I think to be liberal is to be more saint than sinner. Is that self-righteous?
Look at it this way.
You are falling into the "he said, she said" trap if you insist on calling others immoral. Who are you to judge that? Isn't that exactly what upsets us about the Religious Right? They label us and we yell who are they to say so.
Instead of falling into this trap frame the argument like this:
"We believe everyone as the right to worship or not as they see fit. We believe in individual liberty with government out of our bedrooms and doctors offices. We believe all citzens, all of them, are equal. We believe a government is responsible for protecting our country from outside attack and providing a safety net and reasonable care for our most vulnerable citizens - all of them. If you think those beliefs are immoral then so be it. We see them as the basis for civilization, and the basis for the country we believe in."
Posted by majkia at May 24, 2005 09:28 AMMajkia,
I am sorry but I don't know if you read my entire post. I am absolutely allowed to judge others who judge me first. What you have summarized sounds nice but it is the approach that has decimated liberals and Progressives in this country for the past 2 decades. We are not in this business to achieve sainthood. We are here to bring good to America - not satisfy ourselves with nice sounding descriptions of ourselves.
I said very clearly, this is about self-defense, not offense.
Posted by eriposte at May 24, 2005 09:42 AMThe Dems have also lost their spine in actually calling a lie a lie and not some misconception,misunderstanding, blah blah blah blah.
If someone tells a lie...they are a LIAR. Let's start calling them what they are.
Posted by jillian at May 24, 2005 09:42 AMI'm pointing out that timidity and polite mutterings (of facts) in the face of relentless or extraordinary abuse, lies or slander is wrong.
I think that people are missing the distinction between moral indignation and moral condemnation.
When the "Religious Right" attempts to condemn us, the answer is not "Live and Let Live," it's "how dare you?!"
Howard Dean's "pharisees" comment from Meet the Press this weekend should be a template for how we respond to the Right's attempt to put us on the defensive on issues of personal morality.
Posted by Matt Davis at May 24, 2005 09:50 AMI used to be a fundamentalist--and I know how they think about those they disagree with. We've got to stop playing into their conceptions of their victimhood, where "their faith is being attacked." These people think they're carrying out God's will--and they hide behind this:
i.e. "I don't think you deserve to go to hell because your twisted perversions, God does!"
Posted by Paul at May 24, 2005 11:14 AMIt is still a trap to decide you can judge others, even if they judge you first.
You are thereby accepting their world-view as right and fine. It then becomes a my god against your god, my morals against your morals, argument.That sort of frame makes it impossible to sway anyone.
I'm saying that we need to concentrate on their actions, not their moral stance. Stop calling them names and stop arguing that we know morality better than they do. We don't. They don't. Liberals by definition recognize that morality isn't some fixed set of rules that everyone must live by.
Define them by their actions. Point out how those actions are harmful to everyone and to the country. Let them rail about morality, and retaliate by pointing out their hypocrisy.
It is their actions, their hypocrisy and their hatred and what those things do to the country that matters.
This probably isn't all that coherent and I'm not sure you'll get my point yet. But shouting names at each other is not a strategy or even a tactic.
Posted by majkia at May 24, 2005 11:55 AMmajkia:
We do know better than they do, no question. Pick a few of the issues that they are trying to shove down our throats: Evolution, Abortion, Bankruptcy "reform" (it's a "moral" issue for them!), Gay Rights, etc. They are on the wrong side, and they hate anyone who disagrees with them, AND through their anti-education program they are attempting to shut down rational, clearheaded dialogue. There's no communicating with these people, and they are actively attacking our ability to connect with those in the middle who are openminded. Therefore we must actively attack back. They must be stopped if we want to persuade anyone to be fairminded.
We liberals DO believe in a set of moral and ethical guidelines. I'd say a better way to describe liberals is that we don't judge until we understand why others think the way that they do, and we're also open to reconsideration...
Posted by Paul at May 24, 2005 12:18 PMBruce here...I agree with Majkia...I was not suggesting that progressives should not aggressively and passionately defend the morality of their positions, or even attack the immorality of the other side's positions or behavior. But when that attack becomes personal, as in calling someone "immoral", I think that's wrong mostly because it's ineffective, because the other person will no longer be listening. I have no problem calling a behavior immoral (although I'd rather do it in the form of a rhetorical question: is it moral to ...?), but I don't support calling a person immoral. Sure there would be egregious exceptions, like the loser guy at FDA who forces himself on his wife while she's asleep and then makes policy decisions against contraception. But I'm talking about as a general TACTIC in a continuing war to persuade others, I say condemn the behavior in the strongest terms, condemn the person for engaging in the behavior, but stop short of calling the person "immoral."
Posted by at May 24, 2005 01:50 PMI had a long telephone conversation with Bishop Tim Whitaker of the Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church. This is the perfect example of what is being discussed here.
He has made an appointment of a new minister at the church I attend. The church is largely white, and the new minister is African-American. I oppose the appointment on the grounds that the guy does not have requisite qualifications and gifts for this church. It really does have nothing to do with his color. However, as expected, the Bishop responds in his email, copying a large number of people, by claiming my oposition is based solely on racial prejudice. He needed to protect a bad decision he made, and was going to try to do it at my expense.
Honestly, nothing could be further from the truth, and in the email I had carefully laid out an explanation of the "facts" about this person's experience (or lack thereof) as a pastor, and local church administrator.
After the Bishop played the race card, I called him to let him know how indignant I was. I called him on the false accusation he made, and in the end, he issued a written apology.
Righteous indignation is the answer. You can lay out the facts all you want, and you have to do that...but when they just make stuff up, and accuse you falsely, you have to fire back. I was polite, but I would not say I was "nice," and I most certainly was not timid in my response.
We can no longer sit back and believe that a polite presentation of the facts will get the attention of the people that follow these religious fanatics. People who follow these guys do so because they are lazy. They don't want to ferret out the facts themselves, they want someone to tell them what to believe. We must become that voice, and we can only do that by respond to the false accusations strongly.
Posted by John Masters at May 24, 2005 02:26 PMMajkia,
You said:
It is still a trap to decide you can judge others, even if they judge you first. You are thereby accepting their world-view as right and fine.
Response:
I don't see how this is the case at all. If we are judging someone else, we are explicitly saying that we DO NOT accept their world view.
You say:
It then becomes a my god against your god, my morals against your morals, argument. That sort of frame makes it impossible to sway anyone.
My response:
But this world is one of "my God" vs. "your God" already. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. No two interpretations of the same religion agree on every detail. No two religions themselves agree on every detail . I have always advocated that morality is a very personal concept. I don't make decisions on what is moral or not by referring to the scriptures or to what some spiritual leader says.
The objective is not to sway the radical Right to my viewpoint. The objective is to expose their hypocrisy *and* point out to the world who they *really* are.
You said:
I'm saying that we need to concentrate on their actions, not their moral stance. Stop calling them names and stop arguing that we know morality better than they do. We don't. They don't.
Response:
Sorry, every individual *better* know what is moral and what is not! If you can't tell what is moral, then you are in trouble.
You said:
Liberals by definition recognize that morality isn't some fixed set of rules that everyone must live by.
Response:
You are confusing three very different things in this sentence.
- What an individual liberal considers to be moral (when it comes to his or her own actions)
- Whether an individual liberal lives up to his or her own definition of morality in daily life
- Whether an individual liberal believes his or her definition of morality should be followed by everyone else in the world.
There's a lot more to say on this, but for now let me say that not only do all the liberals I know have a strong sense of what is moral (right) or wrong, they do have strong opinions about how conservatives should behave (in response to conservatives' moralizing). They also know right from wrong. No liberal I know is going to argue that people should ignore the rules of law.
You said:
Define them by their actions. Point out how those actions are harmful to everyone and to the country. Let them rail about morality, and retaliate by pointing out their hypocrisy. It is their actions, their hypocrisy and their hatred and what those things do to the country that matters.
Response:
I don't have a problem with this as a general point. But there are many instances (I've provided a few examples) where this is not sufficient.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your view...
Bruce,
You said:
...But when that attack becomes personal, as in calling someone "immoral", I think that's wrong mostly because it's ineffective, because the other person will no longer be listening. I have no problem calling a behavior immoral (although I'd rather do it in the form of a rhetorical question: is it moral to ...?), but I don't support calling a person immoral.
My response:
Your point is a valid one (i.e., the other person no longer listens). But, really, are they listening now? Absolutely not. Decades of talking politely have made no difference. I'm *not* saying people should be rude and obnoxious. I want people to be firm and strong. That's why I said that the goal is NOT to mimic the Far Right. The goal is to shame them and aggressively point out their true colors, without stooping to their mode of behavior. It can be done.
So...how about this...?
Firmness, aggressiveness, willingness to call a spade a spade, focus on actions first and if that fails, call out the person for what he or she is. :-)
Posted by eriposte at May 24, 2005 07:18 PMfair enough..to the barricades!
Posted by Bruce at May 25, 2005 06:34 AM
Name-callingSelf-defense