open to allowing it on the governmental level unless it can be *gasp* Defined correctly as between a man and a woman.
Go here: http://www2.norc.org/fl/press.asp and read their articles. I remember listening to CSPAN when they discussed the 2000 election in 2004, with the revelation that Gore won when all the votes were counted, but people didn’t care to listen. http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html Is another site which shows this. The Guardian also had this story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,450264,00.html
Yes, Gore won the Florida vote if it was actually taken. But what does facts have to do with anything? I mean, if people really believed in democracy, why were they afraid of a recount? A century ago it would take months for a count; it didn’t have to be over so quickly! But for the sake of a quick election, we must ignore votes? Fine. Don’t tell me you favor elections then.
Bill
While it will not be all the time, if this video is a success, I hope to do more. And I would encourage other people on VN comfortable in doing one to do so as well. Since we are on the internet, and multimedia is a great appeal to the internet, I think it is a good idea; even if things are not perfect.
I’m actually sympathetic to Henry and MM lamenting the misuse of the term liberal (not so much on conservative). It is difficult to assign the label “liberal” to people who advocate on behalf of statist redistributionist policies. I prefer to use the term “leftist” to describe people of, well, a leftist bent.
And I echo Jay’s sentiments in that you can’t call this blog “leftist” or “liberal” when there is a wide variety of commentary on this blog.
Where I begin to part company is over the use of the word conservative. By itself, the label has less ideological conotations than the word liberal. While both signify certain philosophies, I would posit that liberalism has a more definite set of a priori principles than does conservatism. Conservatism really indicates a predisposition. Therefore, a conservative can seek to conserve (traditional) liberal values.
I’ve blogged about the nature of conservatism many times in the past, and I’m actually undertaking a more substantive exploration of the term and its applicability in the American context.
TeutonicTim
I didn’t mistake you for any label. I just used your own definition! If you don’t like the definition because of the consequences, that means the definition is a problem. That is the whole issue. I don’t think you understand — if you won’t apply a definition equally to all, wherever it flows, then it seems the definition is erroneous and being used for rhetoric not honesty.
“all the votes to be counted” ? Misleading, to say the least. Gore wanted all the votes declared by various county elected officals to be spoiled or improperly marked (something that happens in every county in every election) counted to the final tally. The nonsense about Ohio being “stolen” in 2004 is the same narrative: “count all the votes! Minority votes aren’t being tallied!” What’s lost in the discussion is that there would have to be a “conspiracy” by local officals (in this case, minority themselves) to suppress or “not count” votes, but there isn’t. They are following the rules of the election as they exist, usually with state oversight if one state party is nervous about tampering.
paul,
That’s very true. Labels in the U.S. are messed up. “Leftism” is a much better word. Get a copy of “Leftism Revisited” by Leddihn if you can (it’s rare, but excellent).
Henry:
The New York Times undertook a survey, and they related that a count of ALL of the ballots would have still ended up with Bush winning Florida. Only in one scanrio using the loosest standards of counting votes for Gore would have resulted in a different outcome.
And we did have a recount. Twice. Bush won. Every time. The Supreme Court intervened only when the state desired to recount certain votes in a way that violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The state Supreme Court of Florida acted in a way that was much more activist and subversive than the US Supreme Court.
Paul
If you define conservative as a disposition instead of a political category, that can be useful; one can also say liberalism is itself a disposition, and it can also be useful — as long as people are consistent here.
Conservatives as a disposition, one can say, try to preserve or conserve the status quo. IF this is what one means, as a disposition, then I can find that is a useful label. But — as Pope Benedict himself pointed out in his latest encyclical, Catholics are not for the preservation of the status quo, but for reforming and constant reformation.
And here is where I find Solovyov in his discussion of Socrates from his essay on Plato helpful:
“To the Conservatives Socrates, as it were, said: ‘You are perfectly right, and deserve every commendation for your desire to conserve the bases of society– this is a matter of the highest importance. It is good that you are Conservatives. The misfortune, however, is that you are bad Conservatives. You neither know what or how to conserve. You flounder about and grope your way like blind men. Self-conceit is the cause of your blindness. However, your conceit, though wrong, and harmful to yourselves and others, should be pardoned, as it does not spring from ill-will, but is the result of your stupidity and ignorance.’ What possible answer was there to this but prison and the cup of poison?
“To the Sophists Socrates said: ‘You do very well in considering and in testing by critical thought all that exists or does not exist; the pity is that you are bad thinkers, and have no idea whatever either of the aims or the methods of real criticism or dialectics.’
“Socrates pointed out, and, what more, demonstrated beyond question the intellectual bankruptcy of his opponents. This, of course, was an unpardonable offence. Reconciliation was henceforth impossible. And even if Socrates never had directly accused the Athenian city fathers of being bad Conservatives, or the Sophists of being bad thinkers, the position would not have been changed. All the same he had accused both parties by his very personality, by his moral character, and by the positive significance of his speeches. He himself, as the personification of truly conservative and truly critical principles, was a living offence to bad conservatives and bad critics. Until he appeared, even if both parties were dissatisfied with one another, they were, on the other hand, serenely satisfied with themselves.
“As long as the Conservatives could see in their opponents godless and irreligious men, they had the feeling of their own moral superiority, and in anticipation celebrated their victory. It might appear in very truth that they were defending faith and piety itself. There was an appearance of a dispute about principles and ideas, in which they represented the right and positive party. But when they came into conflict with Socrates, the position changed completely. They could not defend faith and piety, as such, against a man, who was himself a pious believer. It fell to them to defend not faith itself, but only the distinction between their faith and that of Socrates’, and this distinction lay in the fact that Socrates’ faith had vision, while theirs was blind. Thus the poor character of their faith was revealed, and in their eagerness in asserting this particular unchanging blind faith its weakness and insincerity became evident. On what ground could they defend absence of enlightenment in faith? Was it on the ground that every faith was bound to be unenlightened? But there, before them, was Socrates with an obvious refutation of such a supposition by the very fact of his enlightened and perceptive faith. It was clear that they defended unenlightenment, not in the interests of faith, but in other interests having no connection to faith. And, as a matter of fact, the Athenian Conservatives of that time, at least the more cultured among them, were men who had no faith. It could not be otherwise. When in the given society an intellectual movement had once begun– when philosophy appeared and developed– a direct faith requiring a childlike mind became impossible for everyone touched by the movement. What has passed away cannot be conserved, and the faith of ‘obscurantes’ is only a deceptive mask covering their actual unbelief. In the case of the more active and gifted men among the Athenian Conservatives, Aristophanes for instance, their true feelings broke through the mask; exposing the so- called impiety of the philosophers, Aristophanes at the very time by his coarse mockery of the goods displayed his own. What was conserved by such Conservatives, and what was their motive? It is clear it was not the fear of the Divine, but only fear for the old and familiar way of life which was up with a given religion.
“Socrates by the very fact of his positive, fearless, and enlightened faith exposed the moral worthlessness of such an unbelieving and corrupt conservatism. And again, by the very fact of his absolutely critical and at the same time perfectly positive attitude toward actual life, he exposed the oral insolvency of the pseudo-criticism of the Sophist. As long as the Sophists had against them either the populace, or even people of a higher class who had taken little part in the philosophic movement and were unskilled in dialectics, so long it might appear that their tenets represented the rights of progress as against the general intertia; the rights of thought against an undeveloped mentality, and those of knowledge and enlightenment against ignorance. But when ‘the wisest of the Greeks’, a man who was certainly of greater intellectual power and dialectical skill than the Sophists, took up arms against their confusion of all the principles of life, everybody recognized that the purely negative character of their reasoning depended not of necessity on human thought, but at best on the imperfection and partiality of their views, and methods. It was clear that the impulse in their case did not lie in thought and criticism, but only in bad thought and bad criticism.”
Solovyov, Plato, VII (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5164/Plato_Sol.htm#VII)
This should also help explain some of my views.
Paul
They were not full recounts, and every time stopped before they were allowed to explore and look at the whole issue of a recount. The NYT examination, if I remember correctly, was also soon after the election, and quickly done without the full amount of time needed to do the count.
One thing I do remember — if Gore had got what he wanted and only recounted certain counties, he lost; it took a full recount in all of Florida to show that he won.
Democracy is also classical left, Jonathan.
“I didn’t mistake you for any label. I just used your own definition! If you don’t like the definition because of the consequences, that means the definition is a problem. That is the whole issue. I don’t think you understand — if you won’t apply a definition equally to all, wherever it flows, then it seems the definition is erroneous and being used for rhetoric not honesty.”
I understand just fine. There is no way to apply a single word description to a group of people and have it be completely accurate. No one disputes that.
What can be disputed is the extent to which this blog advocates the use of government to achieve social goals and whether or not this is the only valid Catholic point of view.
The only way to describe this is to try to say where on the sliding scale this blog stands.
Henry,
This easily Googled find of the NYT recount shows that Paul is right (no pun intented.) Also note the article was published in Nov, 2001 and was conducted well after the election and not shortly after.
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER
comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court’s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium’s independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to “count all the votes.”
In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.
More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium’s final tabulations.
Thus the most thorough examination of Florida’s uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida’s system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at — a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.
The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.
For example, if Florida’s 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened “irreparable harm” to Mr. Bush.
But the consortium’s study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.
Even so, the media ballot review, carried out under rigorous rules far removed from the chaos and partisan heat of the post-election dispute, is unlikely to end the argument over the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. The race was so close that it is possible to get different results simply by applying different hypothetical vote-counting methods to the thousands of uncounted ballots. And in every case, the ballot review produced a result that was even closer than the official count — a margin of perhaps four or five thousandths of one percent out of about six million ballots cast for president.
The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected last November. Those included so-called undervotes, or ballots on which the machines could not discern a preference for president, and overvotes, those on which voters marked more than one candidate.
The examination then sought to judge what might have been considered a legal vote under various conditions — from the strictest interpretation (a clearly punched hole) to the most liberal (a small indentation, or dimple, that indicated the voter was trying to punch a hole in the card). But even under the most inclusive standards, the review found that at most, 24,619 ballots could have been interpreted as legal votes.
The numbers reveal the flaws in Mr. Gore’s post-election tactics and, in retrospect, why the Bush strategy of resisting county-by-county recounts was ultimately successful.
In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537. An approach Mr. Gore and his lawyers rejected as impractical — a statewide recount — could have produced enough votes to tilt the election his way, no matter what standard was chosen to judge voter intent.
Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late- arriving ballots did not meet Florida’s standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them.
A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore’s favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review.
But Mr. Gore chose not to challenge these ballots because many were from members of the military overseas, and Mr. Gore did not want to be accused of seeking to invalidate votes of men and women in uniform.
Democrats invested heavily in get- out-the-vote programs across Florida, particularly among minorities, recent immigrants and retirees from the Northeast. But their efforts were foiled by confusing ballot designs in crucial counties that resulted in tens of thousands of Democratic voters spoiling their ballots. More than 150,000 of those spoiled ballots did not show evidence of voter intent even after independent observers closely examined them and the most inclusive definition of what constituted a valid vote was applied.
The majority of those ballots were spoiled because multiple choices were made for president, often, apparently, because voters were confused by the ballots. All were invalidated by county election officials and were excluded from the consortium count because there was no clear proof of voter intent, unless there were other clear signs of the voter’s choice, like a matching name on the line for a write-in candidate.
In Duval County, for example, 20 percent of the ballots from African- American areas that went heavily for Mr. Gore were thrown out because voters followed instructions to mark a vote on every page of the ballot. In 62 precincts with black majorities in Duval County alone, nearly 3,000 people voted for Mr. Gore and a candidate whose name appeared on the second page of the ballot, thus spoiling their votes.
In Palm Beach County, 5,310 people, most of them probably confused by the infamous butterfly ballot, voted for Mr. Gore and Patrick J. Buchanan. The confusion affected Bush voters as well, but only 2,600 voted for Mr. Bush and another candidate.
The media consortium included The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Tribune Company, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, The St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post and CNN. The group hired the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in January to examine the ballots. The research group employed teams of three workers they called coders to examine each undervoted ballot and mark down what they saw in detail. Three coders provided a bulwark against inaccuracy or bias in the coding. For overvotes, one coder was used because there was seldom disagreement among examiners in a trial run using three coders.
The data produced by the ballot review allows scrutiny of the disputed Florida vote under a large number of situations and using a variety of different standards that might have applied in a hand recount, including the appearance of a dimple, a chad dangling by one or more corners and a cleanly punched card.
The difficulty of perceiving dimples or detached chads can be measured by the number of coders who saw them, but most of the ballot counts here are based on what a simple majority — two out of three coders — recorded.
The different standards mostly involved competing notions of what expresses voter intent on a punch card. The 29,974 ballots using optical scanning equipment were mostly interpreted using a single standard — any unambiguous mark, whether a circle or a scribble or an X, on or near the candidate name was considered evidence of voter intent.
If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won, by a very narrow margin. For example, using the most permissive “dimpled chad” standard, nearly 25,000 additional votes would have been reaped, yielding 644 net new votes for Mr. Gore and giving him a 107-vote victory margin.
But the dimple standard was also the subject of the most disagreement among coders, and Mr. Bush fought the use of this standard in recounts in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami- Dade Counties. Many dimples were so light that only one coder saw them, and hundreds that were seen by two were not seen by three. In fact, counting dimples that three people saw would have given Mr. Gore a net of just 318 additional votes and kept Mr. Bush in the lead by 219.
Using the most restrictive standard — the fully punched ballot card — 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.
All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.
While these are fascinating findings, they do not represent a real- world situation. There was no set of circumstances in the fevered days after the election that would have produced a hand recount of all 175,000 overvotes and undervotes.
The Florida Supreme Court urged a statewide recount and ordered the state’s 67 counties to begin a manual re-examination of the undervotes in a ruling issued Dec. 8 that left Mr. Gore and his allies elated.
The Florida court’s 4-to-3 ruling rejected Mr. Gore’s plea for selective recounts in four Democratic counties, but also Mr. Bush’s demand for no recounts at all. Justice Barbara Pariente, in her oral remarks, asked, “Why wouldn’t it be proper for any court, if they were going to order any relief, to count the undervotes in all of the counties where, at the very least, punch-card systems were operating?”
The court ultimately adopted her view, although extending it to all counties, including those using ballots marked by pen and read by optical scanning. Many counties immediately began the effort, applying different standards and, in some cases, including overvotes.
The United States Supreme Court stepped in only hours after the counting began, issuing an injunction to halt. Three days later, the justices overturned the Florida court’s ruling, sealing Mr. Bush’s election.
But what if the recounts had gone forward, as Mr. Gore and his lawyers had demanded?
The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.
The Florida Legislature earlier this year banned punch-card ballots statewide, directing counties to find a more reliable method. Many counties will use paper ballots scanned by computers at voting places that can give voters a second chance if their choices fail to register. In counties that use that technology, just 1 in 200 ballots had uncountable presidential votes, compared with 1 in 25 in punch-card counties.
Others will invest in computerized touch-screen machines that work like automated teller machines.
Kirk Wolter, who supervised the ballot review for the National Opinion Research Center, said that the study not only provided a comprehensive review of uncounted ballots in Florida but would help point the way toward more accurate and reliable voting systems. All data from the consortium recount is available on the Web at http://www.norc.org.
The review produced databases to study this election from a historical perspective, said Mr. Wolter, the research center’s senior vice president for statistics and methodology, adding, “I hope in turn this can lead to voting reform and better ways of doing this in future elections.”
“it took a full recount in all of Florida to show that he won.”
When using non-lawful standards for counting votes. In an appropriate recount, the outcome is the same. One could make up any standard and apply votes to fit that standard. I could start a recount and say that a vote for Pat Buchanan was a vote for Al Gore and then apply all of those votes to Gore’s count and declare him the victor… Oh wait, that’s already been done…
For some reason IE doesn’t let you copy and paste on this blog – though I can on Firefox. Anyway, one thing I’d like to address from Henry’s 4:51 reply is that conservatives don’t necessarily support blindly upholding the status quo. As Burke said, a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.
On the recount: No, I believe the NYT recount we done well after the election, but I am not certain about that.
Creating a dichotomy is half the issue. I think if one were to enterprise to describe the political reality, a half dozen groups would come closer to doing it justice.
For the most part, I think political discourse is dominated by libertarianism. Appeals are made on both sides of the aisle based on it.
Posted the above before I saw Phillip’s comment. Thanks, Phil.
Teutonic
So-called “conservatives” are also into using the government to make society and the world the way they want it as well. That’s the problem with the inconsistency.
On the other hand, this blog has had MM question whether or not prostitution should be illegal (and thus employing governmental enforcement), showing that ancient Christians didn’t think it is necessary.
This again is why the label is rhetoric and used for fallacious argumentation. The blog is not about making the state fix all societal ills. No one here has ever said it should or that it is possible.
Paul
And we both know that the Left at first thought Burke was going to support the Revolution and were upset when he did not. Yes, the Burke was of the right, and the right (even de Maistre) allows for evolution, but on the other hand, the point is if one is talking about dispositions — the conservative disposition is, as a whole, to preserve the status quo; this is why 1950s American “conservative” and 2007 American “conservative” often have different views from one another.
Again, I think “conservative” is just as abused as “liberal.” Catholicism is neither. It transcends both and yet aspects of what it teaches are liked by those who are “conservative” and those who are “liberal” (however one defines them). But I think we Catholics need to get over that distinction and stop arguing “that’s liberal” or “that’s conservative.” It’s also why some people have claimed I am ultra-conservative and others I am ultra-liberal. They only look within that dualism. How many “ultra-liberals” do you know as being influenced by de Maistre and Pobedonostsev?
Henry,
Does this mean you now reject MM’s ultra-left comment that the Supreme Court stole the 2000 election?
Henry,
Remaking society in your world-view is not an “anti-conservative” enterprise. There is no inconsistency because conservatives do not make any such claim. The arguments are about the size, scope, and function. A more restrictionist view tends to be more conservative. The more expansive use of government in the public sphere (even for “conservative” ends) tends toward the populist and the leftist. In this way, Leddihn claimed modernist and democratic movements were not conservative but leftist, and I think he is right.
“Democracy is also of the classical left”
Democratic governments developed in the West alongside classical liberalism. The two might even require one another. If this is what you are referring to, Henry, I agree.
“No one here has ever said it should or that it is possible.”
Really? Again, this site advocates for far more governmental intervention than many self-described “liberal” or “leftist” sites.
The problem isn’t with the consistency, it’s with the extent.
Jonathan
Democrat governments were founded upon the idea of the social contract and humans are left on their own to govern themselves (either because God doesn’t exist, or the Deist God who might as well no longer exist was the one who created the world). The whole foundation of liberalism and its democratic ideals connects to the idea of the “Donald Duck” heresy from Pell. It was the idea of the general goodness of humanity and if left on our own, we will be good; this is of course completely and utterly false. On the other hand, there is the need for free will and freedom in society — without limits of course — but that doesn’t require democracy to exist. The conservatives, the right, saw the need for “big government” because of the fallen nature of humanity and the way we will to do evil if left unattended. Thus the monarchies WERE seen as the “right” and “big government” which the leftist democracies were warring against.
But of course, one can ask “in what fashion” is the government big and in what fashion is it small? As Tolkien and others have noted, in a monarchy, when people realize the political control is not their own, their lives are often more free than in a system which tries to make one completely political (as our own) even if that second one, because of political power, claims to be a free society. Pobedonstsev is very good on this issue ( the big government, conservative he was).
TeutonicTim you are not dealing with the issues, and only looking at some which you don’t want the government to intervene in. Moreover, you show little to know understanding of classical political theory. Would you suggest Tsarist Russia to be liberal and leftist?
We’re talking about Vox-Nova and why it’s considered a “liberal” blog in todays world, yes?
Teutonic
Today’s world transcends America, and other parts of the world understand the right/left conservative/liberal distinction quite different from you.You have not dealt with the issues yet. Define liberal in a way which you want to but if you don’t want to be called liberal, make sure the definition doesn’t include what you want.
What issue haven’t I dealt with yet? I understand it’s not necessarily an american/left/liberal distinction and not everyone agrees and have conceded that. That doesn’t take away from slant of this blog.
You have not defined liberal in a way with which you like the results of your definition. As I said, if one follows your definition, pro-life people are liberals. Moreover, you have not dealt with the real issue that conservative/liberal is an artificial, dualistic divide which Catholicism transcends, and definitions people make will fail to represent Catholic teaching. Finally, you have not answered as to whether or not your definition makes someone who thinks government shouldn’t regulate prostitution is conservative or liberal….
Oh, heck. I’ll defer to the words of a judge whose name I can remember when asking to define the limits of pornography and he said: “I know it when I see it”. When I read Vox Nova, I know liberal (or progressive, or Democrat, or however you define it) thought in the majority of the posts.
Sure, you have a plethora of contributors here, and many have been identified as having a conservative viewpoint. But I’m talking about the sheer volume of liberal posts compared to conservative.
It has been discussed that Catholic thought transcends political labels, but what I’ve seen in many cases is classic liberal points being brought up and they search for Catholic theology to support them. Much like many Protestants do with their doctrine. They hold a certain doctrine, then try and support it with out of context Bible verses.
Some of my favorite blogs are unabashedly liberal. Also, I enjoy debate, and to debate you have to search out those you disagree with.
BTW, I haven’t watched the video yet, but if you’re smoking a pipe, you are definitely showing a liberal bias. If you were conservative you’d be smoking a fat cigar. The fatter the better :)
You have not defined liberal in a way with which you like the results of your definition. As I said, if one follows your defition, pro-life people are liberals. Moreover, you have not dealt with the real issue that conservative/liberal is an artificial, dualistic divide which Catholicism transcends, and definitions people make will fail to represent Catholic teaching. Finally, you have not answered as to whether or not your definition makes someone who thinks government shouldn’t regulate prostitution is conservative or liberal….
1.) Yes I have.
2.) I’m one of the first people in this discussion who said Catholicism is above this whole discussion.
3.) I was never asked the prostitution question.
TeutonicTim
Obviously implied questions are not a question to you, either.
OK, mentioning MM had a post on prostitution is now an implied question? I can understand you putting it out there as bait for me to take, but saying me not “answering” this
“On the other hand, this blog has had MM question whether or not prostitution should be illegal (and thus employing governmental enforcement), showing that ancient Christians didn’t think it is necessary.”
is shirking a question is stretching a bit.
Is water wet? Yes. Does fire burn? Yes. Is Vox Nova a left of center blog? Yes. This thread of course is a prime example. When you have contributors to a blog still trying to make the case that Gore had Florida “stolen” from him, you can rest assured that you are at a leftist site. Res ipsa loquitur.
Not answering it is not stretching things at all, if one understands how dialogue and discussion goes. You have a point. I make a counterpoint. You ignore counterpoint. Then you act like I have not discussed that issue when I point out out again. Come on — be honest at least.
Donald
Define “center” and “left.” Then show how those definitions apply to one’s belief of history and whether or not Gore won or lost. It seems you think whether or not Gore won or lost is a matter of one’s political position, and one can’t think he won and wish he didn’t, or think he didn’t and wish he did? And then show, even if this is the case (which I dispute strongly), how this applies to the whole blog without being a “guilt by association” being thrown into the mix?
Henry,
I’m not sure about your last post. Are you saying the NYTimes recount was wrong?
My last post said nothing about the NYT.
So you accept the NYTimes recount as valid then?
Now Philip if you want to ask me if I think the NYT is wrong, the answer is — yes, from many of the reports which came out throughout the years after the NYT recount came out; and if I remember correctly the NYT itself accepted the further study; I can’t find the recount info I had from 2004 when I heard CSPAN radio do a rebroadcast from a 2003 (I think) study on the 2000 election, but I seem to remember the NYT was involved within that consortium.
Ultimately I guess — with the way the 2000 election went, and the various recounts coming up differently, we can agree it was a close election. Moreover, someone can believe one recount over another. Sometimes it might be because of a bias and one will accept the recount which favors them. But this is not the only reason and one can believe one recount is better than another for various reasons which have nothing to do with one’s stand. And so to say this is a liberal blog because some (including me) think Gore won the 2000 election is invalid. Especially when one has yet to define what “liberal” means when one makes that accusation which does not many other positions they want to label as conservative to actually follow their liberal label!
LOL, Donald, ipsa loquitor indeed. I still like this site, though. There are a few nuggets here & there.
Though I don’t think the NYTimes was biased in favor of Bush. Then it is unjust to say the Supreme Court “stole” the election.
Phillip
As I said, someone could wish Bush lost and think he won, or wish he won and think he lost.
So if one views the recounts depending on one’s bias, and you happen to think Gore won, then you have a left leaning bias? If not, and your conclusion is based on other data, give your recount of the election like the (left biased) NYTimes did that concluded Bush really won. Otherwise, on what basis (bias) do you say Gore won?
Please see the November 19, 1999 issue of Commonweal Magazine.
Wow… this has to be the longest thread of comments ever in VN
Kurt,
Which one?
comment post padding :)
That should be, which article.
I believe Kurt is referring to Cardinal George’s article “How Liberalism Fails the Church” and the responding essays.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=527
Test for avatar….should be Solzhenitsyn….
When I read Vox Nova, I know liberal (or progressive, or Democrat, or however you define it) thought in the majority of the posts.
Some distinctions are in order here… I’m surprised that in 90 some comments, this has not been brought up: Since when are Democrats “progressive”? And are we able to distinguish between “left” and “liberal,” people?
Is Vox Nova a left of center blog?
The “center” is typically understood by people to mean their own position.
What can be disputed is the extent to which this blog advocates the use of government to achieve social goals and whether or not this is the only valid Catholic point of view.
This again is why the label is rhetoric and used for fallacious argumentation. The blog is not about making the state fix all societal ills. No one here has ever said it should or that it is possible.
Really? Again, this site advocates for far more governmental intervention than many self-described “liberal” or “leftist” sites.
The existence of at least two anarchists on this blog complicates ya’ll’s simplistic definitions of “liberal” and “conservative.” I’m often referred to as one of Vox Nova’s most “liberal” or “far left” (whatever that means) contributors. But this description is utter nonsense if the definition articulated by most people here is correct: that “liberal” means advocating state solutions to social problems. As an anarchist, I think the state is a huge part of the problem. I’m an anarchist; I ain’t no liberal. But I’m certainly not conservative or on the “right.”
If it’s the Cardinal George article that I’m thinking of, I remember quite liking it.
Michael,
Who is the other anarchist?
Nate, who was a major contributor but no longer posts here, is openly an anarchist. Henry has described himself above as a monarchist-anarchist. They are the only ones that I know, other than myself, who have used the term to my knowledge.
Let me also add that I tend to be suspicious of anyone who calls him or herself a “centrist” Catholic. Although I know what they are trying to say, I think the Gospel calls the Church not to the center, but to the margins. God takes sides. So should the Church.
Yes, I think one thing libertarians share with “centrists” is that the definition of that term tends to closely follow their personal policy prescriptions. Very few “pure” libertarians such as Ron Paul exist, and it can be argued he deviates because of social conservatism. Both terms eventually collapse into themselves. Conservatism almost collapses into itself as well, especially if one uses a defintion I like, which is “anti-ideological.” I think it is a deep and wide pool of thought that should begin any definition with the “anti” – anti-statist, anti-ideology, anti-central planning, anti-modernist, anti- a priori. and so on.
What I love is that on this blog I am considered a conservative, and over at Redstate I am viewed as one of the more liberal contributors. :)
The previous link I provided required registration. This link does not:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_20_126/ai_57888996/print
That George essay is very good. He essentially takes to task both sides of the partisan divide for not thinking in sufficiently Catholic terms. I liked this quote:
“Conservative Catholicism in some of its reaction takes refuge in earlier cultural forms of faith expression and absolutizes them for all times and all places. While certain that it differs fundamentally from liberal Catholicism, this conservatism shares the Bellarminian understanding of the church as society. The hierarchy therefore become central, responsible for all good as well as for all ills, able to correct all aberrations by invoking their authority. Correct in understanding that the church is essentially conservative in handing on the apostolic faith, contemporary conservative Catholicism can fail to see that the church is also, for that very reason, radical in its critique of any society. Just as liberal Catholicism is frequently uneasy with the church’s understanding of the gift of human sexuality when her teaching runs up against the popular Freudianism of the sexual revolution, conservative Catholicism is often uneasy with the church’s understanding of a just society when her social teaching draws conclusions about social services and the distribution of wealth from the premise of universal human solidarity. “
Michael, I agree that anarchists pose an interesting problem in taxonomy. It occurs to me that some anarchists would be extreme examples of ‘right’ liberalism (by advocating purely voluntary asociation among individuals), while others could be extreme traditionalists (by seeking to eliminate ‘rational’ associations that impinge upon organic communities, such as the family and village). I’m curious–where do YOU fit in?
BTW, I am now inclined to drop ‘conservative’ altogether. ‘Communitarianism’ and ‘traditionalism’ are better terms for the alternatives to ‘liberalism’ in the classical sense.
That’s what is interesting about George’s article, he was trying to tell us what I said in the video: we are not to accept liberal OR conservative political traditions as what defines Catholicism (both end up political utopianism); rather we are Catholic.
I can’t view Henry’s video at the moment, but I agree that labels often add to the confusion, particularly the term “liberal” — the ‘Catholic neocons’, Michael Novak, Fr. Neuhaus, George Weigel tend to identify themselves as “liberal” in the classic sense. See Fr. Neuhaus’ “The Liberalism of John Paul II” for details.
John Allen Jr. also wrote a column entitled Is John Paul II too liberal? on the ongoing dispute between liberal Catholics like Neuhaus and their critics in the Communio school.
I think part of the problem is that those dismissing Vox Nova as a “left wing” blog take the most extreme positions as representative of the whole (IMHO sometimes it has to do with the frequency of postings as well by certain members). But as a blog I think the members cover the spectrum of political orientation.
Alexham
You are “conservative” according to which standard and by which people? I would classify you as a traditional liberal!
PS–thanks, Henry, for the Solovyev reference. You’ve made my day.
SMB – I’m the latter variety of anarchist. I don’t think the former (which I would call libertarianism) is very compatible with Christianity.
I’m not so sure that ‘communitarianism’ and ‘traditionalism’ are good terms either, if they are being linked with “conservatism.’ Those two terms beg the questions: What “community”? Whose “tradition”?
Henry-
RedState is a tough crowd. :)
Communitarianism and traditionalism have at their foundation the two parent family as the basis of the good society. Civic virtue begins at home, ect. It seems to me that this is the main link to American conservatism, and it’s a strong one. This is not to say leftists do not value their family, but only that they would not tend to see it as the first basis on which society should be constructed.
What “community”? Whose “tradition”?
I think communitarianism is more of a leftest philosophy. While talk of it is more muted on the left, it is practiced more over there. Part of this I think is the large number of Catholic on the left. When one brings up issues like divorce, you find more personal opposition from the left. I don’t think it is coincidence that none of the Democratic candidates are still on their first marriage whereas few of the Republicans are.
I think traditionalsim is largely a relic. There may be isolated places where it is still present, but the necessarily ingredients really aren’t there when the footprints of families are measured in states rather than counties.
Nice tie Henry ;) It looks like Australian silk ;)
Communitarism is a notion of civic society that is opposed to the view that man, as an individual alone, is responsible for the formation and best continuation of his life. The good life, instead, is built upon the development of the like-minded pursuing what is good, beginning in the home.
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-829563-4.pdf
It has criticism for both the right and the left, but IMO is a system of thought most in line with the (older European) monarchist right.
Magella
Yes, it is a very nice tie, as you should well know :) And I make sure I wear it often (though sometimes I put on my TARDIS or Dalek ties instead…). I’m surprised at how few people look closely enough at it to realize it is also a school tie!
Remember also why we have the terms “right” and “left”: the French Revolution. Monarchists who supported the Ancien Regime and the general notions of aristocracy sat on the right – faith, family, tradition, soil. Those who sat on the left (especially the radicals) tended to support the building of a new heaven on earth, free from the suffocating convention of tradition. The National Assembly in France still follows this custom.
Conservatism, as such, must IMO be anti-ideology and anti-utopian.
Jonathan
What you said in your first paragraph does not lead to the second. Utopian visions can come most (if not all) political angles — as long as people think it is the political (and economic) sphere is all that exists and can lead to a perfect society on earth. But people can follow any political ideology and think it will always be imperfect — and non-utopian. My whole series on utopias shows how America has become very Utopian in its vision of democracy (and one can say, capitalism and the free market).
The logic follows. Just as the assembly of the right was opposed to the utopian vision of the French revolutionaries, so too is a definition of the right to be opposed to utopia, which St. Thomas More correctly labeled both “good place” and “no place.” The utopia may mean full equality, a wholly unfettered market, or whatever grand vision “might be achieved” with little regard to actual people.
Utopia exists only in heaven, where there is full communion with the Triune God.
Jonathan
Utopia can and will exist on earth when it is transfigured; however, that is beside the point. To say that we will not create and make utopia on earth is a given; but people in political thought in any major political tradition can make that tradition utopian — you can certainly have utopian visions of monarchy just as much as democracies. It is a different issue, which is why it doesn’t follow.
Explain “when it is transfigured.”
As to your second point – yes exactly, traditions can be made utopian. And it is “conservative” to be opposed to such a process. I use the term “traditional” in its family-centered American context.
All traditions are in a sense utopian. The question is whether the tradition thinks that utopia can be realized concretely in history. To say that utopia(s) cannot be realized in history does not mean that they cannot be partially realized in history. Democracy, seems to me, is a fuller realization of the Reign of God than is totalitarianism. Social situations can be closer or further away from the Kingdom, and we can discern that and make judgments, but this does not mean that we must think we can bring the Kingdom into fullness ourselves within history.
I hadn’t watched the video until just now. Awesome use of music.
Oh, the substance was good too.
Jonathan
The world, just like us, will be transformed in and through Christ. The incarnation has a cosmic effect; we are not gnostics nor nihilists.
Michael I.
I think there is a very Protestant underlying some people’s reaction to “utopia.” Because we cannot perfect the world by ourselves, they think we are to do nothing. They forget we are called to be laborers for Christ. Thus, instead of an idea where grace perfects nature, and we must cooperate with grace, there seems to be a rather “sola fide” view of the world — let it rot until the end, then let Christ do as he wills to save/perfect it by himself (with, it seems, an idea the world is to be destroyed). They forget the Church’s role is in the world, to bring Christ to the world, including perfecting grace!
Blackadder
Thanks — I am glad the video is appreciated (as with my music choice — Murray Gold, the composer, can be over-the-top, but that makes it all the better for videos like this).
Hahaha!!! Henry, I couldn’t see the video until now that I got home. I love the prelude!!!! It’s awesome :)
Henry – Yes, good call. You are absolutely right.
I never suggested “we are to do nothing” – quite the opposite. Follow the Golden Rule, which is Christ’s Greatest Commandment. Love your family.
The world, and us, will be transformed. But not by us, and not through human effort. Our “yes”, continuously in the Sacraments, will in the end bring us to the final Grace of Christ, full communion in heaven. Not earth.
jonathan – To me that sounds like Protestantism with the sacraments tagged on.
Catholics believe in the cooperation of human effort and divine effort. Not either/or, but both/and. Our “yes” in the sacraments is not only a yes to God in which we thereby wait around for the eschaton and individual salvation. They yes of the sacraments is a yes to God and a yes to the transformation of the world.
I wonder: if the world will be transformed, but all of us will be in heaven… what kind of “communion” is that?
And you interpret the Golden Rule as “love your family”?
“Who is my mother and my brothers?” – Jesus
The whole point is any grand, utopian, project – heaven on earth – is doomed to failure and even counterproductive to the Christian cause. What did Christ tell us? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do these things in remembrance of of me. No large political vision, but rather a radical interpretation of what it means to be human. (And no, the golden rule is not “love your family.” Rather, that is the action we can best do to build a good and prosperous community).
I know it’s fun to throw around charges of gnosticism or Protestant influence, but I am not making a theological point. It is a conservative political point – against ideology, and against any utopian vision to bring the kingdom (of God, of equality, of whatever) to us in the here and now. That is quite often destructive and counterproductive. Let us instead follow Christ, in communion with Him and our fellow believers, following His very simple and very radical command.
Seems like a weird interpretation of “love your neighbor as yourself.” A horribly domesticated version of the commandment if you ask me.
I know it’s fun to throw around charges of gnosticism or Protestant influence, but I am not making a theological point. It is a conservative political point – against ideology, and against any utopian vision to bring the kingdom (of God, of equality, of whatever) to us in the here and now. That is quite often destructive and counterproductive. Let us instead follow Christ, in communion with Him and our fellow believers, following His very simple and very radical command.
But you are making a theological point. Most of this paragraph is explicitly theological. And even if you were only “talking politics,” all politics is theological and vice versa.
Oh? What is so strange about viewing the Greatest Commandment as the best way to organize our lives, especially by comparison to abstract zeal for some political cause? “Horribly domesticated”? Elaboration please.
And then let’s take the theology: anything off-base with Catholic doctrine? Details please.
Finally, “all politics is theological” – here we do have, finally, clear disagreement. I suppose if you view life as political, if you view the “personal” as political, then yes, our theology could in fact be infused with politics. But what a horrible way to live! Politics is for politicians, and only occasionally for us. Catholicism, and Christianity, is beyond politics. It transcends it. Our “belief system” is actually not a “system” at all: it is absolute faith and trust in a singular Person, who is God With Us. Ours is a radically humanist theology. We need not trust in anything else, and certainly not the elaborate plans of men, no matter how well intentioned.
Jonathan
Once again, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, ON EARTH as it is in heaven.” The theology of the incarnation is a theology which counters a rejection of the earth. Gnostics believed we would just leave the earth behind, and consistent with this, they denied the incarnation. The Fathers, on the other hand, said that which has been assumed can be saved; and Christ assumed creaturely nature… this is why St Paul says the whole earth has been groaning for the time of the incarnation.
Once again, it is not “conservative” to be earth-denying, it is gnostic plain and simple. And the idea that we are not called to go out into the world and work is completely contrary to the message of Jesus.
Henry,
Please don’t project beliefs or statements onto me that I didn’t make and do not hold. I think I’ve been clear enough.
Jonathan,
What did I project? I think you were clear enough. “Not earth.”
That in some way I am “earth-denying”, which is “gnostic plain and simple.” I have written nothing gnostic, and certainly nothing earth or physical denying. The Sacraments are grounded in the earth – God conveying to us eternal truth and Graces through the physical, as He Himself embraced humanity.
I have written clearly (I hope, happy to clarify if not) against utopian political projects, Christian or not. Christ transcends the political. Ours is not a political religion, although it may touch upon political issues (abortion being the most important, but that is not only a political issue; it is a moral one). How is this line of thought any different from the man who gave us the word utopia, St. Thomas More?
In sum, to be anti-utopian is not to minimize the necessity of our following Christ on earth, advancing His kingdom. Not in the slightest. To be anti-utopian is to resist the utopian projects of organized humans seeking to remake society in whatever image. And if it is “Christian”, this is doomed to failure – they will soon lose sight of the Greatest Commandment. HERE is where we see the influence and history of Protestantism – political spirituality that will always self-destruct, and is likely to descend into heresy.
Jonathan
You have denied the place and role of the earth as a whole in eternity; moreover, the idea that “we will not have it perfect” does not diminish but makes more apparent the role and place we have on the earth. As has been said, the Lord’s prayer makes very clear what we are called to do. I will follow it.
Henry,
Is it not ironic that on a post asking for clarity of terms and more detailed, comprehensive criticism among those engaging in discussion, you do not offer either?
I am against politicized utopia, be it under the guise of religion or full equality or socialism or the unfettered market or whatever else. I am for living out the Sacraments and the Greatest Commandment in our daily lives – having that be the center of our spiritual and familial identity.
Is it possible to leave aside the rhetoric and the unbacked charges and engage in a more detailed, comprehensive criticism of why these thoughts are improper?
Jonathan
When you offer something comprehensible and coherent to respond to, I will be able to do better. But I think I have provided a clear answer, using traditional theology, and precise terms.
OK then. But the next time a serious charge such as gnosticism is made, bring the details and the substance.
jonathan,
1) I think the link you are making between the golden rule and love of family is a move that domesticates the commandment.
2) No large political vision, but rather a radical interpretation of what it means to be human. And what it means to be human involves the political. Catholicism is not individualism. Jesus had the largest political vision one can have: the Kingdom of God. It is not to be identified with any political system or project, but indeed it critiques all such projects and evaluates them, and even “hierarchizes” them. (We can say that some are closer to the Kingdom than others.) But the Kingdom IS “political.” It involves one Lord and one people.
3) Politics is for politicians, and only occasionally for us. Catholicism, and Christianity, is beyond politics. It transcends it. I think here you are reducing the meaning of “politics” to partisan activities of government. Politics is about the ordering of communal human life. Christianity is NOT “beyond politics.” Read some Ratzinger on this; even a Platonist like him (which can be good in some ways) recognizes that Christianity does not “transcend” politics.
Look, on the one hand you say that Catholicism merely “touches on political issues” (but most importantly abortion because it is also a “moral” issue — as if other political issues are not moral issues!!) and that Christ “transcends” politics. On the other hand, you contribute to a blog whose mission statement is that of the Catholic Church, i.e. it is the complete opposite of your view. When you do post, you indicate that you do not actually think Christ “transcends” politics: http://vox-nova.com/2007/08/10/jesus-as-a-political-figure/
Overall, I find your view confused on these matters.
Michael,
Thanks for the substantial response. As for your points:
1). I see no problem whatsoever with “domesticating” the Greatest Commandment. Love of God and the meaning of what it means to be a good citizen begins in the home. The family, after all, is a reflection of the Triune God : three together as one.
2). Yes, what it means to be human certainly involves the political. And of course our faith is community-based : we see this is the union and universality of the Mass. Does this mean our whole existence is political? Is the Mass political? Did Jesus have a political vision? If He did, then why did he not involve Himself in politics? Here, we see the necessity of defining terms. I view politics as the deployment of self-interest in the public arena : the process by which groups come together to make decisions. This is seperate from the spiritual in that the spiritual is a larger, more inclusive, more comprehensive vision : our purpose is not only to deploy self-interest but to love and know love. This is transcendent.
3). In part am I reducing the meaning of politics to partisan activities. Again, I am not saying our Catholic faith does not include the political. It does. But the two are not the same. Remember the Pope’s criticism of Islam? Next, not all political issues are moral issus, but most moral issues are political issues because they must be decided in the public sphere (hopefully by democratic means where we may persuade others of our beliefs grounded in Christian morality). And what is the direct contradition of my statements with the “mission statement of the Catholic Church?” Details? With regard to the post, that essay is very readworthy, disagree or not, which is the reason I posted it.
Does this mean our whole existence is political?
That is one of my assumptions, yes.
Is the Mass political?
According to the wider definition of politics, yes indeed it is.
Did Jesus have a political vision?
Yes. The Kingdom of God. Which is not only a vague utopia but was manifest in his concrete actions and denunciations.
If He did, then why did he not involve Himself in politics? Here, we see the necessity of defining terms.
Ah, yes, defining terms. I defined politics in my previous post. In that sense Jesus did involve himself in politics. But it was not “politics as usual.” That he was perceived as a political threat in some way is reflected in the Gospels.
I view politics as the deployment of self-interest in the public arena : the process by which groups come together to make decisions.
This is liberalism. Maybe we are a “liberal blog.”
I think we have already seen and addressed this disagreement, although I am happy to continue the discussion if you wish.