I once scavenged; thus, my society should abandon the project of feeding its hungry.

From MaxRedline a conservative blogger I have enjoyed reading for months, this moral tale comes in response to "a discussion involving public schools offering free meals year 'round."

Judge for yourself, readers, based on the merits of the writing. But first, a caveat from the author:

If you're a leftist, you may as well move on now, because I'm going to explain exactly why compassion is not necessarily good. This will cause your head to explode, so in the interest of your personal safety, you should leave.

Are you still in, readers?

My parents were out here for a visit a few years ago, and one of Dad's observations was that Oregon has so much food, growing everywhere - even in the urban areas - that it would be almost impossible to go hungry during the summer months. He was right.

Unless you're absolutely a sloth, you really can't go hungry. Nuts and berries grow in almost every neighborhood in which I've lived or visited. To supplement, there are edible native plants in abundance, as well as - in the urban areas - food distribution centers.

The only way someone can go hungry here is if they sit on their fat ass and demand that others bring stuff to them.

Sure, and you may have to get hands dirty by picking nuts and fruits, by participating in one of the many gleaning programs, or otherwise working to feed yourself and your kin, if any. But forty+ years ago, finding myself out of work for a time and with few actual possessions such as telephone or tv, I lived in Forest Park for a couple of months - a mere jaunt to downtown Portland.

It involved a bit of work, as I had to fabricate a small shelter - but it was well-camoed and actually had quite a spectacular view from the entrance. I harvested quite a number of edible native plants and obtained water from a nearby spring. Perhaps the greatest amount of work involved digging a privy; difficult to do with but small tools and hands.

Of course, as the economy improved I was able to secure work, leave the park, and build things up. I now live in a house, complete with mortgage, in Portland's West Hills.

Nothing was given to me. I worked for everything, however meager it may have seemed at the time.

And if I can do it, surely then others can as well.

I'm not advocating that everybody move into the park and start digging privies and setting snares, but there are far more private social services in play now than there were 40 years ago. The one factor that remains is this: you have to be willing to do at least some work.

"Free" meals served year-round at schools simply undermines the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility; supplanting them with a "somebody owes me" mentality.

Please discuss.

Hot, Hot Ballot Initiative Video Action

So begins the Wrestlemania III-style ballot referenda warfare that will define my dissertation research and, sorry in advance, a lot of my blogging in the weeks to come.

The big news here being that Oregon's own Norquist-y, anti-tax Wrecking Crew is evoking that socialist Barack Obama as a voice of marcoeconomic reason! Here's to six more months of escalating cognitive dissonance!

Charles Grassley [R-IA], populist: pt. 927

Finally, we begin the post-bipartisan phase of the Health Care culture wars.

Chuck Grassley Gives Up The Game

In an interview with The Washington Post, Chuck Grassley said that the town hall meetings have convinced him to revisit the breadth and scope of what the Gang of Six is considering. The calls for reform are "not quite as loud as people that say we ought to slow down or don't do anything," Grassley said. " And I've got to listen to my people."

So that's it then. A bipartisan bill is a smaller bill. The search for compromise hasn't led to a compromise bill. Rather, it's leading to a call for compromising on what was supposed to be the compromise....

[read the full EZRA KLEIN article.]

Now when do we enter the post-post-politcal phase? When do we stop pretending that class/race/gender antagonisms, among others, aren't more constitutive than the universalist tents we're trying to crowd everybody under? More on this soon.

PS - I was pleased to see frequent Hardball contributor/conservative public intellectual John Lott appear in the "Health Care Gun Guy" comments thread.. OG faithful, won't you please welcome/engage with this policy thinker?

A belated answer to Lex

Blogger lex dexter said...

EZ, Are the progressive and populist traditions reconcilable?

August 3, 2009 3:41 PM

I was too busy to compose a serious answer, and I was hesitant to give it a rush job (my usual)... but Digby posted to day about this topic and I thought it brought some of my thinking on this q. She was discussing Rick Perlstein's piece in the WAPO.
from digby:

Rick talked about some other things that were equally fascinating, particularly the issue of why the demagogic rhetoric of the right seems to work so well:
You can't "demand" that people be more logical. Emotion is part of the human animal. What I would have liked to have seen, as an advocate of healthcare reform, is for Obama and the rhetoric to COMBINE rational appeals with emotional ones--like FDR and and Truman and LBJ did so effectively in their own attempts to pass progressive legislation. They roused people in their lizard-brains, too, just for progressive ends. Read a book about the 1948 presidential election--Truman made arguments in a very blunt, emotional style...

And he mentions my biggest pet peeve -- the sell-out on populist economic issues, which should naturally belong to the left right now and is instead (dangerously) being appropriated by the right:

Somewhere along the line Democrats lost a sense of their natural power base--which is the fact that their ideas are economically beneficial to the vast majority. Acknowledging this fact became "demagoguery." Conservatives convinced them it was "class warfare." They became afraid of their simplest and most powerful message. All the other timidity follows from that.

In our country, populism has almost always been caught up in race and nativism, but it didn't have to be that way this time. The democratic Party's ties with corporate America cause a great deal of this problem to be sure, but I agree with Rick that much of this is sheer Pavlovian reflex. They are afraid to say the truth. The right is unafraid to lie. And that leads to a distorted political dialog that nobody can understand. And into that void, the scare tactics have a distinct advantage.

I think that the "traditions" are not very reconcilable, but I think that the term, along with progressive, can be re-branded to more positive use. The original progressive's were mostly white male protestant business owners that wanted to take back govmint from the flood of (non white non protestant) immigrants, but that doesn't stop me and many others from using the term to denote liberal ideas in general. (I liked how nate discussed this at 538:

the term "progressive" is equally ambiguous, and is associated with at least two relatively distinct philosophical traditions. Although these two "progressivisms" share common ground on many (probably most) issues, they are at loggerheads on some others, as has perhaps become more apparent since the election of President Obama.



The first type of progressivism has its philosophical underpinnings in 18th Century, Enlightement-era thought. It believes that politics is a battle of ideas. It further believes that through the use of reason and the exchange of ideas, human society will tend to improve itself through scientific and technological innovation. Hence, it believes in progress, and for this reason lays claim to the term “progressive”. Because of its belief and optimism in the faculties of human reason, I refer to this philosophy as rational progressivism.

Rational progressivism tends to be trusting, within reason, of status quo political and economic institutions -- generally including the institution of capitalism. It tends to trust these institutions because it believes they are a manifestation of progress made by previous generations. However, unlike conservatism, it also sees these institutions as continuing works in progress, subject to inefficiencies because of distorted or poorly-designed incentives, poorly-informed or misinformed participants, and competition from 'irrational' worldviews like religion. It also recognizes that certain persons who stand to benefit from preserving the status quo, particularly elected officials but also corporations, may seek to block this progress to protect their own interests. The project of rational progressivism, then, is to propagate good ideas and to convert them, through a wide and aggressive array of democratic means, into public policy.

The second type of progressivism is what I call radical progressivism. It represents, indeed, a much more radical and comprehensive critique of the status quo, which it tends to see as intrinsically corrupt. Its philosophical tradition originates in 19th Century thought -- and specifically, owes a great deal to the Marxist critique of capitalism and the Marxist theory of social change. It also finds inspiration in both the radical movement of the 1960s and the labor and social movements of late 19th and early 20th centuries (from which it borrows the label "progressive").

Radical progressivism is more clearly distinguishable from "conventional" liberalism and would generally be associated with the "far left" -- although on a handful of issues such as free trade, it may find common cause with the "radical" right. Radical progressivism embraces the tradition of populism and frequently adopts a discourse of the virtuous commoner organizing against the corrupt elite. It is much more willing to make normative claims than rational progressivism, and tends to view conservatism as immoral and contemporary American liberalism as amoral (at best). Its project is not reform but transformation.

Rational progressives sometimes regard radical progressives as impractical, self-righteous, shrill, demagogic, naïve and/or anti-intellectual. Radical progressives, in turn, regard rational progressives as impure, corrupt (or corruptible), selfish, complacent, elitist, and too quick to compromise.

my point (made through (over) use of other's quotes) is that the terms can be used by anyone, willing/able to construct a (rational) defense of what they mean by the labels. Somebody got a problem with that?