Much of philosophy is concerned with the good. Good understood in the meta sense; good as both a means and an end. Good as peace. As love. As compassion. As justice. Greek philosophers yearned to describe the eudaimonia, the good life. Not swimming pools and movies stars, but morality and ethical consistency. And much of human history can be understood as clashes between systems of competing goods.
I wrote earlier on the Wikileaks scandal and how, in my limited opinion, it demonstrates the corruption of the Democratic National Committee. The release of emails, when paired with my growing disdain for how the DNC obviously favored one candidate over another, has left me with little to no faith in a party that I grew up favoring. A number of my friends disagreed with me, which is not unusual and one of the reasons I write as much as I do: intelligent conversation and informed disagreements are part of the good. Of the eudaimonia. I conceded a number of points–election fraud/tampering is often charged but rarely proved; Clinton thoroughly trounced Bernie in a process that has served the party for decades; and people are imperfect, so chicanery happens, especially when competition is involved–but what I pushed back against were arguments that were based in accepting the premise of competing goods.
To wit. We all can agree that stealing $10 million from an orhphanage is loathsome. So is stealing their food. One can criticize the latter without reference to the former. What I won’t accept is the idea that stealing food isn’t really that bad because the theft of ten million dollars is so much worse. Is it? It depends on our rubrics. It depends on our perceptions. For a diabetic child whose blood sugar drops and goes into a coma, the chances that the theft is worse are pretty good.
Bandying about ideas as to how Bernie Sanders’ atheism might make a difference to evangelical voters in southern states is not as loathsome as wanting to put a ban on all Muslims entering the country. But I wasn’t writing about the latter yesterday, I was writing about the former. And to me, this is one of the problems with two party politics: any criticism of one system can be interpreted as a damnation of the entire thing, and ipso facto an affirmation of the other system. Decrying that the CFO of the DNC floated an idea about how Bernie was “skating by” on his Jewishness whilst really an atheist seems to me a legitimate position to take. It is not an endorsement of the RNC. It is not a statement that one should not vote for HRC . It also seems pretty fair to point out that the emails are symptomatic of larger issues which are alienating for younger voters, particularly Millennials, with whom Bernie did well (and, no, this is not a post about how Millennials did not show up in large enough numbers during the primaries). Many Millennials are distrustful of party politics and they have tried to express that; sadly, I feel that often their concerns are met with defensiveness and closed ears. I’ve read about how Bernie wasn’t really a Democrat; that of course the party is going to support Clinton because she has been loyal for so long; that this is how things work and people are getting upset over nothing. It goes again to my point yesterday that party politics are about money and quid pro quo relationships, and it seems any critique of it is passed off as naïveté, sour grapes, or immaturity. I understand the contemporary political reality; I get that there are far worse dangers and concerns, and that most of them are squarely within the GOP. But what I don’t accept is the idea, which has been voiced, that pointing out the deficiencies in the DNC’s approach to this election is somehow inappropriate given what is going on in the GOP. I think we’re adults. I think we can do more than one thing at a time.
As always, I appreciate feedback and comments!