A Communitarian vs. Libertarian Primer
Lots of links to go through on this debate as it proliferates through the internet:
The spark to all of this .... presently isn't linked anywhere I know of online unless you have a paid subscription to the WSJ. Give it time, though ... it'll turn up on OpinionJournal.com eventually.
Amazingly, Amy pulls a Greg and tosses in a great read with too little time to give more depth to, so naturally, it starts a flame war all over the internet.
Matt takes a look at the above and basically comes down on the other side of the line. Still, he makes some good points.
More Amy, responding to Matt
Matt responds
Amy responds by referring people to ...
Which then leads to some even MORE indepth analysis at ...
... in which, he refers to an even more indepth must-read ...
Personally, I think everyone involved should buy stock in HP for keeping my cheapy printer humming most of the day over this.
Starting with the more background-ish material first, I think Schreiber gets the big picture right while flubbing a few points along the way. Schreiber takes a look at the history of issues that divide the communitarian and libertarian Democrats, starting with abortion. The way the issue has been presented from roughly 1972 on has been a predominantly libertarian one: emphasizing the right to choose as paramount. But the point Schreiber makes is that this approach has often been void of any statement of value ... at least until Bill Clinton got ahold of it, suggesting that abortion be (everyone, all together now) "safe, legal, and rare." That implies a value judgement on abortion while still respecting the individual right. The key, according to Schreiber, is that it doesn't just leave a total void on value of the issue itself. After all, there's rarely a high-five celebration after an abortion. It's a tragic procedure ... especially those who choose to go through it.
The two points I think Schreiber falls short on is noting that Dukakis' views on the issue polled poorly. The problem is that Schreiber mixes abortion in with the death penalty, which anyone who went through that election should know was a far more pertinent issue in the minds of voters. Likewise, Schreiber goes on to note Bush's ability to peel off votes by making a value judgement claim of "restoring integrity to the White House" without noting the inherent disability of the Gore campaign's proximity to Clinton's personal failings. Yes, the fact that the other side injected a value judgement into an issue helped them, and there's something to learn from that (something that I think Dems are improving upon ever so gradually). But part of that lesson is to look at what the other side gives you. In this case, what we gave them was a nominee who proudly proclaimed his status as a card carrying member of the ACLU and another who had his own ethical brushes that were closely tied to the more detrimental failings of the President he served eight years with.
Still, by the end, Schreiber nails a solid point in how Dems have managed to look at the Schiavo case (with its own value judgment opportunities) and concludes:
When the Schiavo case began garnering national attention, Democrats' first reaction was to press their social libertarian line. "Congressional leaders have no business substituting their judgment for that of multiple state courts that have extensively considered the issues in this intensely personal family matter," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained. Liberals became increasingly confident as polls showed the public overwhelmingly concerned about federal intrusion into a private family matter. Once again, Democrats risked reinforcing the perception they lacked core values.Something interesting, however, was beginning to happen: Voices within the Democratic Party were genuinely agonizing over whether congressional intervention in the Schiavo case was truly so egregious. Almost 50 House Democrats voted in favor of the legislation authorizing the additional judicial review--many of them Southern moderates, but several of them liberal members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It was dawning on the party that there was an affirmative statement of values to be made, not simply a libertarian attack on government intervention.
The case of Terri Schiavo is incredibly complex. But the question of a government obligation to the weak, the sick, and the disabled is not--at least for Democrats. So it was reassuring to learn this week that congressional Democrats like Tom Harkin and Barney Frank are closing ranks behind legislation that would allow federal courts to review cases in which end-of-life choices are murky and the family is divided. Considered alongside Hillary Clinton's efforts to reframe the pro-choice position as a communitarian belief that every child should be born into a loving, caring family, it looks as though we're seeing the beginning of a new Democratic Party. It's a party that appeals to core values, not one that allows itself to be caricatured by their absence. Let's hope that party is here to stay.
On that larger point, I think he's spot-on. Amy's own spin on this article is equally worth taking to heart:
The common good, the idea that members of a society have shared interests (including moral interests), is not a concept owned by conservatives. Liberals can--and should--disagree with both the diagnoses and prescriptions that conservative have offered for what they say ails our society. But that shouldn't prevent them from putting forward ideas of their own based on the belief that we have some obligations to each other. We already do that in the areas of economics and health care and the environment. It's just time to expand the lens a little more.
That brings us to the article that Amy DID initiate this with, Dan Gerstein's WSJ contribution. Ironic that in my quest for a copy of the column, I get the same response from two different sources. Via email, I get "a little over-the-top, but he makes some solid points" and then, via NewDonkey, there's the sarcastic:
First up, Dan Gerstein, with his usual light touch, went after Democrats on this subject, unhelpfully choosing the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal as a venue. When I first read the piece, I thought Dan buried some legitimate observations in a landslide of marginally relevant abuse.
I can only smile when I read such commentary. I mean, look, I think any and all of us progressives have a right to be constructive and hopefully aid the greater cause in the end. But sometimes ... sometimes, those points need to have a little salsa in order to get noticed. Having been there a time or two, I can relate. And for that reason, I might have a slightly greater-than-average appreciation for Dan's upcoming debut on the blogosphere. To Dan's credit, I think this is one of those points that requires a bit of fire & brimstone.
For better or worse, however, Dan also picks on Frank Rich as an example of "Democratic elites" when he is, in fact, nothing of the sort. To his credit, however, Dan does seque into the more culturally predominant examples of how American culture has coarsened over time, while drawing what I think is a fair distinction between censorship and merely going back to an idea that Clinton tried to affect: giving parents the tools to raise their children as they see fit. I'd also have to point out that I think Ed Kilgore gets it wrong when he describes Dan's praise of Hillary Clinton on this issue as "measured." Let's look at the close of Dan's article and judge for ourselves, shall we?
The solution to this cultural conundrum is not to go overboard and mimic the "Happy Days" conservatives, whose latest misguided and unconstitutional plan is to regulate cable content. Nor should Democrats go looking for cynical Sister Souljah moments. We should just try to mix a little courage with common sense. For starters, when a foul-mouthed entertainer calls the president of the United States a murderer at a fund-raiser for you, resist the urge to say later that they represent the heart and soul of America.Or better yet, follow the lead of Hillary Clinton, who is making the
progressive case for cultural responsibility better than anyone. Cynics tried to dismiss her recent speech on the issue as pre-presidential positioning. But the fact is that Sen. Clinton has been strong and steady in her advocacy for overwhelmed parents ever since coming to Washington. She's been smart, too: She does not demonize cultural producers, overstate the extent of the problem, or let parents off the hook. She frames the culture's influence as a public-health issue as much as a moral one, and cites research showing the potentially harmful effects of screen sex and violence. And she is honest about the limits of that research, which is why she has joined with Sen. Joe Lieberman in introducing a bill to fund more studies of the electronic media's impact on children.At the same time, Sen. Clinton is not afraid to make clear statements of right and wrong. In recent comments, she forcefully condemned the
sequence in the lurid video game Grand Theft Auto in which a player
scores extra points for having sex with a prostitute and then stomping her to death. It says something sad about the Democrats that such a statement could be read as a sign of guts. But it does say something important that one of the left's leading icons is the one stating it. Come to think of it, maybe all that needs to be said about our values vacuum to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean is: Lay off Lakoff and hire Hillary.
That's a heftier pull-out quote that gives a bit more context to Ed's own reference, but if I'm reading that correctly, then I'm guessing I may not be the only one seeing Hillary's bonafides with the center going up with each speech she delivers.
I've gone on long enough, so with that, I'll simply refer the reader to Ed's work for a breakdown of the Matt v Amy breakdown. The Barbara Whitehead policy paper is still sitting unread on my desk. Being one of those rare souls who cares about the issue despite not having a kid to really drive it to the top of my list of pet issues, I'll save it for another post somewhere down the line.
I have two points.
First, that Democrats went to a right to privacy argument in the Schiavo case is partially true: They also went to an argument of separation of powers. In this case, the process argument coincided with the privacy issue. It was a difficult issue largely because the popular knowledge, particularly in the conservative media, was short on the facts and the details. When Richard Morrison recently commented on it, he focused on the separation of powers. The Republican arguments against the tradition of judicial review are tenuous and likely to backfire. This seems to me a critical argument, one that Democrats can float in other specifics against Republicans (such as the filibuster).
That said, I've long thought a focus on family--a real focus that goes isn't just abortion or marriage--is a great unifying theme. I think Dems often front the policy rather than the reason or purpose, but it's the latter than connects with people.
Second, as a parent, I'm waiting for the day when my son or daughter asks about the very sexually suggestive billboards in Dallas and when I have to explain a strip club to them. It's one thing to be able to control what my kids see and hear, but it's another when such content and messages are forced on my kids.
The other problem is saturation. I play video games and read comics. I see how the violence and the sex aren't just trickling into these products: They're saturating it. Three-fourths of the comic store I go to is off-limits to kids. There seems to be no restraint on the part of creators, who are by and large imitators in the game and comic fields, for example. It's one thing to talk about prohibiting such expressions. It's another to say to these creators to show some restraint, show some responsibility. We don't have to take to legal prohibitions, but leadership can influence. I think Noam's point is very valid: If companies are putting profits before the interests of the community, does it matter if the company is the entertainment or oil business? No.
I'm no prude or puritan. Not by a long shot. Progressives have often embraced policies that valued children. I think Matt is being dense on this point if he doesn't understand the problem that even liberals face as parents against a culture of so much sex and violence. He and some of the Political Animal commentors are reducing Amy's point to an extreme. Do we have to see a crime wave to see the problems of the violence in GTA? No. Success breeds imitation for one. Look for more GTA-like games, which are already there. Yes, we can select what our kids play, but that's beside the point. I can show you the data, but it's clear that each year, games are copies of or sequeals to other games. Matt reduces the argument to censorship, making it easy for him to avoid the hard topics.
I see this as largely a debate over rhetoric, not over policy. To be sure, there are some feel-good micro-iniatives which Sullivan pushes, like getting all hot and bothered over video games. But this really has very little to do with the major issues.
That said, I think that it's an incredibly important debate to have, because I think it goes to framing. The Galston piece in Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0504.galston.html) I think is a good place to go.
We need to be the freedom party. That doesn't exclude us from being pragmatic, however.
Now, as to Tx Bubba's point about GTA-type games: sure, we don't need to see any evidence that such games are "bad" in order to do something about it, but I think it would be nice if you'd at least concede that without such evidence there's no empirical backing for such a position. That isn't to say it's irrational or illogical; it's just to say we don't have any evidence one way or another. I think you can argue that doing such is bad policymaking notwithstanding whether we choose to use a libertarian or communitarian mental framework for analysing the cost-benefit analysis.
And, I might add, to the point regarding micro-initiatives: in the aggregate, they make it harder to determine what Democrats stand for.
With libertarianism in the stricted since, you know what you're getting when you vote Democratic: a whole lot of nothing. With communitarianism, it's sort of a potluck ("Our message to working families is that Friday is Crazy Hat Day.")
Striking a balance between the two that can be boiled down to a few core principles would be nice, for obvious reasons.
I couldn't disagree more, Jim. I think it's more about policy than anything. Beyond video game sales, I think there's a real issue of how to ensure parents have enough control to monitor their own kid's iPod playlist in the midst of dwindling free time to deal with such matters, as well as asking at least as much social responsibility out of television networks as we do out of tobacco companies.
The tradeoff, as I see it is that with libertarianist Democrats, you not only get a whole lot of nothing, but you get a candidate afraid to even mutter a thought that increasing violence on the airwaves has any effect on kids (despite clear and compelling evidence to the contrary). You end up with a candidate defined by licentiousness and a lack of any underlying values. Anything goes.
With a communitarian side, you know where the candidate stands. At minimum, by virtue of their willingness to dare suggest that adult themed television ought to be saved for after school kids are put to bed or that parents who don't think their kids ought to have free license to dive into the cultural cesspool have the tools to manage this.
Whether there's a balance to be drawn or not, we shall see. Personally, I think it's rather difficult to define too many policy views that go like this: "I think X is a very bad thing and there's too much of it, but whattaya gonna do?" Then again, how well has that worked on abortion policy?
Jim, there's a difference between needing a crime wave for evidence and having evidence that tv and games influence kids.
FWIW, I understand the game and comic industries' bristling at anything smacking of censorship and indulging in the over-the-top violence and sex. In the 50s, Frank Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent and the subsequent Senate investigation flatlined comic books, knocking out several companies as readership dropped from a million a month per comic to the 100,000 or so today. The gaming industry far exceeds that, and I doubt that it could be similiarly affected . . . but it could.
I mean, look at the new PS2 game, God of War, and you'll see the competition to surpass the violence of previous games. True, that's a title that I should notice as a parent.
I think a reasoned policy on this issue is that we encourage restraint, at least, such as Greg's suggestion. With tv, it's somewhat easier: Have a true prime time that's not raunchy and violent. With games, it's more difficult to create a similarly "safe" zone.
With tv, it's somewhat easier: Have a true prime time that's not raunchy and violent.
I think the influence of television is far more pernicious than that of computer games, and the "raunchy and violent" aspects of it are not the only ones.
This is Ed Kilgore:
One obvious part of it (that Matt Yglesias touches on briefly) is the selling of junk food.
See the film Super-Size Me and its portrayal of the "culture of obesity," and the role that television plays with it. The worst offenders are cable networks targeting children, Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network.
Consumerism is more troubling than sex and violence because it is built into the economic model of commercial television. You can restrict the content of the programming during prime time, but you would still have the ads. The advertisers will produce the most effective ads possible to sell their products. To challenge this is to challenge the culture of television.
We've gone after the tobacco companies with this one; the junk food conglomerates might be another target.
I knew that a strip club was a place where women took off the clothes before an audience. I think I heard about it from one of the kids at school and then I asked my mom if such places really existed. This was in the uptight 1960s. I don't know how old your kids are, but they are likely to ask all kinds of questions about sex (and many other troubling things that go on in the world) and this doesn't seem a particularly difficult one. Sexually suggestive billboards have been with us always.
Your comic-book store seems to be acting responsibly by putting its racier wares in an adults-only section. By long tradition, we have asserted that some forms of entertainment are appropriate for adults, but that parents should be able to protect their kids from them. I oppose any policy that keeps adults from viewing or reading what they like. Video games shouldn't be any different.