"Stepping Outside the Moral Matrix"

Posted without comment:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...oral_mind.html

He's not saying "don't take a side". He's saying that you should understand that both sides of any given philosophy can serve a purpose, if they're allowed to coexist instead of being treated like good vs. evil. Most moral issues involve striking a balance rather than gravitating to one side, so it's good to keep all the different viewpoints on the table to begin with at least.

The problem there is that you're equating a philosophy with the people who hold that philosophy. This has nothing to do with trying to be reasonable with slavering freaks, it has to do with what goes on inside your own head. Like it or not, the idea that the "Conservative" or "Republican" viewpoint is always wrong is clearly off-base. And let's face it, we have started to see some people pitch their lot in, unquestioningly, with (for instance) Obama or the Democrats. The fact that they're currently, at the very least, the lesser of two evils shouldn't obscure the fact that they're unlikely to be right about everything.

That's actually one the main things that's become so frustrating about the last 8 years (and before). The right has become so irrational, so willing to pounce on every little detail with no larger pattern of consistency to their arguments, that to even acknowledge a conservative idea as having merit can feel like a defeat to those on the left. That makes it hard for people to take a detached view of policies and ideas, which in turn stultifies intellectual development.

So yes, I actually do think "clear minded and reasonable people" (meaning us AND NOT THEM, of course) do need to be reminded of this stuff occasionally. That's part of what makes them clear minded and reasonable.

The problem, of course, is that certainty, blind trust, and the cult of personality seems to be what wins elections these days, and being reasonable, rational, introspective people means that it's hard to rally that base. I posted a few times, here and elsewhere, about the way that the qualities that you want in a government seem to fight against the ability to win. I remember taking issue with the way that the right portrayed the left as a homogenous mass of intellectual gay homobortionist Muslim dope fiends, when it seemed in reality like the left was a huge assortment of people who couldn't agree on much except a few basic principles. And that that was, in fact, a strength--the fact that practically no one on the left thought Kerry was a great candidate was precisely why he deserved to get in--he wasn't being elected on blind faith in a particular party. And that, of course, cost him the election.

Now we're attaching a little too much hope to this charismatic candidate from whom we expect great things. We can admit, in the abstract, that he's "just another politician", but we bridle at every actual accusation thrown at him like he was a personal friend. On the flip side, I saw a leftie blog tearing into Obama for voting for the bailout, claiming that it was a huge betrayal and Obama was scum for voting for it, when clearly this situation is too complex to be boiled down like that.

John Stewart may crack about extremists running the country because moderates have shit to do, but sometimes it seems like getting things done REQUIRES you to become an extremist.