Red State Blues

Schiavo case

2005-03-27T09:35:00.000-06:00

It appears that the Terri Schiavo end-of-life case has finally come to an end. I found the case ethically thought provoking and, although, like many, I tired of the endless legal appeals and incessant news coverage, I believe the debate engendered by the situation was important for our country.

The Schiavo case raised several important questions in my mind:

While I fully support the decision to allow Terri Schiavo to die, I am troubled by the manner of her death. Doctors assure us that the removal of the feeding tube causes no suffering; however, it is difficult for me to believe that death by starvation/dehydration represents a dignified way to end one's life. Anyone allowing their dog or cat to starve to death -- whether or not the animal remained sentient during the process -- would be charged with animal cruelty. Why do we treat human beings confronting the end of life with less dignity than we do our pets? I hope that as this country continues to confront and explore end of life ethics, we eventually reach the conclusion that euthanasia can be an ethically sound option.
I noted in the coverage of the Schiavo case that Medicaid covered a sizable portion of Terri Schiavo's medical care. It seems the height of irony -- and hypocracy -- for radical right politicians who support deep cuts in Medicaid (Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, George Bush, Jeb Bush, etc., etc.) to engage in extraordinary efforts on Terri Schiavo's behalf.
An even more obvious example of the radical right's philosophical inconsistency is their advocacy of government intervention in the case. To a group of people who consider themselves "conservatives" dedicated to limiting government involvement in individual lives, Congress' and the state of Florida's actions on behalf of Terri Schiavo should have given pause. It did not and provides additional evidence of the radical -- not conservative -- nature of today's right.

What is the "left"?

2005-03-13T12:24:00.000-06:00

Peter Singer's book A Darwinian Left includes a particularly good definition of what it means to be on the political left. According to Singer, those on the left are:

on the side of the weak, not the powerful; of the oppressed, not the oppressor; of the ridden, not the rider. . . . If we shrug our shoulders at the avoidable suffering of the weak and the poor, of those who are getting exploited and ripped off, or who simply do not have enough to sustain life at a decent level, we are not of the left. If we say that is just the way the world is, and always will be, and there is nothing we can do about it, we are not part of the left. The left wants to do something abou the situation."

A Darwinian Left

2005-03-12T09:06:00.000-06:00

Peter Singer, my philosopher of choice at present, wrote a concise little book a few years ago called A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation. Singer's argument is relatively simple but very important to those of us on the political left. He asserts that current research in evolutionary biology, neuroscience, game theory, anthropology, and other related disciplines indicate that human nature represents a relatively fixed, inflexible set of behaviors. Traditionally, those on the political left have tended to view human nature as a malleable thing that can be changed given a different set of environmental circumstances. Marx, for example, believed that human nature could and would change if the mode of production changed. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, this view of the malleability -- even perfectability -- of human nature continues to exert influence on the political left.

Singer contends that the left needs to accept that certain aspects of human nature are biologically fixed and relatively invariable across human cultures. By way of example, Singer identifies the following as relatively invariable human traits:

Social (not solitary) beings
Concern for kin
Readiness to form cooperative relationships
Recognition of reciprocal obligations
Existence of a hierarchy or system of rank
Women more likely to be involved in child rearing
Men more likely to be involed in physical conflict and to have political leadership

It is important to note that these traits are not universally present -- there are examples in many cultures of men who care for children, women with political roles, and individuals who do not care for their kin. Nevertheless, if you examine human cultures across time, these are behaviors are key elements in most societies.

Another of Singer's key points is that the existence of these behaviors as relatively invariable parts of human nature does not mean that they are inherently "good." Male dominance may be part of human evolutionary heritage but that does not justify its continued existence. It is important for the left to recognize that acknowledging human nature does not mean sanctioning negative or unethical societal manifestations of human nature. However, accepting that certain types of behavior are essentially hard coded into human nature is vital if we have any hope of identifying strategies for successfully mitigating or eliminating the more negative effects of fixed human nature.

One of Singer's more interesting suggestions is for the left to base its strategies for alleviating pain, suffering, and injustice on the universal human tendency toward cooperation. Singer observes that reciprocal altruism or cooperation in human cultures resulted, over long periods of time in human prehistory, in evolutionary advantages that rendered such behavior an integral part of human nature. In other words, humans in the proverbial state of nature did not always act in their individual self interest. Cooperative behavior has an ancient history in human activity and, Singer maintains, it is critical for those on the left to recognize this and work to take advantage of it.

Religion and Politics: Peter Singer and Public Reason

2005-02-27T20:47:00.000-06:00

I've been reading the philosopher Peter Singer's book, The President of Good and Evil: Questioning the Ethics of George W. Bush. Singer is an Australian living and teaching in the U.S. who takes a dispassionate view of American politics. In my view, he effectively elucidates the inconsistencies in Bush's ethical system.

One of Singer's most persuasive sections concerns the role of religion in the American political system. In it, Singer describes a concept commonly used among philosophers called "public reason" or "public justification." According to this idea (which is very appealing to me) individuals in a pluralist democracy who wish to engage in public discussion must be able to justify their views to others in a manner in which everyone can understand. Public reason requires that those engaged in debate must acknowledge the existence of other political and religous beliefs and construct their arguments in such a way that they hold the potential to be persuasive to all. In the absence of a commitment to public reason, a society tends to divide itself into separate groups that cease to even try to persuade one another. I'm afraid America is moving toward such a state of affairs.

Singer, although not religious himself, does not attack religious faith itself. Rather, he argues that appeals to faith do not result in tenable arguments in a society committed to public reason. Singer acknowledges that if those appealing to religion as the basis of their views on public policy are willing to subject their religous belief to the scrutiny of reason, then religion can be a part of public justification. However, if, as is often the case in contemporary America, those using religious teachings as the foundation for advocacy of a particular position on public policy claim that faith alone is enough to justify their point of view, then that perpspective cannot be viewed as being part of a debatre based on public reason. Singer asserts that when "further inquiry is cut off with an appeal to faith, then the position is not one that other reasonable people have any grounds to accept, . . . It is only those who scorn reason who exclude themselves from the field of reasonable public debate." (pp. 107-108)

I am under no illusion that conservative Christians will be persuaded by appeals to such an abstract principle as public reason. Nevertheless, it is the eschewing of this concept that is one of the major causes for the divisiveness in American society today.

Public employees and poverty

2005-02-20T18:53:00.000-06:00

The Lawrence Journal World had a front page article today on local public school teachers leaving the district for higher salaries elsewhere. One teacher recently doubled his salary by moving to Pennsylvania with little increase in his cost of living. As a public employee, I am particularly sensitive to the low value that society places on public servants. It's so easy -- even hip -- in an era of open warfare against government, to dismiss public sector workers as lazy, unmotivated, drones who contribute nothing but red tape to our society. My 14 years in state government have convinced me otherwise.

Certainly, there are public sector employees who fit the stereotype -- surly, non-customer oriented, clock watchers, who live from coffee break to coffee break. My experience, however, has convinced me that such people are few and far between in government service. I frequently interact with employees from a wide range of federal, state, and local agencies and the vast majority of the people I encounter are talented, hard working individuals who are committed to serving the public. In my neck of the public sector woods, these same dedicated public employees are compensated at levels that in most cases do not constitute a middle class salary. At the lower levels of the pay scale, things are particularly appalling. Employees of the state of Kansas who are at pay range 12 or below make less than the 2004 federal poverty level for a family of four ($18,350). I don't know how many state workers are at range 12 or below (probably several thousand) but, in my agency, it includes most of our maintenance staff and entry level administrative assistants. In my view, it is unethical for ANY organization or business to pay its employees less than the federal poverty level. But for the government to engage in such a practice constitutes exploitation of a particularly egregious kind.

Portland in the Rain

2005-02-13T10:25:00.000-06:00

Last weekend my wife and I visited Portland, Oregon. J. has fairly regular business in the city but it was my first trip to the Pacific Northwest since I was a teenager. Although the weather was typically rainy and chilly, we had a good time and crammed a lot into two days.

The primary reason for the trip was for me to meet a couple with whom J. has become well acquainted during her business trips. They have similar interests to our own and J. really wanted me to spend some time with them. Although I was slightly uncomfortable with the idea of spending two days with people I had never met, I trust J.'s instincts about who I will connect with on a personal level. In this case, she was dead on and, within ten minutes, I felt like I had known this couple (R. and O.) for many years. O., the wife, is a native of Korea, an accomplished painter, and a very strong personality. She took charge of the plans from the get-go, taking us on a Saturday morning tour of Portland's Pearl District galleries. We especially enjoyed a large antique shop that carried antique and reproduction Asian furniture and decorating accessories. J. would like to have purchased a relatively inexpensive reproduction Chinese armoire but we displayed (much needed) fiscal restraint. Lunch was at a hip and fairly upscale Vietnamese place called Pho Vanh. The food was excellent, although ordering it was a little tricky as I had to explain, and justify, to O. my dietary restrictions. I (inappropriately in J.'s view) explained that I was a vegetarian-who-eats-fish for health and, increasingly, ethical reasons. O. asked if my ethical objections related to killing animals and then implied that killing plants could be construed to violate the same ethical standard. I tried to explain that plants did not meet the criteria for sentience, but I'm not sure O. quite got it. To her credit, she accepted my rules and spent the rest of the weekend making sure that I didn't ingest anything objectionable -- to the point of annoying the servers at a dim sum restaurant by inquiring about the ingredients contained in every proferred dish!

Saturday afternoon saw another gallery or two, a brief stop at the amazing Powell's bookstore, and then trips to Korean and Asian grocery stores to purchase ingredients for dinner. The Korean grocery, in particular, was a fascinatingly exotic place. I recognized very few ingredient and felt like I had made a quick trip to Seoul. O. patiently walked us through the store and did her best to explain the nature and purpose of the unfamiliar ingredients. She is justly proud of her heritage and appears to enjoy explaining Korean culture to others. We went to R. and O.'s house for dinner and did our best to assist O. in preparing the Korean meal. She made mung bean powder pancakes with green onions, lotus root in a carmelized soy sauce, baby bok choy, kim chee, and salmon pan fried in toasted sesame oil. It was all very good and the overall experience had the feel of attending a cooking class. O. is a natural (if somewhat demanding) teacher and seemed flattered at our interest in Korean cuisine.

O. also had Sunday carefully planned. We had dim sum in Chinatown for lunch, visited the incredible Classical Chinese Garden (stunning even in a cold rain), and then headed over to the Portland Art Museum to see a very nice special exhibit on Native American art from the Pacific Northwest. R. and O. got a bit bored during our close examination of another special exhibit of Japanese woodblock prints and, at J.'s suggestion, went home. J. and I finished the art museum and then walked across the street to the Oregon Historical Society.

As is often the case in state level history museums, I was very disappointed in the quantity and quality of the historical interpretation presented. The relatively new Oregon, My Oregon permanent gallery, while visually attractive, contained very little in depth analysis of Oregon history. Curators at history museums, unlike their art museum counterparts, assume that their audience is incapable of following a relatively sophisticated textual interpretation of the topic being presented. They somehow want the objects to speak for themselves, which, in my opinion, fosters an unsatisfying user experience. I came away from the exhibit knowing very little about Oregon history other than a few condescending platitudes about how whites moved to Oregon to pursue new opportunities. Art museums assume that their visitors are intelligent, literate individuals and provide many interprative options; the visitor can read as little or as much as he or she wishes. I believe history museums should take the same approach. I don't think it's a coincidence that on Super Bowl Sunday, the Portland Art Museum had several hundred visitors in their galleries, while just across the street the Oregon Historical Society had less than ten.

We met R. and O. for a nice, if uninspired, meal of fresh fish at Jake's Famous Crawfish, a Portland mainstay since the 1890's. I had steelhead and J. had halibut; both dishes were edible but not up to our usual standards. We said goodbye to R. and O. and agreed that another trip to Portland -- during the spring or summer -- was in our future.

Red State Blues -- An Explanation

2005-02-12T11:14:00.000-06:00

I've been threatening to start a private journal for several years now but have failed miserably on follow through. As a historian and archivist by training and profession, I have an instinct to leave behind documentary evidence of my thoughts, decisions, and activities, but, to date, the act of writing prose has proven so painful that all efforts at self-conscious documentation have been short-lived. This blog may go the way of all my other scattered attempts to create a record of my life, but the blogging phenomena is so intriguing to me that I feel compelled to give it a try. Perhaps in a quasi-public forum I won't get so bogged down in the self-absorbed, naval gazing speculations that my previous journaling attempts devolved into.

The title of the blog - Red State Blues - while not particularly original, certainly reflects the prevailing feeling among most of my friends here in the blue oasis of Lawrence, Kansas. The November 2004 elections were devastating and I have just emerged from denial to face the prospect of four more years of Republican rule. In Kansas, the conservative electoral victory (and the interpretation of it as the result of the "moral values" issues) is manifesting itself in the form of a theocratic attempt to impose right wing Christian dogma on the entire state. An anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment emerged quickly from the Kansas Legislature and I'm sure it will be approved by a majority of Kansans when we vote on it in April. In addition to this attempt to restrict the rights of Kansas cititzens, conservatives also are raising the prospect of reimposing restrictions on teaching evolution in the public schools. It's all very demoralizing and generates daydreams of moving to a more enlightened part of the world, but as long as Lawrence continues to be an enclave of tolerance, I believe I can stick it out.

Politics, while certainly important, will not dominate this blog. I spend more than a typical amount of time thinking about issues of political philosophy and social justice, but I'm also a good American consumer with passions for food, wine, gardening, travel, music, technology, and books. We'll see where this thing goes, but I anticipate a blog that reflects a wide range of topics.